(b) Palestinian memorial formulae
Quite a different picture is to be seen when we turn to the realm of Palestinian Judaism.
1. In Palestine memorial formulae are very common in religious language.
We find them first in connection with the cult. That part of the cereal offering which was burnt is called already in the Old Testament azkarah, LXX, μνημόσυνον (‘memorial [portion]’, Lev. 2:2, 9, 16 etc.); the frankincense which is put with the shewbread is said to serve leazkarah, LXX, εἰς ἀνάμνησιν (‘as a memorial [portion]’, Lev. 24:7); the blowing of the trumpets by the priests over the burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings is to serve lezikkaron liphne elohekem, LXX, ἀνάμνησις ἔναντι τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν (‘for remembrance before your God’, Num. 10:10), i.e. to insure that God remembers mercifully the givers of the sacrifices. God’s merciful remembrance is similarly insured by the stones set in Aaron’s breastplate, which bear the names of the twelve tribes lezikkaron (‘for [continual] remembrance’, Ex. 28:12, 29; 39:7), and by the atonement money which brings the people lezikkaron liphne Yhwh (‘to remembrance before the Lord’, 30:16). The twelve precious stones which Jael will put above the cherubim, erunt in conspectu meo (God’s) in memoria (A: in memoriam) domui (A: domus) Israel.1 Examples of the use of the construction μνημόσυνον in relation to the cult (bells and precious stones in Aaron’s breastplate, incense, the sound of trumpets) are to be found in Ecclesiasticus (45:9, 11, 16; 50:16) and will be discussed below.2
Related to the temple and synogogue (sic) cult are the donation formulae, which are also concerned with remembrance.3 The oldest is to be found in Zech. 6:14, where it is said that a crown should be deposited in the temple of Jahweh to the merciful remembrance (leḥen … lezikkaron) of certain individuals,4 i.e. to ensure God’s merciful remembrance. Numerous later examples have been found in synagogue donors’ inscriptions, which mostly begin with the phrase dkyr lṭb in which the passive is circumlocution of the divine name, therefore: ‘God remember so and so mercifully’.1 In the donor’s inscription in the synagogue at Jericho this phrase is explicated by the additional sentence: ‘He who knows their names and (the names) of their children and (the names) of the people of their households, shall write them in the Book of Life (together with) the Just.’2 E. R. Goodenough has shown that the conclusion to be drawn from this is that the donor’s inscription is eschatologically oriented; the prayer is that God’s remembrance may be realized through the acceptance of the donor in the Book of Life.3
Next, memorial formulae are to be found in the liturgy and in prayers. Among the special prayers (musaph prayers) of the New Year festival are the malkiyyot, zikronot and šopharot. The zikronot4 are prayers which enclose biblical passages concerned with ‘remembrance’, exclusively with God’s merciful remembrance of his covenant promises in the past and in the future. The closing prayer of the zikronot ends with the doxology: ‘Praised be thou, O Lord, that rememberest the covenant (zoker habberit).’ Already in the Old Testament it is said that the passover is to be celebrated lezikkaron (Ex. 12:14; Targ. Jer. 1, Onḳ. ldwkrn’). In the blessings for Sabbath, festivals and the new moon God is praised as the one who has given Sabbaths, festivals and new moons lezikkaron (b. Ber. 49a). It is said explicitly of prayers that they are raised εἰς μνημόσυνον (I Enoch 99.3), that they, together with alms, have ascended ‘as a memorial before God’ (Acts 10:4), that they are lzkrwn (1QS 10.5). An especially important example of an ancient prayer for God’s remembrance is the liturgical prayer quoted below, p. 252.
Further, the memorial formula is to be found in ritual language. The pharisaic custom of wearing prayer phylacteries on the head, which can be traced back to pre-Christian times in Palestine,5 is dependent upon the (literally interpreted) commandment Ex. 13:9: ‘And it shall be to you … lezikkaron (Targ. Jer. 1, Onḳ. ldwkrn) between your eyes.’
Finally, there are the Jewish tomb inscriptions in which is to be found both in Hebrew6 and Greek7—with many variations—the formula from Prov. 10:7, ‘the memory of the righteous is a blessing’. This biblical text was differently understood in hellenistic and Palestinian Judaism. In hellenistic Judaism it was interpreted, as the multilingual tomb inscriptions show, as referring to the good memories which the deceased left behind among his contemporaries. In Palestinian Judaism, on the other hand, it was understood as a wish (‘may the memory of the righteous be a blessing’) relating to the merciful remembrance of God. We can see that from, among other things, the formula of blessing to be used of a father who had been dead for more than a year: zkrwnw lbrkh lḥyy hʿwlm hb’, ‘His memory be for a blessing, (namely) for the life of the world to come’.1 In this context also we find the εἰς-formula: LXX, Ps. 111 (112):6, εἰς μνημόσυνον αἰώνιον ἔσται δίκαιος, ‘the righteous will be for eternal remembrance’; Targ. Ps. 112:6, ldkrn ‘Im yhy zky.
