SL 34 (2004) 165-76 Rethinking Agape and Eucharist in Early North African Christianity by Andrew McGowan

I. From Agape! to Eucharist!" There is no serious doubt that the Christian eucharist was originally celebrated in the conte t o! an e"ening co##unal #eal$1 %t is e&ually clear that in ti#e the than'sgi"ing o"er bread and wine beca#e an entirely inde(endent liturgical e"ent celebrated largely in the #orning) while co##unal ban&uets (so#eti#es re!erred to as agape #eals or lo"e-!easts) continued se(arately$ Conser"ati"e and re"isionist accounts o! liturgical history de(art !airly ra(idly and radically) howe"er) on how and when sacra#ental ritual and substantial ban&uet beca#e se(arate e"ents and (ractices$ %n #uch scholarshi() the eucharistic ritual has been seen as a &uite distinct set o! actions within the #eal !ro# the outset and *aul+s ,irst -etter to the Corinthians as describing and (rescribing the se(aration o! the sacra#ental action !ro# the su((er$2 ,or so#e) e"en the redactional nuances between the di!!erent .ew Testa#ent accounts o! the
1 Two

recent wor's (ro"ide i#(ortant conte tual in!or#ation and analysis in this &uest

!or the signi!icance o! ancient Christian #eals/ 0atthias 1linghardt) Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft: Soziologie und Liturgie frhchristlicher Mahlfeiern) T2bingen/ ,ranc'e 13364 and now 5ennis 6$ 7#ith) From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early hristian !orld) 0innea(olis/ ,ortress *ress 2003$

-ast 7u((er re!lect this early change$3 8y the end o! the !irst century then) the sacra#ental ritual had su((osedly been detached to a se(arate occasion and "enue) lea"ing the agape as a co##unity #eal without es(ecially sacral o"ertones$ The #ost serious (roble# with this a((roach is that the e"idence !or Christian ritual #eal (ractice !ro# the !irst to the third centuries does not really su((ort the e istence o! two di!!erent ty(es o! #eal) let alone a 9secular: co##unity #eal alongside a 9sacra#ental: ritual$ ;cross the geogra(hical and theological s(ectru# in sur"i"ing Christian literature between *aul and Tertullian there is nothing that re&uires a shi!t !ro# the e"ening setting) or se(aration into two #eals held at se(arate ti#es$ %n %gnatius o! ;ntioch the ter#s 9eucharist: and 9aga(e: still re!er to the sa#e e"ent$4 <ustin 0artyr
2

7ee) !or a classic treat#ent) =regory 5i ) The Shape of the Liturgy (2d ed$) -ondon/

5acre *ress 1345) 36-102$ 5i is actually &uite >udicious in his treat#ent o! the e"idence !ro# 1 Cor 11$ ;lternati"e (ro(osals !or inter(reting the !rag#entary and di!!icult nature o! the e"idence) such as ?ans -iet@#ann+s suggestion o! two &uite di!!erent !or#s o! eucharist) ha"e not con"inced #any4 see his Messe und "errenmahl: eine Studie zur Geschichte der Liturgie) 3d ed$) 8erlin/ de =ruyter 1355) and the su##ary o! rece(tion in *aul ,$ 8radshaw) The Search for the #rigins of hristian !orship (2d ed$) -ondon/ 7*C1A.ew Bor'/ C !ord Dni"ersity *ress 2002) 65-67$
3

,or instance) Eilli 0ar sen) 9The -ord+s 7u((er as Christological *roble#: in The

Beginnings of hristology (*hiladel(hia/ ,ortress *ress 1373) FF-122$

4

7ee %gnatius) Smyrneans 7-F4 $omans 7$3$ Certainly use o! the ter#s 9eucharist: and

9aga(e: in the #ost ancient docu#ents is not consistent or clear enough to su((ort early se(aration into two #eals$ 7ee 0ichael <$ Townsend) 96 it the ;ga(eG: E%pository Times 30 (1373) 356-614 ;ndrew 0c=owan) 9.a#ing the ,east/ The aga(e and the di"ersity

