Drinking blood at a kosher Eucharist? The sound of scholarly silence.
Winter, 2002, by Michael J. Cahill
Abstract
The element of drinking blood in the Eucharistic rite is at once a religious and a theological problem. How does one account for the practice, particularly given the alleged institution by a Jew in a Jewish setting? The lack of adequate attention to this specific issue is extraordinary. Those who insist on the historicity of the institution narratives need to be able to offer a reasonable explanation of a glaring incongruity--simplistic dogmatic assertion does not suffice; those who reject the historicity on the grounds of the incongruity have not provided a satisfactory history of this fascinating religious phenomenon. The state of the question is characterized by a deafening silence, or a tip-toeing side-step, the extent of which needs to be established, and this is done here by means of a comprehensive trawling expedition amidst the shoals of scholarly treatment of the Eucharist. The veritable litany of neglect is revealing. Some shifts in current New Testament scholarship are identified as possible avenues where advances can be hoped for in regard to a sensitive issue.
**********
The fact of the Jewish blood prohibition presents a problem for those who insist on the historicity of the New Testament texts that relate the institution of the Eucharist. This fact has not been given sufficient weight in past and present-day discussion. The problem, which is simply not being addressed, represents a challenge to exegetes, theologians, and historians of religion. Modern developments in New Testament studies allow the influence of the religions of the Greco-Roman world to be assessed afresh to find a solution to what is at once a religious and a theological problem. The Fourth Evangelist has Jesus speaking to "the Jews" of drinking his blood. The notion of drinking blood is expressed four times in as many verses (Jn 6:53-56, RSV). The Evangelist has "the Jews" reply, "This teaching is difficult, who can accept it?" Jesus retorts, "Does this offend you?" This incident is bewildering in terms of dramatic verisimilitude if the passage is taken as an account of an incident in the historical life of Jesus. At any period in the history of the Jewish people the notion of Jews drinking blood would be inconceivable even to those with only the barest acquaintance with Jewish dietary requirements and with the Jewish blood taboo. Can one imagine a Jew (such as Jesus) insisting with other Jews that they drink blood and then acting surprised at their reaction? In what circumstances could such a passage have been written? To explain how the element of blood-drinking entered the Eucharistic rite would be to explain how a context for this passage emerged, and to restore narrative sense to this passage in John's Gospel.
The Jewish attitude to the drinking of blood is illustrated in the story of Samuel's strong reaction to the exhausted soldiers eating the meat with the blood in it (1Sam 14:32). His reaction is clear testimony to the seriousness of the law. Ezekiel 39:17-20 presents a vivid image of the horror evoked by the thought of drinking blood. The oracle presents the overthrow of the enemy in the image of a pagan sacrificial feast to which the vultures and wild animals are invited to "eat the flesh of the mighty and drink the blood" (v 18). Closer to New Testament times, the Book of Jubilees contains expansions on the prohibition of drinking blood that reflect the seriousness of the matter (6:7, 12; 7:28). In the Jewish tradition the disposal of blood was carefully ordered. Physical contact with blood was severely restricted. Its use in the treatment of leprosy (Lev 14:14) and in the consecration of priests was connected with its perceived life-giving properties (Lev 8:23-24).
Modern Jewish practice goes to great lengths to remove all blood, even after the animal has been properly slaughtered; then, the carcass must be "porged" to remove all residual blood, and the meat must be either salted or broiled (Klein: 350). I recognize that some might object to my use of the term taboo as being too strong. It can be conceded that it was not a taboo in an absolute sense. The article Blood in the ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA maintains that we do not have here "a vestige of a primitive taboo but the result of a deliberate reasoned enactment" (4:1115). It continues: "The prohibition of blood is confined to its consumption; it is, however, permitted for other uses, and the Mishnah (Yoma 5:6) states that the sacrificial blood that flowed into the brook of Kidron was collected and sold to gardeners as fertilizer" (4:1116). On the other hand, the meticulous and even scrupulous character of the Niddah legislation gives every impression of dealing with taboo.
