Enim?

A reader writes:

In the Tridentine missal it says "Hoc est enim corpus meum," which I understand to mean "This is truly/ in fact/ indeed my body."

The Vulgate says: "Hoc est corpus meum/ This is my body."

The Greek I’ve found says: "Touto esti mou somaTouto estin to sOma mou [at least in St. Matthew’s version]/ This is my body."

The Novus Ordocurrent rite of Mass says: "This is my body."

My question is, how did the enim get put in, since as far as I can tell, Jesus did not use the word? I assume it was taken out of the Novus Ordocurrent rite of Mass for that reason.

Also, what does the Novus Ordocurrent rite of Mass in Latin Mass say?

Let’s answer the second question first: In the current rite of Mass in Latin it says "Hoc est enim corpus meum" (It also says "Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei").

Here’s the deal about enim: The Romans threw it in a lot. It’s just part of Latin style in some ages to use this word when it isn’t strictly necessary, the way some British folks throw in "indeed" to kind of tweak the emphasis: "He is indeed a fine grammarian." As a result, when Jesus’ words were being translated into Latin, they conformed it more to Latin style by throwing in an enim.

The force and meaning of enim varies and gets weaker over time. In some cases it is used pleonastically. In these and certain other cases, it is often simply not translated into English. For example, the word can serve to signal an illustration or explanation, kind of the way a colon does in English. But there is already a colon there in Latin ("Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: . . ."), so they may have judged enim to be redundant.

The word order might fool you on this since enim occurs third in the sentence, but that’s due to another quirk of enim: It’s postpositive (meaning that it never occurs first in a sentence), and when there is an est coming after the first word it can force enim into third place. Putting things in English word order, one might take this as "Enim hoc est corpus meum" and then identify enim as performing its colon-like function.

(Other languages often use spoken words to accomplish effects that we do in English with punctuation. For example, Japanese uses ka at the end of sentences as a kind of spoken question mark. Chinese uses ma the same way. Greek often uses hoti to signal the beginning of a quotation, the way we use quotation marks.)

In any event, the word (or an equivalent) isn’t there in the original Greek (or Aramaic in all likelihood). That may be why it’s omitted in the English translation or it may be that the translators were taking it as performing a colon-like function or otherwise judged it redundant and out of accord with English style.

You may be interested to know that in the current (and much better!) draft translation of the Mass that is still being revised the words of consecration are translated in an ever-so-slightly different manner, but the enim still doesn’t show up as a word. Here’s the Latin and the current draft translation:

Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur.

Take this, all of you, and eat of it: this is my Body which will be given up for you.

The "of," of course, is reflecting the ex in the Latin. We’ll have to wait and see if they stick with this translation.

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

19 thoughts on “Enim?”

  1. I understood that the word “enim” also means “For,” and serves to translate the phrase, “For this is my body,” not “This si truly my body.”

  2. About 5 years ago someone sent me a tape entitled “The Mass of the Third Millenium” by Fr. Peter Stravinskas, which is a talk about the reforms of the liturgy inspired by Vatican II which lead to the Novus Ordo mass. Before listening to the tape, my impression of Vatican II was one of a progressivist conclave which allowed – or even compelled – all sorts of liturgical experimentation. How wrong I was! I never realized how much Vatican II has served to shore up and preserve the magisterial teaching and tradition of the church, and how traditional the Novus Ordo mass was meant to be. (By the way, I highly recommend the tape)
    So the question: what web resources would you suggest for those, like myself, who are hoping to one day be able to implement at least one “traditional” Novus Ordo Mass at their parishes, that is, one which uses the Latin liturgical form, gives Gregorian chant pride of place, etc.?

  3. I understood that the word “enim” also means “For,” and serves to translate the phrase, “For this is my body,” not “This si truly my body.”
    This is the way it is translated in older missals.