2. For our question it is especially important to notice that the command for repetition εἰς ἀνάμνησιν, which we sought in vain in the hellenistic records of the institution of commemorative meals, is not only to be found in the language usage of Greek-speaking Judaism but is also—when we consider the parallel phrases εἰς μνημόσυνον and in memoriam as well as the Hebrew2 and Aramaic3 equivalents—to be found with what may be described as extraordinary frequency in late Judaism as a whole. The review which we have just given shows that the formula is found several times already in the Old Testament and that it is used frequently in the Judaism of New Testament times. We find it in Ecclesiasticus, in the Wisdom of Solomon, in I Enoch, in the Essene literature, in Pseudo-Philo and in the rabbinical literature.
In the LXX we notice immediately a significant fact: whereas εἰς ἀνάμνησιν is used in the Wisdom of Solomon, a book composed in Greek, of men remembering the commandments of God (16:6), in Lev. 24:7 LXX it is used meaning ‘that God may mercifully remember’.4 It has the same meaning in the remaining two places in which it is found in the LXX: Ps. 69(70):1f., τῷ Δαυιδ. Εἰς ἀνάμνησιν, εἰς τὸ σῶσαί με κύριον (note the explanatory addition of the infinitive), and similarly Ps. 37 (38):1. The same is true of the parallel εἰς μνημόσυνον. Occasionally it is used in the LXX of human remembering, although almost only in the more profane context of things being written down in a book εἰς μνημόσυνον (so several times in the book of Esther).1 In religious or cultic contexts, on the other hand, εἰς μνημόσυνον regularly2 has God as the subject. Such is the case throughout Ecclesiasticus. We read that Aaron had bells on his garments εἰς μνημόσυνον υἱοῖς λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, ‘that God might remember mercifully the children of his people’ (45:9), the stones on his garment were inscribed εἰς μνημόσυνον (45:11), he offered incense and fragrance εἰς μνημόσυνον (45:16), and the priests sounded the trumpets εἰς μνημόσυνον ἔναντι ὑψίστου (50:16). Further examples of the use of εἰς μνημόσυνον in New Testament times have been found in the fragments of the Greek text of I Enoch.3 Following a series of woes over sinners it says: ‘Then make ready, you righteous, and offer your prayers εἰς μνημόσυνον; place them as a testimony before the angels, that they may bring the sins of the unrighteous before the most high God εἰς μνημόσυνον’ (99.3); again it is the merciful and punishing remembrance of God that is meant by εἰς μνημόσυνον, and μνημόσυνον has the same meaning in the two other places at which it is to be found in these fragments (97.7; 103.4).
To summarize: the formula εἰς ἀνάμνησιν and its variations were not infrequently used in Judaism in Jesus’ time with reference to human remembering, but the occasions are for the most part (a) in texts originally written in Greek such as the Wisdom of Solomon (εἰς ἀνάμνησιν), 4 Macc. 17:8 (εἰς μνείαν) and twice in Philo (εἰς μνήμην),4 or (b) translations of such Old Testament texts as speak of human remembrance. By far the more frequent practice of Judaism at the time of Jesus, however, is to use εἰς ἀνάμνησιν and its equivalents of God’s remembrance. The reader who will take the trouble to check the references to Old Testament and Jewish remembrance formulae gathered together on pp. 244–6 from the viewpoint as to whether they are concerned with human or divine remembrance will see at once that for the most part they speak of God’s remembrance.1
3. Where, however, εἰς ἀνάμνησιν and its equivalents mean ‘that God may remember’, this has a twofold significance. In the first place it means that something is brought before God.2 So, for example, when a bequest is deposited in the temple lezikkaron (Zech. 6:14), when of the shewbread it is said that it is laid before the eyes of the Lord εἰς ἀνάμνησιν (LXX, Lev. 24:7), when the priests sound the trumpets at a sacrifice to effect μνημοσύνη (Ecclus 50:16), when the prayers of the righteous and their complaints against the sinners are brought before God εἰς μνημόσυνον (Enoch 99.3, Gr.), when prayers and alms ascend ‘as a memorial before God’ (Acts 10:4)—always it is not simply a matter of God being reminded of a person or thing, but of something being brought before God. This is conceived quite realistically. When in Num. 5:15 it says of the offering brought on the occasion of a complaint of adultery that it is a zkrwn-offering, a θυσἰα μνημοσύνου ἀναμιμνήσκουσα ἁμαρτίαν (LXX), this means that the sin itself is ‘re-called’ before God by means of the offering, is re-presented before him,3 the past thus becoming present before God. ‘Have you come to bring my sin to remembrance (before God?’), cries the widow from Zarepheth to Elijah after the death of her son (1 Kings 17:18). The meaning could be similar when the Epistle to the Hebrews says of the Old Testament Day of Atonement sacrifices, that the blood of bulls and goats only effects ἀνάμνησις ἁμαρτιῶν (10:3)—it can bring the sins to life before God, but it cannot blot them out.4 In all of these places ἀνάμνησις denotes representation before God.
