Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:54, 19 July 2008

The origins of the Eucharist cannot be absolutely determined. Though "giving thanks" has been a part of religious meal practice from time immemorial, chronologically, the first known to reference the idea of the Eucharist is Justin Martyr, writing around 150, who is generally credited with the first explicit mention of the Eucharist as rite. Around that time Eucharist and the Last Supper started becoming placed in a relation of dependence in many, but not all, Eucharist liturgies, and excerpts from St. Paul's account of a Supper of the Lord in 1 Corinthians, as well as portions of the Synoptic Gospels recounting the Last Supper began being quoted as Words of Institution of the liturgies of Paschal sacrifice.

Many, if not most, Christians believe the origin of the Eucharist was in the Last Supper, at which Jesus established a New Covenant in his body and blood, fulfilling the Mosaic covenant. The Eucharist is an ancient rite or sacrament in which Christians eat bread and drink a cup as the body and blood of Christ. While certain beliefs and practices regarding the Eucharist may have changed over time, the practice of breaking bread in common meals dates back to apostolic times and the earliest Christian writing.

The earliest written account of the Christian eucharistia (Greek: thanksgiving) is often thought to be that in the First Epistle to the Corinthians of the mid-50s, in which Paul the Apostle relates "eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord" in the celebration of a "Supper of the Lord" to the Last Supper of Jesus some 25 years earlier.

The Eucharist is central to the whole of the Roman Catholic Church (not in Rome alone), to the Eastern Orthodox Church, to Oriental Orthodoxy and to several of the Christian denominations that have emerged since the Protestant Reformation. Letters of Ignatius of Antioch speak of it as a central rite for the Christians of the first years of the second century, and it is recorded as celebrated more than half a century earlier by the Christian community at Jerusalem and elsewhere.

Contemporary scholarship examines the questions whether the Last Supper is a necessary antecedant for the liturgy, or whether in 1 Corinthians Paul was passing on apostolic teaching or his own inspiration, whether Jesus meant to institute a ritual at his Last Supper, and whether the Last Supper was an actual historical event in any way related to the undisputed early "Lord's Supper" or "Eucharist". The Eucharist is generally thought to have its antecedents in common meal practice of uncertain origin, which gradually developed into a rite central to the Roman Church in the first two to four centuries of the Common Era.

Liturgies

Like Paul the Apostle, the liturgies that fully developed by the late 300s in the great Anaphoras of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Canon of the Mass of the Roman Rite, and similar anaphoras in other Churches, generally refer explicitly to what Jesus did at his Last Supper, using words that recall what the earliest sources attribute to him on that occasion. These first-century sources, namely the First Epistle to the Corinthians and the three Synoptic Gospels, do not use identical words in recounting what Jesus said at the Last Supper and, like the Words of Institution in the liturgies, do not claim to repeat word for word what exactly he said. A similar variety of expression is found in their accounts of what Jesus said on other occasions, giving the tenor, but not claiming to repeat the exact words of Jesus, which in any case were presumably spoken in Aramaic, not in the language of these sources, which is Greek. The words of institution used in present-day liturgies are different combinations of words given in Saint Paul's letter and in the Synoptic Gospels and may even include words not given in the first-century sources, such as the Roman Rite's "et aeterni" and (formerly) "mysterium fidei".

Ros Clarke says that the evidence from the early church suggests that the words of institution were not then used liturgically, but only catechetically, and so the narrative of the Last Supper was not used in celebrating the Eucharist.

The Roman Catholic Church acknowledges the validity of the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari, which is a Eucharistic liturgy in use from time immemorial that does not expressly contain the words of institution.It has been described as "an authentic anaphora of early Christianity, close to the primordial patterns of the Eucharistic prayer". It speaks of "the commemoration of the Body and Blood of your Christ, which we offer to you on the pure and holy altar, as you have taught us in his life-giving Gospel" and of "commemorating this mystery of the passion and death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ".

(Father Robert Taft) showed that Catholic Masses didn't use the so-called words of institution, "This is my body, this is my blood," until after the Council of Nicaea in 325, and that even then the words of institution were not ordered until the Council of Trent issued a decree in 1531, responding to Luther's challenge over transubstantiation. A final affirmation of the notion that Jesus is not sacramentally present until the priest says the magical words, "This is my body," did not happen until Plus VII issued his brief, Adorabile Eucharistiae, on May 9 1822.

Ros Clarke refers to evidence that suggests that "Words of Institution" were not used in the celebration of the Eucharist during the second century. The liturgical use of the narratives, common today, seems not to have been known in the second century and only developed later in the third century.

Origin

The "Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church" says: "The institution of the Eucharist is recorded by St Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23–25 and in the three Synoptic Gospels." There are thus, as the 1800-page Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church of 2005 states, "four accounts of its institution, one by St Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23–25 and three in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 26:26–28, Mark 14:22–24, Luke 22:17–20)." "It is recorded as celebrated by the early Christian community at Jerusalem and by St Paul on his visit to Troas (Acts 20:7)." The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church concludes that from a very early date the service was a regular part of Christian worship, and was held to have been instituted by Christ.

The term "Eucharist", which became the usual term for the rite, does not appear in the New Testament itself. Early occurrences are in the Didache, Saint Ignatius of Antioch and Saint Justin Martyr. Its use "is explained either because at its institution Christ 'gave thanks' or because the service is the supreme act of Christian thanksgiving."

The first-century Christian Eucharist - it is disputed whether it was considered identical with the agape feast in connection with which it was celebrated - was a communal supper with ritual prayer and blessing. Like Jewish banquets of the time, it followed Hellenic practices. Soon the agape feast and the Eucharist were separated.

The Didache, probably of the start of the second century, but which some attribute to the first century itself, states: "Let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs."

View that Eucharist was originally unrelated to the Last Supper

Paul Bradshaw argues in Eucharistic Origins that it is not until after the first century and much later in some areas that the Eucharist and the Last Supper became placed in a relation of dependence: many Eucharists did not relate to the Paschal mystery and/or the Last Supper. What Paul the Apostle wrote in the middle of the first century is usually understood as placing the celebration in a relationship with the Last Supper.

Passover, Kiddush and Chaburah: Jewish Ritual Meal Practice

Scholars have associated Jesus' Last Supper and the first-century Eucharist practices with three Second Temple Jewish meal practices: the Passover Seder meal, the kiddush blessing with wine, and the chaburah fellowship.

