Abstract
This is an immensely detailed and at times densely written study of the development of the Eucharist over the first five centuries of the Christian era. In this book, Stewart builds on the considerable research he has undertaken in the past to argue that there is no direct line of continuity from the Last Supper to the later Eucharist. On the contrary, there is a wealth of evidence to show that different Christian communities in different places met together, like other ancient cults, for a meal intended simply to build up the community and celebrate the presence of their god in a general way. There were no Words of Institution at these gatherings; rather, groups met regularly on Saturday for an evening meal provided by the patron and eaten at separate tables. Only during the fourth century did the pattern of eucharistic practice more familiar to the later Church start to emerge.
The argument unfolds through what is effectively a series of semi-independent studies. First, Stewart argues that while much remains unclear, for some reason early Christian communities shifted away from regular meetings on a Saturday evening to early meetings on Sunday morning. This switch from supper to breakfast was the main cause of a change in the menu: instead of a full meal, breakfast was cut back to the basic fare normal at breakfast in those days, of bread and perhaps some wine. This reduction in the menu thus had little to do with theological reasoning.
Stewart then turns to consider the way in which this major shift in scheduling had a subtle effect on theological thinking. There was no uniform swing, but gradually, over time, a connection was established between this breakfast and the idea of the resurrection. What was already a ritualized meal started to take on deeper significance as the later eucharistic pattern began to emerge.
In order to establish this, Stewart sets out in a massively long chapter to explore the evidence frequently put forward to argue that the Eucharist can be traced back to New Testament times. Stewart suggests that a closer look at the evidence quickly demonstrates otherwise: none of the four Evangelists agree about a standard pattern, and all four offer widely different interpretations of the Last Supper, all geared towards their own distinctive theologies. Paul is the earliest witness to an early Christian meal, but even he is not interested in establishing a eucharistic template; rather, he uses the common meal as a hook on which to hang criticism of specific behaviour. The Didache and other early Christian sources point in the same direction: there was no standard practice.
So, what were the roots of later eucharistic practice? For Stewart, these were many and varied, drawing on possible influences from Jewish meal benedictions through to funeral gatherings and other commemorations of the departed. But, broadly, Stewart accepts a modified version of Lietzmann’s theory, that the Eucharist had twin roots in the continued practice of a ‘joyous meal’ celebrated with his disciples during Jesus’ lifetime reconfigured around the Pauline narrative in 1 Corinthians 11.
Alongside these developments, the agape – the other focus of Stewart’s study – also started to separate out. Its roots, like the Eucharist, lay in earlier communal meals, but following the switch to Sunday morning breakfast, other ways had to be found of supporting the poor in the community who until then had been fed at the shared evening meal. Many of these earlier meals had been called agapes, but again there was no common format. In effect, both the Eucharist and the agape emerged from the same common root.
This is an immensely learned study, interacting with an extensive range of scholarly literature as well as primary sources. Stewart enjoys sparring with his liturgical peers, especially Paul Bradshaw, who nevertheless commends the book ‘for its comprehensive and highly detailed approach’. Doubtless, liturgical specialists will contest the arguments put forward by Stewart; nor is it clear that many New Testament scholars would agree with his reading of the NT evidence. But the book does conclude with some brief but tantalizing pastoral reflections on the implications of all this for the parish ministry in which Stewart continues to be engaged.