  4. The relevant phrases, from Nova Vulgata:
    Mt 26,26: hoc est corpus meum
    Mt 26,28: hic est enim sanguis meus
    Mk 14,22: hoc est corpus meum
    Mk 14,24: hic est sanguis meus
    Lk 22,19: hoc est corpus meum
    Lk 22,20: hic calix novum testamentum est in sanguine meo
    There is an “enim” in Mt 26,28, translation of Greek “gar,” the postpositive causal conjuction, frequently translated into English as “for” or “since” or “because.” We take and eat “because this is My body.” Latin “enim” can be understood as “for, for instance, namely, that is to say, I mean, in fact.” Why do we take and eat? Because this is the Lord’s body. Why do we take and drink? Because this is the Lord’s blood. That what Greek “gar” and Latin “enim” do for us. It puts a causal relationship into the sentence.
    The “enim” seems to have been a rather ancient usage here, trying to make this causal relationship explicit in the liturgy.
    Liturgical texts are not Bible quotations, and frequently they include small modifications to the Biblical text for liturgical use. The readings have incipits. Many antiphons have a “Dominus dixit” inserted so that it is clear that this is God speaking. Also, there were different versions of the Vulgate through history, and our current Latin liturgy does not match any one Latin edition of the Vulgate. For example, today’s communion antiphon from Psalm 23(22),1-2 is not the text of the Nova Vulgata which would be found, for example, in the Psalterium Monasticum. Rather, it is from Jerome’s Vulgate Psalms based on the Greek Septuagint rather than Hebrew.
    The Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of Paul IV explains the desire that all eucharistic prayers in the Roman liturgy use the same words at this point:
    [block quote]
    Thus, in each Eucharistic Prayer, we wish that the words be pronounced thus: over the bread:
    ACCIPITE ET MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES:
    HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADETUR;
    over the chalice:
    ACCIPITE ET BIBITE EX EO OMNES:
    HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI,
    QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.
    HOC FACITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIONEM.
    [end block quote]
    The “enim” seems to be lost in translation in English, but present in Italian as “questo”:
    PRENDETE, E MANGIATENE TUTTI:
    QUESTO È IL MIO CORPO OFFERTO IN SACRIFICIO PER VOI;
    PRENDETE, E BEVETENE TUTTI:
    QUESTO È IL CALICE DEL MIO SANGUE PER LA NUOVA ED ETERNA ALLEANZA…

  5. By the way, this word was considered unimportant enough that its omission by the priest-celebrant was only a venial sin. The omission of any other word(s) from the consecratory formulae was a grave sin. Of course some omissions could also invalidate the Sacrament.

  6. Sorry…two corrections…distracted while posting.
    (1) That’s Paul VI, not IV.
    (2) Italian “questo” is the emphatic relative pronoun, “this.” Apparently Italian also leaves out the “enim.”
    Ciao.

  7. So the question: what web resources would you suggest for those, like myself, who are hoping to one day be able to implement at least one “traditional” Novus Ordo Mass at their parishes, that is, one which uses the Latin liturgical form, gives Gregorian chant pride of place, etc.?
    Adoremus is the only example I know of; however, I should note parenthetically that overall the “traditional” Novus Ordo movement has been a failure. There are more approved traditional Latin Masses in the U.S. than there are Novus Ordo Masses using Latin and Gregorian Chant.
    One might rightly claim that Vatican II ordered Gregorian Chant to be preserved; however, it is not possible to argue that Paul VI did not foresee its falling into disuse. In fact he called it “the language of angels” and lamented that it would be lost.

  8. “In fact he called it ‘the language of angels’ and lamented that it would be lost.”
    Certainly he knew it would be used less, but by “lost” do you think he meant “extinction”?

  9. Certainly he knew it would be used less, but by “lost” do you think he meant “extinction”?
    I don’t think he meant complete extinction. Here’s the relevant audience:
    General Audience, November 26, 1969 (see paras. 8-9)
    So he foresaw, at least, that the “greater part” of Gregorian Chant would be lost. Sad.