Passover Seder

The Synoptic Gospels speak of the Last Supper as a Passover meal. Passover commemorates God's saving of his chosen people, the Israelites, who, according to Exodus 12:1–29, were spared death through the blood of lambs. The Christian concept of Jesus as the Lamb of God whose sacrificial blood takes away the sin of the world reflects this Jewish tradition. The Passover Seder involves four cups of wine.

In the Gospel of John, the Last Supper takes place the day before Passover. Paul the Apostle does not mention Passover in relation to the Last Supper.

"Whether the Last Supper was a Passover Meal (as the chronology of the Synoptic Gospels would suggest) or not (as St John), it is clear that the Eucharist was instituted at Passover time, and Christian writers from Saint Paul onwards have stressed that the death of Christ was the fulfilment of the sacrifice foreshadowed by the Passover."

Kiddush

The Johannine Supper, Ratcliffe has suggested, was the Jewish ordinance known as Qiddush, the details of which involved the leader of the mixed-sex ceremony taking a cup of wine, sanctifying it by reciting a thanksgiving blessing, and passing it around. There was a similar blessing and breaking of bread. Qiddush is the "Jewish benediction and prayer recited over a cup of wine immediately before the meal on the eve of the sabbath or of a festival. After reciting the Ḳiddush the master of the house sips from the cup, and then passes it to his wife and to the others at the table; then all wash their hands, and the master of the house blesses the bread, cuts it, and passes a morsel to each person at the table.

Joachim Jeremias, in about the same time period, disputed the view that the Last Supper was Qiddush , because the Kiddush was always associated with the sabbath, and even if there was a Passover Kiddush, it would have taken place immediately before the seder, not the day before. Jeremias argued in favor of a Seder as Last Supper.

Ratcliffe wrote: "Though the Qiddush accounts for the '' Last Supper, it affords no explanation on the origin of the eucharist . . . the Last Supper and the Sabbath-Passover Qiddush was therefore no unusual occurrence. It represented consistent practice since Jesus had first formed the group. It is from this practice, rather than from any direct institution from Jesus, that the eucharist derives its origin. The practice was too firmly established for the group to abandon it, when its Master had been taken away; the primitive apostolic eucharist is no other than the continuation of Jesus's chaburah meal. This is the 'breaking of bread' of Acts ii. 42."

Chaburah

The chaburah (also 'haburah', pl 'chaburoth') is not the name of a rite, rather it was the name of a group of male friends who met at regular intervals (weekly for Dix) for conversation and a formal meal appurtenant to that meeting. Nothing is said about them in the Bible but scholars have been able to discover some things about them from other sources. The corporate meeting of a chaburah usually took the form of a supper, held at regular intervals, often on the eve of sabbaths or holy days. Each member of the society contributed towards the provision of this common meal.

The form of the supper was largely the same as the chief meal of the day in every pious Jewish household. Each kind of food was blessed when it was first brought to the table. At the end of the meal came the grace after meals - the Blessing or Benediction as it was called. This long prayer was said by the host or father of the family in the name of all who had eaten the meal. On important occasions, and at a chaburah supper, it was recited over a special cup of wine known quite naturally as "the cup of blessing." At the end of the Thanksgiving prayer this cup was sipped by the leader and then by each of those present. The chaburah supper was concluded by the singing of a psalm, after which the meeting broke up.

Jeremias also disputed that the Last Supper was a chaburah meal, interposing the objection that the chaburah was a "duty" meal, held appurtenant to a formal occasion such as a 'bris' or a betrothal.

Banquet and Cult: Two Prongs of Hellenistic Ritual Meal Practice

Deipnon, libation and symposion

Analysis of Jesus' meal practice, including the Last Supper, requires familiarity with Greek banquet meal practices, established centuries earlier.

In the 8th century BC, the Judean shepherd/prophet Amos denounced the luxurious social and ceremonial religious practices of Israel's wealthy and referred to these practices (assemblies, feasts, reclining, songs, harp music, ointment, and bowls of wine) negatively.

During the Second Temple period, Hellenic practices were adopted by Jews after the conquests of Alexander the Great. By the 2nd century BC, Jesus Ben Sirach writing in the longest biblical wisdom book, Ecclesiasticus, described Jewish feasting, with numerous parallels to Hellenic practice, without disapproval..

Gentile and Jewish practice was that the all-male participants reclined at table on their left elbows, and after a benediction given by the host (in the case of a Jewish meal), would have a deipnon (late afternoon or evening meal) of bread with various vegetables, perhaps some fish or even meat if the meal was extravagant.

Among the Greeks, a ritual libation, or sacrificial pouring out of wine, followed, with another benediction or blessing, leading to the 'symposion' (as in Plato's Symposium) or wine-drinking course and entertainment. Thus was established an order of breaking bread and drinking wine. Cups of wine were even passed from diner to diner as a way to pass responsibility for speaking next. "Plutarch spoke in the highest terms of the bonds created by the shared wine bowl. His words are echoed by Paul who spoke of the sharing of bread and wine as the act that created the one body, that is to say, it was a community-creating ritual."

Mystery Cults

Parallel to the religious duties to god and state, "the Hellenic world also fostered a number of 'underground' religions, which countless thousands of people found intellectually and emotionally satisfying." They were known as the "mysteries," because their adherants took oaths never to reveal their rites to the uninitiated. Several honored young male gods born of a divine father and human mother, ressurected after a heroic death. In some of these secret religions "celebrants shared a communal meal in which they symbolically ate the flesh and drank the blood of their god."

Dionysus cult

Early Christianity spread through a Hellenized populace. Jewish feast practices had taken on Hellenic forms. Hellenic culture recognized several gods of death and rebirth, such as Osiris. The deity most similar to the Christ of the Eucharist is Dionysus. Dionysus was the god of the vine, and his feasts included wine that was the god himself, sacrificed for those at the feast. Dionysus was the son of Zeus, the king of the divine mountain. Zeus raised Dionysus from the dead and made him immortal.

Dionysus was the most famous dying and resurrected god, son of the King of the gods and a mortal mother. Zeus raised his son from the dead, granting him everlasting divinity. He was "god of 'the vine' - representing wine, the most universally popular beverage in the ancient world." "To quote Euripides statement, he was the libation, 'The god who himself is offered in libation to the other gods.' In this passage the identification of the god with the wine is as absolute as the identification of Christ in Catholic thought with the consecrated wine of the mass, or, to cite an illustration from the far away religious system of the Vedas, the identification of the god Soma with the soma drink. . . Under such circumstances the devotees of Dionysus would be sure of the presence of the very god himself in the consecrated wine made from the sacred grapes."

