I too find it very interesting although I'm not convinced that our Lord Jesus simply made up a new word. That would be like Him telling the disciples, "Give us this day our xpwbosbuess bread." The apostles would have been scratching their heads over that one and certainly would need the Holy Spirit to interpert His message.
I'm not a linguist (nor do I play one on TV) so it's very difficult for me to say whether Thayer is or is not correct. Even if Thayer interpretation relies upon questionable practices, I would have to be an expert in the various languages to know the nuances to make a decision. Some people question Thayer's beliefs but there does seem to be an appreciation for his works since he has been around for a long time-so I don't think he's entirely discredited. I would agree with you that this is an obscure meaning and certainly a mystery; but it is interesting.
I can understand why Catholics and Orthodox might want to read more into this passage than is there. I don't think you can accuse Protestants of this simple because they are not reading the subtle nuance that some say is there. One can make the Bible say anything they wish if they try hard enough.
My reference to the Pez dispenser was not meant to be irreverent but rather to be more tongue-in-cheek given the interpretation. IF this was truly meant to refer to the Eucharist and IF this was to be done daily, then it simply begs the question why the disciples didn't dispense the Eucharist daily. Since they placed such a high regard on communion, then surely they would have thought about this conversation and come to the obvious conclusion that they must have communion daily. It also means the Church is not following through on a command they now believe to be there.
As I stated, I'm not a linguist to figure out how much "gymnastics" Thayer is doing. However, the entire context of Matthew 6 talks about not worrying about tomorrow and focusing on today. That seems to be consistent with this piece of scripture. The Eucharist wasn't dispense daily so you have a real historical problem trying to explain why the early church fathers broke this command. And some of them don't agree with the way you're interpreting this verse.
This goes back to my argument some time back that people pick the fathers they feel support their views and disregard the others. I'm not accusing you of this as you seem to be a tad bit more opened minded. But it is a danger people fall into.
Protestants believe that scripture must interpret scripture. If there is one part of scripture that is in isolation and cannot be interpreted by another piece, it is best to leave it alone for the ages. I think this is the case here, as interesting as it seems. To make any claims other than "our daily bread" is presumptuous.
"I too find it very interesting although I'm not convinced that our Lord Jesus simply made up a new word. That would be like Him telling the disciples, "Give us this day our xpwbosbuess bread." "
Hardly. The word "epiousios" is not a random collection of Greek letters. It is grounded in Greek etymology, and the creation of new words from parts of other words in order to convey a particular concept is hardly unknown. It happens all the time in the LXX -- if one reads some of the earlier Western grammars of LXX Greek, one sees these scholars -- grounded in what they consider to be "proper" classical Greek -- groaning at and ridiculing the gross Hebraisms and novel word constructions.
The Apostles had Christ right in front of them to ask questions of him -- they wouldn't be scratching their heads for long. A difference, as we have pointed out many times on this thread, between Protestantism and Orthodoxy is that we believe that the understandings that the Apostles had from their time with Christ had staying power, and weren't lost with the death of St. Paul.
"I don't think you can accuse Protestants of this simple because they are not reading the subtle nuance that some say is there."
No, but I can point out that Protestants read their own deeper meanings into this and other passages in the Bible. The difference, again, is that Protestants do so while completely ignoring or approaching patristic writings with extreme skepticism -- picking a few things and rejecting most of the rest. While we Orthodox use our brains and the guidance of the Holy Spirit when we read the Scriptures, we do so in the context of standing fast, and holding the traditions which we have been taught, whether by word, or by epistle.
"...it simply begs the question why the disciples didn't dispense the Eucharist daily..."
Who says they didn't? In those days, the Eucharist appears to have been in the context of communal meals -- and most people eat daily. There is nothing that I can see indicating that it took place only 4 times a year, as it was in my Reformed background, or only once a year, as Zwingli's practice was. You have no more direct evidence from Scripture that it wasn't daily than we have clear evidence that it was -- and you perhaps have less.
"It also means the Church is not following through on a command they now believe to be there."
The Eastern Church never felt that there was a command for the Liturgy to be served daily, that I can tell, if St. Augustine was already complaining about it in the 4th century that they didn't.
St. Paul says "as oft as ye" eat and drink the Body and Blood... so there I don't see a command for all to receive daily anywhere in the Scriptures, personally. I would point out, again, that if one considers all churches and monasteries worldwide, many Orthodox priests are serving the Divine Liturgy and the Body and Blood of Christ are being partaken of by many -- not only daily, but probably around the clock... So if there is a command, the Church is keeping it.
"To make any claims other than "our daily bread" is presumptuous."
You'd better write those Reformed folks who put out "Daily Bread," then, and tell them that they need to stop their presumption and change the name of their Scriptural devotional booklet.
I don't know if it is presumptuous, but I do like your emphasis on the plain meaning of daily bread because it is so plain and ordinary. It is too easy to take the plain and ordinary for granted and fail to see how magnificent the common and ordinary things are.
But I don't think anyone has taken note of what I consider to be the most important word in "Give us today our daily bread." It is the word "give." To give means to render a gift to someone, and a true gift is not wages for a job well done. To receive our daily bread, and all the other things that support our physical existence, is a gift indeed. We say grace before a meal to give thanks before participating in God's bounty. That is certainly a state of grace.
Eucharist means thanksgiving, and that is the important idea. We never enjoy the world aright until we gives thanks for every common and ordinary thing--no matter how small and seemingly unimportant--as gift. When living becomes thanksgiving, I think we come closer to what Geothe was referring to when he wrote: "So waiting, I have won from You the end, God's presence in each element."
How do you know that?
Mass is offered every day, by the way.