This is, however, only one side of that which is said in the phrase εἰς ἀνάμνησιν when this is used of God. This calling into the presence of God, this bringing to life before God, this recalling of the past, this is, on the other side, effective. It has a purpose, it is intended to effect something: that God may remember—mercifully or punishingly. God’s remembrance is, namely (this is an important fact to which O. Michel called attention), never a simple remembering of something, but always and without exception ‘an effecting and creating event’.1 When Luke 1:72 says that God remembers his covenant, this means that he is now fulfilling the eschatological covenant promise. When God remembers the iniquities of Babylon the Great (Rev. 18:5), this means that he is now releasing the eschatological judgment. When the sinner ‘is not to be remembered’ at the resurrection, this means that he will have no part in it (Ps. Sol. 3:11). And when God no longer remembers sin, when he forgets it (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 8:12; 10:17), this means that he forgives it.2 God’s remembrance is always an action in mercy or judgment.
This is therefore the result of our investigation of the use of the construction εἰς ἀνάμνησιν and its variants in Palestinian linguistic usage: (1) εἰς ἀνάμνησιν is said for the most part in reference to God and (2) it then designates, always and without exception, a presentation before God intended to induce God to act.
(c) Τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (‘This do in remembrance of me’)
It is clear that these conclusions are important to an understanding of the command for repetition. We recall, before we turn to the exegesis of this command, that it is given twice by Paul, both after the word over the bread and after the word over the cup (1 Cor. 11:24, 25), by Luke on the other hand only after the word over the bread (22:19). Since Luke (alone) gives the ‘for you’ twice, it is not very likely that he is himself responsible for the omission of the second command for repetition. In giving the command only in connection with the bread word he is more probably reflecting an earlier stage of the tradition.3
We consider first the command τοῦτο ποιεῖτε (‘this do’) and then the purpose given εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (‘in remembrance of me’). Τοῦτο ποιεῖτε is, as can be seen from comparison with Ex. 29:35; Num. 15:11–13; Deut. 25:9; Jdg. 12:3,4 an established expression for the repetition of a rite. This usage lives on in the Qumran texts.1 1QS 2.19 commands the annual repetition of the covenant renewal with the words kkh yʿśw, and in 1 QSa 2.21 a depiction of the ritual beginning of a meal in the Messianic time is followed by ordaining that this rite be observed, using the phrase wkḥwḳ hzh yʿś(w).2 If the command for repetition uses τοῦτο in reference to a rite, then the question is which rite is intended. It cannot refer to the simple recital of the words of interpretation (that is ruled out by ποιεῖτε which contemplates action); nor can it mean the whole meal (that is ruled out by the repetition with the cup and the limiting ‘as often as you drink’, 1 Cor. 11:25); there remains only the possibility that τοῦτο refers to the rite of breaking the bread, i.e. the rite of grace at table. To be exact, it is scarcely possible that the reference is to the normal table prayer—that would need no special instruction—it is rather to the special grace by means of which the table fellowship of the Messianic community was established, which extolled the salvation activity of God and prayed for its consummation,3 a prayer which Jesus himself may have used during his lifetime.4 As we saw, 1QSa 2.21 uses an analogous formula to organize a specific form of the beginning of the meal and of the constitution of the table fellowship. Paul also refers the τοῦτο to the rite of grace at table; this can be seen from 1 Cor. 10:16, ‘The cup of blessing which we bless.… The bread which we break’: ‘we bless’ and ‘we break’ refer to the carrying out of the command τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, which he has in a doubled form.5 There is, finally, one further argument, and a strong one, in support of this interpretation of the τοῦτο ποιεῖτε as referring to the rite of grace at table. We have seen that very early, presumably even before the writing of I Corinthians, the normal meal and the Eucharist were separated from one another.6 That such a separation should have become desirable is understandable when we realize that in the beginning the non-baptized took part in the meal.7 But how did it come about that the particular, and somewhat strange, solution to the problem was chosen, of giving an independent existence to the rite of breaking the bread and repeating it together with the rite of blessing the cup at the end of the meal? This question allows of scarcely any other answer than this: even before the separation of the Eucharist from the meal proper the rite of breaking the bread (Luke 22:19) and, as a consequence, the rite of blessing the cup (1 Cor. 11:25) already possessed an importance by themselves. This intrinsic importance of the breaking of the bread, which is also expressed in the use of ‘the breaking of bread’, ‘to break bread’ as technical terms,1 is probably due to the command for repetition.
