Elements of a Eucharistic Interpretation
ELEMENTS OF A EUCHARISTIC INTERPRETATION
PLT) 6. Let grace come and let this world pass.
Hosanna to the God of David.
If one is holy let him come, if not let him be converted.
Maranatha. Amen.
7. Afterwards, let the prophets give thanks as they please.
This issue has been finally resolved by the work of J-P. Audet on the literary genre of the Jewish blessing, 3 corrected by the observations of Talley who criticized his excessive schematization, which on the one hand simplifies and on the other partly violates the Jewish data on which the research is based.4
Another element which we are sure of today is the essential relationship between the thanksgiving prayer and the development of the Jewish meal in its various ritual forms. But what is still much discussed is which amongst the various kinds of sacred meals of Judaism could be the form-type that has given rise to the Christian eucharist and to the eucharistic anaphora.> Characteristic is the position of Dom B. Botte, in which he denies that one can exactly identify the Jewish liturgy from which the Christian anaphora is directly derived.
Equally sure is the essential relationship between Didache 10 and the birkat ha-mazon,® a thanksgiving prayer at the end of the Jewish supper. The comparative work done by Finkelstein'? and Dibelius® is already known and needs no further demonstration.
The consequence of all this,is that the explanation of chapters 9-10 of the Didache will necessarily have to begin from the Jewish practice of the ritual meal.
For the interpretation of the eucharistic prayers of the Didache recognition of this fact is necessary but not sufficient.
One is, in fact, dealing with Christian or rather Jewish-Christian 3 J.-P. Audet, La Didaché, Instructions des apétres (Paris: Gabalda 1958) pp.
372-410; also, "Esquisse du genre littéraire de la bénédiction juive et de Veucharistie chrétienne", RB 65 (1958) pp. 371-399.
4T. J. Talley, "De la "berakah" a l'eucharistie, une question a réexaminer", La Maison-Dieu 125/1 (1976) pp. 11-39. An English version appears in "From Berakah to Eucharistia:
A Reopening Question", Worship 50/2 (1976) pp. 115-137.
5 L. Ligier, "Les origines de la priére eucharistique", Questions Liturgiques 53
(1972) pp.
181-202; H. Cazelles, "Eucharistie, bénédiction et sacrifice dans l'Ancien Testament", La Maison-Dieu 123 (1975/3) pp. 7-28.
6 K. Hruby, "La "birkat ha-mazon"", in Mélanges Liturgiques offerts au R. P. dom Bernard Botte (Louvain: Abbaye du Mont César, 1972) pp. 205ff; L. Ligier,
"Origines", p. 194; W. Rordorf, "The Didache", in The Eucharist of the Early Christians (New York: Pueblo 1976) pp. 8-9.
7 L. Finkelstein, "The "birkat ha-mazon"", JOR 19 (1928-1929) pp. 211-263.
8 M. Dibelius, "Die Mahl-Gebete der Didache", ZNW 37 (1938) pp. 32-41.
ENRICO MAZZA
texts, and so the gospel message must be the principal guide, the reading grid for their correct interpretation.
This relationship with the New Testament has been undervalued too often. We do not entirely support the assertion of Middleton who claims that the work of the writer of Didache was, in effect, a "Christianization of the Jewish prayer".? Instead we would say that the work of the Didachist was a profound reelaboration of the Jewish theology expressed in the meal prayer, to convey the soteriological themes of the New Testament, even though in the initial phase of their elaboration and theological genesis.
It is above all the method of this comparison with the New Testament that needs to be changed. If our text is actually contemporary with the elaboration of the various redactions of some
NT texts, it will not simply be a case of looking for NT themes in the Didache but rather the opposite;!° in any case, the working hypothesis must not be rejected a priori.!! We hope to find this treatment in the edition of the Didache that Rordorf and Tuilier have prepared for the collection Sources Chretiennes.'2
In fact, nearly all the critics admit that these two chapters of the Didache are prior to the final editing of the work and have been integrated in the body of the work at a later date.!3 This has been ably demonstrated by both Audet!4 and Gibbins;'5 the latter
9 R. D. Middleton, "The eucharistic prayers of the Didache", JTS 36 (1936) p.
266.
10 We must suppose that the Christian community had immediately begun to live according to the message of Christ in continuity with what the apostles had experienced in living with him. Under the influence of the Spirit his teaching matured in them and the memory of Jesus became the source from which they drew all that the community required by way of regulation for the growth of the faith. On the other hand, the community gathered together for the "breaking of the bread" which could not be omitted from the message and proclamation of Jesus. Hence we believe that there is both an interaction and a reciprocal conditioning between the way of life of the first Christians, with their pastoral requirements, and the redaction of the gospel texts in their various phases and stages.
'l Here it seems that Audet eliminated this possibility too quickly, almost a priori: "If the Teachings of the Apostles have seen the light of day in Antioch, and if they could have been earlier than a part of the New Testament writings, it would not be impossible a priori that the latter carried to some extent the trace of their existence...But, in fact (sic!), neither in the Pauline letters nor elsewhere has the little collection of the Teachings of the Apostles left any trace" (Didaché, p. 213).
12 W. Rordorf & A. Tuilier, La Doctrine des douze Apétres (Didaché), Paris:
Les Editions du Cerf, 1978 (SC 248). This article was published before its appearance in print.
13-W. Rordorf, "Didache", p. 2.
14 Didache, pp. 174ff, 189-190.
15H. J. Gibbins, "The problem of the liturgical section of the Didache", JTS 36 (1935) pp. 373-386. Cf. specially the synthesis of pp. 385-386.
ELEMENTS OF A EUCHARISTIC INTERPRETATION
gives the origin of Didache 9-10 as 30-70, and is even prepared to accept the earlier part of this period.'6
I. THE DATE
1) To determine the date of the eucharistic prayers in the Didache, Audet uses various arguments; one of these exemplifies his method.
Audet argues that "Hosanna to the House of David" (Did 10:6) is an acclamation almost unthinkable after the events of 70
C.E.!7 He compares this concept of the salvation of Israel with the events of 70 C.E. We will compare Did 9:2 with the sense of the so-called Council of Jerusalem in the same way, in order to get a date, as a terminus ad quem:
We give thanks to you, our Father, concerning the holy Vine of David your servant, which you have revealed to us through Jesus your servant.
The wine brings to mind the vine whose hidden sense has been revealed through Jesus. This vine of David is distinct from Jesus, who is only its revealer; we cannot identify Jesus and the vine of David: the object or anamnesis of the "blessing" is the vine on its own. This object of "blessing" will be one of the great works which God has completed, the meaning of which has been revealed in the work of Jesus.
Rordorf!® has documented the fact that inside Judaism there was emphasis on "a current of ideas that represented the kingdom of David in the form of a vine";!9 so it follows that the great work of God, object of the thanksgiving of Did 9:2 is the kingdom of David, or rather the saving economy which is achieved in the history of Israel.
