CLICK HERE FOR INDEX TO THIS SERIES ON ST PAUL

This is a fascinating commentary from Dr Ian Elmer. It contains many references to events two millennia ago that still resonate today as issues we struggle with in trying to understand what Jesus (and Paul) were ultimately driving at. What Ian attempts to do today is "break apart" the social and theological differences between two very different groups that had emerged in the early Church — the Hebrews and the Hellenists. Does this help us better understand the divisions within Christianity today, or the divisions within, say, just the Catholic Church?

The Hellenists — the movement to which Paul and Barnabas converted…

This week we pause in our reflections on Paul to consider again the Hellenists; the movement to which both Barnabas and Paul were converted. I have to admit that this seldom-noticed group have always intrigued me. They rate only a few chapters in the Acts of the Apostles (6-8, 11), yet their break with the Christian-Jewish apostolic community had such far-reaching consequences.

Ernst Haenchen in his commentary on Acts (1971) refers to the split between the Hebrews and the Hellenists as "the first confessional schism in Church history". As a result we have two competing communities: one, Aramaic-speaking and led by the Twelve; the other, Greek-speaking and led by the Seven. The Twelve focused on the Law-observant Jewish mission and the Seven later initiated the Law-free Gentile mission.

An interesting echo of this split may be found in Mark's Gospel where we have two feeding stories: one, on Jewish territory with twelve baskets of leftovers (Mk 6:34-44); the other, on Gentile territory with seven baskets of leftovers (Mk 8:1-10). But what led to the original split between the Hebrews and the Hellenists?

A split over social or theological differences?

I've noted previously (Elmer, 2006) that Acts 6:1-6 suggests a brawl over financial mismanagement that led to the widows in the community of the Hellenists being overlooked in "the daily distribution". But the story of Stephen, accused of blasphemy (against the Temple) and apostasy (from the Law) suggests that theological differences may have played an even more significant part in the rift.

The feminist scholar, Elisabeth Schusler Fiorenza (1992), has even suggested that the phrase "daily distribution" should be interpreted as a reference to the Eucharist and, thus, the Apostles were "overlooking" the Hellenist widows' leadership at the Eucharistic gatherings of the Hellenists. In this case the rift was caused by the Hellenists' more equalitarian form of ecclesiastic leadership.

Let me say first up that I do not agree with Elisabeth Schusler Fiorenza's argument about Hellenist widows' leadership at the Eucharistic gatherings. It is "unconvincing". The argument could only hold true if we could find elsewhere in Luke/Acts the term "daily distribution" (Acts 6:1) as a reference to the Eucharist. Moreover, it is difficult to argue that the earlier references to the "breaking of the bread" in Acts (2:42; cf. Lk 24:35) even refer specifically to Eucharist (rather than regular fellowship meals shared by the whole community) — and, even so, we would expect Luke then to use this expression explicitly at Acts 6:1 if that is what he had in mind.

Going beyond Acts, it seems that elsewhere in the New Testament, the Eucharist carried the technical term of "the Lord's Supper" (1 Cor 11:20; cf. Jn 13:2; 21:20; Rev 19:9, 17), including probably also in Luke's community (22:20). The actual historical origins of the Eucharist are shrouded in mystery. There is no doubt that table fellowship was an important feature of Jesus' ministry. But the first we hear of the Lord's Supper is in Paul's first letter to Corinth (11:20-34) and, all other later accounts appear to be dependent upon this. It may be as Hyam Maccoby (1987) argues that Paul "invented" the Eucharist by borrowing the concept from the Greco-Roman mystery cults.

It is interesting to note that Paul introduces his account of Jesus' final meal with the phrase "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you…" (1 Cor 11:23). Elsewhere when Paul uses this expression (cf. Gal 1:12) he is referring to something that was "revealed" to him personally as opposed to passed onto him by "those who were apostles before [him]" (Gal 1:17). Compare for example 1 Corinthians 15:3 where Paul "hands on" traditions about the first witnesses of the resurrection that he had previously "received" (cf. 2 Thess 3:6). This might suggest that Paul has created the whole fabric of the Last Supper narrative as part and parcel of the Eucharistic ritual, which Maccoby would argue is basically a pagan ritual.

