Knife

I could be wrong, but I dont think this is different than what is presented in Mark, Matt, and Luke. But it seems to be different than what is in John.

Could the eucharist be holy if it was just "symbolically" the body and blood of christ?

Many people view the American flag as "holy" becauses it symbolizes something to them.

Me too.

Amaleq13

Paul's eucharist connects the wine to the blood of Jesus and the bread to his flesh. Their eucharist connects the wine to Jesus' Davidic/Messianic identity and the bread to "the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus". The bread is secondarily connected to the scattered membership of the church. There is no connection between the eucharist and the sacrifice. In fact, IIRC, there is no reference to a sacrifice in the entire document. Paul gave thanks for the sacrifice while the Didache author(s) gave thanks for the knowledge of Jesus.

Apparently because it symbolizes the central tenets of their faith (ie knowledge of and from Jesus).

That would be consistent with Paul but that is not a connection made in the text.

There is certainly a difference between the two but it is difficult to understand how the central concept of Paul's eucharist could be so completely ignored and replaced by later Christians. It seems to make more sense, IMO, to consider the Didache eucharist to reflect either an independent or earlier tradition. With regard to the latter, it makes more sense to me for an interpretation of the meal to change from "knowledge of/from Jesus" to "atoning sacrifice" than the reverse.

NOGO

Doesn't GJohn link the bread to the word of God, read "knowledge" about salvation.

Jesus' blood may be equated to the spirit of God which every Christian receives when baptized. This I believe is related to David.
Note the similarities between Jesus baptism and David's anointment.

Yes, but is it related to salvation?

In the OT the pascal lamb was not a sacrifice for atonment.
I would think that there was definitely a change from the death of the pascal lamb to the sacrifice described in Paul and in the Gospel.

I am not sure that this is enough to explain the Didache.

Do you know of any book which deals with these issues?

NOGO

Of course there is symbology here.
The bread is the word of God while the blood is the Holy Spirit.
So Jesus was a divine entity manifested through the Word and Spirit of the Father.

Jesus created the world according to GJohn and Paul.
It happened when the Father said "Let there be light" etc.
The key word here is "said".

This is the reason I do not believe in an HJ. But that is another story.

Amaleq13

I think so but the text also includes the "traditional" interpretation as well.

I don't know that you can find anything like this in the Didache.

The only reference to salvation that I can find is to that given to the faithful during the end times:

"Then shall the creation of men come into the fire of trial, and many shall be made to stumble and shall perish; but those who endure in their faith shall be saved from under the curse itself."

Especially since there is no reference to Jesus as a sacrifice in it.

Only the ones that Peter lists.

Julian

The eucharist in 1 Cor. should be tossed. The christology is far too advanced for Paul's day. The didache entry does, however, conform very well to Paul's other statements regarding christianity being the of the seed of Abraham, i.e. the vine of David.

The eucharist of GLuke as we have it now is an addition. The original is attested by the Western non-interpolation and reflects a communal meal and not the flesh and blood of later liturgy. You will notice how Paul is very focused on the Jewish legacy for christians making a perfect fit for the Didache eucharist. The 1 Cor. does not relate to this theme at all.

When view in this manner the evolution of the eucharist makes more sense. It starts out as a communal meal, a common practice in many religions of the time, where the focus is on the legacy of Abraham and David. The meal (in the Western non-interpolation) is reflected in GLuke where it also does not deal with the flesh and blood issue. Later on, as christianity becomes more sophisticated and, more importantly, more fixated on the person of Jesus rather than 'scripture,' the eucharist reflects the sacrifice of Jesus and pertains wholly to him.

Julian

NOGO

There is more ...

Here "spiritual food and drink" is associated with the Eucharist as well as eternal life through Jesus.

I would say that this at least shows that the Eucharist leads to salvation.

Sacrifice?

TedM

At least that it is related somehow.. Here is something I wrote about this recently:

"It is true that the prayer in chapters 9 and 10 doesn't reference the words normally attributed to Jesus regarding his sacrifice to establish a new covenant. Included in the prayer is a thanks for "knowledge, faith and immortality made known through Jesus thy Son".(10:2) Immortality is certainly related to death. How did Jesus make immortality known to them? It also includes "thou hast given spiritual meat and drink, and life everlasting, through thy Son." This is very similar to "this is my blood" and "this is my body", "broken for you". In addition, the Didache teaches approaching the Eucharist with purity, as those who partake are offering up a sacrifice to God: 14:1 "But on the Lord's day, after that ye have assembled together, break bread and give thanks, having in addition confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure." The connection of physical meat and drink with spiritual meat and dring, the remembering Christ with thanks, the close connection with sacrifice, and immortality made known through Jesus all can certainly be interpreted as indications that the Eucharist in the Didache reflects the themes also found in Paul's Eucharist, though the explicit quotations of Jesus are not repeated."

ted

Knife

Julian,

Could you be more specific about why you believe the reference in Paul is an interpolation or point me to an essay or book? Thanks in advance.

I thought this portion of my friends reply the most outrageous.

This was written around 56 AD. In 110 AD, Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of the apostle John) wrote concerning heretics, that "They abstain from the Eucharist (communion)...because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ...".

I was under the impression that nobody knows who wrote any of the gospels. Somehow she is pinning it on the apostle John (as if she new it) and then states she even knows a disciple of John (Ignatius of Antioch). This is complete bologna, correct? I guess I should ask her for sources.

Julian

Hmmm, I don't remember where I read something about this and a google search is hopeless. I guess, off the top of my head, the best argument against it is the fact that the version of the eucharist we see in Paul doesn't surface until much later and is interspersed by the Didache and GLuke, with their differing views. The only other explanation would be two highly insular trajectories, which might be possible, I guess.

Julian