This economy reaches its fullness in the "revelation" of Jesus, who through the title, matc, is in a sense compared to David as protagonist of the saving work of God. The 16 The argument, based above all on the use of klasma, does not seem particularly convincing, given that it involves the thorny problem of the meaning and dating of the various accounts of the multiplication of the bread both within the Johannine tradition and in the synoptic tradition.
17 Didaché, pp. 189ff. There is no need to provide a discussion of the reading "house of David" in place of "God of David", today considered preferable. Audet has made his choice on the basis of the /ectio difficilior.
18 W. Rordorf, "La vigne et le vin dans la tradition juive et chrétienne", in Annales de I'Université de Neuchatel 1969-1970 (Neuchatel:
Université de Neuchatel 1971) pp. 131-146.
Reprinted in Liturgie, foi et vie des premiers chrétiens. Etudes patristiques (Paris: Beauschesne, 1986 [ThH 75]) pp. 493-508
19 Tt seems that Rordorf's interpretation is better motivated than that accepted by J. Jeremias drawn from R. Eisler: "iwép tio a&yiac d&prédov Aavid Tod maddc¢ gov, "of whom David, thy servant, speaks" (i.e., in Ps. 80:8ff.)." J. Jeremias, art. taic Geod, in TDNT V, p. 700.
ENRICO MAZZA
kingdom of David is presented as the fulfillment of the divine promise in the gift of the land, which in the Old Testament is the most important theme.
David is the "blessed" of God and "wherever he went, God gave him victory" (2 Sam 8:14). Above all, we note that the victories of David are crowned with the taking of Jerusalem, which will be called the City of David, and so David and the House of Israel form a single people around their God. All this has, through Christ, a new sense and a deeper meaning, which nevertheless does not separate itself nor oppose itself to the salvation history of Israel.?°
From this point of view Christianity presents itself as a development and explication of Judaism, within which it remains.
Effectively, an incipient Christology could well conceive Christ as a son of Israel, who has remained within Judaism, showing its true nature, without necessarily constructing something different.
Even if Jesus has shown a certain liberty as regards the prescriptions of the ancients in the matter of keeping the law, he has nevertheless remained within the channel of practicing Judaism: like every pious Jew of his time, he regularly participated in the temple cult, the pilgrimages at the festivals and in the synagogue cult of the Sabbath. "In this his reforming will is found to be in precise continuity with the prophetic tradition."2! The temple is the house of his Father; here he teaches, and the possibility of its destruction brings tears to his eyes.22 The same may be said for the weeping over Jerusalem because of its rejection of his invitation to gather together its children (Lk 13:34).
In an incipient Christology it is logical to have the "blessing" of God for the kingdom of David of which Jesus has shown us the fulfillment. Revealed in this way by Jesus, the kingdom of David is an object of blessing as a historical reality, which has retained its saving power even in the new economy."3
The Council of Jerusalem?* is intended to be a reply to the problem posed by the "Judaizers" in Acts 15:1: "If you do not become circumcised according to the Law of Moses, you will not 20 R. Motte, "David", in Vocabulaire de théologie biblique (Paris, 1962) p. 191.
21 P. Grelot, "Liturgie", in M. Viller, F. Cavallera & J. de Guibert (eds.) Dictionnaire de spiritualité, ascetique et mystique, doctrine et histoire, (Paris:
Beauchesne, 1976) vol. 9, col. 877.
22 Ibid.
3 Properly speaking, there is only one economy; therefore, our benediction would become a unique oddity because the-controversy with the Judaizers forced the Church to separate from Judaism, constituted as if in a "new" distinct economy, even if not opposed to the kingdom of David.
2 We say Council of Jerusalem leaving open the problem of the relation between the apostolic decree and the epistle. For a discussion of this, cf. J. Dupont, a = les Actes des Apétres (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1967 (Lectio Divina 45)] pp.
56-75).
ELEMENTS OF A EUCHARISTIC INTERPRETATION
be saved". It became necessary to discuss the question of soteriology which required the clarification of the relationship between the Torah and faith in Jesus.
The reply of the apostles is that in order to be Christian it is not necessary to become a Jew. However, some Jewish observances are enforced to avoid unnecessary motives for conflict between Jewish-Christians and Hellenic Christians. The decree is the fruit of a proposal by James. It is natural, therefore, that it represents the needs of the Jewish-Christians;?5 nevertheless, the affirmation of Peter is not contested: "We believe that it is by the grace of the Lord Jesus that we are saved, and in the same way them also." (Acts 15:11) The 7.0.B. comments that Peter is favourable towards an integral status quo: the Jew must continue to accept the Law, but the gentile is not bound by it.26 Furthermore, the soteriological affirmation of Peter is very clear and precise and must have been an already existing formula, given that freedom from the Law—its natural consequence—was part of a missionary practice already applied in Antioch and approved by Jerusalem (Acts 11:22-24).
In Luke's intentions, this text has considerable importance, given the fact that he repeats it three times like the other stories he considers important for the development of the divine plan.27
Besides this, we see that Paul proclaims the decree even outside of the geographical confines indicated in the letter of Jerusalem:
Antioch, Syria, Cilicia. This shows that Luke intends to provide an exemplary model for the encounter of diverse groups on the clear basis of concessions made' by Hellenic Christians towards any relevant norms for the Jewish Christians.
The decision made at Jerusalem was not purely a question of discipline or ecclesial politics; already the Christological consciousness of the Church has matured and has applied to Jesus the title of "Lord", making him the principle of salvation for Jews as for others. It follows that faith in Christ is what saves, not the law of Moses which we could call the kingdom of David.
We do not believe that the conception of Did 9:2 is compatible with the theology represented by the Council of Jerusalem and, therefore, we propose the Council of Jerusalem as the latest date for the two eucharistic texts of the Didache."8
25 C. M. Martini, "Il decreto del concilio di Gerusalemme", in Fondamenti: biblici della teologia morale (Brescia, 1973) p. 349.
26 Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible: Le Nouveau Testament (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1973) ad loc.
27 C. M. Martini, "Il decreto", p. 350.
28 The decision of the Council of Jerusalem intervenes to resolve the problem existing between Jewish-Christians and Hellenistic Christians, who were still a united community of believers: and it was because of this unity that the problem and the polemic emerged. We cannot think that Did 9-10 could have been composed
ENRICO MAZZA
Using the method of dating that J-P. Audet proposes in respect of Did 10:6, it would seem that the theology underlying
Did 9:2 could not have been conceived after the Council of Jerusalem, which critics place in 4829 or 4930 C.E., with margin of error on either side.
In the text of chapters 9 and 10, the same date should be given to the verses which share the same theology as 9:2: without a doubt that applies to the verses which end with "through Jesus your servant". For other verses, such as 10:5, there are no particular reasons to attribute them to a different editorial strata, whilst for 9:4 and 9:5 there appear to be sufficient elements to exclude them from the date when Did 9:2 was edited. But it is worth returning to this with an appropriate study.
2) The theology of the Vine of David shows a close relationship between Judaism and Christianity which perhaps may help to obtain a more accurate chronology.
