Following are some notes I made on the book From Symposium to Eucharist, by Dennis Smith, which Dr. Michael White “made” me read after we had a discussion on the origins of the “Last Supper”. Some of it may not make much sense if you have not read the book, but I hope that I have explained the issues and my positions well enough to make most of it understandable.

Interesting Apocrypha quotes

Note the correlation between Jubilees 7:20-21 and Acts 15. (“Noahide” commands)

20 And in the twenty-eighth jubilee [1324-1372 A.M.] Noah began to enjoin upon his sons’ sons the ordinances and commandments, and all the judgments that he knew, and he exhorted his sons to observe righteousness, and to cover the shame of their flesh, and to bless their Creator, and honour father and mother, and love their neighbour, and guard their souls from fornication and uncleanness and all iniquity.

21 For owing to these three things came the flood upon the earth, namely, owing to the fornication wherein the Watchers against the law of their ordinances went a whoring after the daughters of men, and took themselves wives of all which they chose: and they made the beginning of uncleanness.

Esther did not defile herself with the Gentile food or wine (14:17 - Greek additions to Esther):

And thy servant has not eaten at Haman’s table, and I have not honored the king’s feast or drunk the wine of the libations. (RSV)

Tobit did not, either (1:5,10-12):

All the tribes that joined in apostasy used to sacrifice to the calf Baal, and so did the house of Naphtali my forefather.... Now when I was carried away captive to Nineveh, all my brethren and my relatives ate the food of the Gentiles; 11 but I kept myself from eating it, 12 because I remembered God with all my heart. (RSV)

Judith brought her own food with her when she went somewhere else, bringing enough to provide for herself. (12:1-2,19):

Then he commanded them to bring her in where his silver dinnerware was kept, and ordered them to set a table for her with some of his own delicacies, and with some of his own wine to drink. 2 But Judith said, “I cannot partake of them, or it will be an offense; but I will have enough with the things I brought with me.” 3 Holofernes said to her, “If your supply runs out, where can we get you more of the same? For none of your people are here with us.” 4 Judith replied, “As surely as you live, my lord, your servant will not use up the supplies I have with me before the Lord carries out by my hand what he has determined.” (RSV)

Smith uses Ben Sira as a model for the entirety of Jewish table practice; however, it is clear that Ben Sira was teaching aristocratic Jews, not the general public. This requires Ben Sira to write from a distinctly Greek/Hellenized context, despite his proclamations regarding observance of the Torah.

Smith gives some interesting information on the “Chaverim”. He says that they made distinctions between themselves and the amei ha’aretz and that they focused on strict observance of purity laws and tithes. Is it possible that they are Beit Shammai portion of the P’rushim we see Yeshua dealing with in the Torat Hashlichim?

Common table customs are not indicative of common understanding. I can easily see Paul giving basic instructions to the Gentiles in Greek cities and teaching them in ways that they can understand. I can also see the Gentile Greek believers continuing to follow their old ritual practices as they adopt new ideas and theologies. We know for sure that the Gentile believers did not observe all of the Jewish practices, else we would not have the “Church” as we know it today. The commonality of the table practices does not require that the “Last Supper” be seen as a Greco-Roman meal and not a Pesach seder.

Notes on the incident at Antioch: Galatians 2:11-14

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? (NASB)

• Paul and Peter are both surprised by the situation. It was atypical, not something that had been encountered much, if ever, before.
• The issue was that of Jewish identity and the common thought of the day that eating with Gentiles would make one impure. Those of the “circumcision group” (and, later, Peter) appear to be experiencing some shock at the idea of eating with Gentiles, since that issue is not encountered in the congregations in Jerusalem.
• Paul’s argument, and Peter’s original perspective, is consistent with Peter’s experience with Cornelius in Acts 10: Gentiles are not impure.

Notes on the issue of meat sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8 and 10):

• Cannot be talking about Jewish believers.
• Gerd Theissen proposes the most likely reason for the discussion: “strong” = rich, “weak” = poor. The poor believers have only associated meat at festival meals, while the rich believers are accustomed to eating meat at most or all communal meals. This is the source of controversy.

The correlations in Paul’s discussion of the “Lord’s Supper” in 1 Corinthians 11 to the Greco-Roman meal practices of the day make sense. I can see easily that Paul’s discussion is intended to make correlations between the practices already being observed by the Gentile believers and the teaching of Messiah’s death. Remember that the context of the book is that of unity. Thus, Paul's approach of building a correlation between the Gentiles’ cultural practices and an ethical teaching on unity is a midrashic approach.

Some questions this brings up:

1. Is the Eucharist in its current form the best manner in which to observe it? (And which form is that?)
2. How much influence did the Greek symposium practices really have on Jewish table practices? How much of the Jewish practices were just outgrowths of the Jewish tradition and prior practice (e.g. hand washing)?

We can’t forget that nothing happens in a vacuum. The practices followed by Yeshua and Paul were influenced by their communities, and the Jewish world was Hellenized to some degree, even in Eretz Israel. How much is probably the real issue up for debate.

Smith does not really go so far as to address the issue of the current form of the Eucharist itself, or even to put into a concise statement what he thinks of its origins. He really appears to be laying a foundation—making the case for symposium influences on the event. The next step I would take is to look at the 1st-3rd century developments of the Eucharist and see how the communal symposium turned into sacrament devoid of a meal setting.

Smith’s work is starkly lacking in discussions on Jewish practice of the day, except for one chapter with few details. This is apparently due to his scholarly focus on Greco-Roman customs and Greek literature. He consistently quotes from Plato and other Greek philosophers and sources, but not from Jewish sources. He then goes on to compare Jewish practice to Greco-Roman practice based on his own context of Greek understanding. I have questions about his knowledge of Hebrew (he offers no interpretations of Hebrew words in the book, and offers no other evidence that he is fluent in the language) and of his knowledge of ancient Jewish sources. For instance, his large discourse on Ben Sira shows a decidedly one-sided approach. He puts a lot of emphasis on a book that is not accepted as canon or even used at all in the Jewish world—more emphasis than he puts on rabbinic writings or other texts of the day. Granted, he book-ends his discussion of the historical place of Greco-Roman meal customs in Jewish society, but he also does not make any attempts to offer other literary evidence on the Ben Sira side, as he does on the Tosefta side.

Labels: Biblioblogging