  10. {But there is already a colon there in Latin (“Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: . . .”), so they may have judged enim to be redundant.}
    Jimmy, I’m not following you here (incidentally, there were no colons in Jerome’s Vulgate).
    Another possible explanation: “est” is in the emphatic position (by older Latin standards), but that position has gradually lost emphasis through the centuries. Using the word “enim” makes the emphasis explicit.
    pax,
    scott

  11. The Pontiff goes on to make some good points, however:
    “11. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.
    “12. If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse? What did St. Paul have to say about that? Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: “In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (I Corinthians 14:19).”
    Latin in the Mass may be good for those of us who can read, and follow along with Missals. But I don’t see any point in it, AT ALL, where most or all of the Congregation is illiterate and so not able to even see a translation of the Mass.
    I suppose there’s still the benefit of “complete universality” of the rite’s language, but is it worth preserving this so strictly, when the ability of people to be edefied from the Church’s prayer is compromised?

  12. I wasn’t casting aspersions on His Holiness’ intentions. I was simply pointing out that he knew that “the greater part” of Gregorian Chant would be lost, at least as far as the Mass was concerned. This is one reason why the “traditional Novus Ordo” movement is a failure, because the progressivists can point to these sorts of statements from Paul VI and claim that they are celebrating Mass according to the very principles he enunciated.
    I think a discussion of the vernacular in the Liturgy is outside the scope of this thread. I’d be happy to discuss it at another time.

  13. Scott: The position of “est” here was not really ever emphatic in Latin.
    And I think the point (Mr. Akin: I hope that you don’t mind my trying to clarify your point) was that, since, as you say, there was no punctuation in the ancient world (this is not 100% true, but true enough for the matter at hand), in many instances they used particles in places where we would simply place a punctuation mark. A “pleonastic enim” could be considered one of these instances. So now that we have punctuation in the text, we don’t necessarily need to translate the particles.
    I’m not sure that I buy the “enim” here as wholly pleonastic, though. I don’t want to get too long-winded and philological, but the three most common uses of “gar”/”enim” (which have a remarkable amount of overlap in their dozen or so functions) are: (1) Causal (“for”, “because” – though the latter is perhaps a little too strong); (2) Asseverative (“indeed”, “truly”, “really”); and (3) Explanatory (this has something of the sense of “now, then” or “namely”, but can also mean “for example” and a couple other things). Of these, the third is the one which has the greatest tendency to be used in a sense that we would consider pleonastic, and not to be translated (mostly because we don’t have anything that corresponds to it terribly well). It’s also the one that seems to me to be the least likely here, based on the context.
    The question would then become: which of the first two is used here? Is it “indeed, this is My body” (1) or “for this is My body” (2)? I’m personally inclined – as others have already argued – toward the latter, and don’t see why “for” shouldn’t be included in the translation. But the first also seems possible.
    As for why it *isn’t* included in current translations, I have two tentative hypotheses: we tend not to use either “indeed” or “for” in our everyday speech anymore, and the translators were/are aiming at contemporary idiom; or (somewhat more cynically) they couldn’t make up their minds about which use it is, so dodged the issue.

  14. Mr. Akin: I’ve been thinking about this a little more of late, and I was wondering if you happened to have a reference in support of the idea that the “enim” is pleonastic here, or a suggestion of where I might look. I’d like to investigate a little more.
    Also, since we’re on the topic of the translation of the words of consecration, I was wondering if you might be able to clarify a point which seems to be a bone of contention for those who dislike the current translations of the Mass. The Latin consecration over the cup says “pro multis”, which used to be translated as “for many” (as one would understand from the Latin), but is now translated as “for all”. I remember having heard that this is because the Aramaic idiom “the many” more or less means “everyone”, but the “the” was not translated into Latin because there is no Latin article. But I don’t know a lick of Aramaic, so I have no way of telling if this is true or not. Plus, the article is not there in the Septuagint, and I don’t see why it wouldn’t have at least been translated into Greek (unless it is because they wanted to avoid the regular meaning of the Greek idiom “the many” = “the lower class”, hoi polloi). Anyway, I was hoping you might be able to help me out. Thank you.

  16. There are some great posts here; I just want to add in a little food for thought. The words of consecration in the 1st Eucharistic Prayer are certainly older than the Latin Vulgate. In fact, even in Greek, the words of consecration in the Eucharist are older than any of the gospels, older even than the words in 1 Corinthians 11, 23-25. Christians were celebrating the Mass before Saul became the Apostle Paul. The issue may very well not be why was “enim” added to the Mass, but why was it removed from the Bible?

Comments are closed.