Putting the holy Vine of David as object of the anamnesis of the "benediction", we have a substantial unity of faith between Judaism and Christianity. If we examine the praxis shown in the NT and look for an analogous situation to the unity of faith expressed in Did 9:2, we can find something in the summary of the Acts: "Day after day, with one heart, they faithfully visited the temple and broke bread in their homes." (2:46).
Here one is describing the custom of the primitive Christian community; next to the "breaking of the bread" is placed frequent visitation of the temple,3! which indicates full participation of the by Jewish Christian dissidents after the Council of Jerusalem given that, in such a case, Our text would have to show traces of an emphasis and of an insistence on the Torah as a basis for salvation, whereas Did 9-10 has the Jewish material as calm and everyday occupation, with elements indeed visible of its having been superseded (10:3). The later insertion into the text of the Didache (to turn strongly polemic against Judaism), makes one think that the two eucharistic prayers must have continued to be considered not philo-Judaic but an expression of a use of traditional signs of an archaic soteriology. This means that they were seen to be—in spite of their decidely Jewish flavour—in harmony with the new attitude that the Church has assumed with respect to the Torah. This would not have been possible if their origin lay in a late Jewish-Christian reversion.
'sais mee Paul, trns. D. M. G. Stalker (London: Hodder & Stoughton, p.
31.
30 L. Cerfaux (ed.), Introduction to Za Bible de Jérusalem. Les Actes des Apotres (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1958?) p. 26.
31 It is worth the trouble to record that the vine forms part of a widely diffused symbol in Jewish decorative art, on the evidence of the mural paintings. In the temple of Herod, before the destruction of 70, there was a grand vine of heavy gold above the entrance. In the description of Flavius Josephus the bunches of grapes were as big as a man and, according to the Mishnah, it took three hundred priests to carry them. Rordorf rules out the possibility that this deals with a pious fraud. In
ELEMENTS OF A EUCHARISTIC INTERPRETATION
Christian community in the cultural life of the Jewish community.
The first faithful did not consider themselves dissidents, but Israelites in the full sense of the word, what is more the true Israel to whom had been entrusted the duty to be the leaven in the midst of the people.32 Certainly, forced by persecution and the aftermath of the case of Stephen, the temple was slowly abandoned,3 at least as a systematic cultic practice.
In conclusion then, we would say that in the summaries of the Acts, we find a way of life which would justify in Did 9:2 the custom of giving thanks for the holy vine of David. The parallelism is quite suggestive.
On the historical value of the summaries, P. Rasco concludes, "The summaries..., even taking into account their limits, are of great importance in order to know the early conditions of the Christian life. Luke has not only conserved in them the primitive and ideal image of the community, but has also proposed an example.
"34
Concluding our consideration of the problem of the date of composition of Did 9-10, we would say that we are dealing with texts seemingly earlier than the Council of Jerusalem, dated 48/49
C.E. These texts describe a type of faith in the primitive community which find a parallel in the summary of Acts 2:46; therefore, the ideal epoch for the life of a community which expresses itself in terms of the theology of Did 9-10, would be in the first three or four years after the death and resurrection of Christ.
Il. THE EUCHARISTIC NATURE OF DIDACHE 9-10
1) The Problem On the meaning of the eucharist of Didache 9-10, there have been many interpretations, none of which are outstanding. It is a matter of determining whether the liturgy described in these two texts represents the celebration of the eucharistic sacrifice or not. In the case of the latter one is dealing with an explanation of the sense of this particular eucharist.
Another element to determine is the relationship with Did 14, where the Sunday eucharistic celebration is described. There are no such doubts about the sacramental significance of chapter 14.
Judaism the picture of the vine expresses all the messianic expectation of the people of Israel. See the documentation in W. Rordorf, "La vigne et le vin", p. 136.
32 Cf. Acts 3:12ff, which shows Peter in the temple while he preached Christ.
33 BE. Rasco, Actus Apostolorum, II (lecture notes) (Rome, 1968) p. 314.
34 Tbid., pp. 327ff.
ENRICO MAZZA
The arguments of those who deny the sacramentality of Did 9-10 are mostly treatments of the contents of the two eucharistic texts, whilst the arguments of those who affirm the sacramentality are mostly taken either from the use that the later tradition has made of our two texts, putting them together with the anaphora, or from the relationship that they have with the first eight chapters of the Didache dealing with the Christian initiation, which cannot but develop into the eucharist. The different nature of the arguments and the diverse method used, sufficiently explain the impossibility of an agreement in the argument.
As a result of these diverse criteria for evaluation, P. Ligier could say that about 30 years ago the commentators hesitated between "agape" and "eucharist proper" and were divided more or less in equal parts between the two interpretations. In the last
30 years, however, it is generally agreed ...that one is dealing with a eucharist proper. "35
Professor Rordorf is of the opposite opinion. Announcing his own intention to show that one is not dealing with a eucharist proper, he concludes: "This is indeed the most common view today." 36
The opinion of Rordorf presents Did 10 as the equivalent of the preface to the Roman mass, the introduction to the eucharistic liturgy proper.37 One is dealing with a sophisticated variation of the opinion of Audet who speaks of a minor eucharist (distinct from the agape) and a major eucharist.
Here we have an ingenious interpretation which, however, presents us with serious questions. What is the minor eucharist, other than an interesting expression. One is not dealing with the ritual meal of Judaism, given that the texts of the Didache are decidedly Christian, so we have to think of a ritual meal not Christocentric enough to represent obedience to the injunction of Christ ("Do this in memory of me..."). Then the question is: what is meant by "sufficiently Christocentric"? We must not forget that we are at the beginnings of the Christian community and that the Christology of our texts is a nascent Christology which is beginning to form itself around the title atc of God.38 This is an archaic title which will quickly be abandoned in subsequent developments, but we cannot speak of "insufficiency" judging the past in the name of what follows it.
~ L. Ligier, I! Sacramento dell'Eucarestia (from the manuscript, Rome, 1971) p.
99.
36 W. Rordorf, "The Didache", p. 6.
37 Ibid., pp. 13¢.
38 Hence the importance of the work of dating; on the basis of a more developed Christology, the text of the Didache is indeed inadequate as a celebration of the mystery of Christ.
ELEMENTS OF A EUCHARISTIC INTERPRETATION
If aig represents the Christological reflection of the first moments of the Christian community, one cannot understand how it can be called insufficient to the "memory" of Christ articulated on moic. Even if we wanted to accept this liturgy as a minor eucharist (to which even Jews who were not Christians but only sympathizers would have access), we would have to ask ourselves in what way the major eucharist would be different from it, given that the Christology could not be different. The so called "major eucharist" would itself be "minor" also and so we would reach the conclusion that the first Christian community had a Christological understanding which did not yet allow them full obedience to the command of Christ, "Do this in memory of me."
