Ship of Fools: Hoc est vere corpus meum

Thread: Hoc est vere corpus meum Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030263

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Went to a choir concert last night, which was being hosted by a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church. Before the concert started I was noodling through the hymnal, as one does, and as I always do looked up the words of their worship service.

I found it interesting that in the eucharistic service, the servitor "quotes" Jesus as saying, "This is my true body which is broken etc." I have never seen this verse with a modifier in it. Is this justified by the Greek? Has anybody seen any other translation or quotification of the Bible that adds the adjective? Is this something Luther did? WHENCE THE TRUE?

Inquiring minds, etc.

Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on :

Is the phrasing perhaps a reflection of the Medieval Latin eucharistic hymn "Ave verum corpus"?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Ave verum corpus.

Laud-able looks to have provided the explanation. While I know of know evidence or translation which even suggests that "true" was part of any original text, the key is probably to be found in the Wiki link.

quote:
Hail, true Body, born
of the Virgin Mary,
having truly suffered, sacrificed
on the cross for mankind,
whose pierced side
flowed with water and blood:

The insertion is a clarification of Orthodox (or orthodox) belief in the full humanity of Jesus - as opposed to the various forms of Docetism which would argue differently from the scriptures.

For whatever reason, the Lutherans affirm in that liturgy that Jesus truly suffered; that his sacrifice was for real and not some kind of show. One of those situations where in the proclamation of Christian truth, it has been found necessary to clarify the "plain" meaning of scripture.

At any rate, that's how it looks to me.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
For whatever reason, the Lutherans affirm in that liturgy that Jesus truly suffered; that his sacrifice was for real and not some kind of show. One of those situations where in the proclamation of Christian truth, it has been found necessary to clarify the "plain" meaning of scripture.

One could wish they might have done so without resorting to doctoring the reported words of Christ. What other fictions do they perpetuate in order to nail home their theology? "Let the pious children come to me"? "You are Peter, and upon the rock of your confession I shall build my church"? "Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, which means believe in me, you shall not have life within you"?

[ 24. April 2016, 14:23: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

My interlinear doesn't have an obvious extra word in the sentence (any gospel, not checked the pauline version).

(I was wondering if it was the equivelent of "Verily, this is my body")
It uses σωμα where it translates as body (I don't know if there's any distinction there)

Lutheran (Matthew only) just has "Nehmet, esset, das ist mein Leib" *
(which at first sight, is definitely more than flesh, and looking so very 'life' like, one wonders [if you'd translate it as soul?])

*To cover translation requirement, it is expected to be equivalent to "Take, eat, this is my body".

[ 24. April 2016, 14:30: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Leib did have the meaning of life until the late middle ages, but since then it has meant body without a reference to the soul. The same with lijf in Dutch.

[ 24. April 2016, 14:38: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
My interlinear doesn't have an obvious extra word in the sentence (any gospel, not checked the pauline version).

(I was wondering if it was the equivelent of "Verily, this is my body")

Which if following the typical pattern in the gospels, would be "Amen, this is my body."

quote:
It uses σωμα where it translates as body (I don't know if there's any distinction there)

From what I know of Greek, that's the normal word for body. there's also sarx, which is usually translated "flesh." Paul uses it negatively by platonically contrasting it to "spirit." It is of course the root of "sarcophagus" which literally means "flesh eater." Think about that next time you drive past a cemetery! [Help]

quote:
Lutheran (Matthew only) just has "Nehmet, esset, das ist mein Leib" *
(which at first sight, is definitely more than flesh, and looking so very 'life' like, one wonders [if you'd translate it as soul?])

That is interesting, although one wonders if it carried a different set of meanings in Luther's day, or at least some additional meanings. I have noticed that some words in Luther's gospel of John (the only one I've looked at) are slightly different from their modern equivalents.

Or perhaps Luther was editorializing himself! [Eek!]

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
...
(I was wondering if it was the equivelent of "Verily, this is my body")
Which if following the typical pattern in the gospels, would be "Amen, this is my body."

Yep, It was a dud idea.

quote:

quote:
It uses σωμα where it translates as body (I don't know if there's any distinction there)
From what I know of Greek, that's the normal word for body. there's also sarx, which is usually translated "flesh." Paul uses it negatively by platonically contrasting it to "spirit." It is of course the root of "sarcophagus" which literally means "flesh eater." Think about that next time you drive past a cemetery!

