Re: CHAT: The Lord's Prayer

On Friday, July 12, 2002, at 09:53 , Matthew Butt wrote:

> still haven't forgotten it from school :
>
> pate:r he:mo:n ho en tois ouranois, hagiasthe:to: to onoma sou, eltheto:
You have - the opening word in all the NT versions I've seen is
_páter_, i.e. the vocative - as one would indeed expect - not the
nominative
_paté:r_.

Texts also vary between _eltháto:_ and _elthéto:_.  I think it's generally
thought _eltháto:_ is the original, and it was the more common form in
the Greek Koine.   _elthéto:_ is probably a 'correction' by some later
copyist.

{snip}

> the greek's pretty apalling ( that's what you get when you ask l1
> semintes to write ie languages
I think that's being very unfair and, in any case, we don't know who wrote
the gospel ascribed to Matthew.    It looks pretty fair Koine Greek to me
-
and we must judge it by the standards of the Koine.

> -notice the ugly repetition of the
> genitive 'sou', where classical greek would have a possessive,
Umm - but Classical Greek had been dead some four centuries before
the gospels were written.  Criticizing the Greek of the NT because it
ain't Classical is rather like criticizing your daily newspaper for
not writing as Shakespeare wrote.

Using the possessive adjectives was archaic by this time.
The post-posited genitive enclitics, which BTW are found even in
the Classical period, had become normal whether the Greek speaker was
Semite, Greek, Egyptian, Cappadocian, Bithynian, Galatian or whatever;
and, indeed, it has remained the norm until the modern day.

{snip}
> nominative instead of the vocative ( i think i remember this right )
No - see above.

> and
> the lack of crasis on 'to onoma', properly 'tou'noma'
Distinctly archaic by this period.  It was, however, probably pronounced
/tonoma/.  The modern Greeks do exactly the same: write _to ónoma_
and say: _tónoma_ - and they are no Semites, they are L1 Greek speakers.

{snip}
> as in the sky. give us the bread that we need today,
_epioúsion_ "that we need"??

That's not a meaning I know.  The adjective is very rare - in fact being
found only twice: one in the Lord's Prayer as given in Matthew's gospel
and the other in the corresponding place in Luke's gospel!

It is almost certainly derived from the preposition _epi_ ('on') +
ió:n (masc)/ioûsa (fem.)/ión (neut.) "going"/"coming" (present
participle).  The common interpretation of modern scholars is that it
originally that it meant "of or pertaining to the coming day" [he:
ioûsa he:méra:  = the coming day].  So:
"give us today bread for the coming day".
This would give good meaning whether the prayer was said in the morning
or the evening.

The early Latin translations had "quotidianum" (or "cotidianum") 'daily';
and this ha remained the standard form in liturgical use till the present
day.

But early on, the phrase was often regarded as referring to the consecrated
bread of the eucharist and some held that the adjective was derived from
'epi' + ó:n (masc)/oûsa (fem.)/ón (neut.)  "being" and that it meant
'super-being', 'beyond being'.   This IMO is certainly wrong as a compound
thus derived should rather give *epousios not _epiousios_.  But the
association with the eucharist, once made, remained a strong one.

Jerome in his Vulgate translation hedged his bets, so to speak.  He
translate the Matthew _epioúsion_ as 'supersubstantialem_ but the
Luke _epioúsion_ as plain old 'quotidianum_    :)

Ray.