With appropriate adaptations these observations are valid also for the positions of Rordorf. In fact, if Did 10 is like a Preface, in what would the eucharistic celebration consist? And what would follow on from this preface? Certainly the liturgy of chapter 14, which defines itself as "sacrifice" three times in three verses; but how would this be conducted and with what eucologia would it have consisted? If we are at the beginning of the development of Christological reflection it is legitimate to think that reflection on the sacraments would be in the same situation.
This is what we would like to suggest.
2) Agape The authors who, for various reasons, could not recognize in chapters 9 and 10 of the Didache a true eucharist, explained this liturgy as an agape. The dilemma has always been: "eucharist or agape?"
In order to explain what an agape was, they fell back on Tertullian3® and on the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus.4° In these texts the eucharist is absolutely distinct from agape and between the two there could be no confusion of any kind. A.
Hamman has made an exhaustive study on the agape, to which we go back. He inserts into the outline already presented by V6dbus and Audet,*! an outline that interprets the agape as an institution born in a pagan land sharply distinct from the eucharist, which-despite the analogies--was never identified with the fractio panis of Jewish origins. It is distinguished by its profound inspiration and the different religious sense given to the meal. Hamman
39 Apology 39 (CC 8, pp. 152f).
; 40 B. Botte, La tradition apostolique de Saint Hippolyte, Essai de reconstruction
(Munster: Aschendorfsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1963) pp. 67ff.
41 La Didaché, p. 406; A. Védbus, Liturgical traditions in the Didache (Stockholm: Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 1968) pp. 69-70.
ENRICO MAZZA
argues also from the use of terminology: the expression fractio panis was never used by the authors who come from paganism to define the agape, and vice versa, the ritual meal was never called agape. Unfortunately, Hamman reads the praxis of the primitive church in the same way as Audet and speaks of a ritual meal which introduces the eucharist*? of the first Christian community.
After the church began to spread and develop in pagan lands, this ritual meal ceased to be that and was transformed into a lovemeal, which took the name of agape. Between the two there is a strict continuity, but one cannot speak of identity. Ritual meal and eucharist are polarized around the invisible Christ, the expected guest at the table, and not around the fellowship which must bind the disciples with each other, the constitutive element of agape.
For this reason one should ban the word agape when one is speaking of the ritual meal; over and above any other consideration, we should eliminate every ambiguity and not project a later institution into an earlier ritual belonging to a diverse cultural area.
To sum up: the agape has its roots in the eucharist, but was only able to emerge when the latter separated from the ritual meal of Judaism in which it was set and with which it formed one united body. After the eucharist diverged from it and became independent of the liturgy of the meal, the latter continued to exist in a different form, the agape,*3 which conserved from the primitive eucharistic liturgy the character of a meal and the social and religious significance of koinonia. The ritual meal did not survive but lost its proper original Jewish component throughout the church. In fact it was too tied to the historical experience of Israel and to its own particular cultural area to survive being transplanted into the world of the gentiles without undergoing profound transformations.'44
On the basis of these elements--however summary--it does not seem correct to impose on the problem of Did 9-10 the classical formula: "eucharist or agape?", precisely for methodological reasons.
Once we have rejected the liturgy of the agape and the word itself, we have to find meaning for the two eucharistic texts of the Didache within the world of Judaism. Ligier offers a good exam2 According to Hamman, the eucharistia does not constitute a corpo unico with the ritual meal, almost interwoven or confused in essence: it would already be an autonomous reality in juxtaposition to the paschal ritual to which it is the introduction. Cf. A. Hamman, Vie liturgique et vie sociale (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf,
1968) pp. 225-226; Id., La vie quotidienne des premiers chrétiens (Paris: Hachette,
1971) pp. 202-207; Id., "Liturgie, prigre et famille dans les trois premiers siacles chrétiens", Questions Liturgiques 57 (1976) pp. 87f.
43 A. Hamman, "Liturgie, prigre et famille", p. 87.
44 J.-P. Audet, Didache, p. 406.
ELEMENTS OF A EUCHARISTIC INTERPRETATION
ple of the application of this method of systematic research into the Jewish sources, even if we have had to point out a terminological /apsus in the use he makes of the word agape.
3) The Jewish Ritual Meal This reality can only be understood from the perspective of the biblical concept of dabar.
"For the Palestinian Elohim, gesture and word are the same act.
It is dabar. His word raises something into being from nothing"
.*© The analogy with the human word underlies this concept; with a word someone enters into your life: here is the first given of our experience of the human word. The word is action, interpersonal action. The ritual meal of Judaism is woven together with words: man blesses God, retelling and celebrating his "great works" undertaken to redeem and build Israel, on the basis of whose accomplishment Israel lives. Israel rejoices in its existence and summarizes this reality in a formal way in the ritual meal, the enjoyment of which becomes "real symbolism" of the enjoyment of God's works. On this and because of this, man blesses God in the celebration of his "works" in the ritual meal. The word of "blessing" and telling of the works of God merges with the actual actions of the supper until it constitutes a single unity with it. The actions of the meal and the prayer of benediction, which is inserted into it, become a new single reality: celebration of the "blessings" of God. With the Jews, the meal has thus a religious and sacred character which escapes our secular mentality. The religious aspect of the meal, although in a global and confused manner, is intrinsic to the actual meal; and is intrinsic in every meal and does not depend on ritual or eucological elements.
On this basic religiosity the real ritual meal may be articulated and developed as a celebration of the "great works" of God and their enjoyment.
The sacrality of the ritual meal is intrinsic to the synthesis between the eucological elements and the food itself, without being able to attribute to any one moment that which one might call "consecrating power". The problem of the validity of the consecration is a problem which does not exist in the Jewish concept of the ritual meal.
The problem is legitimate in itself, but it cannot be posed in the case of the Jewish ritual meal in terms of a correct meth-' odology. But the methodological correctness takes nothing away
45 L. Ligier, "Origines", pp. 181-202.
46 M. Jousse, L'antropologie du geste, vol. 1 (Paris: Gallimard, 1969) pp. 110, 126ff.
ENRICO MAZZA
from the sacrality of the ritual meal; it only prevents us from projecting our own concept of the "sacred" into a reality which cannot hold it because of its different cultural and religious environment.47 The sacred meal is sacred by virtue of its anamnesis of the mirabilia Dei. This is formally expressed in the berakot which accompany and articulate the development of the various ritual meals; these are not to be reckoned among the mirabilia Dei, almost a new intervention of God in history; on the other hand, they are not an anamnesis only as far as the past is concerned, but the actualization today of what tomorrow will be in the final consummatio. The basic meaning of the berakah is described for us by Rabbi Simeon, quoted by El Zohar: "The pious Jew who recites all the berakot prescribed by the liturgical tradition of Judaism, prepares in everything a dwelling for the shekinah."*8 In other words, God is present amongst us thanks to the berakah, and so His presence is the source of sanctification.
At the beginning of the meal we have the giddush with the two blessings of the wine and of the bread, fruit of the earth, which is the first fundamental gift of God to his people. At the end of the meal, with the last chalice, one blesses God who sustains the universe, and gives the earth, food and the benefits of the covenant; the supplication for Jerusalem ends this benediction, the berakot ha-mazon, which is divided into three parts.