and the &idache (ro"ide no e"idence !or two #eal gatherings$5 C! course there #ay well ha"e been Christian asse#blies at di!!erent ti#es !or co##unal (rayer or other (ur(oses) but no #orning e"ent (rior to Tertullian is ob"iously or necessarily 9eucharistic$:6 7o#e #ore recent scholarshi( has ta'en a di!!erent a((roach) de(icting the transition !ro# #eal to eucharist less as one o! e cision and se(aration than as de"elo(#ental$ ;t ti#es this in"ol"es de(iction o! liturgical de"elo(#ent as a change !ro# o(en and substantial co##ensality in the <esus #o"e#ent to e clusi"e sacra#ental ritual in the institutional church$7 Hather than 9aga(e: and 9eucharist: being (arallel e"ents) they are then consecuti"e !or#s o! Christian #eal that #irror di!!erent stages o! ecclesial e istence$ There are so#e ad"antages to thin'ing o! the e#ergence o! a distinct 9eucharist: #ore in ter#s o! transition or de"elo(#ent) but such re"isionist accounts ha"e tended to share with their #ore traditional co#(etitors the anachronistic contrast between 9sacred: and 9secular: #eals$8 =i"en the (icture o! two se(arate e"ents which e#erges clearly at least by the !ourth century) the historical &uestions #ust still be addressed in ter#s that o! early Christian #eals): Studia 'atristica 30 (1337) 314-1F$
5

.either does Cle#ent o! ;le andria) who is arguably a witness to co#(eting local #eal

traditions a#ong di!!erent Christian co##unities/ see 0c=owan) 9.a#ing the ,east$:
6

*liny the Bounger+s corres(ondence with the 6#(eror Tra>an does (ro"ide a !a#ous

re!erence to two di!!erent asse#blies) but only one with a #eal (Epistulae 10$36)$ The #orning e"ent in"ol"ed a sacramentum( which should be understood in the older and #ore literal sense o! an oath) while the e"ening gathering clearly had a sacral #eal$
7

.otably <ohn 5o#inic Crossan) The "istorical )esus: The Life of a Mediterranean

)e*ish 'easant (7an ,rancisco/ ?ar(er7an,rancisco 1331) 233-3F$

account !or co#(le changes beyond a su((osed decline into ritual and rigidity$ 7o there is still need !or a #ore (ersuasi"e account o! the de"elo(#ent o! the Christian #eal tradition) and (articularly o! the so#ewhat (er(le ing and undeniable shi!t !ro# the sacral but substantial e"ening #eals o! earliest Christianity to the to'en #orning !ood-rituals o! the e"entually nor#ati"e liturgical tradition$ ?ow can this (roble# be addressedG 7o#e conditions o! an ade&uate #ethod o! in&uiry ha"e already been i#(lied/ the assu#(tion o! two (arallel #eal !or#s always and e"erywhere (resent is un>usti!ied) and #ust be sus(ended4 and the (articular theological character or #eaning o! the #eal #ust not be assu#ed !ro# anachronistic "aluations o! sacrality (ro>ected onto issues such as &uantity o! !ood or a((arent elaboration o! ritual$ Traditional and re"isionist accounts ali'e ha"e also o!ten !ailed to ac'nowledge !ully the local di"ersity now generally assu#ed o! ancient liturgy) as o! other as(ects o! early Christian thought and (ractice$ 5i"ersity #ust be ac'nowledged) with so#e attention to local tendencies and traditions) be!ore general or synthetic accounts can really ho(e to be success!ul$ 0ulti(le accounts o! eucharistic origins and de"elo(#ent) in"ol"ing 9thic'er: descri(tion o! (articular settings and (ractices) #ay there!ore be necessary be!ore there can be a #ore ade&uate single historical (icture$ %n what !ollows % wish to !ocus on the e#ergence o! a distinct eucharistic ritual in one geogra(hical setting) in order to contribute to and e e#(li!y the sort o! re"ised F .otions o! a decline !ro# a (ristine ideal ban&uet to a !or#al liturgical relic also in"ol"e so#e (roble#atic assu#(tions4 see !urther ;ndrew 0c=owan) 9The 0eals o! <esus and the 0eals o! the Church/ 6ucharistic Crigins and ;d#ission to Co##union: in Studia Liturgica &i+ersa: Essays in "onor of 'aul F, Bradsha*) ed$ 0a well 6$ <ohnson and -$ 6dward *hilli(s (*ortland) Cregon/ *astoral *ress 2004) 101-15$

account o! the Christian #eal tradition >ust suggested$ The (lace is Carthage and its surrounds) in the (eriod between the !irst a((earance o! e"idence !or Christianity there (c$ 1F0 C6) and the career o! Cy(rian (d$ 25F)$ 7uch a deliberately #odest in&uiry) we #ay ho(e) #ay actually shed !urther light on the larger issues$

