Supersubstantial Bread inaccurate?

[BlueAznMonkey]

Hello,

My masters studies have brought me to the shores of ancient languages, and while perusing YouTube for Aramaic pronunciation videos, I stumbled across a video that presented a very provocative disclaimer.

According to the person who recorded the video (a Talmidist), the Our Father’s most othodox presentation is in Jewish Aramaic, in which epiousias does not appear, but rather, the Aramaic translation of “bread of the morrow” is present.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the oldest known copy of the Our Father written in Koine Greek, dating back to the third century? If the oldest edition of the Scripture is in Koine Greek, doesn’t it make more sense that the Aramaic editions were written inaccurately from the Greek, and not the other way around as the Talmidist claims?

I followed the trail of the Talmidist to find that the particular community he is from is advertising a book called “The Original Our Father in Aramaic - A New Discovery.” It’s only 68 pages and has no reviews on Amazon…

The Talmidists claim that the Greek version of the prayer was inaccurately recorded from Aramaic sources by the sacred authors, which was then translated incorrectly by Jerome into Latin (who also misread any Jewish Aramaic sources at his disposal), and subsequently resulted in a poor modern understanding of the prayer.

However, it is my understanding that there is no evidence that the gospel writers copied from Aramic diaries for their inspiration, and that Jerome, being a linguistic genius, would simply not have overlooked this issue.

I want to hear your (name removed by moderator)ut as this would be a great paper topic for me if it hasn’t been dismissed by the academic world already.

Thanks,
Pax et Bonum,
Justin

 

[COPLAND_3]

Supersubtanstial is a correct translation from epiousion. It is true that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, but there different Aramaic traditions of the NT, the Peshitta being one of them, and yet we are uncertian whether any of them are no more than Aramaic translations from Greek. As for epiousion, it comes from epi, which means upon or above, and ousia which means substance. Substance from above or supersubstantial is correct.

 

[BlueAznMonkey]

So that seems to confirm my point. The oldest existing Aramaic translations are still newer than the oldest Greek. And even if Matthew wrote in Aramaic originally, such a manuscript does not exist.

So, epiousia is not proven inaccurate - it appears in the oldest rendition of the prayer and there is no evidence that a Jewish-Aramaic dialect informign the gospels rendered it differently.

So basically, the paper probably should not be written? =(

 

[COPLAND_3]

So that seems to confirm my point. The oldest existing Aramaic translations are still newer than the oldest Greek. And even if Matthew wrote in Aramaic originally, such a manuscript does not exist.

So, epiousia is not proven inaccurate - it appears in the oldest rendition of the prayer and there is no evidence that a Jewish-Aramaic dialect informign the gospels rendered it differently.

So basically, the paper probably should not be written? =(

The footnote from the Douay-Rheims Bible of 1609 has this
11. Supersubstantial bread. By this bread, so called here according to the Latin word and the Greek, we ask not only all necessary sustenance for the body, but much more all spiritual food, namely, the blessed Sacrament itself, which is Christ the true bread that came from heaven, and the bread of life to us that eat his body. (Cyprian de Orat. Do. Augustine ep. 121. c. 11.) And therefore it is called here supersubstantial, that is, the bread that passes and excels all creatures. (Jerome in 2. Tit. In 6. Mat. Ambrose li. 5. de Sacer. c. 4. Augustine Ser. 16. de Verb. Do. sec. Mat. St. Germanus in Theoria.) In St. Luke, the Latin is, Panem quotidianum, daily bread, the Greek being indifferent to both τον επιουσιον.

 

[BlueAznMonkey]

Thanks.

My issue is not in the term epiouson - I know that this is the Greek used by Luke.

I am, however, intrigued by the Talmidist claim that the Jewish-Aramaic rendition of the daily bread clause proves the Koine Greek to be wrong.

The claim was made by Talmidists claiming to have the correct rendition in Jewish-Aramaic. But the problem is that their translations are all newer than the Koine Greek, correct?

Are there other examples that can be used to disprove the Talmidist claim?