The breaking of bread by the disciples (τοῦτο) shall be done (ποιεῖτε) εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (‘in remembrance of me’). The expression is ambiguous. It is clear that ἐμήν2 represents an objective genitive.3 The phrase therefore means: ‘that I be remembered’, ‘in rememberance (sic) of me’ (RSV). The only question is: Who should remember Jesus? The usual interpretation, according to which it is the disciples who should remember, is strange. Was Jesus afraid that his disciples would forget him? But this is not the only possible interpretation, indeed it is not even the most obvious. In the New Testament we find a parallel construction εἰς μνημόσυνον at two places: Mark 14:9 (par. Matt. 26:13) and Acts 10:4, ‘as a memorial before God’. Acts 10:4 specifically names God as the subject of the remembering4 and similarly Mark 14:9 par., ‘in memory of her’, in all probability relates to the merciful remembrance of God: ‘that God may (mercifully) remember her (at the last judgment)’.5 This is in agreement with what we saw above, pp. 246–9, that in the Old Testament and Palestinian memorial formulae it is almost always God who remembers. In accordance with this the command for repetition may be translated: ‘This do, that God may remember me.’
How is this to be understood? Here an old passover prayer is illuminating. On passover evening a prayer (yʿlh wybʾ) is inserted into the third benediction of the grace after the meal, a prayer which asks God to remember the Messiah.1 The wording of this prayer has been transmitted with unusual accuracy (it is practically the same in all the rites)2 and it may go back in essence to the time of Jesus.3 It runs: ‘Our God and God of our fathers, may there arise, and come, and come unto, be seen, accepted, heard, recollected and remembered, the remembrance of us and the recollection of us, and the remembrance of our fathers, and the remembrance of the Messiah, son of David, thy servant (zikron mašiaḥ ben Dawid ‘abdeka), and the remembrance of Jerusalem thy holy city, and the remembrance of all thy people, the house of Israel. May their remembrance come before thee, for rescue, goodness.…’4 In this very common prayer, which is also used on other festival days,5 God is petitioned at every passover concerning ‘the remembrance of the Messiah’, i.e. concerning the appearance of the Messiah, which means the bringing about of the parousia. We shall see6 how very strongly this petition that God may ‘remember’ the Messiah has influenced and even determined the whole passover festival: every passover celebration concluded with the jubilant antiphonal choir which one day would greet the Messiah at his entry into Jerusalem. Consequently the command for repetition may be understood as: ‘This do, that God may remember me’: God remembers the Messiah in that he causes the kingdom to break in by the parousia.
