The Jewish Annotated New Testament (145 page)

A faction within the community of Corinth saw nothing wrong with eating meat offered to idols (1 Cor 8). Paul, in contrast, declares that “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons” (10.21). Paul does, however, allow Christ-believers to eat food purchased in the marketplace or served in the homes of non-believers so long as they do not know that this food had been offered to idols (10.25–29; cf. 5.9–10). In the Greco-Roman world, much of the meat available in the market came from sacrifices in local temples, and adherents of traditional Hellenistic religions regularly served sacrificial food at home. Paul’s permissive stance regarding meat whose provenance is unknown finds parallels within early rabbinic literature, which does not subject such meat to the stringent prohibitions associated with idolatry either (
t. Hul
. 2.20).

THE LORD’S SUPPER

Paul’s letters and Acts of the Apostles make clear that the commemoration of the final meal that Jesus shared with his followers, the Last Supper or Lord’s Supper, constitutes the central ritual of the community. Because of its significance, Paul warns, those who participate must do so not to satisfy physical hunger but to unite in remembrance of Jesus’ death. Paul reports that Jesus himself instituted this ritual during his last meal with the disciples (1 Cor 11.17–34). Matthew, Mark, and Luke associate the Last Supper with the Passover meal, in which Jews gathered in Jerusalem to consume the meat of their sacrificial lambs. (The seder is a later development after the destruction of the Temple, when the paschal lamb was no longer offered.) John, in contrast, portrays Jesus himself as the sacrificial lamb and dates the crucifixion to the time the Paschal lambs are sacrificed in the Temple, an event that precedes the Passover meal (19.14,31,36). Historically, John’s dating has much to commend it. If the accounts of Jesus’ trial before the Jewish authorities and then before the Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate (Mt 26.57–27.26; Mk 14.53–15.15; Lk 22.54–23.25), are an accurate reflection of the events, it is highly unlikely that they would have taken place once Passover had begun. The Temple authorities would more likely have put off any trials until after the festival, or at least until the first day had passed.

Paul treats bread and wine, staples in Mediterranean antiquity, as the primary elements—the “body” and “blood,” respectively—of the Lord’s Supper. In their later accounts, Mark and Matthew also associate these elements with Jesus’ body and blood. “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life,” Jesus declares in John 6.54. This statement both reinforces the significance of the Lord’s Supper and alludes to the biblical motif of ingesting God’s words (e.g., Ezek 3.1–3; Prov 24.13–14); John declares explicitly that Jesus is the Word incarnate (Jn 1.14).

Unlike the present-day celebration of the Lord’s Supper (also known as the Eucharist, Holy Communion, the Mass, or the Divine Liturgy), the practice in the New Testament period was to serve a full meal, a Christian version of the Greco-Roman banquet. Communal worship, moreover, apparently occurred in the course of this banquet (see 1 Cor 11.17–34). Within the Greco-Roman world, the banquet (commonly but imprecisely called the symposium, which is a “drinking meal”) constituted an especially important means of strengthening bonds within social groups. It is no surprise, therefore, that Paul employs exclusion from table fellowship as a means of disciplining sinful members (1 Cor 5.11). Paul and other leaders of the Jesus movements treat commensality, the act of eating together, as a proxy for their debates over the status of Gentiles as members of the Christ-believing community: if non-Jewish converts are included at the table, they are full-fledged members.

TABLE FELLOWSHIP BETWEEN JEWS AND GENTILES

Paul insists that membership in the church is open to Jews and Gentiles without distinction. For that reason, he sharply rebukes Peter (called Cephas) for withdrawing from commensality with Gentiles “for fear of the circumcision faction” (Gal 2.11–14). Paul may tolerate continued observance of other Jewish food practices (Rom 14), but he insists that all Christ-believers, Jewish and Gentile, can and ought to eat together as equals. Others within the church, whom Paul calls “the circumcision faction,” affirm the ongoing relevance of the Jew/Gentile distinction and consequently object to commensality between Jews and Gentiles, even among those who believe in Christ. This objection conforms to norms found in numerous Jewish works from the Second Temple period: Jews ought not share meals with Gentiles or eat food prepared by them (Dan 1.8–12; Jdt 10–12; Tob 1.10.11; Add Esth C.26;
Jub
. 22.16).