That's good to know. Hopefully it will come up in a quiz soon...

quote:

quote:
[qb]Lutheran (Matthew only) just has "Nehmet, esset, das ist mein Leib"...
That is interesting, although...

Or I may have been confused with Leben and Lieben* [Hot and Hormonal]

.[inherited bibles, schoolboy german, negligible greek]

*(to Live/to Love) checked this time.

[ 24. April 2016, 15:06: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Google Translate gives "Leib" as "body, flesh."

Beolingus also.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
For whatever reason, the Lutherans affirm in that liturgy that Jesus truly suffered; that his sacrifice was for real and not some kind of show. One of those situations where in the proclamation of Christian truth, it has been found necessary to clarify the "plain" meaning of scripture.
One could wish they might have done so without resorting to doctoring the reported words of Christ.

I agree in principle. Liturgical forms do of course allow for clarification, but not misrepresentation. But I'm not sure which Lutheran liturgy you were looking at.

Here is a Lutheran liturgy I found on line.

If you scroll down to the Service of the Sacrament, I spy a distinction.

Firstly, at the section entitled "The Words of Institution", the words of Jesus are read out from the scripture, presumably as is i.e. without "true".

Secondly at the section entitled "The Administration of the Supper" the word "true" is inserted as a part of the invitation from the pastor. He declares at this point what Lutheran's believe, clarifying the meaning of the words of institution. I think that's OK myself, mousethief. But you may have been looking at a different Lutheran liturgy?

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

Given that the New Testament gives us four different wordings of the Institution (three Synoptics + 1 Cor), I think there's good Biblical warrant for saying the precise wording is flexible.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Drat you, Mousethief, you could have waited till I got back from camping.

First things first: Which hymnal was this? Because I'm not aware of any hymnal which features "true" in a quote of the Words of Institution, however much you may find it in a paraphrase or in Luther's Small Catechism (which is printed, incidentally, in the back of the latest red hymnbook).

I won't entirely rule it out as possible. But it strikes me as rather odd, unless the church-in-question was using a non-standard hymnal.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
For whatever reason, the Lutherans affirm in that liturgy that Jesus truly suffered; that his sacrifice was for real and not some kind of show. One of those situations where in the proclamation of Christian truth, it has been found necessary to clarify the "plain" meaning of scripture.
One could wish they might have done so without resorting to doctoring the reported words of Christ. What other fictions do they perpetuate in order to nail home their theology? "Let the pious children come to me"? "You are Peter, and upon the rock of your confession I shall build my church"? "Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, which means believe in me, you shall not have life within you"?

Ho-kay. Mousethief, I don't know what wild hair you've got up your butt, but we generally try to AVOID perpetrating/uating fictions when we're doing theology.

The explanation upstream is nice but probably not the true (ahem) reason the concept finds its way into our explanations of the Lord's Supper. What I understand is that Luther was not just dealing with the RC establishment, but with the various mushrooming sects coming up out of the Reformation. Quite a few of those denied the real (=true) presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament. Luther knew his Greek, of course, and knew perfectly well that the exact word "true" is not found in the NT text. But when he was dealing with folks who kept saying that "is" in that text meant "signifies" or similar (the merely symbolic explanation), he emphasized the "is" a blue streak; in one case going so far as to write the Greek upon the table with a piece of chalk. And throwing the word "true" into his loose quotation was not an attempt to deceive (the other side had Greek, too, I'm sure, it was the Renaissance of Greek NT studies back then) but rather an attempt to emphasize the literal sense of "is" by underlining it.

Now a lot of things have changed, but it is still the case that plenty of people attending an LCMS church for the first time will hear the Words of Institution and assume we understand it in a metaphorical, symbolic sense, particularly if they come from a Baptist background. Which is why LCMS explanations and materials (such as communion cards) tend to use the word "true" or "real" even today--to underscore to a surprised auditor that hey, these people really are nutcases oops serious. They really do think they are eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ when they're up there. And maybe I, a visitor, ought to think a bit longer before I bounce merrily up to a Lutheran church altar under the assumption that I'm taking place in a mere charming archaic ritual.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

AIUI, Lutheran liturgy distinguishes between the scriptural words of institution, "this is my body…", and the invitational words of the servitor (is that the right word?) who declares "this is truly the [or this is the true] body…"

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

You remind me now that when the person distributing the bread and wine comes round to me at the altar rail, they always say, "May the true body and blood of your Lord Jesus Christ keep you in faith unto life eternal" and so on. That is not a re-do of the words of institution but rather a semi-pastoral blessing--I say "semi-pastoral" because lay people often help with distribution, particularly in larger groups.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ho-kay. Mousethief, I don't know what wild hair you've got up your butt, but we generally try to AVOID perpetrating/uating fictions when we're doing theology.