II. #ertullian The ti#e and character o! #eal e"ents in Ho#an ;!rica around 200 C6 ha"e been 'ey ele#ents in con"entional accounts o! the se(arate de"elo(#ent o! a #orning sacra#ent and an e"ening ban&uet$ 6"en those s'e(tical o! (ro(osals that se(arate 6ucharist !ro# agape soon a!ter *aul ha"e tended to see the writings o! Tertullian as the terminus ante quem !or the e#ergence o! a #orning eucharist as nor#ati"e$ Tertullian certainly is the !irst undoubted source !or the rece(tion o! the eucharist in the #orning) yet it is also clear that his co##unity celebrated an e"ening ban&uet together$ The relationshi( between these two deser"es !urther e a#ination$ The e"ening #eal gathering in TertullianIs Carthage had #ore than the se#blance o! a ban&uet) but was clearly still the central liturgical e"ent o! the co##unity$3 %t is this e"ening #eal and no other that can be re!erred to as a 9-ord+s su((er: (cena domini - &e spect, 13)) 9=od+s ban&uet: (con+i+ium dei - -d u%or, %%$F$F)) or si#ilar$ These e (ressions gi"e an indication o! the e"ent+s i#(ortance) but the (ro(er na#e o! this Carthaginian Christian ban&uet was a((arently agape (-pol$ 33$164 &e ieiunio 17$2-34 c!$ 'assio 'erpetuae 17)) as in the writings o! %gnatius or in the -etter o! <ude$ That this agape was the #ost signi!icant e"ent in the co##on li!e o! Carthaginian church is
3

Thus also 1linghardt) Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft) 515$

con!ir#ed in the conte#(orary Martyrdom of 'erpetua and Felicitas) where the #artyrs celebrated a last #eal together/ 90oreo"er) on the day be!ore Jthey dined to the e tent they could in that last #eal) which they call K!ree)+ not on a K!ree ban&uet)+ but on an agape: (Mart, 'erp, 17$1)$ The !ullest descri(tion o! this ;!rican agape is (ro"ided in Tertullian+s -pology (c$ 137)) where the author+s interest is not #erely descri(ti"e) but the de!ense o! Christian #eal (ractice against accusations o! i##orality and cannibalis#$ The (icture he (aints is certainly innocuous) but also re!lects a signi!icant degree o! rituali@ation/ Cur dinner shows its (ur(ose by its na#e/ it is called what a#ong the =ree's #eans a!!ection (dilectio)JEe do not recline until we ha"e !irst tasted o! (rayer to =od$ 7o #uch is eaten as satis!ies hunger4 as #uch drun' as is !itting !or the (ure$ ;((etite is satis!ied to the e tent a((ro(riate !or those who are #ind!ul that they ha"e to worshi( =od e"en at night4 s(eech) as !or those who 'now the 0aster is listening$ ;!ter washing o! hands) and lights) each is in"ited into the #iddle to sing to =od as able) !ro# 'nowledge o! sacred writings or !ro# their own #ind4 thus it can be tested how #uch has been drun'$ *rayer again closes the !east (-pol, 33$16-1F)$ %t is interesting that concern about cannibalis# was !ocused on this e"ent$ ;lthough the allegations o! 9Thyestean !easts: #ay not really ha"e had anything #uch to do with the Christian understanding o! the eucharistic ele#ents as the body and blood o! Christ)10 the agape was certainly the setting !or whate"er actions did gi"e rise to an ieties
10 The

connection with eucharistic sy#bolis# #ay not be &uite as i##ediate as o!ten

thought/ see ;ndrew 0c=owan) 96ating *eo(le/ ;ccusations o! Cannibalis# ;gainst

and slurs regarding the ritual !ood o! the Christians$ Thus although the a(ologetic conte t (ro"ides no !urther details o! the actual !ood ritual) the i#(lication is clearly that the #eal did include the sacral !ood called 9eucharist$: %t would certainly be stretching credibility to i#agine that Tertullian+s co##unity was eating sacred !ood elsewhere that needed no e (lanation) but were engaging in a #erely 9secular: or ritually insigni!icant use o! !ood at night that had to be de!ended !ro# #isunderstanding$ There is) howe"er) re!erence in Tertullian+s writings to rece(tion o! the eucharist in the #orning also$ %n his treatise #n the Military ro*n (written c$ 210)) Tertullian re!ers to certain #orning asse#blies/ 9Ee ta'e also) in congregations be!ore daybrea') and !ro# the hand o! none but the (residents) the sacra#ent o! the eucharist) which the -ord both co##anded to be eaten at #eal-ti#es) and en>oined to be ta'en by all ali'e: (&e corona militis 3$3)$11 Dnli'e the -pology) this wor' is not (resenting or e (laining Christian (ractices to su((osed outsiders) but #a'ing a (oint to those who 'now the# well$ This is actually (art o! a list o! Christian custo#s that e ceed e (licit biblical co##ands) and which are thus analogous to the bra"e but not scri(turally-#andated re!usal by a Christian soldier o! the #ilitary crown) the sub>ect o! this treatise$ Cther e a#(les gi"en include !asting and 'neeling) #a'ing the sign o! the cross) and the renunciation o! the de"il) his (o#( and angels #ade at ba(tis# L all beyond any co##and #ade by Christ but (racticed along with #ore biblical custo#s$12 Christians in the 7econd Century): )ournal of Early hristian Studies 2 (1334) 413-32$
11