These are the elements underlying the ritual meal; depending on the occasion, the berakot may receive various developments or be enriched by a more complex ritual, as in the case of the Passover seder.
In the text and in the structure of the berakot and of the Jewish supper we do not find any allusion to the consecration of the food. There is no invocation to the power of God to bless the food and drink. The pious Jew does not say: "bless and consecrate this food" but rather: "blessed are you, Lord...who brought forth the fruit of the vine". It is a conception of "consecration" (if we wish to call it this) different from the Catholic and Byzantine one, but it is just as much a prospective consecration.
The Pauline text of 1 Tim 4:4f presents this clear Jewish conception of the sacredness of the meal:
For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving (ueTa@ svyapioria); for then it is consecrated (ayia feTar yap) by the word of God and prayer.
*7 In our modern perspective, sacrality would be concerned with not so much the action, as the "ojbect", in other words the food and drink; the sacred stands for what is consecrated.
48 If Did 9-10 edited the Jewish ritual meal appertaining to the same cultural and religious milieu, it does not follow that this beginning still applies for the Didache.
ELEMENTS OF A EUCHARISTIC INTERPRETATION
The berakah expresses and actuates by recognition the relationship between the thing and God and, in it, also our relationship with God. Now a relationship which is expressed in the structure of the berakah cannot be anything but sanctifying.49
If we understand this point of view, we understand the implications of the expression of Justin: evxapioTiberg &proc, "eucharistized bread"
.5° For Paul, the sanctification comes from the word of God and from the prayer,>! which is carried by the berakah; the Pauline text quoted above does not yet concern the celebration of the Lord's Supper, but only the ritual of the meal meant as a sanctification, and in this text Paul is a good witness to the Jewish mentality with respect to the ritual implications of the berakah.°2
4) The Account of the Institution of the Lord's Supper If we ask ourselves what is missing from the Didache in order for it to be accepted as a celebration of the eucharistic mystery, we receive the obligatory response: it lacks the account of the institution.53 a) The Fact The presence of the account of the institution in the anaphora is a continuous and constant fact and cannot be in doubt. On the other hand, there exist various exceptions to the rule: one is dealing with very interesting texts which, as a general rule, are to be noted for their archaic nature. E. Lanne concludes his examination of the problem in this way: "Up until now, this problem has not received any solution of an apodictic nature. Therefore we can
49 R. J. Ledogar, Acknowledgment. Praise-verbs in the early greek anapphora (Rome, 1968) pp. 129-130.
50 J Apol 65:5 (cf. 66:2).
51 R. J. Ledogar, Acknowledgment, p. 130; L. Maldonado, La plegaria eucartstica (Madrid, 1967) pp. 80ff; R. J. Galvin, "Addai and Mari revisited: the state of the question", EphLiturg 87 (1978) p. 410; P. M. Gy, "Eucharistie et
"ecclesia" dans le premier vocabulaire de la liturgie chrétienne", La Maison-Dieu
130 (1977) p. 23. An analogous point of view in G. Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy
(London: SPCK, 1964) pp. 274-275.
52 So says R. Levi: "In accordance with Psalm 21:1, the earth and all that it contains belongs to God. But when (the products of the earth) are sanctified by a benediction, the human being obtains the privilege of rejoicing, in accordance with Psalm 115:6" (bBer 36a). Other elements in K. Hruby, "La notion de "berakah" dans la tradition et son charactére anamnétique", Questions Liturgiques 52 (1971) p.
167; Id., "Le geste de la fraction du pain ou les gestes eucharistiques dans la tradition juive", in Gestes et paroles dans les diverses familes liturgiques: (Conférences
St.-Serge, XXIV Semaine d'Etudes Liturgiques) (Rome, 1978) pp. 123-133.
53 L. Ligier, Magnae orationis eucharisticae seu anaphorae origo et significatio
(in manuscript, Rome, 1964) p. 63.
ENRICO MAZZA
propose this hypothesis, that, for the entire Orient, the account and the words of the Lord were not asked for ad efficacitatem, at least at the beginning."
*4 Amongst these anaphora, the most famous is the anaphora of Addai and Mari. Scholars have discussed at length whether its original form had the account of the institution or not, leaving the problem wide open.
After Macomber had published the text of the anaphora, attested by the manuscript Mar Eshacya (10/11 century), the discussion ended; there never was, in fact, an "original form" of the anaphora of Addai and Mari which was then transformed into the present form.
The anaphora of Addai and Mari has not undergone any degenerative process; it has always been as it is now, without the account of the institution. The problem of the presence or absence of the account of the institution is now moved from the anaphora of Addai and Mari to its origins—a text now lost—from which it would have received both the present form of our text®> and the Maronite anaphora of St. Peter the Apostle (third), commonly called Sharar. This has the account of the institution; hence the problem whether the text-source, the "mother" anaphora, had it or did not have it. The discussion is too recent for certain results.>6
Another interesting text is the anaphora of the Testamentum Domini,57 which carries only the words on the bread from the account of the institution; for the chalice, it is limited to an affirmation of its sacred nature: dedit in typum sanguinis qui effusus est pro nobis
54 E, Lanne, De anaphoris orientalibus praelectiones (in manuscript, Rome, 1966) p. 62. The italics are my own.
55 D. Webb, "La liturgie nestorienne des ap6tres Addai et Mari dans la tradition manuscrite", in B. Botte et (eds.), Eucharisties d'Orient et d'Occident: Semaine liturgique de |' Institut Saint Serge Il (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1970) p. 44.
56 W. F. Macomber, "The oldest known text of the anaphora of the apostles Addai and Mari", OrChrP 32 (1966) pp. 335-371; Id. "The Maronite and Chaldean
Version of the Anaphora of the Apostles", OrChrP 37 (1971) pp. 55-84; Jd., "A Theory on the Origins of the Syrian, Maronite and Chaldean Rites", OrChrP 39
(1973) pp. 235-242; E. J. Cutrone, "The Anaphora of the Apostles", 7hSt 34 (1973) pp. 624-642; J. M. Sanchez-Caro, "La anéphora de Addai y Mari y la anafora maronita "sharar": intento de reconstruccién de la fuente primitiva commtn", ThSt 43 (1977) pp. 41-69; B. D. Spinks, "The original form of the Anaphora of the Apostles: A Suggestion in the Light of Maronite Sharar", EphLiturg 91
(1977) pp. 146-161.
57 A. Hanggi-I. Pahl, Prex eucharistica (Freiburg: Universitatsverlag FreiburgSchweiz, 1968), p. 220.
58 The matter is all the more surprising because the Testamentum Domini has the same source as the anaphora of Hippolytus which contains the account of the insitution complete in all its parts.
ELEMENTS OF A EUCHARISTIC INTERPRETATION
The sixth century anaphora contained in the Codex Brit. Mus.
Add.