The Israelite/Jewish prohibition against blood stands out because in other respects the sacrificial meal as a communion-meal of God and people is a phenomenon found among both Jews and Gentiles. The precise connotation of the shedding of blood has been the subject of debate. W. R. Smith, for example, argued that the basic sacrifice was not a holocaust, and indeed that the sacrificial essence was not to be located in the death of the animal, but rather in the application of the blood that the slaughtering made available (338). Useful studies on the connotation of blood and its shedding can be found in Leon Morris; his views were challenged by Dewar. Dennis J. McCarthy, who studied the subject in the broader context of the "ancient Semitic and Aegean areas," concludes: "As far as we know, the reservation of blood to God because it was life and so divine is specifically Israelite" (176). The Jews differed from their neighbors in the degree of care they took to ensure that the blood was completely devoted to God, while the rest of the meat was theirs, to be eaten. The notion of drinking blood at the Eucharist, therefore, conflicts with an essential distinctive feature of Jewish sacrificial meals.
For convenience, I use the term Eucharist to designate the ritual attributed to Jesus even though I understand that it is anachronistic. I am simply identifying an object that had a trajectory and evolution. Construals of the death of Jesus along the lines of the Paschal Lamb or Yom Kippur do not provide meaningful analogies because neither involved the drinking of blood. That the blood taboo was a prominent issue in the first century of our era is illustrated in the account given by Luke of the Council of Jerusalem. In the formula of the compromise there is no mention of the necessity of circumcision, but the Gentiles have to agree to keep the Jewish dietary rule in regard to kosher meat (Acts 15:20, 29). They must abstain from blood and thus from meat of animals that have not been slaughtered in the Jewish manner. Lake and Cadbury point out that the Jewish objection to blood
was based on Leviticus vii.26, which in Leviticus xvii.10 was specially
extended to cover the "stranger living in Israel": "Whatsoever man there be
of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that
eateth any manner of blood, I will even set my face against that soul that
eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of
the flesh is in the blood" [206].
The early Christian churches were made up of persons of "the house of Israel" and of "strangers." One implication of the conciliar decree deserves to be noted especially. The requirement of avoiding blood was a key element in ensuring the unity of the early Christian communities made up of Jews and Gentiles: it established the conditions that made commensality possible. The blood issue appears to have been more critical than circumcision, in regard to fellowship at meals, pace Bruce Chilton's argument in A FEAST OF MEANINGS (103). It allowed the mixed community to break bread together, to share the Eucharistic meal. It ensured a kosher Eucharist. Can one imagine the drinking of blood at such a meal? Can one imagine Jews being comfortable with what was regarded as a cup of blood on the table?
While there is no extant explicit expression of Jewish reaction in the early centuries to the Christian Eucharistic practice involving blood, yet it is not difficult to imagine what it was. It is likely that an allusion is to be discerned in a work of Justin. Justin accuses Trypho and other Jews of spreading slanders about Christian practices, allegedly involving cannibalism and sexual promiscuity. Trypho denies the charge (Justin, Dialogue: 17, p. 203; 10, p. 199). The admonition "Do not eat blood" is found in the Sybilline Oracles (2:96; Collins). It is, however, found in an extract taken from The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocyclides (cf. 1.31). The editor annotates: "This line is missing in all the important MSS. It is probably a Christian interpolation on the basis of Acts 15:29" (Van der Horst: 575, note d). As regards the date, the editor argues: "[the] cumulative evidence seems to favor a date between about 50 BC and AD 100" (Van der Horst: 567). If it is to be taken as Christian it indicates that the admonition was not understood as applicable to the Eucharist, if indeed the writer knew the rite with a blood component. The same evaluation is to be made of a parallel in the CLEMENTINE HOMILIES, where we read in the exhortation of Peter: "to abstain from the table of devils, not to taste dead flesh, not to touch blood" (7:4). These lines probably witness to the survival of Jewish Christian beliefs but do little more than echo Acts 15:29. That such an observance endured in some circles is reflected in the story of the Martyrs of Lyons: "How could such people devour children when they are not even allowed to drink the blood of brute beasts?" ([section] 5, p. 71). Vermes' observation is an entirely reasonable one:
... the imagery of eating a man's body and drinking his blood ... even
after allowance is made for metaphorical language, strikes a totally
foreign note in Palestinian Jewish cultural setting (cf. John 6.51). With
their profoundly rooted blood taboo, Jesus' listeners would have been
overcome with nausea at hearing such words [Vermes: 16].
