The Jewish Background to the Eucharistic Anamnesis (Update 09.04.21) PDF

Preview

Summary

THE JEWISH BACKGROUND OF THE EUCHARISTIC MEMORIAL (ANAMNESIS) INTRODUCTION 1 What did Jesus mean in the course of the last supper, after he had distributed the bread and the wine to his apostles, that he had affirmed to be his body and his blood, when he spoke these words: «Do this in memory of me» ...

Description

THE JEWISH BACKGROUND OF THE EUCHARISTIC MEMORIAL (ANAMNESIS) INTRODUCTION 1 What did Jesus mean in the course of the last supper, after he had distributed the bread and the wine to his apostles, that he had affirmed to be his body and his blood, when he spoke these words: «Do this in memory of me» (eis tèn émèn anamnèsin)? Did Jesus simply ask that his death be commemorated during a cultic kind of meal, or did he truly institute a new sacrifice destined definitively to supplant the sacrifices of the old covenant, through a fulfillment that would be as sublime as it was unparalleled, by transforming the sacrifices that could «never make perfect those who draw near » to God (cf. He 10, 1)? And, if this is the case, did he intend to make a complete break with the Jewish ritual of his day with its symbolism, or, on the contrary, did he do everything to ensure keeping, not only the matter and the form, but equally its traditional spirit and symbolism, with a purpose that He alone knew? As we know, Christian faith regards these final communal gestures of Christ as the institution of the sacrament of the Eucharist. It believes that their ritual repetition, ordained by Jesus himself, enables the saving sacrifice of Him whose flesh is « given for the life of the world » (cf. Jn 6, 51) to be made constantly present. From its side, theology strives to do justice to the mystery in human terms and by way of analogy. But it has to overcome huge difficulties, of which the greatest lies in the incredible realism of the consumption of what is claimed to be the flesh and the blood of Christ. It is why, besides the numerous works of apologetics aimed at defending, by all possible means, this «deposit», as it has been transmitted by the Scriptures and by the Tradition, research of a more systematic kind has multiplied and continues to multiply with a view to arriving at a better understanding of the spiritual realities shown forth in these «sacred signs», and at a formulation which allows the faithful to perceive their implications, while safeguarding the essence of the revelation of this mystery. The most notable and most innovative tendency in the studies of recent decades is marked by a praiseworthy concern to study the background Jewish ritual underlying the form taken since the origins of the Church by what Christianity calls the «sacrament of the Eucharist». The attention of the scholars has been concentrated above all on two fundamental aspects that characterize the eucharistic prayer since the beginnings: the commemoration (or anamnesis) and the thanksgiving (the blessings). 1

A first version of this study, appeared, under the title "Fonction liturgique et eschatologique de l'anamnèse eucharistique (Lc 22, 19 ; 1 Co 11, 24, 25). A reexamination of the question in the light of the Scriptures and the Jewish sources", in the review of the Pontifical Institute for the Liturgy: Ephemerides Liturgicae 102, Rome, 1988, pp. 3-25. The present translation in English is due to Fr Peter Hocken, Ph.D., Catholic Theologian, member of informal dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Messianic Jews, and member of the International Leadership Team of Toward Jerusalem Council II.

Rightly or wrongly, we think that if the thanksgiving dimension of the sacrament of the Eucharist is treated in a satisfactory way and does not pose any major problems, whether in relation to the reconstitution of the liturgical background or in relation to the interpretation of the results, the same is not true for the research concerning the anamnesis. In the present work, we seek first to clarify certain of these conceptions, that do not seem to us to do full justice to its nature and to its function in the case of the Eucharist, and, often enough, as a result of a wrong or inadequate understanding of the Jewish sources, and even of the ritual realities evoked therein. This will form the theme of our First Part. Our Second Part will be devoted to the eschatological function and significance of the eucharistic rite, aspects to which in our opinion the specialists have not paid sufficient attention. We will try to determine the reasons for this lack, by a short examination of the theological presuppositions of the research on this subject. But above all it will be through a more detailed analysis of the scriptural texts relating to the institution of the Eucharist and of the Jewish ritual of the immolation and the eating of the paschal lamb, that we will discover the importance of the eschatological motif and its fruitfulness for a better understanding of the nature and the function of the liturgy in general and of the Eucharistic anamnesis in particular. Finally in a Conclusion, by way of a synthesis of the data examined in the first two Parts, we will seek to evaluate the thrust of the results of our reinterpretation of the Jewish background of the institution by Jesus of the eucharistic sacrifice, and to weigh up the eventual implications for a reevaluation and a reformulation of this mystery, that one hopes will be more faithful to the original terrain, biblical and Jewish, in which it was incarnated and found its first literary and cultic expression. Last minute (19.10.19) I thought I should add to this update of my research an Anglo-Saxon study that had escaped me. It relies exclusively on the work of well-known researchers, such as, among others, G. Von Rad. Measured and more discursive than audacious, it should not be considered as useless for the present study. In my opinion, it has the great merit of effectively revisiting the conception of time in Biblical writings, and of helping the modern reader better understand the 'theological' fecundity of time in the liturgy.

