Of "Daily Bread"

by Boris Mouravieff

In the modern languages, Jesus' prayer is given in the

following terms:
9. Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in
heaven.
11. Give us this day our daily bread;
12. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors;
13. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for
thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever.
Amen. i

We do see that this prayer is in five verses, each having a

distinct and well determined objective.
Let us put this text to a critical analysis. And, to do this, let us
be reminded of the general rule applicable to every
interpretation of the texts: That of the interpretation by the
context.
Already Saint Augustine had demanded that the passages of
the gospel be commented in light of the context and protested
vehemently against the bad faith of some commentators who,
says he, choose some passages detached from the Scriptures,
by means of which they are able to deceive the ignorant, by
not binding to one another the propositions which precede and
those which follow, by which the will and thought of the author
can be understood. ii

Also, are we held to place Jesus' prayer, in its entirety, within

the framework of the ideas of its author. This framework is
given in the five preceding verses, thus conceived:
5. And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for
they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street
corners , that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you,
they have their reward.
6. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and
pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees
in secret will reward you.
7. And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles
do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words.
8. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need
before you ask him.
9. Pray then like this: iii

Then follows the text of the prayer. The latter in turn is

followed by twenty one verses of commentary which repeat
the recommendations given in verses 5-9, and place the
accent on some of them. Thus, for example, the eighth verse is
to be re-explained and largely commented in the verses 31-34,
in the following terms:
31. Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or
'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?'
32. For the Gentiles seek all these things; and your heavenly
Father knows that you need them all.
33. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all
these things will be yours as well.
34. Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow
will be anxious for itself. Let the day's own trouble be
sufficient for the day .
iv

It appears with evidence that the Christ was exerting himself

to shift the eyes of humans from their "needs", which absorbed
them, towards the superior plane, towards, the one thing
needful .
v

This said, let us return to the very text of the prayer. Its
examination demonstrates that four of the five verses of which
it is composed are assigned to divine matters, including the
request not to be led into temptation, but to be delivered from
evil (v. 13). Such that the prayer, and the whole of chapter VI of
the gospel according to Mathew, proves to be harmoniously
consecrated to the principal of the primacy of noumenal life
over phenomenal life, inciting man to concentrate his efforts
towards attaining it, and promising that - if such be the case
- the rest, that is to say that of the plane of life, will be given
over and above.
Only one verse among the five of the prayer is in discord with
the other four, as also with the thirty one verses constituting
the rest of chapter VI. It is the eleventh verse, thus conceived:
11. Give us this day our daily bread .vi

But then, two times, does Jesus affirm that such a prayer is a
prayer of pagans (verses 7, 32). We thus find ourselves in the
presence of a flagrant internal contradiction.
The Russian text, which is derived from the Slavonic, does not
contain the indicated contradiction. It does not speak of daily
bread, but of super-substantial bread; in other words of
"Heavenly bread", of the "living bread" of which Jesus speaks
elsewhere. Thus the harmony of the prayer, as of the whole
chapter VI, consecrated to the idea of regeneration, becomes
reestablished, or better still re-found. The eleventh verse in the
Russian redaction, fits so well with the ensemble of the prayer,
as with the general meaning of the chapter, that it does not
leave the least doubt as to its authenticity. On the other hand,
the termdaily bread, has a significance which is clearly
opposed to the precise meaning of the context.
The Slavic text of the gospel was established in the IXth
century by Constantin the Philosopher, better known by the
name Saint Cyril, and by his brother Saint Method, Greek
scholars, natives of Salonika, knowing the Slavic language to
perfection. And it is undoubted that at that epoch, so rich in
sacred exegeses, the primitive spirit of the texts in question
was translated in accordance with the original meaning. The
modern Slavic languages, notably the Russian, remain very
close to the old Slavonic, which besides is still used in the
orthodox religious functions. And, we have already seen, the
Slavonic term which passed into the Russian without
modification, corresponds exactly to super-substantial
bread and not to daily bread.
If at present we go back to the Greek text, from which Saint
Cyril and Saint Method established the Slavonic text, we find
there the term ? that is to say super-substantial.
Accordingly, the Orient prays not for the substantial but for
the essential. And we mustn't believe that this so important
distinction be the prerogative of theologians or of enlightened
philosophers. While repeating the words of the Pater noster,
the common man, in the orthodox world, prays not for
substantial nourishment, but for the bread descending from
heaven .
vii