Eucharistiae sacramentum( et in tempore uictus et omni.us mandatum a &omino(

etiam antelucanis coeti.us nec de aliorum manu quam praesidentium sumimus$

12

Ehile this wor' co#es !ro# a ti#e when Tertullian was clearly in!luenced by

0ontanis#) none o! the (ractices in &uestion L e ce(t (erha(s the re!usal o! the corona

7o this #orning rece(tion o! the eucharist is (resented not as the heart o! Christian liturgy) but si#(ly as an e a#(le a#ong (ious (ractices that are !ollowed) des(ite not being biblically based$ The (assage is certainly no e"idence !or what was nor#ati"e !or eucharistic celebration and rece(tion in the Carthaginian church$ This conte t #ay also hel( account !or the cry(tic and contrasting re!erence to <esus+ su((osed co##and that the sacra#ent actually be eaten in tempore +ictus L at regular #eal ti#es) i$e$) in the e"ening$ This other ti#e and clearly do#inically-instituted e a#(le see# to be (resented as instances o! the other sort o! Christian (ractice) established by the letter but no better grounded in Tertullian+s eyes$ 8oth ha"e to be !ollowed) i! !or di!!erent reasons$ This (assage thus see#s also to be a !urther) i! obli&ue) (iece o! e"idence that the e"ening celebration continued to be the (ri#ary locale !or the eucharist$ %t see#s then that the (re-dawn gathering in"ol"ed so#e additional (ractice o! recei"ing the sacral !ood L 9eucharist: L outside the conte t o! the co##unal su((er which was its nor#al setting$ Ehat actually is the #orning e"ent at which the 9eucharist: is so#eti#es recei"edG %n his slightly earlier treatise #n 'rayer (c$ 200)) Tertullian see#s to gi"e so#e indication$ ?ere he is dealing with hesitations on the (art o! so#e Christians about (artici(ation in #orning liturgical e"ents connected with the obser"ances o! stationes or hal!-!asts on Eednesdays and ,ridays (see &e ieiunio 14$2)$ Those he see's to reassure a((arently want to 'ee( a strict !ast) and ha"e doubts about being (resent/ -i'ewise a nu#ber o! (eo(le thin' they ought not to (artici(ate in the (rayers o! the sacri!ices on stational days because the station has to be ended with the militis itsel! L see#s to ha"e been a #atter o! contention a#ong Christians$ ?e uses these e a#(les (recisely because they are generally (racticed$

rece(tion o! the -ordIs body$ .ow does the eucharist cancel a de"out ser"ice to =od) or bind us closer to =odG Eill your station not be the #ore sole#n i! you ha"e also stood at =odIs altarG 8y your acce(ting the -ordIs body and reser"ing it both things are sa!e) your (arta'ing o! the sacri!ice and your (er!or#ance o! your duty (&e orat$ 13$ 1-44 c!$ -d u%or, %%$ 4$1)$ The s&uea#ish to who# he addresses this (assage were hesitant to co#e to the #orning 9sacri!ices: L a ter# Tertullian uses #eta(horically !or "arious !or#s o! co##unal (rayer13 L ha"ing in #ind another e"ent) or at least ti#e) at which they will brea' their !ast with the rece(tion o! the -ord+s body$ %n other words) the eucharist is still being celebrated) or at least recei"ed) later in the day$ Bet this #orning e"ent also (ro"ided an o((ortunity to recei"e i! not to eat the eucharist) since Tertullian s(ea's o! it L without a((arent need !or argu#ent or (lea L being both 9recei"ed: (accepto) and 9reser"ed: (reser+ato)$ Ehile this see#s li'ely to be the sa#e sort o! #orning e"ent re!erred to in #n the Military ro*n) Tertullian indicates #ore clearly here in #n 'rayer that the distribution and consu#(tion o! the eucharistic !ood were not one and the sa#e thing$ ?is argu#ent that reser"ation and later consu#(tion #eets the needs o! the !asting Christian does not see# to in"ol"e arguing !or so#e strange or new (rocedure4 rather he inter(rets what see#s already to be nor#al (ractice$ 7o it see#s (ossible that the stational asse#blies included (rayer and distribution o! the eucharist !or later brea'ing o! the !ast a((ro(riately) rather than a co#(lete celebration o! the eucharist as such$14 ; third 'ey (assage (ro"ides the earliest witness to the re#aining co#(onent o!
13