2

I. THE GENESIS, FORM AND JEWISH ROOTS OF THE CONCEPT OF ANAMNESIS 1.

THE HEBREW ROOT ZKR AND ITS GREEK AND LATIN EQUIVALENTS, IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS

We know that the Greek verb anamimnèskein and its corresponding substantive anamnèsis sometimes serve, in the Septuagint, to render the Hebrew root ZKR, which means «remember», «make a memorial», and its derivatives: zekher = «souvenir», zikkaron = «memorial», azkarah = «recall», «evocation». In the works of most scholars, this usage is regarded as more technical than the usual Greek word to express these concepts: mnèmoneuein, and its derivatives. It is generally thought that in effect there is a marked difference between the Greek translations anamnèsis, mnèmosunè, mnèmosunon, and the Hebrew words: zakhar, zekher, zikkaron, azkarah, used in the Old Testament, to convey the concepts of souvenir and of commemoration. With the use of anamnèsis in the New Testament, it seems clear that it is limited to a cultic context. But a glance at the texts will show us that, for both Testaments, the reality is more nuanced, and that in practice these terms are often inter-changeable. a) Old Testament 



 

The Hebrew verb zakhar (in the Hiphil), (in the titles of Psalms 38 and 70) is twice translated in the Septuagint as eis anamnèsin (Vulg. Ps 38 [37], according to the Greek: in rememorationem; according to the Hebrew: in commemoratione; Ps 70 [69], according to the Greek: in rememoratione; according to the Hebrew: ad recordandum). Zekher, in the two texts where it clearly has the sense of «memorial» (Ex 3:15 and Ps 135 [134]:13), is translated in the Septuagint by mnèmosunon (Vulg.: memoriale), but Sm. for Exodus, and Al. for Psalms, render it by anamnèsis. To these references it is appropriate to add Ps 6:6, where the phrase: “For in death there is no remembrance of Thee”, is translated in the Septuagint: “For in death there is no one who remembers (or who makes mention of) Thee” (Vulg., according to the Greek: qui memor sit tui), while Sm. translates the Hebrew substantive zekher by anamnèsis (Vulg., according to the Hebrew: recordatio). Zikkaron is translated almost everywhere in the Septuagint by mnèmosunon. However, in Num 10:10, it is translated by anamnèsis (Vulg.: recordatio). Azkarah is translated in the Septuagint 4 times out of 5, by mnèmosunè (Vulg.: memoriale, monumentum). But in Lv 24, 7, it is translated anamnèsis.

b) New Testament 

The substantive anamnèsis only features 4 times in the NT. In three cases, it is in relation to the Eucharist: “Do this as my memorial” (Lk 22:19, 1 Co 11:24.25). The context of the fourth reference makes clear that this term does not only have a connotation of sacrificial actualization: “…in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year”, literally: “by these sacrifices [one makes a] commemoration of the sins” (Heb 10:3). It is clear 3

that here there there is no question of an anamnesis of the sins, in the sense of making them present and of reactivating their effects.