The modern scholar Barry Powell says that Christian notions of eating and drinking the "flesh" and "blood" of Jesus were influenced by the cult of Dionysus. He says that Dionysus was distinct among Greek gods, as a deity commonly felt within individual followers. Willoughby writes "The wine they drank was for them potent with divine power--it was the god himself, and the very quintessence of divine life was resident in the juice of the grape.. . The drinking of wine in the service of Dionysus was for them a religious sacrament. . . . The devotees of Dionysus had other realistic means of attaining to communion with their god. They had a sacrament of eating as well as a sacrament of drinking. This rite was the "feast of raw flesh." To be an initiate into the mysteries of Dionysus . . . (t)hey Quaff the goat's delicious blood. . . (t)he devotees tore asunder the slain beast and devoured the dripping flesh in order to assimilate the life of the god resident in it. Thus when the Bacchanals by the sacraments of eating and drinking entered into direct communion with their god, they became partakers of his immortality. In assimulating the raw flesh wherein the god was temporarily incarnate and in drinking the juice of the grape, they received into their bodies an undying substance.

Mithras

The following is said to be a ritual enunciation by Mithras: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."

Pre-Pauline Confluence of Greek and Hebrew Traditions

By the time the Roman conquest, Jews practiced festive dining in essentially the same form as the Greeks, with a dinner (deipnon) followed by the symposium proper, where guests drank wine and enjoyed entertainment or conversation. There were, to be sure, cultic differences, such as a berachah over the wine cup instead of the Greeks' libation to Dionysus. But eating together was a central activity for Jewish religious groups such as Pharisees and Essenes.

"Thanksgiving" (in Greek, "εὐχαριστία") is probably to be regarded as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "ברכה" , the Jewish "blessing" (in Greek, "εὐλογία" ) "addressed to God at meals for and over the food and drink. It is in this sense that the term was originally used in connection with the common meal of the early Christian community, at which the 'blessing' or 'thanksgiving' had special reference to Jesus Christ."

One formulation had it that "(t)he eucharistia was the berakhah without the chaburah supper, and the agape is the chaburah meal without the berakhah.

Agape feast

The Eucharistic celebrations of the early Christians were embedded in, or simply took the form of, a meal. These were often called Agape Feasts, although terminology varied in the first few centuries along with other aspects of practice. Agape is one of the Greek words for love, and so "agape feasts" are also referred to in English as "love-feasts".

This Hellenic ritual was apparently a full meal, with each participant bringing a contribution to the meal according to their means. Perhaps predictably enough, it could at times deteriorate into merely an occasion for eating and drinking, or for ostentatious displays by the wealthier members of the community. This was criticized by Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:20–22.

Soon after the year 100, Ignatius of Antioch refers to the agape or love-feast: "Let that eucharist alone be considered valid which is celebrated in the presence of the bishop, or of him to whom he shall have entrusted it. ... It is not lawful either to baptize, or to hold a love-feast without the consent of the bishop." Letter 96 from Pliny the Younger to Trajan in about 112 suggests that "a common but innocent meal" was celebrated among early Christians. Tertullian too writes of these meals. Clement of Alexandria (c.150-211/216) distinguished so-called "Agape" meals of luxurious character from the agape (love) "which the food that comes from Christ shows that we ought to partake of". Accusations of gross indecency were sometimes made against the form that these meals sometimes took. Referring to Clement of Alexandria, Stromata III,2, the Christian editor, perhaps Philip Schaff (1819-1893), commented before the discovery of the Didache: "The early disappearance of the Christian agapæ may probably be attributed to the terrible abuse of the word here referred to, by the licentious Carpocratians. The genuine agapæ were of apostolic origin (2 Pet. ii. 13; Jude 12), but were often abused by hypocrites, even under the apostolic eye (1 Corinthians 11:21). In the Gallican Church, a survival or relic of these feasts of charity is seen in the pain béni; and, in the Greek churches. in the Template:Polytonic or eulogiæ distributed to non-communicants at the close of the Eucharist, from the loaf out of which the bread of oblation is supposed to have been cut."

Augustine of Hippo also objected to the continuance in his native North Africa of the custom of such meals, in which some indulged to the point of drunkenness, and he distinguished them from proper celebration of the Eucharist: "Let us take the body of Christ in communion with those with whom we are forbidden to eat even the bread which sustains our bodies." He reports that even before the time of his stay in Milan, the custom had already been forbidden there.

Canons 27 and 28 of the Council of Laodicea (364) restricted the abuses. The Third Council of Carthage (393) and the Second Council of Orleans (541) reiterated this legislation, which prohibited feasting in churches, and the Trullan Council of 692 decreed that honey and milk were not to be offered on the altar (Canon 57), and that those who held love feasts in churches should be excommunicated (Canon 74).

There have been various survivals and revivals, however. In the 18th century, Pietist Christians began to hold Love Feasts that looked back to the ancient Agape. Many Christians today after celebrating the Eucharist or another liturgy, now routinely participate in an informal sharing of light refreshments and conversation. This post-Eucharistic gathering is often called "fellowship hour" or "coffee hour" and is regarded by many clergy as a particularly opportune time for engaging adults in Christian education. Others hold ritual Agape meals.

See also Agape feast.

Allusions to the Eucharist in the New Testament

Common meals figured significantly in Jesus' ministry. In accordance with Jesus' general message of forgiveness and inclusion, Jesus ate meals with outsiders. According to both Matthew and Luke, critics called him a "glutton and a drunkard, a friend of publicans and sinners." Unlike John the Baptist, Jesus drank wine.

The New Testament recounts a number of practices of religious table fellowship that would later be called eucharistic. Paul the Apostle devoted about two percent, of his First Epistle to the Corinthians, usually dated to A.D. 52–57 and nothing in any of his other letters, addressing behavior at a meal that the Corinthian Christians had at their meetings that he did not deem worthy to be called "a Supper of the Lord." (κυριακὸν δεῖπνον). Paul's letters are more likely to have been read at meals than at "business meetings."