Such is one of the striking examples of the divorce which

exists between the Christian Occident and Orient. As we have
seen, here it is not about questions of a dogmatic or
disciplinary order; it is about the spirit of the faith and the
object of the aspirations.
Remains to be known, how the notion of daily bread was able
to substitute itself, in the Occident, to that of super-
substantial bread? How such a metamorphosis could have
taken place? -- This is, evidently, to be placed among the ranks
of the greatest enigmas of modern and contemporary history;
and it's one of the greatest spiritual falls known in the history
of occidental civilization. The question is grave; its bearing is
evident.
If we open the Vulgate, we find therein meanwhile the correct
text: Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie . Inviii

the first translations of the gospel to modern languages, we

still find the same primitive expression. For example, in an
edition done in Lyon, by Nicolas Petit, in 1540, the same verse
is found correctly translated: Donne-nous aujourdhuy nostre
pain supersubstantiel . Let us now open another gospel, dating
ix

to the following century, exactly 1616, which appeared at La

Rochelle. There we find already the modified formula, thus
conceived: Donne-nous aujourd'huy nostre pain quotidien . x

Evidently this formula answered better to the positivist spirit

that was in process of being born during that epoch in modern
Europe. Having come out of the narrow frame of the Civita
Maximas and having gained the open seas, the European was
going then beyond the Oceans, in search certainly not, of
super-substantial bread, but of daily bread, more tangible, and
which seemed to him more real. From then on, this formula
became so rooted in the spirits, that we don't even wish to
believe that by repeating since one's childhood the sacred
words of the Pater noster, we pray for something which at
heart is diametrically opposed to what Jesus taught.
i Mathew, VI, 9-13. In the article Mr. Mouravieff uses the Louis Second translation. Instead of
retranslating the Louis Second into English, I have used the Revised Standard Version.

ii Bene Augustinus contra Adimantum: Particulas quasdam de scripturis eligunt, quibus decipiant
imperitos non connectentes quae supra et infra scripta sunt, ex quibus voluntas et intentio scriptoris
possit intelligi... c4 (c. 14).

iii Mathew, ibid. It is us who highlight in italics. B.M.

iv Ibid. It is us who highlight in italics. B.M.

v Luke X, 42.
vi It is us who highlight in italics. B.M. Let us mention in passing that in the esoteric commentaries on
this verse, the term this day relates to the whole life of he who prays.

vii John VI, 32, 33, 34, 35. And also: Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for
the food which endures to eternal life, Ibid., VI, 27. As well: I am the bread of
life, Ibid., VI, 35, 48, 51, etc.
viii Novum Testamentum, Vugatae Editionis. Ex Vaticanis Editionibus Earumque correctorio. P.
Michael Hetzenauer O.C. Prov. Tirol. sept. Approbatus lector S, Theologiae et Guardianus. Cum
Approbatione Ecclesiastica Omnipote. Libraria Academica Wagneriana, MDCCCIC. Secundum
Matthaem, Caput VI, 11.

ix La Premiere Partie du Nouveau Testament:, en francay, nouvellement reveu &

corrige, Nicolas Petit, Lyon, 1540, p. 7 traduit par Le Fevre.

x La Bible qui est Toute la Sainte Ecriture du Vieil et Nouveau Testament. La

Rochelle, de l'Imprimerie de M. H. Hauttin, par Corneil Hertzmann, 1616.