2. THE ANAMNESIS AS COMMEMORATION IN THE LITURGY OF THE SYNAGOGUE AND IN THE EUCHARIST This aspect has been the most studied by scholars. They have especially given detailed attention to the earliest eucharistic liturgies, on the basis of the surviving fragments in ancient documents such as the Diataxeis and the Apostolic Constitutions. It is absolutely clear that this is valuable work, even one that is indispensable. But, in seeking to find traces of the liturgy of the synagogue in them, even ancient Jewish cultural traditions, they have not always taken sufficient account of the ambiguity of the witness of these texts on this precise point. We are aware of the extent of the Jewish-Christian disagreement. The doctrinal conflicts and the apologetic contests between the two rival confessions are undoubtedly reflected in almost all the Christian religious literature of the first centuries. It would be wrong to think that the liturgy was exempt from this pattern. As a result, it is quite clear that, besides a real familiarity with the thought and the language of the ecclesiastical writers of the apostolic and postapostolic period, a solid knowledge of rabbinic Judaism is indispensable. The Christian scholars who have this competence are few. So they are obliged to have recourse to intermediate works, which even if they are written by specialists (Christian or Jewish) in Jewish literature and worship, do not enable the person who does not have this competence himself, to understand as he should the sense and the nuances of the rabbinic texts that he uses for his studies in comparative liturgy. The interpretations of Jewish texts that one can make are very different, in fact, depending on whether they are drawn from Sacred Scripture, from the Mishnah, from the Talmud, from Midrash, from Haggadah, or from a ritual of prayers. From these latter, the scholar not initiated in the Jewish sources, not only barely knows or does not know the original language at all, but it is not rare that he is ignorant of the theological problematic as well as the literary genre. In fact, a certain familiarity with the liturgical texts of the primitive Church, linked to an intimate knowledge of the Jewish sources, allows one better to determine to what extent that which in the former differs from Jewish worship is greater than what makes them similar. This is for two reasons, which together have contributed to complicate the question of eventual Jewish influences on the primitive Christian liturgy. The first is the ignorance, often very considerable, in regard to Jewish beliefs and customs, which characterized some ecclesiastical writers of the first centuries who were Gentiles. The second is the militantly apologetic tendency of many writers and Fathers of the early Church, familiar with Judaism, its worship and its beliefs, but who sought more to distinguish themselves from the latter than to be inspired by them, and much less to model Christian worship forms upon the Jewish. However it remains true that the existence of traces of Jewish influences in the early liturgies in general and in those that concern the Eucharist in particular cannot reasonably be denied. Some interesting studies have been published in this area. Some show, rightly, the analogies between various ancient anaphoras and Christian epicleses and the berakhot (blessings) of the birkat hamazon (blessing for a meal), and especially of the birkat Yerushalaïm (blessing concerning Jerusalem),

4

as well as those of the zikhronot (evocations) of Yom Kippur 1. The advantages of such research are obvious, and there is no question here of downplaying them, all the more as they often throw light, in ways that are unexpected and fruitful, on archaic Christian texts which would remain almost incomprehensible or that would run the risk of being wrongly interpreted without this light from traditional Jewish sources. But truth obliges us to say that they are often misleading on the theological level. In effect, their contribution to a better understanding of the mystery of the Eucharist is almost nil. This is the case, most particularly, of the understanding of the Eucharist as anamnesis, as it emerges from these comparative confrontations with the Jewish liturgy. In fact, is it so evident that the connotation of the term «anamnesis» used by Jesus, in the command that he gave his apostles to «do» what he did, at the institution of the eucharistic meal, provides a «theology of the "commemoration"», to use the expression of a scholar who has particularly studied this theme?2 In this respect, we can from a personal standpoint, only express a dissatisfaction with the definition of the anamnesis, given by this author as representative of that willed by Christ, in these terms: “Remembrance (Souvenir)” signifies that God is reminded of something and that he is asked to realize today what he did in the past. Remembrance moves automatically to “supply (granting)” and so there is a continuity between the past and the present. It then becomes understandable that “to do this in memory of Christ” is understood in the sense of making an offering of his Body and of his Blood, in order that, making remembrance of what He did in the past, He will also do for those for whom one prays…

3. THE ANAMNESIS, REACTUALIZATION IN WORSHIP OF AN INITIAL SALVIFIC EVENT: FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT WORSHIP TO THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENT a) Were there «memorial» sacrifices in the OT ? It is significant that no Jewish sacrifice of the old covenant is called a «memorial». The only passages that could lend themselves to some confusion, in this respect, are those where the Hebrew word azkarah (Lv 2, 2, 9, 16; 5, 12; 6, 8; 24, 7; Nb 5, 26) occurs, as well as the expression minhat zikkaron (Nb 5, 15, 18), to which we shall later return. The embarrassment of scholars concerning the sense to be given to the word azkarah is reflected in a commentary of an undoubted specialist in regard to Old Testament institutions, the late Father De Vaux3: …a handful of this flour and all the incense are burned on the altar, and the rest [of the cereal offering called minhah] belongs to the priests […] That which is so burned of all these offerings is called azkarah. Its precise meaning is debated: either a “memorial” that brings the offering to God’s remembrance, or a “pledge”, a small part given to God makes Him think of the whole and takes its place.

