In the first four centuries of Christianity, turbulent times led to many variations of the religion. A predominantly verbal tradition traveled through generations via spoken tales, scriptural readings, and hymns. Couple this with the fact that the little literature that did exist faced constant change as scribes and literate individuals installed their own values and beliefs into passages. This search for an identity, and thus a religion to identify with, led to many different beliefs and interpretations flowing from the same set of core values taught by Jesus and the Disciples. The Eucharist coexists with the Catholic Church. As the Church developed, so did the Eucharist. Different groups developed different Eucharistic rituals to coincide with their own existing theologies.
In this tab the development and historical context of the Eucharist will be discussed. The history of the Eucharist is cloaked with controversy. While scholars and theologians have labored to understand the origins of the Eucharist, very little documentation exists on the pre-Nicene Eucharist. Thus, theologians are left to speculate how a two-thousand-year tradition, and the very center of the Catholic practice took its roots. Paul Bradshaw and Andrew McGowan, two renowned theologians, both research early Christianity. Early Eucharistic traditions and the development of Christianity are intertwined. With that said, this tab will use Bradshaw and McGowan’s works as dialogue for interpreting how the Eucharist developed, examining how social and historical factors influenced the growth of both the Eucharist and Christianity. Their arguments will be used to debunk the argument of Neil Xavier O’Donoghue, who claims that there is no Eucharistic development: the current Eucharist mirrors the Eucharist of Jesus.
The Argument to Debunk
Neil Xavier O’Donoghue, who possesses a doctorate in theology specializing in liturgy, claims that today’s Eucharistic traditions are based off a legitimate growth. He specifies a legitimate growth as the growth of a single organism “and not evolution,” and certainly not Darwinism. Specifically, legitimate growth is a purely linear development of the Eucharistic traditions. That is to say, the Eucharistic practices of today are identical to the way Jesus and the apostles practiced. A Darwinist view of the Eucharist, according to O’Donoghue, would undermine the teachings of Catholicism by validating the supposedly incorrect liturgical practices of other Christian sects (O’Donoghue).
O’Donoghue’s strong opinions against a true development of the Eucharist are counterintuitive. His narrow-minded, biased approach allows him to draw a conclusion that specifically validates his argument. It is improbable to believe that through almost 2000 years of history, the theologies of the Catholic Church have remained constant, especially if the general volatility of religious beliefs is considered.
The Counter-Argument
1. Bradshaw – a philological approach Paul F. Bradshaw outlines an understanding of early Christianity in his work The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. Bradshaw touches on how the views of scholars have changed over time. Scholars of the eighteenth and nineteenth century believed that they could paint a clear picture of earlier Christianity by solely consulting the scriptures. This method, known as the philological method, centered on the assumption that Jesus left a clear set of instructions for Christian communities to follow. These instructions are recorded in New Testament literature and manifested themselves throughout early Christianity (Bradshaw). Thus, according to the philological method, Christian practices blossomed around the teachings of the canonical, New Testament literature. However, when exclusively consulting the text, other influences are easily neglected, like how society and pre-existing traditions shaped early Christian worship. Issues with the philological approach arise when one considers the fact that liturgical manuscripts are ‘living literature.’ Bradshaw defines ‘living literature’ as “material which circulates within a community and forms a part of its heritage and tradition but which is constantly subject to revision and rewriting to reflect changing historical and cultural circumstances,” (Bradshaw 5). Therefore, the changing cultural and societal scene of early Christianity is reflected in the works of the New Testament. The texts that Catholics consider to be authoritative actually underwent periods of constant change as Christianity attempted to find an identity in its early centuries. If a scribe came across material that did not promote the values of the local tradition, he would simply change it (Bradshaw 5). These changes mean that there is uncertainty whether the allegedly original texts actually represent original values, or simply the values held by the groups that controlled the text.
2. McGowan – Of water, not wine.
Andrew McGowan spends a significant portion of his book Ascetic Eucharists discussing the use of water in place of wine in early Christian worship. McGowan speaks of how different early Christian groups in Asia and Syria used water in the Eucharistic cup. He speaks in depth about the Ebionites, a Christian group that observed the Torah while also rejecting Paul (McGowan). This group specifically used water for the Eucharistic Cup because they “rejected the union of divine and human nature in Jesus symbolized by the mixture of wine and water,” (McGowan 145). However, this group was not the only group to partake in different Eucharistic practices. In fact, many groups did. McGowan speculates that the differences from the authoritative Eucharist as described in the New Testament were the results of adaptations to primitive traditions of the local areas (McGowan). To synthesize the arguments made by Bradshaw and McGowan, it is clear that an evolution of the Eucharist took place over the first few centuries of Christianity. In order for Christianity to prosper it had to find a niche within a primarily Jewish or pagan society. The niche it found was that of adaptation. Christianity, and thus, the Eucharist changed constantly over the first four centuries. However, even throughout the change, the core beliefs and practices remained intact. This allowed for the religion to succeed because it maintained its identity.
Conclusion O’Donoghue’s belief of Eucharistic development opposes that of Bradshaw and McGowan. However, Bradshaw and McGowan’s draw their conclusions off a strong base of research. The two theologians approach the scriptural texts from multiple angles with an unbiased mind. Meanwhile O’Donoghue is simply validating his own beliefs. He has an agenda, which he is trying to prove that directly sways his opinion and effects his conclusion. Bradshaw, through his research, asserts that “a number of scholars… have argued that, while Jesus may indeed have held a final meal with his disciples, the narratives as we have them are creations of the early Church,” (Bradshaw 61). This assertion claims that there is, in fact, no historical backing for the Eucharist, but instead early Christian created the narratives and practices over time. That may seem like a blunt, or even frightening claim to make, but it is important to remember that change is good. Through the change of nearly 2000 years, the Eucharist has remained as a center of the Catholic faith.
