Talk:Epiousion

Good job

This article is a nice piece of work. L'omo del batocio (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

But what is the etymology? Epi- is a common suffix. --Error 23:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

As a suffix it's pretty rare ;). As a prefix it may mean "on, over, at, in, against". For me the translation "supersubstantial" is quite tempting, but it should be noted that epi does not denote separation. L'omo del batocio (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

other possibility

one can look at other language or place

• LXX : periousios (Ex 19, 6)
• matthew hebraic one quoted by Jérome mahar

also :

• (Jn 6, 27)
• (Jn 6, 32-33) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.67.188.234 (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Removed

this is POV...

---

The Greek term 'homo-ousios' is very exact, meaning "consubstantialis" "of the same substance" (see Council of Nicea, 325 AD). Thus 'ousios' can be rendered as "substance" (or "nature", or "essence"). 'Epi' we know means "super" (think of epicenter), coming from a verb which means "to be added, to be above". Thus 'epi-ousios' means 'super-substantial'. This is how St Jerome renders it in the Vulgate: 'supersubstantialem'. To one who believes in Jesus Christ's real, substantial presence in the Holy Eucharist (see Catechism of the Catholic Church 1374) such a translation makes complete sense. Jesus Christ is substantially present in the Blessed Sacrament in a supernatural way, and He teaches us to pray to receive Him every single day in this manner. This does not negate the prayer for our temporal needs (for natural bread) but raises it by petitioning for our supernatural needs. And now the world has reached an age where the Church encourages and is able to provide for all the faithful to participate in Holy Communion not at Easter only, nor just on Sundays only, but every day: daily.

Translating the word 'epiousios' is a great difficulty for those who do not want to admit the Real Presence, but--thanks to the work of giants in former generations--'supersubstantial' is a clear and precise translation for those Catholics and Orthodox who believe. Maybe it is time Catholics used 'supersubstantial' in the liturgy? It might sound like a mouthful, but that would reinforce the point!

---

...so I've expunged it. jnestorius^(talk) 22:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hapax legomenon?

Actually 'epiousios' is used in everyday conversations here in Greece, does it still qualify as an 'hapax legomenon'? To my knowledge it means something between 'daily' and 'the necessary', or 'the daily necessary'. Also, 'epi' isn't equivalent to the english 'super', but to 'on' or 'above'. The word for 'super' is 'yper', like in 'yperanthropos' (υπεράνθρωπος), 'superman', 'yperthetikos' (υπερθετικός), 'superlative' (case). 'Epi' does not come from a verb, it's a preposition, and 'epicenter' means 'over the center', 'on the spot'. Compare to 'hypocenter' (although such a word may not exist in english), which means 'below the center/spot'. --Apost18pt (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting points, thanks for making them. I'm not sure that the everyday use of epiousios disqualifies it from being a hapax legomenon as long as its use in the Lord's Prayer is its earliest well understood use. The reason for this is that we cannot be sure but that its meaning might have changed very early on. You make a good point about the meaning of the English prefix "super-", however, in Latin, super- means "on" or "above", so I think it makes a fine calque for epi-. Maybe the text should be improved so that it is clear that it is the Latin super-, not the English, that is referred to? Rwflammang (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

By hapax legomenon we mean that the evangelists made up the word to express this specific line. After Christianization, obviously everyone knew the prayer and "our daily bread" becomes an idiomatic expression. What we are looking for is an attestation predating the 4th century. Even the 5th century papyrus could already have been influenced by the prayer.

English (and Latin) super just means above. Obviously, supersubstantial doesn't have any real meaning in English and is just a rendition of Jerome's Latin. --dab (𒁳) 11:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The word “epiousion” (επιούσιον) is not “hapax legomenon”. The female form (it's an adjective) of the same word “epiouse” (επιούση) is found in Acts 7:26, 16:11, 20:15, 21:18, 23:11, in all cases with the meaning “the next [day or night]”. This is recognized, see http://levangile.com/Dictionnaire-Biblique/Definition-Vine-Daily%20(Adjective).htm Eidimon (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

@Eidimon: I thank you for this. Well done. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

In light of recent edits, additional secondary sources clarifying the issue would be helpful. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Original research

Contrary to this edit, "observations of fact" are original research. Whether the dual meaning of epiosios is consistent with quantum mechanics (if true, whatever that might entail), the claim that this is somehow even related to quantum mechanics has to be attributed to a reliable source. Otherwise the article poses a novel synthesis of ideas not appearing in an already published source (WP:SYN). Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that calling this bit of nonsense 'research' is stretching things a bit... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not engage in dialogues on Wikipedia that too-quickly slide into slander, such as calling my words "nonsense", or when the vocabulary choices of the correspondent resort to vulgarities in the Edit Summary, such as "bollocks." If the meaning of what I've conveyed (important caveat: in clear language) isn't immediately apparent to the reader...then it isn't immediately apparent to the reader. Clearly, provided that the words I've chosen are themselves clear, this is not my problem to solve. Moreover, I can always simply refer my colleagues to other, non-Wikipedia literature to have corresponding dialogues...so I truly have no problem to solve (here). I will not re-edit the affected section again. Cheers to All. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As you are fully aware, I have quoted secondary resources, and am not acting to translate from primary resources. Your edits and labels are disruptive. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:4D04:1FC3:8BE:7100 (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. And I would say that the Bible sources I've quoted are an "already published source." Seek the Truth. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:4D04:1FC3:8BE:7100 (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Reworking this article