Dennis E. Smith says that the earliest Christians worshiped at table in their hosts' dining rooms. and that the earliest Christians shaped the traditions about Jesus to fit that setting. In his study Dining Posture in Ancient Rome: Bodies, Values, and Status concerning practice at the meals designated in Latin by the word "convivium", equivalent to "deipnon" and/or "symposion" in Greek, </ref> Matthew D. Roller states that the number of participants at such meals in private houses, as opposed to other specially designated places, would be at most a dozen.

Dennis E. Smith also says that the symposium after the meal was the time for teaching and conversation, for the singing of hymns, for the contributions of those who prophesied or spoke in tongues.

Paul had first evangelized the inhabitants of Corinth, in Greece, in 51/52 C.E. Paul's nascent congregation there was made up of pagan, not Jewish, converts.1 Corinthians 12:2 All first generation Christians were necessarily converts, either pagan or Jewish. They had written him regarding numerous matters of concern1 Corinthians 7:1. Criticizing what he had heard of their meetings, at which they had communal meals, one paragraph in Paul's response reminded them about what he asserted he had "received from the Lord" and had "passed on" about Jesus' actions and directives at his Last Supper. The ambiguities some find in that wording has generated reams of books, articles and opinions about the Origins of Eucharist. Most students of eucharistic origins agree that the Last Supper (a one-off event) and eucharist (a periodically repeated rite) are not the same thing. Clearly the religious table fellowship tradition had been going on in the Early Christian Church antedating Paul's conversion, unless the contention is made that Paul invented it. See table below for Paul's paragraph regarding the Last Supper (1 Corinthians NRSV).

The paragraph preceding this (1 Corinthians 11:17–22) gives Paul's complaints against how the Corinthians actually celebrated "the Lord's Supper", and the two paragraphs that follow it (1 Corinthians 11:27–34) give his appeal to them to celebrate it worthily, since otherwise they would be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord.

Ratcliffe, writing in the 1926 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, said: "The eucharist, therefore, for Paul was in some way a re-presentation of the crucifixion, ordained by Christ himself to assure to His followers the enjoyment, until his proximate return, of the blessings which the crucifixion, as a covenant sacrifice, had secured. This interpretation, however, cannot be taken as current outside the Pauline sphere influence. Paul himself fails to cite the general assent of Christians in confirmation of the tradition which he asserts."

In his 1994 book, A Feast of Meanings: Eucharistic Theologies from Jesus through Johannine Circles, Bruce Chilton wrote that Paul "indeed 'received from the Lord' (1 Corinthians 11:23, through Cephas (Galatians 1:18), what he 'handed over' (1Corinthians 11:23) to his hearers. … He reminds his hearers of what he already had taught as authoritative, a teaching 'from the Lord' and presumably warranted by the earliest 'pillars': in that sense, what he hands on is not his own, but derives from his highest authority, 'the Lord' (11:23)."

Eugene LaVerdiere wrote: "That is how Paul introduced the tradition, presenting himself as a link in the chain of Eucharistic tradition. He received (paralambano) the tradition of Eucharist in the early 40s while in the community at Antioch. He handed it on (paradidomi) to the Corinthians in the year 51 when first proclaiming the gospel to them. Like Paul, the Corinthians also were to become a link in the chain of Eucharistic tradition, handing on to others what Paul handed on to them. Several years later, circa 54, Paul reminded them of this in 1 Corinthians."

James Still admits that most contemporary commentators argue that what Paul "receives from the Lord" is church tradition with the authority of the Lord behind it, rather than a direct revelation from Christ, and quotes as representatives of this view Kilmartin, Jeremias and Marshall. But he himself argues that Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians , "denies that any of his teachings are from other men in authority", "goes to great lengths to distance himself from the Jerusalem Church and its gospel", and "goes on to contrast his gospel from the perverse teachings of those 'who were reputed to be something' (the three 'pillars' of James, Cephas, and John) and to defend himself from their interference". He then mentions as a possibility that "Paul needed to look no further for his soteriology than the pervasive Dionysian cult in the pagan world", but adds: "However, it is not necessary to think that he went outside of Hellenistic Judaism for his gospel."

Jesus' Last Supper is an event so significant to the Early Church that all four Gospels include a version. See table below. A passage found only in Luke records a command, echoing Paul, that the breaking of the bread be done "in remembrance of ", though is does not specify whether it should be performed annually, as per the Passover, or more frequently. A number of commentators conclude that passage, i.e., the second half of 22:19 and all of 22:20 are later interpolations. The Rev. E.C. Radcliffe, the Canon of St. Mary's, Ely, writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica 13th Edition (1926) Eucharist article, declared: "The textus receptus indeed includes the command, but the passage in which it occurs is an interpolation of the Pauline account; and whatever view be taken of the Lucan text, the command is no part of the original. The evidence, therefore, does not warrant the attribution to Jesus of the words 'This do in memory of Me'." Jeremias says "Do this in remembrance of me " would better be translated "That God may remember me."

Acts 2:42 and 2:46 tell of the very first Christians "continuing steadfastly in the breaking of bread", interpreted by some as a reference to Eucharist, written some twenty years later than the reference in 1 Corinthians.

Chapters 13-17 of the Gospel of John attribute to Jesus a series of teachings and prayers at his Last Supper, but does not mention any meal rituals. On the other hand, John 6, in particular verses such as 6:55–56 ("For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him"), is widely interpreted as an allusion to the Eucharist. Peculiarities in phrasing as compared to the Synoptics are thought to reflect the liturgical tradition of the Johannine community.

The term "Agape" or "Love-feast" appears in the New Testament epistle dated to the turn of the second century, in Jude 12: "These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they boldly carouse together, looking after themselves". J.C. Lambert stated that the general opinion in 1915 was that, though held together, the Agape and the Eucharist were distinct, the Eucharist coming at the end of the Agape, as the special rite instituted by Jesus followed a celebration of a Passover meal.

Development of the Eucharist tradition

The historical record is too sparse in original texts to put a date upon the first use of the term "eucharistia" as referring to the name of an ecclesiatical ritual and not ordinary thanksgiving for a common meal.