7ee) !or instance) &e e%hortatione castitatis 11$2) -pologeticum 30$

this (ractice o! recei"ing) reser"ing) and consu#ing$ %n the treatise To "is !ife) !ro# around the sa#e ti#e as that #n 'rayer) Tertullian see#s to re!er to the eating o! eucharistic bread (alone) at the end o! a !ast) andAor at the beginning o! a day) in a do#estic setting/ 9Eill your husband not 'now what you secretly taste be!ore any other !oodG ;nd i! he 'nows it is bread) will he not belie"e that it is what it is su((osed to beG ;nd will anyone ignorant o! the reason !or these things) si#(ly ta'e the# without #uttering) without wondering whether it is bread or (oisonG: (-d u%or, %%$5$3)$ The e"idence !or such eucharistic consu#(tion away !ro# the actual liturgical asse#bly in this (eriod is o! course #uch wider than this$15 Tertullian thus indicates that the eucharistic !ood was distributed at #orning asse#blies (&e corona 3$3)) reser"ed (&e orat, 13$4)) and eaten at the end o! a !ast (-d u%or, %%$5$3) ?e argues) !urther) that the belie"er+s reser"ing o! the sacral !ood !or later consu#(tion (ro"ides the dual bene!it o! eucharist and !asting) along with that o! ha"ing been (resent at the ara &ei L by no #eans necessarily a table !or the celebration o! the eucharist) since Tertullian uses the language o! (riesthood and sacri!ice in general ter#s) #eta(horically a((licable to (rayer and other !or#s o! (ractice$ The #orning distribution o! the eucharist see#s thus to ha"e been so#ewhat se(arate !ro# its consu#(tion (and (erha(s its sacrali@ation also)) and (er!or#ed in
14

=rae#e Clar'e also concludes that Tertullian is re!erring here to a !or# o! rece(tion o!

the 9reser"ed: eucharist) noting the e"idence !or (ri"ate rece(tion in ;!rica !ro# the do#estic arca4 see The Letters of St yprian of arthage) ;ncient Christian Eriters 4344) 46-47 (.ew Bor'/ .ew#an *ress 13F4-F3) 3/221) n$17$
15

7ee es(ecially .athan 0itchell) ult and ontro+ersy: The !orship of the Eucharist

#utside Mass( .ew Bor'/ *ueblo 13F2$

con>unction with co##unal !asting (ractices rather than as the sole or nor#al (attern o! eucharistic rece(tion$ The (ri#ary celebration o! the co##unity #eal was still the e"ening agape) where) it #ay be assu#ed) the sacral !ood called 9eucharist: was a"ailable as #uch or #ore than at those #orning stational asse#blies$ ;ll these re!erences see# e (licitly or i#(licitly to re!er only to the distribution) reser"ation) and consu#(tion o! the sacrali@ed bread$ %t is not i##ediately clear whether (ractical considerations or (rinci(le or both were at issue$ This increases the li'elihood that the #orning e"ent is not a co#(lete but to'en !or# o! #eal-ritual) but si#(ly the distribution o! the sacral !ood in a (ortable !or# inde(endently o! a #eal$ 8ut was the #orning e"ent a 9celebration o! the eucharist:G This is not only a di!!icult &uestion but arguably an anachronistic one$ ;s we ha"e seen) 9eucharist: !or Tertullian #eans the sacral !ood) not a liturgical e"ent$ 7ince the (ri#ary celebration o! a sacral #eal was the e"ening agape) the &uestion #ay really be whether bread and wine were 9eucharisti@ed: at the #orning e"ents inde(endently o! the agape( rather than reser"ed !ro# the ban&uet itsel! !or later use$ The answer is not clear$ %!) as see#s to ha"e been the case) bread alone was recei"ed and !urther reser"ed in the #ornings) this #ay #a'e it li'ely that the whole o! the eucharistic actions (as later understood) were actually not (er!or#ed) but that a distribution o! the eucharistic bread held o"er !ro# the agape was #ade in con>unction with the #orning 9sacri!ices: ((rayers) on stational days$ %!) on the other hand) there actually was a sel!-contained #orning ritual o"er bread alone &uite se(arate !ro# the co##unal #eal) then this would be the !irst instance recorded or alluded to o! such a (ractice L but in any case it would certainly not #a'e this e"ent the #ain or only eucharistic celebration at Carthage$ %n either e"ent) the #orning asse#bly

#ust be seen as a sort o! subsidiary eucharistic ritual) rather than as a de!initi"e se(aration o! the eucharist !ro# the co##unal #eal) or a new (ri#ary liturgical !ocus$ ,or this de"elo(#ent in Carthage we #ust turn to the writings o! Cy(rian) !i!ty years later$

