the full line being “Give us today our epiousion bread”
Today, most scholars reject the translation of epiousion as meaning daily. The word daily only has a weak connection to any proposed etymologies for epiousion. Moreover, all other instances of “daily” in the English New Testament translate hemera (ἡμέρα, “day”), which does not appear in this usage.[1][2] Because there are several other Greek words based on hemera that mean daily, no reason is apparent to use such an obscure word as epiousion.[4] The daily translation also makes the term redundant, with “this day” already making clear the bread is for the current day.[21]
i don’t think wikipedia mentions this but it has ‘pious’ in the middle
Scribes generally do a good job of checking that they didn’t make an error in transcription . It like likely that what we have is what was written down around ad40-ad90. (Years approximate). Things were written mostly by eyewitness or those who interviewed eye witnesses. The whole reads like it.
Of course things were translated to Greek, it is unlikely that the words were spoken in that language.
Things were written mostly by eyewitness or those who interviewed eye witnesses.
The scholarly consensus is that this is not the case. The earliest written Gospel (Mark) couldn’t have been written any earlier than the occupation of the Temple during the First Jewish Revolt in 66-67, and all indications are that he was writing down traditions that came from his community and others, with no immediate connection to any “eyewitnesses.”
(Source: I have a PhD in this stuff.)
If I remember right, the reason why Mark has scholarly consensus as being written before John is that Mark is least theologically developed, which only really makes sense as evidence for that if you’re starting from the position that the theological bits are later additions. I remember Q and M as evidence for Mark before Matthew or Luke, but is there any evidence that Mark was written before John that doesn’t start with the position that more-developed theology is a later addition?
Why am I being downvoted for asking someone with a PhD in this topic a question about their expertise?
I’m not the person you were responding to, but found your question interesting.
I re-read most of the Wikipedia article on Markan Priority. Imo These parts of the article sum up the argument nicely.
While Marcan priority easily sees Matthew and Luke building upon Mark by adding new material, Marcan posteriority must explain some surprising omissions. Mark has no infancy narrative nor any version of the Lord’s Prayer, for example.
…
Nor does Mark have more than a handful of unique pericopes. This is expected under Marcan priority, where Matthew has reused nearly everything he found in Mark, but if Mark was written last, it is harder to explain why so little new material was added.
…
There are very few passages in Mark with no parallel in either Matthew or Luke, which makes them all the more significant […] If Mark is drawn from Matthew and Luke, it is hard to see why so little material would be added, if anything were going to added at all, and the choice of additions is also rather strange. On the other hand, if Mark was written first, it is easier to see why Matthew and Luke would omit these passages.
Literally every statement in your comment is false. Read a fucking book that isn’t the bible.
