Wine or Grape Juice in the Supper???

[rsr]

I would only caution (not on this point, because I believe it is abundantly clear) about Passover traditions in general that it may not be safe to assume that rabbinic custom is the same as Second Temple practice.

From my reading it appears that there were competing customs among the various groups (Pharisees and Sadducees, for example). Rabbinic practice stems from the Pharisees and we have no idea exactly how Jesus and his followers would have celebrated the Passover other than from what the gospels tell us; thus we cannot say how closely the Last Supper would have conformed to later rabbinic practice.

This is especially important in that rabbinic practice had to be modified for two reasons: The Temple had been destroyed, essentially ending the sacrifices that were central to the Passover, and there may have been alterations in the ceremony introduced to distinguish it from the Lord's Supper, which appropriates the Passover and transforms it into something entirely different. Hillel the Younger almost certainly made modifications to the ceremony, but in the end there is no way to know exactly how different rabbinic custom is and what Jesus may have followed.

 

[The Biblicist]

I would only caution (not on this point, because I believe it is abundantly clear) about Passover traditions in general that it may not be safe to assume that rabbinic custom is the same as Second Temple practice.

From my reading it appears that there were competing customs among the various groups (Pharisees and Sadducees, for example). Rabbinic practice stems from the Pharisees and we have no idea exactly how Jesus and his followers would have celebrated the Passover other than from what the gospels tell us; thus we cannot say how closely the Last Supper would have conformed to later rabbinic practice.

This is especially important in that rabbinic practice had to be modified for two reasons: The Temple had been destroyed, essentially ending the sacrifices that were central to the Passover, and there may have been alterations in the ceremony introduced to distinguish it from the Lord's Supper, which appropriates the Passover and transforms it into something entirely different. Hillel the Younger almost certainly made modifications to the ceremony, but in the end there is no way to know exactly how different rabbinic custom is and what Jesus may have followed.

I have a copy of the Mishnah and from my reading, competing traditions are recorded throughout the Mishnah. With regard to the passover observance there are competing traditions recorded but I have found no competing traditions concerning the four cups in the passover or the general structure. It claims to be dated about 200 A.D. I imagine it can be found on line if anyone wants to check it out.

 

[rsr]

I'm sure that is correct, and I was not questioning the four cups. I was just cautioning that rabbinic traditions are not necessarily representative of all of Judaism, especially during the late Second Temple Period when traditional, progressive, Hellenistic and apocalyptic sects were laying claim to be "authentic" Jews.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm sure that it correct, and I was not questioning the four cups. I was just cautioning that rabbinic traditions are not necessarily representative of all of Judaism, especially during the late Second Temple Period when traditional, progressive and apocalyptic sects were laying claim to be "authentic" Jews.

Ok, I will have to look into that. I understood that the mishnah was the written form of the competing oral traditions during the first century and forward. I will check it out. Thanks.

CORRECTION: I don't know why I said "first" century forward. I understood it to be the ancient oral traditions that were committed orally only up to the second century when the rabbi's put them in written form because they thought they might be lost. However, I will look into what different aspects of Judaism view the Mishnah.

 

[StefanM]

No, they didn't water-down the wine in the Bible. The only mention of watered-down wine in the Bible was a curse by God upon Judah. Watering down wine is not a practice today by churches that use wine, that I've ever heard.

I know that Catholic and Anglican churches add water to the wine. It's not necessarily a massive amount, though.

 

[The Biblicist]

I know that Catholic and Anglican churches add water to the wine. It's not necessarily a massive amount, though.

I will let Smyth answer for himself. But the Mishnah clearly teaches that the Jews mixed one part wine with three parts water and give the reason - they didn't want them to get drunk during the passover because they would drink at minimum 4 cups and up to 7 cups.

 

[rsr]

Not to beat a dead horse (but I will anyway) the Mishnah is indeed a compilation of rabbinic debates and pronouncements — but the key is rabbinic.

The destruction of the First Temple impaired the traditional centrality of the priesthood to Judaism because offerings could no longer be sacrificed. So in Babylon was cemented a new tradition of how to be a Jew when the central element of their religion could no longer be practiced.

When the Jews were allowed to return to Israel, they thus had two competing traditions: temple sacrifice and the synagogue. Ezra is the exemplar of the temple tradition, which was tightly bound to the written tradition. But by the time of Christ the Pharisees — who certainly didn't reject the Temple tradition — were expounding a different way to be Jewish while keeping with the traditions of the Torah.

And there were other influences, such as the Hellenists (who were responsible for the Septuagint) and the Essenes and Zealots, to name just a few. Judaism in the late Second Temple Period was not monolithic.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not to beat a dead horse (but I will anyway) the Mishnah is indeed a compilation of rabbinic debates and pronouncements — but the key is rabbinic.

The destruction of the First Temple impaired the traditional centrality of the priesthood to Judaism because offerings could no longer be sacrificed. So in Babylon was cemented a new tradition of how to be a Jew when the central element of their religion could no longer be practiced.

When the Jews were allowed to return to Israel, they thus had two competing traditions: temple sacrifice and the synagogue. Ezra is the exemplar of the temple tradition, which was tightly bound to the written tradition. But by the time of Christ the Pharisees — who certainly didn't reject the Temple tradition — were expounding a different way to be Jewish while keeping with the traditions of the Torah.