III. Cyprian 8y around 250 C6) the ritual #eal (ractice o! the Carthaginian church does see# to ha"e shi!ted signi!icantly) i! not co#(letely) in the direction o! a #orning nor# !or the eucharistic celebration) and away !ro# the centrality o! the e"ening gathering$ Bet e"en Cy(rian+s e"idence !or these (ractices i#(lies a continuing (rocess) rather than a fait accompli$ ;#ong the 'ey te ts is Cy(rian+s Letter 63) the !ullest e (osition !ro# any source u( to this (oint o! the #eaning and (ractice o! the eucharist$ The issue gi"ing rise to this treatise is the (ersistence in so#e ;!rican churches o! drin'ing water rather than wine in the eucharistic cu($16 The contro"ersy that leads Cy(rian to co#(ose what see#s a sort o! (ro"incial encyclical letter is connected to a((ro(riate ti#es !or eating) as well as to the (ro(er !ood and drin' in"ol"ed/ 5o so#e (erha(s !latter the#sel"es with the notion that) while in the #orning water alone see#s to be o!!ered) yet when we co#e to dine we o!!er a #i ed cu(G 8ut when we dine) we cannot call the (eo(le together to our ban&uet) to celebrate the truth o! the sacra#ent with all the brethren (resent$ ;nd it was not early but
16

7ee !urther on this ;ndrew 0c=owan) -scetic Eucharists: Food and &rin/ in Early

hristian $itual Meals) C !ord/ Clarendon 1333$

a!ter dinner that the -ord o!!ered a #i ed cu($ 7hould we then celebrate the -ordIs sacri!ice a!ter su((er) that so we o!!er a #i ed cu( with all (resent thereG %t was (ro(er !or Christ to o!!er at the e"ening o! the day) so he #ight show in that sacri!icial hour the sunset and the e"ening o! the world4 as it is written in 6 odus) 9;nd all the (eo(le o! the congregation o! the children o! %srael shall 'ill it in at e"ening$: ;nd again in the *sal#s) 9-et the li!ting u( o! #y hands be an e"ening sacri!ice$: Ee) howe"er) celebrate the resurrection o! the -ord in the #orning (63$16$1-2)$17 Cy(rian i#(lies that in Carthage itsel! the sole or at least #a>or #eal gathering o! the Christian co##unity is a single e"ent held in the #orning) with both bread and cu() and at least (otentially all the co##unity (resent$ Bet in the churches around Carthage to who# this letter see#s obli&uely to be addressed) there were a((arently still se(arate e"ening and #orning e"ents with so#ewhat di!!erent (ractices and characteristics$ These se(arate gatherings in the other towns #ay not ha"e been &uite the sa#e as those re!erred to by Tertullian$ %! the language o! 9o!!ering: used here by Cy(rian can also be attributed to his o((onents) we would conclude that there was #ore than >ust a distribution o! the reser"ed sacra#ent in one 'ind going on in the #orning) but so#e sort o! !ull eucharistic ritual$ Eater in the #orning and #i ed wine in the e"ening do not see# to ha"e di!!erent sacra#ental signi!icance) but re!lect #ere politesse$ %t is the (resence o! any cu( at all that #a'es the #ore interesting contrast with Carthaginian
17

% de(end on =rae#e Clar'e+s inter(retation o! dominicum used here in the absolute as

in!erring so#ething li'e 9-ord+s sacri!ice$: The (hrasing here see#s to e clude 9-ord+s 7u((er$: 7ee The Letters of St yprian 3/300) n$ 42$

stationes o! earlier decades) suggesting so#e shi!t in these churches also towards a !uller #orning celebration$ Bet the o((onents see# also to be ta'ing (art in a co##unal ban&uet in the e"ening$ ?ere too they 9o!!er): with what would ha"e been !or Cy(rian a #ore acce(table !or# o! cu() o! #i ed wine and water$ That e"ening e"ent #ight well ha"e still been co#(arable to the earlier agape$ Cy(rian goes on to argue !or three !eatures o! the eucharistic #eal) all connected with the de!ense o! wine in its celebration) all arguably di!!erent !ro# the (ractice o! his o((onents$ ,irst) wine #ust always be used) he says) because o! the e a#(le o! <esus at the -ast 7u((er4 this o"errides other custo#s and sensibilities$ 7econd) all the church #ust be (resent !or the 9!ull truth: o! the sacra#ent$ This i#(lies that !ull-scale reclining ban&uets cannot be the #ain eucharistic asse#blies) since logistics (re"ent it L there are now a((arently too #any (eo(le to gather the church in any single triclinium) at least !or a recogni@able cena$ ;nd because the Carthaginian Christians a((arently cannot asse#ble !or a ban&uet in one (lace) a third (oint !ollows) that des(ite the necessary use o! wine) the e"ent #ust ta'e (lace in the #orning$ 0ore than the o((onents in the letter) Cy(rian or his church has thus #ade L or he is trying to #a'e - the #orning e"ent the nor#) and the e"ening an e ce(tion or oddity$ ?e has so#e di!!iculty in doing so) since he #ust (resent the e a#(le o! <esus as uni"ersally a((licable !or one as(ect o! his argu#ent (use o! wine) and as s(eci!ic and non-re(eatable !or his o((onents (gathering at e"ening)$18 ?e argues in the end that the association o! the eucharist with the celebration o! the resurrection o"errides its
1F