It is in this way that Paul already understood the ἀνάμνησις commandment, and his words have special weight in that they represent the oldest interpretation of the commandment which we possess. After quoting the liturgical formula, 1 Cor. 11:23–25, Paul continues: ‘For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes’ (v. 26). We must first clarify the relationship between v. 26 and the liturgical formula. Both the resumptive ‘as often as’ (ὁσάκις) and above all the ‘for’ (γάρ) show that v. 26 is directly related to the preceding sentence, i.e. to the ἀνάμνησις-commandment. ‘The Lord has commanded the repetition εἰς ἀνάμνησιν and you are indeed fulfilling this command;1 for at every celebration of the Lord’s supper you proclaim his death.’ The ἀνάμνησις commandment is therefore fulfilled by the proclamation of the death of Jesus at the Lord’s supper. So everything depends upon how the ‘proclamation of the Lord’s death’ is to be understood. That it is a verbal proclamation, and what the probable form of this proclamation was, we saw above, pp. 106ff. The content of the ‘proclamation of the Lord’s death’ has to be deduced from the subordinate clause ‘until he comes’ (ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ).2 This clause is not a simple time reference, but ἔλθῃ is a prospective subjunctive which, as appears from the omission of ἄν, has a certain affinity with the final clause3 and may therefore be freely translated ‘until (matters have developed to the point at which) he comes’, ‘until (the goal is reached, that) he comes’. Actually, in the New Testament ἄχρι οὗ with the aorist subjunctive without ἄν regularly introduces a reference to reaching the eschatological goal, Rom. 11:25; 1 Cor. 15:25; Luke 21:24. ‘Until he comes’ apparently alludes to the maranatha of the liturgy4 with which the community prays for the eschatological coming of the Lord. This means that the death of the Lord is not proclaimed at every celebration of the meal as a past event but as an eschatological event, as the beginning of the New Covenant.5 The proclamation of the death of Jesus is not therefore intended to call to the remembrance of the community the event of the Passion; rather this proclamation expresses the vicarious death of Jesus as the beginning of the salvation time and prays for the coming of the consummation. As often as the death of the Lord is proclaimed at the Lord’s supper, and the maranatha rises upwards, God is reminded of the unfulfilled climax of the work of salvation ‘until (the goal is reached, that) he comes’. Paul has therefore understood the ἀνάμνησις as the eschatological remembrance of God that is to be realized in the parousia.
Paul does not stand alone in this eschatological understanding of the ἀνάμνησις-commandment; it is supported by all the other texts to which we have access. In this connection we must first consider the meal prayers of the Didache. It is significant that the grace after the ordinary meal leads up to a prayer for the eschatological remembrance of God: ‘Remember, Lord, thy Church to deliver it from all evil and to perfect it in thy love; and gather it together from the four winds, (even the Church) that has been sanctified, into thy kingdom which thou hast prepared for her’ (10.5). The community celebrating the meal petitions God that he may ‘remember’ his Church, in that he grants her the consummation and gathers her into the kingdom which he has prepared for her. Still more important is the fact that the prayer calls immediately following, which lead up to the celebration of the Eucharist, are absolutely and completely directed towards the parousia:
‘May the Lord (Coptic) come and this world pass away.
Amen.
Hosanna to the house (Coptic) of David.1
If any man is holy, let him come; if any man is not, let him repent. Maranatha.
Amen (10.6).’
At every celebration of the Eucharist therefore the community prays for the coming of the Lord, indeed it anticipates the blessed hour by greeting the returning Lord with the jubilant Hosanna, the cry of salvation at the parousia.2 With a similar intent, Luke speaks of the ‘gladness’ (ἀγαλλίασις), the eschatological jubilation, which ruled the mealtimes of the earliest community (Acts 2:46).
To summarize my argument: it seems to me certain that the command for repetition may no longer be interpreted on the basis of hellenistic presuppositions, but must be interpreted against a Palestinian background. ‘In remembrance of me’ can then scarcely mean ‘that you may remember me’, but most probably ‘that God may remember me’.1 This means that the command to repeat the rite is not a summons to the disciples to preserve the memory of Jesus and be vigilant (‘repeat the breaking of bread so that you may not forget me’), but it is an eschatologically oriented instruction: ‘Keep joining yourselves together as the redeemed community by the table rite, that in this way God may be daily implored to bring about the consummation in the parousia.’ By coming together daily for table fellowship in the short period of time before the parousia and by confessing in this way Jesus as their Lord, the disciples represent the initiated salvation work before God and they pray for its consummation.2
If this is correct, then the question of authenticity must be raised anew. In any case a reference to the parousia is much nearer to Jesus than would be a hellenistic foundation formula. But we can say more than this. We shall see in the next section that the liturgical anticipation of the parousia was a regular part of the passover ritual. The anticipation of the antiphonal choir at the parousia, with which the passover celebration ended, is an illustration of the way in which God could be petitioned, in a liturgical rite, to remember the Messiah. What Israel did annually at the passover meal the disciples should do daily. This close relationship between the command for repetition and the passover ritual makes it very probable that the command goes back to Jesus himself, and this is supported by the considerations mentioned above, pp. 250f.
Is this an excerpt from Joachim Jeremias book? Or these your reflections?
ReplyDeleteIt's not my writing. As I note at the end:
DeleteJoachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, trans. Norman Perrin (London; Philadelphia, PA: SCM Press; Trinity Press International, 1966), 244–255.
I have now added a note to that effect at the beginning.
Thanks, thought so, but became unsure. Found this very interesting
ReplyDelete