The epistles of Apostolic Father and traditional second pope Clement of Rome makes no explicit reference to Eucharist. The Didache contains, among its components, the earliest surviving written church order. It is usually dated to the early second century.. A composite of several documents, it includes ritual prayers and a mention of what it calls the εὐχαριστία (Thanksgiving or Eucharist). According to the overwheling consensus among scholars, the section beginning at 10.1 is a reworking of the Birkat hamazon the prayer that ends the Jewish ritual meal. (see The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity by Hubertus Waltherus Maria van de Sandt, David Flusser pp 311-2)

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, writing circa 107-110 CE referred to Eucharist three times in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans and once in his Letter to the Philadelphians, though they contain no reference to bread and wine. A Glossary of Eastern Orthodox Terms quoted in Father Symeon Ioannovskij, Orthodox Publishing Society. concludes that for Ignatius as well as Saint Hippolytus of Tome the two terms, "eucharist" and "love-feast" were synonymous.

Justin Martyr, writing around 150, is generally credited with the first explicit mention of the Eucharist as rite. He gave a detailed description of a baptismal rite, and stated that "Eucharist" was the name that Christians used for the bread and wine shared by the participants at the baptism: "And this food is called among us eὐχαριστία" ... "

Christians came to describe the Eucharist as a sacrifice, specifically an unbloody sacrifice. It was said to be particularly beneficial when undertaken for the aid of the dead in the intermediate state between death and the Resurrection (see Requiem mass).

In the Greek Church, priests came to use leavened bread, in order to further distinguish Christianity from Judaism, and its tradition of unleavened bread at Passover. In the Latin Church, priests used either. In the 15th century at the Council of Florence, this difference, along with papal supremacy, purgatory, and one word in the Latin version of the Nicene Creed, were among significant disputes between the Greeks and Latins. (See Azymite.)

The 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church gives a modern summary of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on the Eucharist.

Modern Scholarship

Worldwide practice

Early in the 20th century, Edward Carpenter advanced the theory that the Christian Eucharist arose from a ubiquitous worldwide practice of sacramental sacrifice or memorial, with wine symbolizing blood.

Problem of the historical Jewish prohibition against blood-drinking

In a 10,000 word analysis in the Biblical Theology Bulletin of 2002, Michael J. Cahill surveys the state of scholarly literature from some seventy cited sources, dating from the 1950s to the present, on the question of the liklihood of a Jewish Jesus proposing the drinking of blood in the Eucharist.

After examining these various theories that have been put forward, he concluded:

The survey of opinion, old and new, reveals wide disagreement with a fundamental divide between those who can accept that the notion of drinking blood could have a Jewish origin and those who insist that this is a later development to be located in the Hellenistic world. What both sides share is an inability to proffer a rationally convincing argument that can provide a historical explanation for the presence of this particular component of the Eucharistic rite. Those who hold for the literal institution by Jesus have not been able to explain plausibly how the drinking of blood could have arisen in a Jewish setting. In fact, this difficulty has been turned into an argument for authenticity. For example, Jeremiah quotes Dalman: "Exactly that which seems scandalous will be historical" (170-71). W. D. Davies draws attention to the fact that Dalman also argued that the Pauline version of the institution arose in a gentile environment to eliminate the difficulties presented by the more direct Markan form (246). It would appear to be obvious that the difficulties would have been greater in a Jewish environment. Davies' conclusion is apt: "When such divergent conclusons have been based upon the same evidence any dogmatism would be foolish" (246). On the other hand, I have earlier argued that previous suggestions supporting the non-Jewish source have been vitiated by vague generalities or by association with inappropriate pagan rituals.

Psychedelic Mushroom theory

John Allegro and Carl Ruck claimed that Jesus was seen as a vegetation god incarnated, like Dionysus and Osiris, as an entheogenic plant or fungus or both.

Jesus Seminar

“The purely symbolic meal of modern Christianity, restricted to a bit of bread and a sip of wine or juice, is tacitly presupposed for the early church, an assumption so preposterous that it is never articulated or acknowledged.” This quotation reflects the iconoclastic view of an inter-denominational group of contemporary scholars, led by the Jesus Seminar, "a research team of about 200 New Testament scholars founded in 1985 by the late Robert Funk and John Dominic Crossan under the auspices of the Westar Institute", which has analyzed the historical record of the Eucharist. They reached consensus among themselves that, based on the deeply ingrained Jewish prohibition against drinking blood, and the pervasive history of Greek memorial dining societies, the rite of the last supper "had its origins in a pagan context." They also reached consensus among themselves that the Last Supper, as it is depicted in Mark, was not a historical event. And since Matthew and Luke copy Mark in some sections (though Luke draws on other sources at this point), adding what the Seminar called a mere touch here and there, Luke even adding a second cup, they declared that the accounts of Matthew and Luke also cannot be held to be historical. Other reasons the Seminar thought the tradition ahistorical: the earliest collection of Jesus' teachings, the Q Gospel and the recently rediscovered Gospel of Thomas make no mention of any last supper.

Crossan suggests that there are two traditions "as old as we can trace them" of the eucharist, that of Paul, reflecting the Antioch Church's tradition, and that of the Didache, the first document to give explicit instruction regarding prayers to be said at a celebration that it called the Eucharist.

The cup/bread liturgy of the Didache, from the Jerusalem tradition, does not mention Passover, or Last Supper, or Death of Jesus/blood/body, and the sequence is meal + thanksgiving ritual. For Crossan, it is dispositive that

even late in the first century C.E., at least some (southern?) Syrian Christians could celebrate a Eucharist of bread and wine with absolutely no hint of Passover meal, Last Supper or passion symbolism built into its origins or development. I cannot believe that they knew about those elements and studiously avoided them. I can only presume that they were not there for everyone from the beginning, that is, from solemn formal and final institution by Jesus himself.

The Western Catholic Church itself in 2001 controversially validated an ancient East Syrian Eucharist liturgy without any literal Pauline words of institution, known as the Anaphora or Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari, on the basis that "the words of the institution of the Eucharist are in fact present in the anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in the form of a coherent narration and in a literal way but in a euchological and disseminated manner, that is to say they are integrated in the prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession which follow." The Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari "was the only anaphora in general and continuous use by that Church of the East from time immemorial until the time of Mar Isaac the Catholicos and his synod of A.D. 410."

Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, in the context of correcting the eating habits of the Corinthians serves to reestablish "the Pre-Pauline tradition, ritual of bread/body + meal + ritual of cup/blood." Hellenized Jew Paul references a Greek Lord's Supper which is not a Passover meal, and does not have the participants giving thanks ("Eucharistia"), rather the purpose is to proclaim Jesus' death until he comes again, in the manner of Hellenic societies formed "to hold meals in remembrance of those who had died and to drink a cup in honor of some god."

