NL, Hi. We have discussed your theory of “supersubstantial” bread before. I do not find your lexical approach convincing. Here is a modified version of my previous comments, to which I do not recall a response from you:
As you pointed out, epiousion is a word that only occurs in the context of the bread petition of the Lord’s Prayer. But if you’re a lexicographer, that’s not a good thing, that’s a bad thing. A one-off word (aka “hapax legomenon”) is extraordinarily difficult to translate. The context of a broader literature is completely missing, and the ordinary apparatus for deriving a meaning must be replaced with a process that analyzes the components of the word in hopes of finding some combination of templates that when taken together in context make sense.
There are a number of reasonable theories concerning the meaning of epiousion. One view sees in epiousion a term of measurement, as in the daily ration of bread: See http://www.metrum.org/measures/epiousios.htm
The foregoing view also has support as a typical form of expression among the Jews of that day. From Gill we have the following Talmudic references:
“The necessities of thy people are great, and their knowledge short; let it be thy good will and pleasure, O Lord, our God, that thou wouldst give to everyone [hebrew here], “what is sufficient for his sustenance”, and to every one’s body what it wants.’’
“Says R. Jose (w), all the children of faith seek “every day” [hebrew here], “to ask their food” of the Lord, and to pray a prayer for it.’’
Note: Under this reading, “sufficient” corresponds to “epi” used as a measure, and “sustenance” derives from substance which derives from being, here “ousia.”
Another view recognizes that the idea of “eating” messiah was already active in Talmudic sources, and references our consuming his doctrine, his righteousness, and so forth:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/lightfoot-new-testament/john/6.html?p=3
A particularly strong view is that epiousion was a specialized modification of “daily” that carried the additional idea of the arrival of the new day. This works very well with the re-division of the adjective into ep’-iosion, which has multiple testimonies in participial form elsewhere in Scripture, which would remove the cloud of hapax legomenon, and apparently is drawing some attention among scholars:
http://www.rededicate.org/archives/UploadMarriage/fourthpetitionLP.html
Occam‘s razor applies. The word as it appears simply does not require Trent’s transubstantiation, nor the anathema that goes with it, to explain it, but rather ordinary uses of the word explain it quite well. Eisogesis is the hermeneutic of reading into a text what is not there by necessity of the words actually used. Furthermore, when the proposed extraordinary meaning won’t originate until 900 years (at best) after the text was written, it is also anachronistic, i.e., dislocated in time. Taking Aquinas’ inversion of Aritstotle’s substance and accidence and reading that back into a hapax legomenon is therefore anachronistic eisogesis, and not worthy of consideration in understanding Matthew 6:11.
Peace,
SR
There is plenty of broader literature. I can cite you numerous examples of the Early Church Fathers affirming their belief that the Eucharist is the Real Body and Blood of Jesus beginning in the first century and continuing unbroken until today. These include the Didache (c 90-150 A.D.), St. Clement of Rome, also known as Pope Clement I (d. 99 A.D.) , St. Justin Martyr (100 - 165 A.D.), St. Clement of Alxandria (150-216 A.D.), Tertullian (160 – 225 A.D.), St. Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 235 A.D.) Origen (185 – 254 A.D.) , St. Irenaeus (unknown – 202 A.D), St. Cyprian of Carthage (c 250 A.D.), St, Athanasius of Alexandria (296 – 373 A.D.), St. Hilary of Poitiers (300 – 368 A.D.), St. Ephrem of Syria (306 – 373 A.D.), St Cyril of Jerusalem (313 – 386 A. D.), St. Basil of Caesarea (329 – 379 A.D.), St. Ambrose of Milan (330-397 A.D.) , St. Gregory of Nyssa (335 – 395 A.D.) , St. Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 A.D.), and the Council of Ephesus 431 A.D.). I can provide numerous examples from these as well as numerous other Fathers. In this broader context I will continue to interpret this “hapax legomenon” in the context of Church Tradition.
Peace be with you