1

On this subject, see especially the detailed study of G. ROUWHORST, «Bénédiction, action de grâce, supplication. Les oraisons de la table dans le Judaïsme et les célébrations eucharistiques des Chrétiens syriaques», dans Influences juives sur le culte chrétien. Études présentées au Colloque scientifique organisé par l'Institut Liturgique de la Faculté de Théologie, Leuven 23 25 avril 1980. Brochure éditée dans la collection Textes et Études liturgiques, Abbaye du Mont César, Leuven, 1981, pp. 21 50 (Ci-après : ROUWHORST, Bénédiction). See also, in the same area, the synthesis of H. WEGMAN, «Généalogie de la prière eucharistique», ibid., pp. 73 88. In these two contributions and in those that feature in this brochure (concerning other subjects, but treating those from the angle of the Jewish origins of the primitive Christian liturgy), will be found a very detailed bibliography with references to little-known studies that are very useful. 2 ROUWHORST, Bénédiction, p. 45. 3 R. DE VAUX, Les Institutions de l'Ancien Testament, T. II, Paris, 2e édit. 1967, p. 300. 5

The fact that, in all the passages, azkarah is connected with the cereal offering, in that it is called the azkarah of this offering and not an offering of azkarah,4 militates in favour of the second hypothesis of De Vaux. The traditional Jewish interpretation, was not mistaken. It is clear and non-controversial, and moreover has for a long time found expression in the dictionaries. Here is an example 6: Minhat zikkaron [cereal offering of memorial] : in the sacrifice that consists of a cake made from flour, it is the part that the priest has burnt; it [this term] applies equally to the incense that is burned, when the loaves of proposition are replaced at the end of the week.5

The only real difficulty is the double attestation of the expression mentioned above: minhat zikkaron = «offering of remembrance (memorial)» (Nb 5, 15, 18). The cereal offering in question in these passages is special of its nature. In effect, it accompanies the ritual of the ordeal of a woman suspected of adultery. In order not to confuse this offering with that which accompanies the ordinary sacrifices, it is made with barley and not from flour made from wheat; more, no oil is poured on it and no incense is used. It is called «offering of jealousy». In this context, it is clear that the expression «offering of remembrance (memorial)» cannot lead to any confusion, insofar as it is immediately explained by these words: «which recalls [or "evokes"] a fault» (ib. v. 15). Besides these two examples, whose particular character and context have just been clarified, there are no memorial sacrifices to be found anywhere in the ritual of the old covenant.

b) Jewish passover (memorial)” of Christ

rites

of

commemoration

and

the

“remembrance

It can be said, quite correctly, that, if the term memorial sacrifice does not appear in the OT, the reality itself is unquestionably present, especially in the ritual of the Jewish passover. This rite is in fact totally a sacramental remembrance of the past events that each participant is believed to relive, as if he was living during the Exodus of his people. Fr. Tillard has well summed up this role of the memorial in the Jewish Passover, in these words 6: It is impossible to go through the Red Sea another time. However, each generation must enter into the grace of the historic event that was fulfilled for the past generation. To do this, there was the “remembrance,” the “memorial,” understood in the sense that Israel understands it. In fact, to “remember” is not simply equivalent to “thinking about something from the past.” It is to “recall,” including in this concept a dynamism towards action. God remembers but, in this “rememberer”, the power of his original plan is activated, aroused, incited to become active. Man remembers, but this "remembrance" implies the requirements of the Law. In brief, the zikkarôn, which is the ritual (sacramental) action of this remembrance, “stimulates the memory of God, and his memorial acts are synonymous with his acts of intervention. The zikkarôn also stimulates the memory of Israel which brings (for the priestly and ritual tradition) a participation in the 4

In this respect, the translation of Lv 24, 7, by the Bible de Jérusalem: «Sur chaque rangée tu déposeras de l'encens pur. Ce sera l'aliment offert en mémorial, un mets pour Yahvé» appears to us to be erroneous. The Hebrew taken word by word gives the following: «Et il (l'encens) sera en azkarah pour le pain (de proposition), [offrande] consumée par le feu pour Y.». It could be rendered as: «Et cet encens servira de mémorial des pains de proposition, en tant qu'offrande consumée par le feu pour Y.». The translation of B.J. is identical to that of the Septuagint and of the Vulgate. 5 Cited from Qonqordantsiah hadasha letorah nviim ukhtuvim (‘New con...