The Approach of the History of Religions
Consideration of narrative realism leads to a consideration of the historical development that took place to permit such narratives to be composed. How did the element of blood-drinking ever get into Eucharistic practice? Could it possibly have been initiated by Jesus the Jew or by the first disciples, who were Jews? The History of Religions practitioners in New Testament studies suggested a solution years ago by pointing to similar usage among the mystery religions. Bultmann's proposals, for example, about the format and content of the Eucharist being influenced by Hellenic religious cult meals were formulated in an attempt to explain the texts as they are (144-52). To dismiss his answer is not to settle the question. The accurate description, analysis, and diagnosis of his treatment contrast mightily with the alternative answers that have been and are proposed. David Wenham, for example, writes: "We do believe that the extreme skepticism of some scholars (notably in the Bultmann school) has rightly been rejected by many recent scholars" (21). I would insist, however, that the real and concrete nature of the questions raised by such as Bultmann contrasts sharply with the extremely hypothetical and tentative nature of the offerings of "many recent scholars" (cf. Cahill: 1992; 1998)
Frequently, rebuttal of such as Bultmann consists in establishing that the phenomenon in question can be satisfactorily explained from within the resources of Judaism David Wenham, for example, comments in regard to Paul's idea of Baptism: "Some have suggested that Paul was influenced by the Greek mystery religions in his concept of dying and rising with Christ. But this hypothesis is unnecessary and unlikely: Baptism is a very Jewish phenomenon" (155). The phenomenon of blood-drinking, however, is one that simply cannot be similarly addressed from within Judaism.
Charles Guignebert provides a handy summary of the History of Religions viewpoint A synthesis such as Guigenebert's is derived from and representative of the classic treatments of the subject:
In several of these Mysteries of salvation, particularly the Mysteries of
Attis, the symbolism of blood played a very important part. It was an
extremely common belief in the ancient world that by drinking the blood,
or, later on, by immersion in or sprinkling with the blood, it was possible
to absorb the qualities of the god whose blood was so used.... It is the
symbolic significance of the blood which pervades the whole of the Pauline
eucharistic system, giving it its wealth of doctrinal meaning, and throwing
the significance of the bread into the shade.... We may say that it is
inevitable that he should, in all good faith, attribute to Jesus the
institution and the meaning of the eucharist; but he was unconsciously
influenced in this, as in his whole conception of Christ, by the ideas
current in his environment concerning salvation and the means of obtaining
it [446-47].
Such views have been perpetuated in authoritative sources, such as TDNT (Behm: 176).