14669 is probably without the account of. institution.59
Besides this, the texts of the account of institution which present it in forms which are lacking or unusual are also part of our problem. P. Raes catalogues these texts in five categories. b) The Significance Over and above the historical problem, there is the fact that the church of Malabar celebrated its own eucharist with an anaphora which does not contain the account of the institution. After the Synod of Diamper, requested by the Portuguese, the account of the institution was introduced into the eucharistic celebration and located in the rite of the fractio; but the anaphora still is without the account. Theologically speaking, there is no church without the eucharist: how can one refuse the ecclesial character of the Malabarese community because of the absence of the "words of consecration" in their anaphora? Above all, we must consider the fact that the Jesuits did not modify the text of the anaphora, but were content to insert the "words of consecration" in the fractio.®!
What is the sense and the true function of the account of the institution in terms of the rite of the anaphora? Only as a result of this can one speak of consecratory words.
The account of the institution is closely tied to the anamnesis through the command (mandatus) of Christ, "Do this in memory of me". It is the whole block, centred on the command, which will give an answer to our question as to the sense and function of the account of institution. With the dnamnesis the Church undertakes a theological reflection on the action taking place in the celebration. The church proclaims to the Father that what is celebrated is no other than obedience to and execution of the command of Christ, "Do this in memory of me." In other words: what is being celebrated corresponds to what has been established and instituted by the Lord. With the anamnesis, the Church establishes a line of continuity between our celebration and what happened in the Upper Room (cenaculum) at the Last Supper. This is the fundamental point.
The "line of continuity" is deepened and made more explicit with the concrete narration of what happened in the Upper Room when the Lord said, "Do this in memory of me." Recounting the "Supper" that the Lord made as a proclamation (annuncio) of his
59 R. H. Connolly, "Sixth-century Fragments of an East-Syrian Anaphora", OrChr n.s. 12-14 (1925) pp. 99-128.
60 A. Raes, "Les paroles de la consécration dans les anaphores syriennes", OrChrP 3 (1937) pp. 485-504.
61 H. Manders, "Sens et fonction du récit de |'institution", Questions Liturgiques 53 (1972) pp. 203-218.
ENRICO MAZZA
coming death, the Church calls on what Jesus himself has done in order to justify and give meaning to our own present celebration.
If our celebration conforms to the Lord's Supper, it will be the proclamation of his death and resurrection. In this "conformity" lies the guarantee that the Church is acting truly in the memory of the Lord dead and risen. The entire celebration is a true memorial of the Lord only if it is, in fact, in conformity with what he did, and therefore what he instituted; the Church makes this conformity its theme, by telling of what he has instituted and by explicitly pronouncing its own obedience to his command.
From this standpoint we can conclude that every account of the institution, however mutilated and incomplete, is sufficient to qualify our celebration as in conformity with the command of Christ; this is because the telling explains the connection between the celebration of the Church and the command of Christ. If this is the sense of the account of the institution, we would say that its consecratory validity is in fact in the connection (nexus) under discussion. But one can also say something else: from this point of view there is the true eucharistic celebration each time that this connection is firmly guaranteed, independently of the way in which it is expressed. In this way the anaphora of Addai and Mari is no longer an extra chorum text, given that the connection with the Upper Room and the command of the Lord is guaranteed with clear evidence, not from the extended account of the institution, but from the clear mention of them: Ef nos...accepimus per successionem formam quae a te est.® In this text which lacks the account of the institution, the mention of it expresses in an unequivocal way the relation that the celebration of the church has with what the Lord did in the Upper Room; a model of our proclamation of the death and resurrection of Christ.
When this relation is evident and the intention to do what Christ has done and which he would like us to do is also clear, we have a true and sacramental eucharist.
In Conclusion: the (sacramental) validity of the eucharist in a text of the anaphora is measured by its teleological function, in other words by the meaning (sensus) of the account of the institution, not by its simple presence or absence. In the case of absence, its teleological function may be supplemented or guaranteed by other elements for reflection, inside each single text, that is, by each single eucharistic prayer.
62 Anaphora of Addai and Mari (pro anamnesi); in W. F. Macomber, "Addai and Mari", pp. 367-369.
63 Cf. also G. Dix, Shape of the Liturgy, p. 181.
ELEMENTS OF A EUCHARISTIC INTERPRETATION
3. The Case of the Didache The case of the Didache is not addressed by the above argument which has been used to solve the problem of the anaphora of Addai and Mari and of other analogous texts. In fact, the Didache does not refer to the institution of Christ, either through the telling of it, or, at least at first glance, through a simple reference to it.
Usually, in order to accredit a fully eucharistic reading of chapters 9 and 10 of the Didache, people refer to the eucharistic use made of these texts in later documents. As in the case of the anaphora of the seventh book of the Apostolic Constitutions
,64 which the manuscripts call Gratiarum actio mystica. This text is based directly on Didache 9-10, retaining its structure and amplifying its source to a considerable extent.®> Obviously we do not have the account of the institution, but we do have a clearly expressed reference to it: cum ipse nobis constituerit (diatassi) mortem illius annuntiare.
Must we consider this text as a correct interpretation of the Didache? Is one dealing with a true explanation? Is one dealing with a true explanation of the eucharistic value of the Didache or with an addition that transforms the same Didache into a true eucharist? The command (diatassi) of Christ may be expressed in various ways: we can have only the mention of it, or can we also have its reinforcement through the introduction of various elements of the account of the institution, as, in this case, the command, or its content: "to proclaim his death". This last is the case of the Gratiarum actio mystica. With the process of "reinforcement" of the theme, the simple reference enriches it even to form the whole account of the institution, made up, usually, of a synthesis between the elements taken from the synoptics and from Paul.
64 __.Pro praetioso sanguine Jesu Christi effuso nostra causa et pro praetioso corpore cuius haec antitypa celebramus cum ipse nobis constituerit mortem illius annuntiare. Cf. M. Metzger, "Les deux priéres eucharistiques des Constitutions
Apostoliques", RSR (1971) pp. S9ff.
65 M. Metzger, "The Didascalia and the Constitutiones Apostolorum", in Rordorf et al (eds.), The Eucharist of the Early Christians, op.cit., pp. 205-6.
66 The account of the institution presented in the anaphora does not co-incide with any of the four redactions contained in the New Testament: it simply provides a free composition which embellishes the basic framework of the connection with elements drawn from the New Testament itself or creates ex novo.
It is possible that some texts, instead of drawing on the account of the Upper Room contained in the Synoptics or in Paul, have made use of the eucharistic words' of the Johannine theology. This is the case with the anaphora Sharar which links the command with the theme "Bread of Life": "in commemoratione corporis tui et sanguinis tui quae offerimus tibi super altare tuum vivum et sanctum, quaemadmodum tu spes nostra docuisti nos per evangelium tuum sanctum et dixisti: "Ego sum panis vivus qui de coelo descendi" ut vitam habeant per me mortales".