I knew you'd be along to help. I didn't know you'd be so dismissive and insulting.

I don't know what fucking hymnal/prayer book it was. Maybe I should have memorized the copyright page, I don't know. Maybe you should chill.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

[Roll Eyes]

Give me a break. It wasn't I who called your church's teaching "perpetuating fictions."

And if you don't recall the name (they are quite boring, I'll admit), you might recall the cover. The mainstream ones have been red/dark blue with a simple gold cross (1940s and earlier), royal blue with a cross-with-circle (1980s) and what they call "sangria" but is basically red again--2014.

[ 24. April 2016, 20:01: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Maybe you should chill.

Gee, that sounds a lot like ...

Commandment 5

quote:
Don't easily offend, don't be easily offended

which as you see, works both directions.

Mamacita, Keryg Host

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped
But when he was dealing with folks who kept saying that "is" in that text meant "signifies" or similar (the merely symbolic explanation), he emphasized the "is" a blue streak; in one case going so far as to write the Greek upon the table with a piece of chalk.

Actually, he pulled out a knife and carved the words, Hoc est corpus meum, on the wooden table. This was when he met with Zwingli at the castle in Marburg.

Moo (who was a student in Marburg for a year)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Give me a break. It wasn't I who called your church's teaching "perpetuating fictions."

Are you familiar with the distinction between playing the ball and playing the man? It's important here on the ship, I am told. At least it used to be.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped
But when he was dealing with folks who kept saying that "is" in that text meant "signifies" or similar (the merely symbolic explanation), he emphasized the "is" a blue streak; in one case going so far as to write the Greek upon the table with a piece of chalk.
Actually, he pulled out a knife and carved the words, Hoc est corpus meum, on the wooden table. This was when he met with Zwingli at the castle in Marburg.

Moo (who was a student in Marburg for a year)

The way I heard the story he slammed his beer mug on the table repeatedly, shouting one word per slam, "hoc est corpus meum! hoc est corpus meum!"

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Give me a break. It wasn't I who called your church's teaching "perpetuating fictions."
Are you familiar with the distinction between playing the ball and playing the man? It's important here on the ship, I am told. At least it used to be.

I'm not continuing this here. Take me to Hell.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

The explanation upstream is nice but probably not the true (ahem) reason the concept finds its way into our explanations of the Lord's Supper. What I understand is that Luther was not just dealing with the RC establishment, but with the various mushrooming sects coming up out of the Reformation. Quite a few of those denied the real (=true) presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament. Luther knew his Greek, of course, and knew perfectly well that the exact word "true" is not found in the NT text. But when he was dealing with folks who kept saying that "is" in that text meant "signifies" or similar (the merely symbolic explanation), he emphasized the "is" a blue streak; in one case going so far as to write the Greek upon the table with a piece of chalk. And throwing the word "true" into his loose quotation was not an attempt to deceive (the other side had Greek, too, I'm sure, it was the Renaissance of Greek NT studies back then) but rather an attempt to emphasize the literal sense of "is" by underlining it.

I don't see why both aspects (the true body and the true suffering) shouldn't be seen to be confirmed in the liturgy, Lamb Chopped. I think you are right about which had prior importance. Of course I understand the distinction between Lutheran and other Protestant understandings, and the need to clarify that in the liturgy.

But the issue in the thread is the use of the word "true" in the liturgy. There were other etymological ways of underlining the "is" in the words of institution. So why "true". The idea that this may be a reference back to "Ave verum corpus" seems quite reasonable to me.

And if so, it also provides an elegant correction to Docetism. I'm sure Luther was as set against Docetism as he was against metaphorical interpretations of the words of institution.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Oh, that's quite possible. I merely thought you-all were giving him too much credit, if that's the way to phrase it--taking what was primarily a polemic emphasis and attributing it to a beautiful text. But if you are tracing influence, I'm sure you're right.