I personally don't necessarily prescribe to Maccoby's view. I think that we have sufficient independent witness to the last supper to suspect that Paul inherited the ritual. Still, I think that the Eucharist would have played a far greater role in the Hellenists' and, later, Pauline communities than it ever did in the Christian-Jewish community at Jerusalem (whose primary focus of worship remained the Temple). For the Law-free communities the Eucharist would have been central. This brings us to the final issue concerning women and the Eucharist.

Women and the Eucharist…

It is not without significance that several women are named by Paul as leaders of his communities — Chloe at Corinth, Prisca at Rome (and previously Ephesus) and Junia in Rome (who is also granted the title "apostle"), to name only the three most obvious. If the Eucharist figured so strongly in Paul's communities there may be no reason to doubt that it was presided over by these women in their communities. After all, Paul explicitly declares without qualification that in his churches "there is no longer any distinction between Jew and Greek, male and female, slave and free" (Gal 3:28). Surely this egalitarian policy must have also extended to presiding at the Eucharist.

Other social, cultural and demographic factors probably played a role also. As Greek-speaking Jewish immigrants to Palestine, the Hellenists probably lived apart from the Hebrews in a distinctive social quarter in the city, where they most likely held gatherings quite separate from those of the Hebrews. The Hellenists who spoke only Greek, and even those among their number who could function with a minimum of Aramaic, would have found it impossible to participate fully in the Aramaic-language services of the original Jerusalem community. As Diaspora Jews they would have been accustomed to different Scriptures (the Greek Septuagint as opposed to the Aramaic Targum) and differing exegetical traditions; and they belonged to a different synagogue association. Moreover, as we have seen, it was not long before the Greek-speaking Hellenists, who were already comfortable in foreign climes, also began to preach the Gospel to Gentiles.

The advent of two distinct liturgical groupings within the earliest Jesus Movement, each with its own language, its own Scriptures, its own worship services, its own leadership group, and its own missionary fields must have led inevitably to a serious rift between the two.

All of these were divisive pressures that must have made not just the distribution of charity amongst the two groups, but also basic social commerce between the Hellenists and Hebrews, extremely difficult. Therefore, it is not hard to imagine why the Hellenist widows were initially overlooked, nor how it came about that from within the Hellenist community natural leaders emerged to assume de facto the pastoral and missionary functions that the apostles performed (in effect only) for the Hebrews.

I wonder how often supposed splits in the Church turn on matters as simple as social and cultural differences, rather than serious theological ones? Or to what extent do social and cultural differences lead to theological disagreements? Moreover, it seems that when one form of religious polity fails to "reach" a significant group within the fold, newer forms evolve. Splinter groups become sects, and sects become denominations.

CLICK HERE FOR INDEX TO THIS SERIES ON ST PAUL

Bibliography and Further Reading:
For those who are looking for resources on Paul that are both reliable and readable, I can recommend the following:
I. J. Elmer (2006), "Who Were the First Christians", Catholica Australia.
URL: www.catholica.com.au/ianstake/018_it_111106.php
E. Schusler Fiorenza (1992), In Memory of Her: A Feminist reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York: Crossroads.
E. Haenchen (1971), Acts of the Apostles: A commentary, tr. B. Noble and G. Shin. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
H. Maccoby (1987), The Myth-Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. New York: Harper Collins
Photo Credits:
The headline image of St Paul has been sourced from an icon which you will find at: www.airmaria.com. Clicking on the other images will take you to the original source.

What are your thoughts on this commentary?
You can contribute your thoughts in our forum.

©2008 Ian Elmer

[Ian's Take Archive]