Eating for Eternity: The Social Dimensions of Gregory of Nyssa’s Interpretation of the Petition for Daily Bread

Thomas Breedlove, Alex Fogleman
{"title":"Eating for Eternity: The Social Dimensions of Gregory of Nyssa’s Interpretation of the Petition for Daily Bread","authors":"Thomas Breedlove, Alex Fogleman","doi":"10.5325/jtheointe.18.1.0061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Gregory of Nyssa’s interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer’s request for daily bread is difficult to place in the history of the petition’s exegesis. Early interpreters—among them Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, Augustine, and Peter Chrysologus—stressed what is often called, in Henri de Lubac’s phrase, a “spiritual interpretation” of the bread as knowledge, the Eucharist, or Christian doctrine. The majority of modern commentators, in contrast, understand the petition to ask for material food. Gregory, however, troubles simple contrasts between ancient and modern and spiritual and material interpretation. In his fourth homily on the dominical prayer, he draws upon Origen’s exegesis, interpretating the bread within a metaphysical framework distinguishing between the perceptible and intelligible, but Gregory understands the bread to be material bread and the necessity of eating to be central to the human creature’s imitation of the impassible and immaterial God. Even more unique than this departure from the spiritual interpretation of the bread is Gregory’s argument that luxury and excess—eating more than the minimum required by the body—are practices not only bad for the soul but harmful and unjust to one’s neighbors. This article takes both these dynamics in turn: first, putting Gregory’s interpretation in relief by comparing it not only to the spiritual interpretation of bread by Origen but also the materialist interpretations offered by Chrysostom and Theodore; and second, bringing to light Gregory’s remarkable deployment of a perceptible/intelligible ontology to argue for the purpose of material sustenance and its importance for a just society.","PeriodicalId":53190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Theological Interpretation","volume":"54 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Theological Interpretation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/jtheointe.18.1.0061","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gregory of Nyssa’s interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer’s request for daily bread is difficult to place in the history of the petition’s exegesis. Early interpreters—among them Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, Augustine, and Peter Chrysologus—stressed what is often called, in Henri de Lubac’s phrase, a “spiritual interpretation” of the bread as knowledge, the Eucharist, or Christian doctrine. The majority of modern commentators, in contrast, understand the petition to ask for material food. Gregory, however, troubles simple contrasts between ancient and modern and spiritual and material interpretation. In his fourth homily on the dominical prayer, he draws upon Origen’s exegesis, interpretating the bread within a metaphysical framework distinguishing between the perceptible and intelligible, but Gregory understands the bread to be material bread and the necessity of eating to be central to the human creature’s imitation of the impassible and immaterial God. Even more unique than this departure from the spiritual interpretation of the bread is Gregory’s argument that luxury and excess—eating more than the minimum required by the body—are practices not only bad for the soul but harmful and unjust to one’s neighbors. This article takes both these dynamics in turn: first, putting Gregory’s interpretation in relief by comparing it not only to the spiritual interpretation of bread by Origen but also the materialist interpretations offered by Chrysostom and Theodore; and second, bringing to light Gregory’s remarkable deployment of a perceptible/intelligible ontology to argue for the purpose of material sustenance and its importance for a just society.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为永恒而食尼萨的格列高里对《日用饮食请愿书》的社会维度解读
尼萨的格列高里对《主祷文》中 "日用饮食 "请求的解释很难被归入该祷文的注释史中。早期的解释者--其中包括良(Tertullian)、塞浦路斯人(Cyprian)、奥利(Origen)、耶路撒冷的西里尔(Cyril of Jerusalem)、安布罗斯(Ambrose)、奥古斯丁(Augustine)和彼得-克利索洛格斯(Peter Chrysologus)--强调的通常是亨利-德-卢巴克(Henri de Lubac)所说的 "精神解释",即面包是知识、圣餐或基督教教义。与此相反,大多数现代注释家都将这一请求理解为对物质食物的请求。然而,格里高利对古代与现代、精神与物质解释之间的简单对比提出了质疑。在关于主祷文的第四篇讲道中,他借鉴了奥利的注释,在区分可感知和可理解的形而上学框架内解释了面包,但格里高利将面包理解为物质面包,将进食的必要性理解为人类受造物模仿不可感知和非物质上帝的核心。与面包的灵性诠释相比,格里高利更独特的论点是,奢侈和过量--吃得超过身体所需的最低限度--不仅对灵魂有害,而且对邻居也是有害和不公正的。本文依次论述了这两种动态:首先,将格里高利的解释与奥利对面包的灵性解释以及金口和西奥多的唯物主义解释进行比较,从而将其置于轻松的氛围中;其次,揭示格里高利对可感知/可理解本体论的出色运用,以论证物质养料的目的及其对公正社会的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
Lamb and Lion, Eyes and Horns: Spirit Christology in the Apocalypse of John (Un)likely Allies: Public Theology and Theological Interpretation in Conversation From Darkness to Light: Nicodemus, “the Jews,” and John’s Gospel Trinitarian Exegesis of the Old Testament Where Are My Roots? Reading Jeremiah 17:5–10 with Karl Rahner
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1