[ 24. April 2016, 22:59: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

FWIW, this online Lutheran Service Book (LCMS) Sampler contains the text of the Divine Service. At least in the liturgy shown here, "true Body" and "true Blood" appear in the words of distribution (page 164*) but not as part of the "Words of Our Lord" (page 162). This appears to be the sampler issued before the current service book was published; I don't know what if any changes were made prior to actual publication of the complete book.

* Page numbers are as actually shown on the page, not the PDF pages.

[ 25. April 2016, 01:05: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Okay, I'm guessing that was what he saw. Yes, that's quite possible in the words used at distribution. One reason I was so gobsmacked at the idea of altering the actual words of institution is that I was involved with creating that hymnbook, serving on one of the content checking committees. We in the LCMS have many faults, but we do anal-retentive really well. I couldn't imagine such a thing slipping by.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Actually, he pulled out a knife and carved the words, Hoc est corpus meum, on the wooden table. This was when he met with Zwingli at the castle in Marburg.

Moo (who was a student in Marburg for a year)

Very interesting! It doesn't surprise me, though I feel sorry for the table's owner. For all I know, he may have pulled this stunt several times. He seems to have been given to dramatic gestures.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Nick Tamen's more comprehensive link confirms what I found here and provided the link to it earlier.

Whatever mousethief may have read in particular, it seems clear that the general guidelines for the Lutheran liturgy specifically avoid mucking around with the scriptural words of institution when they are presented as scripture.

I think it is also true across denominations that all the various words of invitation to participate in the bread and the wine reflect the prevailing theology of the church in which they are given. For example, in the current Anglican communion service, various alternatives are allowed, some emphasising memorial, some feeding, and in my experience the form used is a reflection simply of how high up, or low down, the candle that particular local CofE may be.

Generally, in the nonco environment in which I swim, the emphasis is on memorial, rather than feeding.

[ 25. April 2016, 09:34: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped
...in one case going so far as to write the Greek upon the table with a piece of chalk.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo
Actually, he pulled out a knife and carved the words, Hoc est corpus meum, on the wooden table. This was when he met with Zwingli at the castle in Marburg.

This is a trivial matter, but it interests me. I think Luther was much more likely to have had a knife in his pocket than a piece of chalk. AIUI in the sixteenth century almost everyone carried a knife to cut his food. I can't imagine why many people would carry chalk around with them.

Moo

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

He was a professor, after all (Wittenberg University). But I'm just going off the memory of one of the reference books I had to proofread. I'm sure it wasn't a primary source.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

FWIW, entering the terms "hoc est corpus meum luther table" into Google give a few top hits saying he used chalk, a few more saying he "wrote" the words or "scrawled" (both consistent with chalk rather than a knife), several more that aren't specific, but nothing specifying a knife or suggesting he carved the words.

It takes time to carve words into a wooden surface. It would make a very definite emphasis of his point. But, the impression I get of feelings over the issue at Marburg a more hurried writing, with Luther very clearly pronouncing each word as he wrote would be more plausible.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

(after further thinking)

It seems to have been common to carry a Renaissance version of a notebook (Hamlet's "my tablets") around with one. Most of these seem to have been wax, but I wonder if any were made to be used with chalk. My Google-fu hasn't found any yet.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

It's a translation of the words of institution in Latin : "Hoc est enim corpus meum." "Enim" is basically an expletive, inserted in order to intensify the meaning of what is being said--so the translation is something like "This is indeed my Body."

Straight out of the pre-vernacular Missal, I believe.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's a translation of the words of institution in Latin : "Hoc est enim corpus meum." "Enim" is basically an expletive, inserted in order to intensify the meaning of what is being said--so the translation is something like "This is indeed my Body."

Others will doubtless know more than I on this, but from what I understand, it's more of a conjunction than an expletive. The Latin of both the Novus Ordo and the Extraordinary Form still have hoc est enim corpus meum and hoc est enim calix sanguinis mei, but the approved translations are "for this is my Body" and "for this is the chalice of my Blood."

My understanding is that enim can indeed be translated both as "for" or "because" and as "truly" or "indeed," but the English translations would suggest that "for" is the intended meaning here. It seems that if "truly" is used, it would be more along the lines of "truly/indeed this is my Body" than "this is truly my Body."

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0