Both sequences underline the primary importance of the Shared Meal to historical First Century Christian ritual. In the Jerusalem tradition, of James and Peter, the meal is of higher importance than blood and body since the Didache fails to mention them. Both traditions reflect the pitfalls of a shared meal among social unequals, namely freeloading. The Didache says in 12:3-4, if you work, you eat. Paul, in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says if you don't work, you don't eat. "Both stipulations must presume a communal share-meal or they make no sense." The administrative difficulties of communal meals, easily glossed over in a small congregation of Jewish peasants, become more intractable as the church succeeds and grows and adds Gentile adherents, foreshadowing the eventual reduction to symbolism over substance.

Six "Eucharists" in the New Testament

In this ongoing search for eucharistic origins, the work of Bruce Chilton, a Catholic apologist writing to counter Crossan, suggests that we have been able to "find" in the New Testament six different ways of celebrating what Christians came to call the Eucharist, and to locate each of these in its own specific socio-religio-political setting. If Chilton's exegetical findings are accurate, this would seem to make irrelevant a number of time-honored scholarly approaches. Fundamental to these traditional scholarly approaches was, first, the "literally true" vs. "literary fictions" debate, and, second, the assumption that there was a unified line of development from the established Eucharist of later centuries back close to the time of the historical Jesus.

Catholic Answer to Historical Objections

Professor Robert J. Daly, S.J., proposes a synthesis between the orthodox and the skeptic, acknowledging the historical evolution of the Eucharist while not abandoning the faith that informs it. He argues that Jesus did indeed institute the Eucharist, even though it would take generations and centuries of guidance from the Holy Spirit for the Eucharist to reach its current form.

References

1. Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome (1996). "The First Letter to the Corinthians". In Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, Roland E. Murphy (ed.). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. p. 799. ISBN 0-13-614934-0.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link). See also First Epistle to the Corinthians#Time and Place
2. 1 Corinthians 11:27–28
3. 1 Corinthians 11:17–34
4. "Let that eucharist alone be considered valid which is under the bishop or him to whom he commits it" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6 ); "Give heed to keep one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup unto union with His blood. There is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants; that whatsoever you do, you may do according unto God" (Letter to the Philadelphians, 4).
5. ^ Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3), article Eucharist
6. Ratcliffe, E.C., Encyclopaedia Britannica (1926), Eucharist (vol. 8)
7. Crossan, John Dominic, The Historical Jesus, pp 360-367
8. Bradshaw, Paul, 'Eucharistic Origins (London, SPCK, 2004) ISBN 0-28105-615-3, p. 10.
9. "The liturgical use of the words seems to be a relatively late phenomenon. McGowan points to evidence from the Didache and Justin Martyr which suggests that the words of institution were not used in the celebration of the Supper during the second century. Justin Martyr, at least, had access to the words of institution but used them for catechetical rather than liturgical purposes. The words enabled believers to understand the sacrament but were not essential for celebration of the sacrament."(The Function of the Words of Institution in the Celebration of the Lord's Supper).
10. "The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative … the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession." (Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, section 3. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari).
11. Joint Communiqué of the First Non-Official Consultation on Dialogue within the Syriac Tradition, Vienna June 1994
12. A. Gelson, The Eucharistic Prayer of Addai and Mari 121-123, quoted in Bulletin of the Pro Unione Centre in Rome, Spring 2003, p. 27
13. Rome diary: new thoughts on Eucharist Catholic New Times, May 4, 2003 by Robert Blair Kaiser <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_8_27/ai_111026181">FindArticles - Rome diary: new thoughts on Eucharist</a> Catholic New Times, May 4, 2003, by Robert Blair Kaiser
14. "McGowan points to evidence from the Didache and Justin Martyr which suggests that the words of institution were not used in the celebration of the Supper during the second century. Justin Martyr, at least, had access to the words of institution but used them for catechetical rather than liturgical purposes. The words enabled believers to understand the sacrament but were not essential for celebration of the sacrament. If it is the case that the liturgical use of the narratives was not known in the second century and only developed later in the third century, it is surely unlikely that there was an earlier first century liturgical tradition reflected in the NT texts." - Clarke, Ros, The Function of the Words of Institution in the Celebration of the Lord's Supper , The Theologian (2005)http://www.theologian.org.uk/church/wordsofinstitution.html
15. ^ [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1O95-Eucharist.html Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2000 ISBN 0-19-280057-4)
16. Didache, 9:5
17. Bradshaw, Paul, Eucharistic Origins (London, SPCK, 2004) ISBN 0-28105-615-3, p. 10.
18. Cf. John 1:29
19. 1 Corinthians 5:7
20. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3), article Passover
21. Ratcliffe, E.C., Encyclopaedia Britannica (1926), Eucharist (vol. 8, p. 793)
22. Ratcliffe, E.C., Encyclopaedia Britannica (1926), Eucharist (vol. 8, p. 793)
23. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online.
24. Adler, Cyrus & Dembitz, Lewis N., The Jewish Encyclopedia (1911) ḲIDDUSH
25. Joachim Jeremias, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960, first ed. 1935): ET: The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London: SCM. 1966: repr., Philadelphia: Westminster. 1977)
26. Ratcliffe, E.C., Encyclopaedia Britannica (1926), Eucharist (vol. 8, p. 793)
27. Dix, Gregory, The Shape of the Liturgy, p 50
28. Rev. Dr. Frank Peake, Manual: The Evolution of the Eucharist
29. Dix, Gregory, The Shape of the Liturgy, p 50
30. Rev. Dr. Frank Peake, Manual: The Evolution of the Eucharist
31. Jeremias, Joachim, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960, first ed. 1935): ET: The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London: SCM. 1966: repr., Philadelphia: Westminster. 1977)
32. ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
33. Eerdmanns Dictionary of the Bible, Meal Article, p 875 (2000) ISBN 0802824005
34. Amos 6:1–7
35. Sirach 31:12–32:13
36. Smith, Dennis Edwin, "From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World" 2003 Fortress Press 352 pages ISBN 0800634896.
37. Smith, Dennis THE GRECO-ROMAN BANQUET AS A SOCIAL INSTITUTION 2003
38. Harris, Stephen L. 'Understanding the Bible' Fourth Edition p 286
39. Harris, Stephen L. 'Understanding the Bible' Fourth Edition p 286
40. Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. (Mayfield Publishing Company 4th ed.).ISBN 1-55934-655-8
41. Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. (Mayfield Publishing Company 4th ed.) p 287.ISBN 1-55934-655-8
42. ancientlibrary.com
43. Powell, Barry B., Classical Myth Second ed. With new translations of ancient texts by Herbert M. Howe. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1998.
44. http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/pr/pr05.htm PAGAN REGENERATION A STUDY OF MYSTERY INITIATIONS IN THE GRAECO-ROMAN WORLD BY HAROLD R. WILLOUGHBY Chapter III
45. Godwin, J (1981). Mystery Religions in the Ancient World. Thames and Hudson.
46. Ratcliffe, E.C., Encyclopaedia Britannica , Eucharist (vol. 8, p. 793)
47. Dix, Gregory, The Shape of the Liturgy, p 99
48. Smyrnaeans, 8
49. Apology, 39; De Corona Militis, 3.