Jesus himself reportedly adhered to these traditional norms. He eats with those among the Jewish populace who are socially derogated, the “tax collectors and sinners,” comparing his behavior to a physician’s focus on the sick (Mt 9.10–13; Mk 2.15–18; Lk 5.29–32). Jesus does not, however, eat with Gentiles nor, as a general rule, does he minister to them (see Mt 15.21–28; Mk 7.24–30 for a telling exception). Those around him take for granted that Jesus, a Jew, would not eat the food of Samaritans (Jn 4.9,33). Jesus envisions a time when faithful Gentiles will eat with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (Mt 8.11; cf. Lk 13.29), but the fact that no early Christian figure invoked Jesus’ own practice in support of commensality with Gentiles indicates that they had no tradition of his engaging in such behavior.

Acts, which portrays “the breaking of bread” as a paradigmatic activity of Christ-believers (2.42), uses commensality as a motif to describe the process through which the community opened to Gentile participation. Peter, criticized by “circumcised believers” for his decision to “go to uncircumcised men and eat with them,” justifies his willingness to convert the centurion Cornelius and his Gentile household on the basis of a vision he experienced (Acts 10–11). (The content of the vision suggests that Peter ought not distinguish between permitted and prohibited meat, but the message Peter takes from it is that he ought not distinguish between Jews and Gentiles.) When the apostles meet to consider whether Gentile Christ-believers must adhere to the Torah in order to join the community, Peter reminds them that God bestowed the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his associates even though they were not Jewish. The apostles rely on this precedent in ruling that Gentiles, so long as they adhere to the conditions listed in the Apostolic Decree, may become full-fledged members of the Christ-believing community (15.1–29).

Acts presents the Jerusalem council as a turning point in the history of the early Christ-believing community because it eases the way for Gentiles to join its ranks. The following chapters recount Paul’s outreach efforts toward Gentiles, work that regularly involves shared meals (16.15,34). One incident is especially symbolic of the growing estrangement of Christ-believers from the Jewish community: when the Jews of Corinth spurn Paul’s message, he leaves the synagogue and accepts the hospitality of a neighboring Gentile (18.6–7). On a ship lost at sea, Paul takes bread from the ship’s provisions, gives thanks, and breaks bread with his fellow 276 passengers (27.33–37). Paul’s actions allude to those of Jesus, who fed the multitudes in the same manner (Lk 9.16); unlike Jesus, however, Paul breaks bread with—and spreads the gospel to—Gentiles.

As the movement of Jesus’ followers developed into a more institutional form of Christianity, it became necessary to define the identity and proper behavior of true Christians. Polemic against Jewish dietary practices played an important role in this process of self-definition. The New Testament, however, reflects the degree to which Jesus and his immediate followers conformed to Jewish dietary practices. It highlights, moreover, efforts on the part of the first leaders of the new movement to accommodate both Jewish and Gentile followers within a single community.

IOUDAIOS

Joshua D. Garroway

Ioudaios
(f.
Ioudaia
, pl.
Ioudaioi
) is the Greek word for “Jew” or “Judean.” Translators usually prefer to render it in English as “Jew” when
Ioudaios
designates anyone adhering to Judaism, specifically the laws, customs, rituals, or beliefs associated with the God of Israel. “Judean” is used when the term refers in a strictly political or geographical sense to one living in or originating from the region of Judea. However, the translation of
Ioudaios
is contentious.

When Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire in the late fourth century BCE, one of the many lands he obtained was a small province, centered upon Jerusalem, called
Yehud
in Aramaic (Ezra 5.1; 5.8; 7.14). This name stemmed from the kingdom of Judah (Heb
Yehudah
)—the Southern Kingdom under the descendants of King David, who had ruled that land—after the separation from the Northern Kingdom of Israel in the late tenth century BCE, for more than three centuries before its occupation, first by the Babylonians (597–586 BCE), then by the Persians (539 BCE). Greek-speakers such as Clearchus of Soli (ca. 300 BCE) soon began referring to this region as
Ioudaia
, “Judea,” and its inhabitants as
Ioudaioi
, “Judeans.” This correspondence between the name of a region and its resident “people” (Gk
ethnos
) was common in Greek: Athenians lived in Athens, Egyptians in Egypt, and so, Judeans in Judea. Such ethno-geographic labels were maintained even when one resided abroad. People in Alexandria, for example, who were descended from
Ioudaioi
and lived according to their laws and customs, would be known as
Ioudaioi
even if their families had lived in Alexandria for generations.
Ioudaios
was rarely, if ever, a preferred self-designation. Among themselves
Ioudaioi
favored the older terms, known from the Tanakh: Israel, Israelites (
huioi Israel
, “sons of Israel” in LXX), or Hebrews (
Hebraioi
).

As with any term of identity, dispute and/or confusion at times emerged in antiquity over who properly should be called a
Ioudaios
. The problems began in the second century BCE, when an important development complicated the definition of the term
Ioudaios
. When the Hasmonean kings expanded Judean hegemony by conquering regions to the north and south of Judea—e.g., Samaria, Galilee, and Idumea—they imposed their laws on the native populations. As a result, many who previously had no ethnic or geographic connection to Judea became
Ioudaioi
, inasmuch as they resided on lands controlled by Judea and obeyed its laws. Yet, opinions varied regarding the extent to which one actually became a
Ioudaios
through such incorporation.

The Idumeans to the south provide a good example. They were conquered in 125 BCE by the Hasmonean king John Hyrcanus, who allowed them to stay on their land provided they adopted the laws of the
Ioudaioi
. According to the first-century CE historian Josephus (
Ant
. 13.257–58), those who did so became
Ioudaioi
. In contrast, a contemporary historian named Ptolemy (Ammonius,
De Adfinium Vocabulorum Differentia
, no. 243) stated that even though the Idumeans came to be called
Ioudaioi
once they submitted to the new way of life, they were nevertheless different from
Ioudaioi
because originally they constituted a separate ethnic group. This is one reason why Herod the Great, a descendant of Idumeans, faced objections to the legitimacy of his kingship over the
Ioudaioi
. Josephus (
Ant
. 14.403) reports that one of Herod’s early rivals disputed his right to rule because, being an Idumean, he was only a
hemiioudaios
, a half- or partial-
Ioudaios
. Political incorporation of outsiders during the reign of the Hasmoneans thus broadened and complicated the parameters of the term
Ioudaios
.

A second important development was the emergence of conversion. While a process of conversion may be suggested by the Hebrew
mityahadim
in Esther 8.17 (fourth-or third-century BCE), it had become a well-attested practice by the first century BCE. The beliefs and way of life of the
Ioudaios
appeared attractive to many Gentiles. Some expressed their affection through benefactions to communities of
Ioudaioi
; others adopted certain of their rituals or beliefs; still others became proselytes, which meant confessing allegiance to the God of Israel, supporting God’s Temple in Jerusalem, participating in a local synagogue, and living in accordance with the ancestral laws and customs of the
Ioudaioi
. Yet, it remains unclear to what extent proselytes became full-fledged
Ioudaioi
as a result of their conversion. The later rabbinic literature suggests that they did not. Even the most generous estimation of converts declares them to be “like an Israelite in all respects” (
b. Yebam
. 47b):
like
an Israelite but not a
native
Israelite, a distinction with ramifications in certain legal and liturgical contexts. For example, a female convert was forbidden from marrying a priest.