6$ C$ 8enson co##ents a(tly that the letter is characteri@ed by a 9wildness o! 8iblical

inter(retations and$$$looseness o! logic$$$: ( yprian: "is Life0 "is Times0 "is !or/ M-ondon/ 0ac#illan 1F37N 231)$

connections with e"ening sacri!ices and nor#al ban&ueting ti#es$ Cy(rian+s ob>ection to e"ening celebration on the basis that not all #e#bers o! the church can be (resent at such asse#blies in"ol"es !actors not #entioned in Tertullian+s writings$ ;lthough not e (licit) the descri(tion in the -pology and other allusions to the agape in Tertullian+s writings #ay i#(ly either the (resence o! the entire but #uch s#aller co##unity at a dining ritual) or (and (erha(s #ore li'ely) a lac' o! concern about the co#(leteness o! the gathering$ Thus the scale o! the asse#bly #ay be as rele"ant a !actor as anything in the shi!t !ro# e"ening to #orning that see#s to ha"e ta'en (lace in the ca(ital itsel! but not e"erywhere outside it$ Cy(rian+s writings also indicate so#e other changes in eucharistic (ractice in the (receding decades$ Cne is an increase in the !re&uency o! celebration o! the eucharist$ %n his treatise #n the Lord1s 'rayer Cy(rian inter(rets the line 9gi"e us today our daily bread: in eucharistic ter#s/ 90oreo"er we as' that this bread be gi"en to us daily) lest we who are in Christ and who recei"e his eucharist daily as !ood o! sal"ationJbe se(arated !ro# the 8ody o! ChristJ: (&e &om, orat$ 1F)$ ;lthough that (assage could ha"e re!erred si#(ly to a !or# o! rece(tion and reser"ation li'e that attested by Tertullian) other re!erences actually #a'e it clearer that Cy(rian is re!erring not #erely to daily rece(tion but to so#e #ore co#(lete liturgical celebration$ ?is discussion in Letter 57 o! the role o! bisho(s in reconciling the a(ostates who ha"e now readied the#sel"es !or #artyrdo# is re"ealing/ 9it con!ers great honor and glory on our e(isco(ate to ha"e gi"en (eace to #artyrs) in that as (riests who celebrate each day the sacri!ices o! =od) we are (re(aring sacri!icial "icti#s and o!!erings !or =od: (Ep, 57$3$2)$ =i"en Cy(rian+s literal e#(loy#ent o! this sacri!icial language) in

contrast to Tertullian+s rather looser and #eta(horical use) we can be clear Cy(rian is thin'ing o! a daily eucharistic ritual in co#(aring such liturgical 9sacri!ices: to the (re(aration o! the #artyrs !or their sel!-o!!ering$ Cy(rian+s letters also (ro"ide e"idence o! daily eucharistic drin'ing$ %n Letter 5F Cy(rian writes to the Christians in the town o! Thibaris) warning o! a crisis and the rise o! (ersecution) urging that/ 9soldiers o! Christ #ust (re(are the#sel"es with unble#ished !aith and courageous strength) since the reason they drin' the cu( o! the blood o! Christ daily is that they the#sel"es #ay thus also be able to shed their blood !or Christ: (Ep, 5F$1$2)$ This letter there!ore elucidates !urther the di!!erence already noted regarding e"en Cy(rian+s o((onents and Tertullian+s earlier (icture o! stational eucharistic e"ents$ Cy(rian+s argu#ent rests on daily rece(tion o! the 9cu( o! the blood o! Christ): not the sort o! reser"ation and later consu#(tion solely o! the eucharistic bread that Tertullian had recorded) and to which Cy(rian hi#sel! bears witness as a continuing (ractice (see &e lapsis 26)$ Thus the (attern o! eucharistic (ractice in Carthage around 250 #ay be su##ari@ed as daily celebration in the #orning) with bread and wine) and with at least the (otential (resence o! a large (ro(ortion o! the Christian co##unity$ 6"ening ban&uets #ay still be occurring in Carthage) but are not accorded great signi!icance by Cy(rian hi#sel!$ %n other ;!rican towns howe"er) e"ening and #orning #eal e"ents continue) with di!!erences o! (ractice that re#ain un'nown to us a(art !ro# the use o! water in the #orning and a #i ed cu( in the e"ening$