    Yet about the modest supper-room of the Christians alone a great ado is made. Our feast explains itself by its name. The Greeks call it agapè, i.e., affection. Whatever it costs, our outlay in the name of piety is gain, since with the good things of the feast we benefit the needy; not as it is with you, do parasites aspire to the glory of satisfying their licentious propensities, selling themselves for a belly-feast to all disgraceful treatment,—but as it is with God himself, a peculiar respect is shown to the lowly. If the object of our feast be good, in the light of that consider its further regulations. As it is an act of religious service, it permits no vileness or immodesty. The participants, before reclining, taste first of prayer to God. As much is eaten as satisfies the cravings of hunger; as much is drunk as befits the chaste. They say it is enough, as those who remember that even during the night they have to worship God; they talk as those who know that the Lord is one of their auditors. After manual ablution, and the bringing in of lights, each is asked to stand forth and sing, as he can, a hymn to God, either one from the holy Scriptures or one of his own composing,—a proof of the measure of our drinking. As the feast commenced with prayer, so with prayer it is closed.

50. Paedagogus II, 1
51. "Sed majoris est Agape, quia per hanc adolescentes tui cum sororibus dormiunt, appendices scilicet gulae lascivia et luxuria" (Tertullian, De Jejuniis, 17, quoted in Gibbons: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire).
52. both books of debatable apostolic origin since Eusebius' Antilegomena: "Among the disputed writings, ]] which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter . . . And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books. ]]" Church History 3.3.5
53. The Ante-Nicean Authors vol. 2, Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) Elucidations (1867)
54. Letter 22, 1:3
55. Confessions, 6.2.2
56. The Council of Laodicea in Phrygia Pacatiana
57. Sample services can be consulted at An Agape for Easter and A Pentecost Agape
58. one paragraph of 133 in the NASB translation
59. Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome (1996). "The First Letter to the Corinthians". In Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, Roland E. Murphy (ed.). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. p. 799. ISBN 0-13-614934-0.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link). See also First Epistle to the Corinthians#Time and Place
60. 1 Corinthians 11:20 Not τὸ κυριακὸν δεῖπνον, and so, in this context, "the Lord's supper" means "a supper of the Lord" rather than "the supper of the Lord".
61. From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World. By Dennis E. Smith. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
62. (Smith, Dennis The Greco-Roman Banquet as a Social Institution 2003)
63. From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World. By Dennis E. Smith. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
64. While some scholars speak of "convivium" as equivalent to "symposion" – e.g. "the convivium, a Roman equivalent to the symposium with drinking, entertainment and conversation" (Women and Meals in Antiquity), the ancient writers, such as Cicero (De senectute, 45), who are quoted in Lewis and Short (Lewis and Short: convivium) apply it to the whole meal, "deipnon" and "symposion". Still more important in the present context is the fact that Tertullian speaks of the Lord's Supper (the Pauline "κυριακὸν δεῖπνον") precisely as the "dominicum convivium" (see Ad uxorem 2:4:2, and translation).
65. "The term convivium labels a late afternoon or evening meal taking place in a domestic dining room or garden, hosted by the proprietor of the residence, involving some combination of family members and guests numbering anywhere from a very few up to perhaps a dozen (nine is an ideal but not necessarily standard number), and ordinarily employing a single triclinium, the three-sided arrangement of couches commonly used for dining during the period of this study. ... "civic" dining, which occurred on special occasions such as festivals, was publicly sponsored or paid for by a single donor, and might involve large numbers of people spread over many triclinia in the public spaces of cities and towns; or, alternatively, involved a college of priests or magistrates whose meals might be paid for publicly or by an endowment, and might occur in specially designated spaces." (Matthew B. Roller: Dining Posture in Ancient Rome: Bodies, Values, and Status, Introduction)
66. From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World. By Dennis E. Smith. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
67. Meier, John, "The Eucharist and the Last Supper: Did it Happen?" Theology Digest 42 (Winter, 1995) 335-51, at 347.
68. Ratcliffe, E.C., Encyclopaedia Britannica (1926), Eucharist (vol. 8)
69. A Feast of Meanings: Eucharistic Theologies from Jesus through Johannine Circles, by Bruce Chilton 1994 ISBN 9004099492 p. 110
70. The Eucharist in the New Testament and the Early Church By Eugene LaVerdiere, 1996 ISBN 0814661521 p.31
71. The Institution Narrative of Luke 22:19-20
72. Karris, Robert J. (1996). "The Gospel According to Luke". In Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, Roland E. Murphy (ed.). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. p. 715. ISBN 0-13-614934-0.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)).
73. For instance, John 6, The Eucharist, and Protestant Objections; The Institution of the Eucharist in Scripture, etc.
74. Perkins, Pheme (1996). "The Gospel According to John". In Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, Roland E. Murphy (ed.). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. p. 962. ISBN 0-13-614934-0.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
75. Eucharistic Sacrifice in the New Testament
76. With this reproach against some people who participated in the love feasts, compare 1 Corinthians 11:21.
77. Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. "Entry for 'AGAPE'". "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia". <http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T270>. 1915.
78. Bruce Metzger Metzger, Bruce. The canon of the New Testament. 1997
79. Apology, 66)
80. Part Two, Section Two, Chapter One, Article Three, beginning with The Sacrament of the Eucharist
