Justin Martyr's possible testimony to a eucharistic meal
involving water rather than wine is not altogether clear. In fact Justin's
descriptions of eucharistic meal practice, written in the middle of the second
century, are often used as firm elements of the more conventional picture of liturgical
development, since he provides not only the eucharistic actions emphasized by
Dix but also shows knowledge of the imagery of Jesus' body and blood in terms
that suggest the institution narratives (1 Apol. 65-7; Dial. 70). Yet Justin's
apparent references to wine are problematic, and deserve examination.
In a rather neglected piece published in 1891, Adolf von
Harnack cast the harsh light of his textual criticism of Justin's work on to
the passages relevant to eucharistic meals. In two instances (1 Apol. 54, Dial.
69), both passages dealing with the Dionysiac mysteries and their resemblance
to Christian ritual, there is evidence that ονος (donkey)
was changed to οινος
(wine). The copyist who wished to have Justin speak of wine in these texts was
perhaps unaware of the place of the donkey in Dionysiac imagery and, more
culpably, oblivious to Justin's argument about the resemblance of the pagan
rites to Jesus' ride into Jerusalem upon a donkey. Yet ignorance may not be the
sole or best possible explanation for the apparent textual changes. These
textual oddities might also be accounted for by the hypothesis that elsewhere Justin
had referred to the use of water alone in the cup of the eucharistic meal, and
that the enthusiasm of the process of 'correction' went too far.
If this were the case it would be less remarkable that
Justin, deriding pagan ritual as imitating Christian practice, mentions
Dionysus as supposed giver of the grapevine, yet makes nothing of any
resemblance between this element of the mysteries and Christian eucharists. Although
the absence of that comparison may be explained in other ways, Justin does
compare the rites of Mithras with the Christian meal he knows, and wants to
make the use of a cup of water (not wine) by the Mithras cult into a point of
similarity (1 Apol. 66).
Justin's use of biblical traditions contributes to the
puzzle. The same suspicious, if not conclusive, silence where comparison is
invited reigns in discussions (1 Apol. 32, 54; Dial. 52-4, 63, 69, 76) of Gen.
49: 8-12, the blessing of Judah, according to which the patriarch is said to
'wash his robes in wine'. Again, a positive 'water' comparison is made, without
comment, when Justin uses the words of Isa. 33: 16 to describe the eucharistic
elements: 'Bread will be given him, and his water [will be] trustworthy' (Dial.
70).
Finally we must deal with the cases where the text seems
to refer explicitly to the use of wine in the eucharistic cup. These are all in
the one passage, 1 Apol. 65-7, which is the most detailed account of the eucharist
Justin gives. Twice in this extended description (both in 66) he refers simply
to the cup (το ποτηριον), which is also the term he uses elsewhere (cf. Dial.
41, 70). According to most texts, at 1 Apol. 65 the president offers bread and
a cup, ύδατος καί κράματος, which ought to mean 'of water and of wine mixed
with water', an odd phrase at least. In fact και κράματος is actually missing
in Codex Ottobianus, which simply leaves the elements as bread and water.
Interpolation, perhaps heedless of context again, may seem to be a likely path
to this less than satisfactory text.
The two remaining cases, in 1 Apol. 65 (again) and 67,
refer explicitly to the offering of (previously unmixed) wine along with water.
There is no text-critical basis for removal of these references to wine, but
Harnack argued that on the basis of the other evidence of interpolation, these instances
could also be the result of later emendation. The positive comparison with
Mithraic water-ritual mentioned above also takes place in the middle of this
passage.
In summary, Justin compares the eucharistic meal known to him to both biblical and pagan models involving water, and to none involving wine, despite the opportunity; and the transmission of his works shows evidence of interpolation which could conceivably account for all the references to wine in the meal. It must be admitted that few have been convinced by this evidence so far as to accept Harnack's thesis fully. Within a few years of its publication there was a flurry of attempts to rebut. The exegetical silence on Judah's blessing was mistaken; there were others who had interpreted it without reference to the eucharist.
Some suggested that the reading of Codex Ottobianus was facilior
and should be rejected, and/or that κραμα
could
simply mean `wine', that `a cup' should be assumed to contain wine, and that
Justin's phrasing was meant to emphasize sobriety. Others argued, comparing
this evidence with later indications of a separate cup of water at baptismal
eucharists, that the reference was to two different cups, one of water and
another of mixed wine. All in all, these arguments served not to make Justin's position
clearly orthodox so much as to leave the question open. There is at least sufficient reason to be circumspect about using Justin's account as positive evidence of
the use of wine. (Andrew McGowan, Ascetic Eucharists: Food and Drink in
Early Christian Ritual Meals [Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1999], 151-54])
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