I$. Conclusion

The eucharistic #eal (ractice o! the church in Carthage had changed signi!icantly between 200 and 250$ Ehat had begun at so#e earlier (oint as a (ractice o! recei"ing the sacral !ood o! the eucharist outside its nor#al setting) a sort o! e ce(tion to or e tension o! the actions that too' (lace at the agape) see#s e"entually to ha"e beco#e the nor#$ *erha(s two 'inds o! reasons !or the changes can be adduced) broadly s(ea'ing$ The !irst are relati"ely (rosaic4 as the church grew) the #orning e"ent at which the sacred !ood could be recei"ed had #uch great !le ibility !or larger co##unal gatherings) since there was no e (ectation o! the couches and cu(s o! the ancient con+i+ium$ 6"en a large do#estic s(ace could acco##odate #any (artici(ants standing or sitting4 ada(ted s(aces such as see# to ha"e e isted !or church use by this ti#e) e"en #ore$ This #o"e#ent toward a larger co##on gathering #ight ha"e had a theological as(ect as well as a (ractical one) though$ %! in Cy(rian+s ti#e there was increased (ressure !or one single gathering) where Tertullian+s setting #ay ha"e in"ol"ed (ri#arily a networ' o! house churches) then an ecclesiological as(ect #ust be ac'nowledged as a !actor also$ ; second 'ind o! reason is a (recondition !or the !irst4 the understanding o! the sacrality o! the eucharistic !ood had de"elo(ed to the (oint that it was the !ood itsel! #ore than the ban&uet that was the attraction$ Tertullian already re!lects the "iew that 9eucharist: is (ower!ul outside the agape( but Cy(rian+s writings L notably &e lapsis are a (articularly stri'ing source !or a sort o! eucharistic (iety in which the consecrated ele#ents ha"e an ob>ecti"e (ower both !ascinating and !ear!ul) and which o(erates &uite inde(endently o! the liturgical setting$ ,ood that #ight (oison the unworthy) turn to ashes in the hands o! the a(ostate) or burst into !la#es in the hands o! a sinner #ight well better

be handled in circu#stances #ore cautious than con"i"ial (see &e lapsis 25-26)$ Cy(rian+s (articularly strong identi!ication o! the eucharist as a sacri!icial ritual is not unrelated to this de"elo(#ent) and (erha(s lin's this as(ect to the other reason !or change already #entioned4 the new (attern o! eucharistic celebration re!lects the e#ergent sacri!icial and &uasi-ci"ic church$19 %n this Carthaginian setting at least) the #orning asse#bly (robably e isted as a !or# o! co##unal gathering !or (rayer e"en (rior to its association with the eucharist) then ca#e to include it as a sort o! e tension o! the e"ening ban&uet) and !inally beca#e the (ri#ary setting !or celebration and rece(tion o! the sacra#ent$ Ehether this (attern was also true in other locales) or whether the (rocess or the chronology was di!!erent) #ust be deter#ined by !urther studies o! those s(eci!ics$ 7o the e#ergence o! eucharist and agape turns out to be neither &uite e cision nor e"olution as such$ %t was not instant or one (rocess) but in"ol"ed a gradual shi!t o! e#(hasis !ro# the original ban&uet itsel! to another setting at which the sacred !ood) and later drin') was a"ailable$ The ;!rican eucharist #o"ed in these ste(s !ro# e"ening to #orning and !ro# do#estic ban&uet to &uasi-(ublic asse#bly$ EhyG 8ecause logistically it needed to) and because theologically it could$

O The He"d 5r ;ndrew 0c=owan (a#cgowanPtrinity$uni#elb$edu$au)) an ;nglican (riest) is 5irector o! the Theological 7chool and <oan 0unro -ecturer in Theology) Trinity College) Dni"ersity o! 0elbourne) ;ustralia$ ; "ersion o! this article was read as a (a(er at the winter #eeting o! the ;#erican 7ociety o! Church ?istory in Chicago in
13

7ee <$ Hi"es) $eligion and -uthority in $oman arthage from -ugustus to onstantine

(C !ord/ Clarendon 1335) 2FF-31$

<anuary 2003) as a contribution to the se#inar on the *ractice o! Christianity in Ho#an ;!rica$ The author wishes to than' Eillia# Tabbernee !or co##ents gi"en at that ti#e) and *aul 8radshaw and 0atthieu 7#yth !or discussion since$