After this passage there follows immediately the account of the institution, of Pauline workmanship, introduced in a substantially identical way:
Facimus, Domine, memoriam passionis tuae sicut docuisti nos: nocte qua tradebaris...his est
ENRICO MAZZA
If we examine the pluriformity of the anaphoric texts, we see that the account of the institution is not born in them ex abrupto, but is the fruit of a progressive development of the diatassi of Christ.
We believe we can substantiate the hypothesis that the same developmental principle also governed the rise of the simple reference to the institution. In other words, in the eucharist of Did
9-10 we have (de facto) conformity with the command of Christ, even if this conformity is not formulated in an explicit reference to the institution he made. Therefore we believe the argument which is limited to documentation of the eucharistic use of these texts in the seventh book of the Apostolic Constitutions to be insufficient; it is, in fact, necessary to demonstrate that this text explains and formulates the conformity of Did 9-10 to the command of Christ.
One can allow that the Church of earliest times was aware of the "conformity" of its own eucharist to the Lord's Supper, without feeling the need to explain or formulate this conformity by making direct reference to the institution. In fact, because it was so close in time to the religious customs and the protagonists, because the celebration of the Church was so close in time to the Lord's Supper itself, it felt no need to formulate its conformity. The celebration itself, with all its elements, spoke on its own of its conformity with the Lord's Supper, without needing to make the theme explicit.
This awareness would become formal and explicit only when the problem had actually been identified; as we know, that happened almost at once; it is the case in 1 Cor 11, in which Paul accuses the Corinthians that theirs is no longer the Lord's Supper.
The problem is born. From now on people felt the need to refer to the Supper in an explicit and thematic way, so as to guarantee the value of their own eucharist.
The thing is even more evident for the non-Jewish communities which, in terms of time, mentality and religious custom, are the most distant from the celebration of Jesus. The more the Church distances itself from Judaism, and its concept of sacred meal, the more the theme of conformity becomes utilized and secures for itself an entire sector of the anaphoric text; the account of the institution thus becomes a rite within a rite.*7 panis corpus meum illud quod pro vita vita mundi frangitur et datur...; accipite manducate ex hoc et erit vobis in vitam aeternam (Anaphora Sancti Petri Apostoli
(tertia), care and subject of study of J. M. Sauget, in Anaphorae Syriacae, vol. Il, fasc. III [Rome, 1973] p. 301). In fact, it is a matter of parallel references to the institution. We believe that the origin of the account of the institution or of the mention of it could be the result of the prevailing influence of a prospective eucharist derived from John or from the Synoptic-Pauline line. The argument is certainly complex, but cannot, for this reason, be avoided a priori.
67 L. Ligier, "Origines", pp. 196-198.
ELEMENTS OF A EUCHARISTIC INTERPRETATION
4. Didache 10:3: Account of the Institution of the Jewish Meal and the Christian "Innovation"
Professor Rordorf finds in Did 10:3 a transparent allusion to the type of eucharist which gives to the believer the pledge of eternal life.68 He notes that the Jews praised God, king of the universe, for the food given to every creature and in particular to humankind. Did 10:3 is directly inspired by this theme: in the first part of the verse one commemorates the food given to all human beings and in the second part one commemorates the food given to Christians. For the latter, one is dealing with food and drink that have received a new characteristic revealed by Jesus and unknown to the Jews: they are "spiritual".
With reference to this verse, one can argue that mvevpatixdc illuminates the parallel text of 1 Cor 10:14, following Feuillet® with respect to the parallel with the sapiental literature. From our point of view, we prefer to go another road linked to the problem of the institution.
In the Last Supper the Lord concluded his celebration with a command, "Do this in memory of me." He did not say, "Do anything"? in memory of me," he said, "Do this." What is "this"? a) Perhaps one was dealing with the Passover Meal, perhaps with another Jewish ritual at which he was guest and Lord, which is to say at the centre of the action.
The supper of Jesus spoke of him in every moment; it was a prophecy and a parabolic gesture of his imminent passion as a return to the Father. In it, rather, the whole parable of the life of Jesus given for humanity was developed. The self-revelation of Jesus reached its fullness as he offered to his disciples the events which were about to happen; in this way the disciples took part in those conclusive events which he was about to achieve and which he lived in anticipation through the prophetic gestures of the supper. For this reason, the supper, loaded with these structures, was proclamation of the death of the Lord. This content was objectively inside the supper, even if the events had not yet happened historically. It belongs to the logic of the parable that there is the possibility of containing in itself something which is superior to itself and irreducible in itself: something which has its actualization elsewhere.
68 W. Rordorf, "The Didache", p. 10; /d., art.cit. in Eucharisties d'Orient et d'Occident I, p. 76. be 69 A. Feuillet, Le Christ sagesse de Dieu (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1966) pp.
87-111.
70 The problem is conceived in this way by J. Pascher. Cf. J. Ratzinger, "Forma e contenuto della celebrazione eucaristica", Communio 6/35 (1977) 19.
ENRICO MAZZA
b) Two elements had to guide the disciples in their obedience to the command of the Lord. The first concerns the celebration of the ritual meal typical of the Jewish world; the second concerned the new content of this meal: the anamnesis of the mirabilia Dei had to be carrier of a new fact, that is of the new work (opera) which Jesus had accomplished.
If the Lord's Supper had been a Passover Supper, as many authors claim,7! it must be admitted that it has left very few traces of the Passover in the liturgical and anaphoric tradition which was born from it. Against the Passover interpretation there is the fact of the continual reiteration (or ability to be reiterated) of the Christian eucharist, compared with the annual performance of the Jewish Passover ritual. c) Faced with the command, "Do this", the disciples cannot have understood that they should do anything different to what they had celebrated and lived with Jesus.
A Jew (Jesus) asks Jews (the disciples) to perform a Jewish ritual meal in his memory.
Consequently, the ritual meal of the Jews, with its structure and its typical berakot, must have continued to exist in the newborn Christian community. There would have been a new dimension, given that its berakot would develop into the "mystery of Christ", and this would be obedience to the command which the disciples received.
The command, "Do this", finds its obedience in the celebration of the sacred meal typical of Judaism; "in memory of me", in its turn, finds its obedience in the berakot: these—commemorations of the magnalia Dei—will be transformed by having a Christological dimension. These Christological valences will then be reflected from the primitive kerygma and will represent the initial stages of the Christology of the new born Church; the title tac will be obligatory. d) If we examine Did 9-10, we will see that the criteria outlined above will have a consequence.
Did 9 is parallel to the giddush, the opening rite of the Jewish supper, and Did 10 is parallel to the birkat ha-mazon, the giving of thanks at the end of the supper. But the two texts of the Didache are profoundly Christological: besides the Christo-centric clauses "through Jesus your maic", we see an interesting phenomenon. The magnalia Dei which are announced are not drawn so much from the Old Testament, as from the message and function of Jesus as will be evident later in the Gospel of John.
