[abridged]

Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 14:06:58 -0500
From: y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
To: Thomas Kopecek 
Cc: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com
Subject: Re: Lietzmann on the Eucharist

On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Thomas Kopecek wrote:

	...

[Yuri:]
> > But have you ever considered that the reason why bread-only eucharist is
> > so prominent in the sources that Lietzmann supplies (and the dating of
> > which is open to interpretation, in any case) may be something else?
> > Namely, what about the theme of the secrecy of the eucharist? We have
> > indications that outsiders were not to be told about the "real eucharist"
> > at early stages in the tradition.
> 
> Tom: I think I have already addressed this in another post. You'd have
> to convince me of this early secrecy reality. See my pertinent post, in
> response to Phil as I recall.

Here's a neat quote from Loisy:

"In all we have had under review [so far, after considering a number of
genuine Pauline passages,] no sign has appeared that the eucharistic
Supper had any place in the mystery of salvation. Perhaps its place was
not defined as early as that of baptism. Or is it not more likely that it
was held secret? Does not the fourth Gospel strictly avoid speaking of it
in direct language, and is there not a like reserve in the Epistle to the
Hebrews?"  (THE ORIGINS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, p. 300) 

	...

[Yuri:]
> > Oh well... My case for "non-Apocalyptic earliest Eucharist" 
> > is obviously now in trouble? 
>
> Tom: I don't know that it is. All I know is that Lietzmann isn't going
> to be much help for you on this--or on the way you are trying to read
> the Didache.

Lietzmann is great help for me. His work indicates clearly a) that there
were two basic types of early eucharist, and b) that there was a strong
connection of the earliest eucharist with the Jewish-Christian circles.
Lietzmann agrees that the Didache indicates b) especially. This is some of
what I learn from Lietzmann. Bread-only communion theories of his do not
alter any of the above substantially if at all.

> > Well, Tom, actually, my words above should be seen in their proper
> > context. All I've been trying to say recently is that the earliest
> > eucharist should be seen as something very close to the traditional Jewish
> > meal. And I think this is provable.
> 
> Tom:I think everybody I know grants this. This only question is WHAT
> particular KIND of "traditional Jewish meal".

See below. I meant Seder type of meal. Van Cangh says the same. ... That
is why I brought van Cangh into this whole discussion in the first place. 
Because this is what he says in his article. The main point of his article
is precisely that the earliest eucharist was modelled on the Seder type of
meal. He says, e.g.:

"Cette solution a l'avantage d'e^tre en consonance parfaite avec les
be'ne'dictions juives quie termines le repas festif." (p. 623)

Regards,

Yuri.

Click here to go one level up in the directory.