Today, of course, one could dispute the attribution to "Paulinism" of the usage of drinking blood. This raises the same problem as in the case of Jesus. That any cradle Jew could conceive of, or invent such a practice is difficult to understand. Loisy's blunt assertion is eloquent: "Let it be said in passing that this idea of communion with God by drinking the blood of a sacrificed victim was never born in the brain of a Jew" (247). That any Jew could come to accept the practice is of course almost equally problematic. The account in 1 Corinthians of Paul's handing on of the institution of the Eucharist has met with a variety of critical responses Loisy, for example, refused to accept the authenticity of the institution report in 1 Corinthians 11:23-33, regarding it as an interpolation, as an element in a process of transformation. "The account of the mystic Supper, in First Corinthians, belongs to the evolution of the Christian Mystery at a stage in the development of that mystery earlier than Justin, earlier even than the canonical edition of the first three Gospels but notably later than Paul and the apostolic age" (245). Others, such as Guignebert, assert that Paul accepted the church's tradition as of the Lord (443, 447). It is interesting to find the following concession by David Wenham, who consistently articulates the conservative point of view in this area: "... when it comes to the idea of participation in the death of Jesus, Paul does go well beyond the hints in the Jesus-tradition, though those hints are there (e.g., the `take up your cross' saying)" (155; cf. 185-86, 185, n. 57; cf. "the almost mystical language" [190]). Guignebert draws attention to the fact that Paul could, quite comfortably, associate the Eucharistic meal with "the table of demons" (1Cor 10:20-21) for the purpose of Christian instruction (442). Guignebert notes that this close association or paralleling of Eucharist and cult-meal is also found in Justin's First Apology (446, n. 5; cf. Justin, First Apology, [section] 66, p. 185). Interestingly, nowhere does Guignebert discuss the problem of the Jewish blood taboo. In this regard it is intriguing to find Justin accusing the Mithraists of imitating Christian ritual in their use of bread and water (ibid.).
Hans Lietzman'n in MASS AND LORD'S SUPPER presents the case for "a Hellenistic-Oriental cult-mysticism" being influential in the development of the Eucharist from its simple beginnings as a Jewish fraternal meal with the sharing of bread being the essential element (185, 200). Yet I find it noteworthy that, in his wide ranging study, he never considers the particular problem of the blood taboo. Likewise, I find no attention given to this issue in the well-known study of Richard Reitzenstein, HELLENIC MYSTERY-RELIGIONS: THEIR BASIC IDEAS AND SIGNIFICANCE. In the context of seeking mystical parallels to Paul's eucharistic teaching, he draws attention to a magical text from about the time of Paul, "in which Osiris gives to Isis and to Horus his blood to drink in a cup of wine, so that after his death they will not forget him" (77-78). I find it extraordinary that the inhibiting factor of the blood taboo for Jewish Christians such as Paul does not merit any comment.
The History of Religions School was not a monolith, and the views of Rudolf Otto exemplify a nuance. He considers the origins of the Lord's Supper in Book Three of THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE SON OF MAN. Book Three is entitled "Christ's Last Supper as the Consecration of the Disciples for Entrance into the Kingdom of God." He argues for a simple original rite going back to Jesus as distinct from "such as the fantasy of the disciples subsequently fabricated" (330). His view is that the Last Supper belongs to the category "of the religious festive meal, a `cheber' or a `chaburah' with sacramental character and with ritualistic peculiarities" (278). He views the taking of the cup by Christ as involving a simple blessing or consecration with no reference to covenant blood (286-87). What I find fascinating is the way he accounts for this: "After the wine had been explained as the covenant blood, Jesus could not possibly have gone on to speak of it as a mere festive drink at the future meal" (287). The utterly more fundamental problem of the blood taboo is simply ignored. In an earlier essay, first printed in 1917, The Lord's Supper as a Numinous Fact, he had already argued for the "Qiddush" type Jewish meal as the source of the original Eucharistic rite, and here he explicitly rejected the "theory which has been advanced that the account of the Last Supper is an `aetiological myth' for a rite which originated in Hellenic mystery cults" (46). It is important to note, however, that here he is rejecting the suggestion that Jesus himself saw the rite in relation to the cults. Otto writes: "And in spite of all `religio-historical parallels,' it is almost inconceivable psychologically that such far-fetched ideas should have suggested themselves to Jesus at that moment" (48). Certainly, no one today holds the opinion that Otto rejects. What is argued now is that such cults influenced the evolution of the rite after Jesus. Otto concedes that such influence is possible: "It may be true, as has been so often asserted, that St. Paul's conception of the Supper was already coloured by Hellenistic influence" (50).