# Nos si tantas Domini nostri opes



## KsSp

Hello. 
Here is the last confusing sentence from Homily 38 on Luke (by Origen). 
'Nos si tantas Domini nostri opes, tantam sermonis supellectilem, et abundantiam doctrinarum non libenter amplectimur, si non comedimus panem vitae, si non carnibus Christi vescimur, et cruore potamur; si contemnimus dapes Salvatoris nostri, scire debemus quod habeat Deus, et benignitatem, et severitatem.'
Here is an attempt to interpret it: 
'We, if (when) we do not embrace such great power of our Lord, such great decoration of sermons and abundance of teaching with eagerness (pleasure), if we do not eat the bread of life, if we do not eat the Body of Christ, if we do not drink His blood, if we neglect the holy communion of our Saviour, [we] should know that God gives [you] both grace and strictness.'
The context: the Scriptures tell us about the Queen of Sheba, who was amazed at the decorations in Solomon's house. Then comes this sentence. 
Could you please comment on the meaning of the original sentence? 
Thank you!


----------



## Regnans in excelsis

As far as I can tell, the translation is correct. It's interesting how many different words Origen uses for "to eat" 

About the meaning:
I think Origen is showing a parallel between the Queen of Sheba and God, who through Christ judges the world.
In the Old Testament the Queen is mentioned as giving riches to Solomon.
In the New Testament she is also mentioned (as "Queen of the South") to be part of the last judgment (Matthew 12:42, Luke 11:31), which is referred in the very last part of the cited Origin text (Deus habeat et benignitatem et severitatem).


----------



## KsSp

Regnans in excelsis said:


> As far as I can tell, the translation is correct. It's interesting how many different words Origen uses for "to eat"
> 
> About the meaning:
> I think Origen is showing a parallel between the Queen of Sheba and God, who through Christ judges the world.
> In the Old Testament the Queen is mentioned as giving riches to Solomon.
> In the New Testament she is also mentioned (as "Queen of the South") to be part of the last judgment (Matthew 12:42, Luke 11:31), which is referred in the very last part of the cited Origin text (Deus habeat et benignitatem et severitatem).


Thank you for your explanation!


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once more, KsSp

I agree that your own version is largely correct, though I might want slightly to modify a couple of things, just stylistically.

But two things I find puzzling. The first concerns the syntax of the last part of the sentence (after the semi-colon): 'if we disregard / disrepect the [communion] Feast of our Saviour, we ought to know...' and now I get lost, for I cannot at once see what _quod habeat_ is as a clause. If it is meant as an indirect question ('we ought to know what He possesses/holds'), _quod_ ought to be _quid_ (the interrogative pronoun). If on the other hand _quod_ is a relative pronoun ('we ought to know [that] which He possesses'), the comma after habeat Deus looks to me out of place.

I am toying with the idea that (as was his habit), Jerome is adhering to the form and literal force of the Greek he was translαting, which I can tentatively reconstruct as ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἔχῃ καὶ εὐνοίαν καὶ ἀκριβείαν. Now this ὅτι [_hoti_] has more than one function in Greek: it can be a relative pronoun (in Latin, _qui _/ _quae_ / _quod_); or it can be, like the English 'that', a particle introducing an indirect statement ('I say/know/believe _that_...). This does not exist in literary classical Latin, as indirect statement is done by the accusative + infinitive construction (like the old-fashioned English, 'I believe *him* *to be* a fine musician'). And in colloquial and in later literary Latin too, increasingly the acc. + infin. comes to be replaced with _quod..._  But again (if this is right), the comma after _Deus_ is redundant.

My second problem is that I do not understand theologically the line of thought—to summarise/paraphrase: 'If we fail to embrace God's bounty, the apparatus of His Word, the abundance of His teaching, and neglect the eucharistic rites, we should [at least?] know that He possesses both benevolence and severity': I cannot fathom the logic here.

I shall think further on it, when perhaps others have made their suggestions. Thank you for another absorbing enquiry.

Σ


----------



## Snodv

The _quod_ seems like a relative pronoun to me, short for _id quod.  _This sounds like a warning not to be complacent about God's grace, but realize we have to do our part to deserve it.  If I were punctuating it myself, I might have put a colon after_ Deus.  "..._If we don't [adhere to these practices], we ought to realize what God has:  not only grace, but also severity."  Yes, I took a little liberty in reading _et...et _as _non_ _modo...sed etiam_, but it makes the passage make more sense.  I think.


----------



## Snodv

Just thinking abut my answer, I think grace in Christian theology is not attained by what we deserve, but a gift from God:  but once we have received it, we do have to demonstrate some _bona fides_.


----------



## KsSp

Snodv said:


> Just thinking abut my answer, I think grace in Christian theology is not attained by what we deserve, but a gift from God:  but once we have received it, we do have to demonstrate some _bona fides_.


From the theological point of view, what you have described is part of the Orthodox Christian theology. Another view (grace given as a reward for good deeds) is (please correct if it is not the case!) part of the Catholic Christian theology. Just an observation - since Origen lived and worked before the schism of 1054, it hardly has anything to do with the interpretation of the sentence.


----------



## KsSp

Thank you, Scholiast. Your answers always provide a lot of things to learn!


----------



## Scholiast

Thank you Snodv (## 5, 6).

Yes, I think this your suggestion makes good rhetorical as well as purely linguistic sense. In which case _scire_ is tantamount, almost, to 'to bear in mind'/'remember'. Occam's razor certainly makes it neater than my attempt to find an explanation in terms of a putative Greek _Urtext._

Σ


----------



## Snodv

Why thank you!
And to KsSp on Catholic theology:  I'm not sure about Catholic--I'm Protestant.  But I've seen lessons where God was characterized as offering Mercy and Grace, with Mercy being described as being "let off the hook" for something wrong we did, and Grace constituted being offered the reward for a goodness we didn't really demonstrate.


----------



## KsSp

Thank you, Snodv and Scholiast, for your help and for really being interested in helping!


----------