81. "(A)s instances of early Eucharists we may mention the following cases, remembering always that as the blood is regarded as the Life, the drinking or partaking of, or sprinkling with, blood is always an acknowledgment of the common life; and that the juice of the grape being regarded as the blood of the Vine, wine in the later ceremonials quite easily and naturally takes the place of the blood in the early sacrifices. Thus P. Andrada La Crozius, a French missionary, and one of the first Christians who went to Nepaul and Thibet, says in his History of India: "Their Grand Lama celebrates a species of sacrifice with bread and wine, in which, after taking a small quantity himself, he distributes the rest among the Lamas present at this ceremony." "The old Egyptians celebrated the resurrection of Osiris by a sacrament, eating the sacred cake or wafer after it had been consecrated by the priest, and thereby becoming veritable flesh of his flesh." 1 As is well known, the eating of bread or dough sacramentally (sometimes mixed with blood or seed) as an emblem of community of life with the divinity, is an extremely ancient practice or ritual. Dr. Frazer 2 says of the Aztecs, that "twice a year, in May and December, an image of the great god Huitzilopochtli was made of dough, then broken in pieces and solemnly eaten by his worshipers." And Lord Kingsborough in his Mexican Antiquities (vol. vi, p. 220) gives a record of a "most Holy Supper" in which these people ate the flesh of their god. It was a cake made of certain seeds, "and having made it, they blessed it in their manner, and broke it into pieces, which the high priest put into certain very clean vessels, and took a thorn of maguey which resembles a very thick needle, with which he took up with the utmost reverence single morsels, which he put into the mouth of each individual in the manner of a communion." Acosta 3 confirms this and similar accounts. The Peruvians partook of a sacrament consisting of a pudding of coarsely ground maize, of which a portion had been smeared on the idol. The priest sprinkled it with the blood of the victim before distributing it to the people." Priest and people then all took their shares in turn, "with great care that no particle should be allowed to fall to the ground--this being looked upon as a great sin." 4 Moving from Peru to China (instead of 'from China to Peru') we find that "the Chinese pour wine (a very general substitute for blood) on a straw image of Confucius, and then all present drink of it, and taste the sacrificial victim, in order to participate in the grace of Confucius." And of Tartary Father Grueber thus testifies: "This only I do affirm, that the devil so mimics the Catholic Church there, that although no European or Christian has ever been there, still in all essential things they agree so completely with the Roman Church, as even to celebrate the Host with bread and wine: with my own eyes I have seen it." 1 These few instances are sufficient to show the extraordinarily wide diffusion of Totem-sacraments and Eucharistic rites all over the world. Carpenter, Edward 'Pagan & Christian Creeds' (1920)
82. Drinking blood at a kosher Eucharist? The sound of scholarly silence
83. For instance, Hyam Maccoby proposes that "Paul, not Jesus, was the originator of the eucharist, and that the eucharist itself is not a Jewish, but an essentially Hellenistic rite, showing principal affinities not with the Jewish qiddush, but with the ritual meal of the mystery religions." John M. G. Barclay "stresses the anomalous nature of Paul. If Paul's status were to be determined on the single issue of the drinking of blood, it would have to be conceded that Paul simply moves off the scale." A. N. Wilson, whose work, Cahill says, synthesizes scholarly trends, distinguishes between the Jewishness of Jesus and Paul: "... the idea that a pious Jew such as Jesus would have spent his last evening on earth asking his disciples to drink a cup of blood, even symbolically, is unthinkable". He sees no problem, however, in proposing "the genius of Paul," "Paul's fertile brain," as the source of the Christian Eucharist incorporating the blood-drinking element. Cahill writes: "It is instructive to recall the context in which the drinking of blood was acceptable. First-century folk who participated in mystery cult rituals were no more tolerant of cannibalism than we are. There is no evidence that, in itself, drinking of blood was not revolting for them, generally speaking. Yet, we find it in religious ritual. The reason is that they were drinking the blood of an animal that had been numinized in some way and had come to be identified with the god. Drinking the blood of a god was acceptable." Otfried Hofius, argues for the authenticity of the passage in 1 Corinthians where Paul speaks of the Eucharist, writing: "A convincing proof that the Apostle has himself encroached on the wording of the tradition delivered to him has not thus far been adduced." David Wenham writes: "Jesus typically uses vivid, almost shocking metaphors (e.g., Matt 18:8, 9/Mark 9:43-48). Furthermore, that the shocking eucharistic words came to be accepted by Jewish Christians (including Matthew) may suggest that they were not quite as unacceptable as Vermes supposes or that they had a strong claim to authenticity, since they would not easily have been accepted if they were not in the Jewish Christian tradition." John Meier, too, insists on Jesus' propensity to use "shocking symbols", in reference to the words of the institution narrative and in his "deliberate flouting of certain social conventions". He gives particular attention to "a subversive aphorism of Jesus," referring to "Let the dead bury their dead."
84. Allegro, John, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross 1970; The Eucharist Was Visionary Plants
85. Robert Jewett, “Tenement Churches and Pauline Love Feasts,” Quarterly Review 14 : 44
86. Funk, Robert, and the Jesus Seminar, "The Acts of Jesus" Harper Collins, 1998, p. 139
87. Crossan, John Dominic, "The Historical Jesus" HarperCollins 1992 p 364
88. http://www.kaldu.org/3_chaldean_culture/TheAnaphora_ApostlesAddai_Mari.html The Anaphora of Addai and Mari, A Study of Structure and Historical Background by Bishop Sarhad Yawsip Jammo (2002)
89. Crossan, John Dominic "The Birth of Christianity, Harper/Collins, 2002, p. 436
90. Funk, ibid. at 139-140
91. Crossan, Ibid.
92. Crossan, John Dominic, The Historical Jesus," pp 360-367
93. Daly, Robert J., S. J., 'Eucharistic origins: from the new testament to the liturgies of the golden age." Theological Studies March , 2005
94. "Is this what Christ did at the Last Supper? Was the Last Supper a Eucharist in this full sense of the word? Obviously not. This does not deny that Jesus instituted the Eucharist. What Jesus did at the Last Supper is obviously at least the generative moment of the institution of the Eucharist. But Eucharist in the full sense we have just described? No, that was still to come. The Holy Spirit had not yet been given to the Church, nor had the trinitarian theology yet been developed that is at the heart of the classical Eucharistic Prayers. Thus the Church, the assembly of those who address the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit, was not yet constituted at the Last Supper. The Eucharist that Christians now celebrate is what the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit of the risen Jesus, and over the course of generations and centuries, learned to do as it celebrated table fellowship with its risen Lord." Daly, Robert J., S. J., 'Eucharistic origins: from the new testament to the liturgies of the golden age." Theological Studies March , 2005

• Eucharist