Here we have the motive for the thanksgiving: faith, knowledge, life, immortality, eternal life and the presence of the Holy Name
1 Cf. J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London: SCM 1966) pp. 15-
ELEMENTS OF A EUCHARISTIC INTERPRETATION
in our hearts. God is called "our Father", "holy Father" and in the place of Jerusalem we have "your" Church. In the entire salvation economy, Jesus is the one through whom the Father "has been made known"; Jesus as prophet is another characteristic of the Fourth Gospel.72
Already we can conclude that chapters 9 and 10 of the Didache present us with a Christian liturgy which sufficiently fulfils the requirement of the Church's obedience to the command of the Lord. e) The argument may be further strengthened by an examination and comparison of the two parts of Did 10:3. Here, strictly speaking,' we do not have the substitution of the Jewish theme of "praise for creation and for food" with the spiritual dimension given to it by the Christians. Instead we have both themes, and the second is developed form the first: it is a development in organic continuity with it:
Didache 10:3(a) Didache 10:3(b) To human beings To us then You have given (E5wxac) you have given grace (éxapiow) food and drink of spiritual food and drink for their enjoyment so that they And eternal life might give you thanks through your servant Verse 3(a) is a typical feature of the Jewish meal and it is based on Dt 8:10: "You will eat and be satisfied (éuaAnoOjon) and will bless (evAoyHoetc¢) the Lord your'God for the good earth which he has given you (6é5wxé oe)." This is the logic which governs the Jewish meal and which makes it a sacred meal. And this is the logic behind the discourse of Paul on the sacredness of the meal;74 we can say that in Dt 8:10 we have the account of the institution of the Jewish ritual meal, which Did 10:3(a) explicitly commemorates through the connection: "so that they might give you thanks". f) Through the two halves of this anamnesis, Christians share with the Jews the sacrality of the ritual meal which they see instituted in Dt 8:10, but the addition of Did 10:3(b) sets in motion a significant development as a result of which the Christian meal can no longer be reduced to its Jewish ancestor. The juxtaposition is exact: the receiver changes (human beings/us); the verb changes
5wkac/éxapiow); the gift changes (food and drink/spiritual food 72 M. de Jonge, "Jesus as Prophet and King in the Fourth Gospel", EThL 49
(1973) pp. 160-177.
73 Cf. the position of K. Hruby, "La "birkat ha-mazon"", p. 216.
741 Tim 4:4-5.
ENRICO MAZZA
and drink); the goal changes: the purpose in the first thanksgiving (for their enjoyment so that they might give you thanks) is transformed by the mention of a new gift (eternal life); the modality of the gift changes: from the perspective of Dt 8:10, God gives food from the fertility of the earth, and for this one must also give thanks, whilst for the Christians the new gift is given through the mac of God.
It is no accident, therefore, that Did 9-10 lacks any reference to the "promised land": one is dealing with a precise separation from the tie that the Jew has with the land.7> Although still remaining within the milieu of the Jewish ritual meal, the eucharist of the Didache is the bearer of a new revelatory content and gift (éxapiow) from Jesus the maic of God. We must affirm both the elements: the new content and the tight continuity of ritual with the Jewish religious meal" which, according to the rabbinic tradition, has been instituted by God himself. g) Given this rabbinic tradition, we must conclude that the thematic and verbal closeness between Dt 8:10 and Did 10:3(a) makes us think of the latter as a kind of "reference to the institution" of the Jewish religious meal. However, it is a precise recollection of the "command" of God of which the entire ritual meal is a realization with its berakot. To this memory and mention of the mandatum of God is linked as counterweight, the theme peculiar to Christians, "To us then you have given grace of spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your servant."
What has been instituted in Deuteronomy continues to be celebrated, but with a new significance, the origin of which is in Jesus himself; this is precisely tied to the evocatory recall of the institution of Dt 8:10.
75 The benediction for the promised land is replaced by the thanksgiving for the dwelling of the holy Name in us, and by the knowledge, faith and immortality revealed by Jesus.
76 Did 10:1 begins with "after you are satisfied with food", where éuaAnoPAvan directly recalls—almost as a technical term—the expression of Dt 8:10: xat day} kai éumdnobjon.
Some authorities argue from this verb for a negative "sacramental" valuation of the Didache, given that éuaimAnw signifies properly the material repletion of a meal and ill fits the spiritual significance proper to the eucharistic food. The motivation is correct: proof of it is that Const VII.26 replaces this term with pet&Anyic. The conclusion is incorrect, given that, according to our hypothesis, this eucharist co-incides with the ritual structure of the meal; this, pure eucharistic essence (spiritual food and drink), is also a true and appropriate meal and hence conserves the consequent "satisfaction": if this were not so, it would not be based on Dt 8:10, and hence would not be a ritual meal either. In the Jewish meal the birkat ha-mazon was said after people had eaten and become satisfied: if the text of Did 10 is parallel to the birkat ha-mazon, it would not be surprising that it would come to be proclaimed at that very moment, namely after the meal was completed.
Hence empiplemi indicates the moment in the meal and not the eucharistic communion.
ELEMENTS OF A EUCHARISTIC INTERPRETATION
_ In fact, Jesus has not come to abolish it but to bring it to fruition and in the Last Supper he has left a command, expressed in the words, "Do this", which does not introduce his disciples to a new meal characterized by a new ritual different to the logic of the Jewish religious meal (or even of the Passover Meal).
The innovation is in the new content which he has prescribed for his disciples: the anamnesis of this ritual action must have been Christological. Therefore it is the Christological element which constitutes what is new in what Christ instituted, not the ritual meal, which, in itself, already existed in Israel, indeed was directly instituted by God in Deuteronomy. h) As we can see, we find in Did 10:3 the same relationship with Judaism already evident in Did 9:2, dealing with the life of David: Judaism retains all its validity but finds its fullness only in Jesus who brings to fruition the ancient promise. In this primitive stage of the life of the Church nothing is un-Jewish, not even the eucharist, and neither is its institutor, Jesus.
Therefore, given the particular relationship between Christianity and Judaism in the Didache, we can conclude that Did
10:3, in its two moments a) and b), represents a sufficiently evident tie with the institution command of Christ. i) The account of the institution of the eucharist as it has been handed down to us by the New Testament, will become a necessary element in the anaphora only when it changes its relationship with Judaism, so that it is no longer possible to see Dt 8:10 as the ultimate foundation of the logic of the Jewish sacred meal, matrix of the Christian eucharist. Consequently, we cannot search in the Didache for our account of the institution or even. the simple reference to it in another religious and cultural environment. The Didache, in fact, already contains "its own" reference to the institution, although in a particular form all its own, which it owes to that relationship—also all its own—with Judaism, which the Church had in the first years of its existence.
In this way, we believe our argument for the full sacramentality of the eucharistic liturgy of Did 9-10 to be well grounded; in fact it is contained in the peculiar mention of the institution which replaces the institutive fact of the Jewish meal
(Dt 8:10) with the event of Christ: "but to us you have given the gift of spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your servant."
The Christ event is a development growing organically out of the reference to Dt 8:10 and therefore, as such, participates in the logic of the "institution" .