Drinking blood at a kosher Eucharist? The sound of scholarly silence

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Winter, 2002 by Michael J. Cahill

Abstract

The element of drinking blood in the Eucharistic rite is at once a religious and a theological problem. How does one account for the practice, particularly given the alleged institution by a Jew in a Jewish setting? The lack of adequate attention to this specific issue is extraordinary. Those who insist on the historicity of the institution narratives need to be able to offer a reasonable explanation of a glaring incongruity--simplistic dogmatic assertion does not suffice; those who reject the historicity on the grounds of the incongruity have not provided a satisfactory history of this fascinating religious phenomenon. The state of the question is characterized by a deafening silence, or a tip-toeing side-step, the extent of which needs to be established, and this is done here by means of a comprehensive trawling expedition amidst the shoals of scholarly treatment of the Eucharist. The veritable litany of neglect is revealing. Some shifts in current New Testament scholarship are identified as possible avenues where advances can be hoped for in regard to a sensitive issue.

**********

The fact of the Jewish blood prohibition presents a problem for those who insist on the historicity of the New Testament texts that relate the institution of the Eucharist. This fact has not been given sufficient weight in past and present-day discussion. The problem, which is simply not being addressed, represents a challenge to exegetes, theologians, and historians of religion. Modern developments in New Testament studies allow the influence of the religions of the Greco-Roman world to be assessed afresh to find a solution to what is at once a religious and a theological problem. The Fourth Evangelist has Jesus speaking to "the Jews" of drinking his blood. The notion of drinking blood is expressed four times in as many verses (Jn 6:53-56, RSV). The Evangelist has "the Jews" reply, "This teaching is difficult, who can accept it?" Jesus retorts, "Does this offend you?" This incident is bewildering in terms of dramatic verisimilitude if the passage is taken as an account of an incident in the historical life of Jesus. At any period in the history of the Jewish people the notion of Jews drinking blood would be inconceivable even to those with only the barest acquaintance with Jewish dietary requirements and with the Jewish blood taboo. Can one imagine a Jew (such as Jesus) insisting with other Jews that they drink blood and then acting surprised at their reaction? In what circumstances could such a passage have been written? To explain how the element of blood-drinking entered the Eucharistic rite would be to explain how a context for this passage emerged, and to restore narrative sense to this passage in John's Gospel.

The Jewish attitude to the drinking of blood is illustrated in the story of Samuel's strong reaction to the exhausted soldiers eating the meat with the blood in it (1Sam 14:32). His reaction is clear testimony to the seriousness of the law. Ezekiel 39:17-20 presents a vivid image of the horror evoked by the thought of drinking blood. The oracle presents the overthrow of the enemy in the image of a pagan sacrificial feast to which the vultures and wild animals are invited to "eat the flesh of the mighty and drink the blood" (v 18). Closer to New Testament times, the Book of Jubilees contains expansions on the prohibition of drinking blood that reflect the seriousness of the matter (6:7, 12; 7:28). In the Jewish tradition the disposal of blood was carefully ordered. Physical contact with blood was severely restricted. Its use in the treatment of leprosy (Lev 14:14) and in the consecration of priests was connected with its perceived life-giving properties (Lev 8:23-24).

Modern Jewish practice goes to great lengths to remove all blood, even after the animal has been properly slaughtered; then, the carcass must be "porged" to remove all residual blood, and the meat must be either salted or broiled (Klein: 350). I recognize that some might object to my use of the term taboo as being too strong. It can be conceded that it was not a taboo in an absolute sense. The article Blood in the ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA maintains that we do not have here "a vestige of a primitive taboo but the result of a deliberate reasoned enactment" (4:1115). It continues: "The prohibition of blood is confined to its consumption; it is, however, permitted for other uses, and the Mishnah (Yoma 5:6) states that the sacrificial blood that flowed into the brook of Kidron was collected and sold to gardeners as fertilizer" (4:1116). On the other hand, the meticulous and even scrupulous character of the Niddah legislation gives every impression of dealing with taboo.

The Israelite/Jewish prohibition against blood stands out because in other respects the sacrificial meal as a communion-meal of God and people is a phenomenon found among both Jews and Gentiles. The precise connotation of the shedding of blood has been the subject of debate. W. R. Smith, for example, argued that the basic sacrifice was not a holocaust, and indeed that the sacrificial essence was not to be located in the death of the animal, but rather in the application of the blood that the slaughtering made available (338). Useful studies on the connotation of blood and its shedding can be found in Leon Morris; his views were challenged by Dewar. Dennis J. McCarthy, who studied the subject in the broader context of the "ancient Semitic and Aegean areas," concludes: "As far as we know, the reservation of blood to God because it was life and so divine is specifically Israelite" (176). The Jews differed from their neighbors in the degree of care they took to ensure that the blood was completely devoted to God, while the rest of the meat was theirs, to be eaten. The notion of drinking blood at the Eucharist, therefore, conflicts with an essential distinctive feature of Jewish sacrificial meals.