For reworking this article to bring it up to Wikipedia standards, what if we use Nestle's 13 proposed translations as a base structure? Take each of them in turn, present the evidence for and against each, and who has used and advocated for each version. - SimonP (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Per your statements, not my attributions, you do not have a strong grasp of the subject matter. Might want to focus on something else. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:85D7:3570:8067:DC2F (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been working on this area for a long time, and will continue. What do think of the proposed structure for an overhaul? - SimonP (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain what is wrong with the new version? - SimonP (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop reverting. I've filed this page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Instead, let's start working to improve the article. Could you explain what of the new additions you find problematic? - SimonP (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Dubious assertions

There are two assertions in this article that are problematic:

• "what might be the female form of the same word “epiouse” (επιούση) is found in Acts 7:26" - This is cited to [1], which does not contain this fact about the female form of “epiouse.” Even if true, this is one of many hypotheses, why should it be in the lead?

• "Roman Catholic liturgy, which uses quotidianum, but only in the Gospel of Luke." - The Lord's Prayer, which comes from Matthew, in the Roman Catholic literature uses quotidianum cite: [2] - SimonP (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus

Can we have some clear wording in this verse to give the reader some evidence of the scholarly consensus? There are a few references that shed some light on this:

• Supersubstantial "receives virtually no support among modern exegetes." - Pitre pg 172
• The future translation is now held by a majority of scholars." - Pitre pg 175
• "The majority of modern scholars have opted for" for the future - Davies & Allison pg. 608
• "There exists a fair amount of agreement among modern scholars that it most easily derives from to come" - Gundry pg. 107

How can we best summarizes the general outlook of modern scholars in this article? - SimonP (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Catholic bias

This article shows clear bias toward Catholic (esp. Brant Pitre's) views. "For the future", while acknowledged as the dominant scholarly view, is criticized in Wikipedia's voice. Daask (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

This is an ancient translation dispute, and precedes the Protestant church by well over 1,200 years. "The Catholic Church" was the only substantial Christian church when Epiousios was first being translated, and is the by far the largest Christian denomination today. The claim of "dominant" scholarly view is in fact the minority view with respect to the size of denominations, not to mention historical depth of experience on the order of many hundreds of years.

Those facts are not "bias." To claim otherwise is in fact "bias."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.15.130.191 (talk • contribs) 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree there is a clear Roman catholic bias here. To argue that the Roman Catholic church was in existence before the Protestant is irrelevant to the claim of bias; it is a non-sequitur. And the number of Catholics compared to the number of Protestants has nothing to do with scholarly views. There needs to be more in the article from a wider range of Christian scholars. For example, in Walter Bauer's Lexicon of the NT there is no suggestion of a Eucharistic connotation to epiousios. Fulgentian (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

As I have stated elsewhere, Pitre is WP:FRINGE. Modern apologetics is basically lying for Jesus, and in this sense Pitre is a modern apologist. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Greek Maybe?

Assuming I am not a language expert to begin with, how much of this article should I have to read before I figure out which language the word in question belongs to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.20.170 (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Expansion possibility

I've moved this cleanup tag added by User:Artoria2e5 to the talk page:

Missing Information: Semitic translations -- translated variously in the table, but are calques according to Thomas Hopko quote above. Generally share a ʾ-m-n root as found in amen

Not a bad idea, but this isn't really a "cleanup" issue, just an expansion request. SnowFire (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

epiousios vs epiousion

The only instances of this word in the manuscripts is "epiousion" (ἐπιούσιον). So, why is this article titled "epiousios" (ἐπιούσιος), with this word marked as the subject in the summary?

@Walter Görlitz, Ineffablebookkeeper, and Nederlandse Leeuw: from what I know, NT textual criticism is more your forte than mine. Do you know anything about this? Veverve (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

No, this is completely new to me. I've only ever heard it said as "dagelijks" ("daily") whenever I've said or heard the Lord's Prayer in Dutch, or the equivalent of "daily" in other languages. (Incidentally, I have always found it somewhat tautological to give "today daily", but that kind of tautological construct is very Hebrew/Semitic now that I think about it; there are plenty of examples of that in the Hebrew Bible and NT, e.g. to walk the walk, to die the death etc.). But if epiousion is truly a hapax, then it would seem that it should be discussed in the form given (epiousion), not in some alleged nominative (epiousios) that has never been attested. So I would be in favour of renaming this article to epiousion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Veverve: Unfortunately, Greek isn't my forte, so I can't answer this one, but it seems Nederlandse Leeuw already has. I'd be interested to know why this article used the wrong word in the first place, though.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 00:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: From what I can see it is indeed the name used since the beginning. The article was also never moved. Veverve (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Instances of epiousios

The word "epiousios" is used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (§ 2837). But it is a mistake, see the word's Strong concordance. This nominative appears to be made up from the ground up, from the hapax. Veverve (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Veverve: Huh. Looks like someone was just pulling from the catechism, then.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 12:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

That, or they used the entry's name of Strong's concordance that probably made up the nominative in order to harmonise with the other entries which are all in the nominative. Veverve (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thomas Hopko also uses "epiousios", but again this clearly is wrong and not what the text says. This mailing list also uses it. Veverve (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
It is also used in Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (InterVarsity Press, 2009) p. 120, and Jesus and the Peasants (Wipf and Stock, 2008) p. 217. Veverve (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I will add this form to the summary. Veverve (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)