And there were other influences, such as the Hellenists (who were responsible for the Septuagint) and the Essenes and Zealots, to name just a few. Judaism in the late Second Temple Period was not monolithic.

I don't disagree with you. However, my understanding is that the two basic divisions where oral traditions conflict with each other were not the Zealots or Essenes, but with the Hellenistic Sadducees and Pharisees and the Mishnah primarily reflects the latter two which were the primary two competing with each other at the time of Christ. Am I wrong here?

I agree that both the pharisees and Sadducees had departed from Ezra and the scriptures.

 

[rsr]

I would not disagree with your analysis of the Mishnah, but I am not sure the Sadducees were really Hellenistic. Accommodatonists, perhaps. My point, obscure though it may be, is that first century Judaism was a bubbling cauldron of competing ideas and that to see the Pharisees as normative, much less regulative, is to miss the mark.

 

[The Biblicist]

I would not disagree with your analysis of the Mishnah, but I am not sure the Sadducees were really Hellenistic. Accommodatonists, perhaps. My point, obscure though it may be, is that first century Judaism was a bubbling cauldron of competing ideas and that to see the Pharisees as normative, much less regulative, is to miss the mark.

I totally agree that to see the Pharisees as normative, much less regulative, is to miss the mark. However, if the Mishnah correctly reflects the Pharisees and Sadducees at the time of Christ then the Mishnah is really an insightful historical tool for what was their norm at that period.

Several years ago I did a study in 1 &2 Maccabees and the historical origin and division of the Pharisees and Sadducees. From what I recall the Sadducees were those Jews during the time of the Maccabees that were hellenistic and were supporters for a more Grecian culture and supporters of the Grecian form of rule. In contrast the Maccabees were more Biblical minded and in their revolt against hellenistic influence and power, and it is from the Maccabean view point the party of the Pharisees developed. And so the root origin between the Sadducees and Maccabees was due to the hellenistic culture and rule over palestine during the inter-biblical period.

 

[rsr]

That sounds about right.

 

[The Biblicist]

Therefore, the Mishnah provides an historically accurate picture of the passover as observed in the first century according to the traditions followed by the two major Jewish parties (Sadducees and Pharisees). The Sadducees and Pharisees controlled the Sandhedrin in the day of Christ and the Sadducees held the majority power in the Sadhedrin as the High Priest was a Sadducee.

Therefore, these two dominate Jewish factions and their views and practice of the Passover are accurately portrayed in the Mishnah. In the Mishnah the third division of the Passover, thus third cup is specially called "the cup of blessing" because the benediction is said over the meal at this cup, which is the exact wording used by Paul, who is a former Pharisee to describe when the Lord's Supper was instituted (1 Cor. 10:16).

"After they have mixed for him the third cup, he says the Benediction over his meal"- The Mishnah, Pesshim, 10:7

In the Mishnah, the prayer that is to be said to bless the wine in the cup uses the precise words "fruit of the vine."

"What Benediction do they say over fruits? Over the fruit of the trees a man says, '[Blessed art thou....] who createst the fruit of the trees', except over wine, for over wine a man says '......who createst the fruit of the vine'." - Mishnah, Berakoth 6:1

Futhermore, The Mishnah states:

"On the eve of the Passover, from about the time of the Evening Offering, a man must eat naught until midnight. Even the porest in Israel must not eat unless he sits down to table, and they must not give them less than four cups of wine to drink, even if it is from the [pauper's] dish." - Mishnah, Pesahim, 10:1

Rabbi Gamaliel is quoted as one source in the Mishnah at this very section with regard to the passover (Pesahim 10:5) who is mentioned in the New Testament as Paul's teacher (Acts 5:34; 22:3).

They mixed water with the wine in order that none get drunk during the passover.

"They do not say the benediction over the wine until water has been added to it. So R. Eliezer. But the Sages say, They may say the benediction [even over wine without water"]." - Mishnah, Berakoth, 7:5

 

[rsr]

What in particular I haven't been able to get a handle on is the influence of Hellenism on the various sects.

It seems that the Sadducees were socially accommodationist (with a Hellenist world view), yet very traditional on the Law (accepting only the Torah as scripture) and the centrality of the Temple.

Yet it also seems that the Pharisees, at least after the Maccabees, also were influenced by Hellenism, i.e., the rabbinic hermeneutic parallels Greek rhetoric, according to some of the folks I've been reading. (Of course, others deny that the rabbinic tradition draws upon Hellenistic thought, positing only a superficial resemblance or that both Hebrew and Greek traditions draw upon a shared current of thought in the Near East.) I think there is a good case to be made for Hellenistic influence on the Pharisees, one, in fact, that I think continued for a good period of time. I would even go so far as to suggest that the process would have continued had it not been for the rise of Christianity that perhaps pushed Judaism is a different direction. (Just my thoughts.)

Leaving the Pharisees aside, what to make of the influence of Hellenism on Jews not in Palestine? The Alexandrian Jewish literati certainly shows influences of Greek philosophy, and the creation of the apocalyptic genre seems to be a result of the confluence of Jewish tradition and Greek philosophy. (Philo of Alexandria comes to mind as he attempted to seek compatibility between Platonism and Hebrew religion and his use of the Logos.)

Just some random thoughts.

 

[The Biblicist]

What in particular I haven't been able to get a handle on is the influence of Hellenism on the various sects.

It seems that the Sadducees were socially accommodationist (with a Hellenist world view), yet very traditional on the Law (accepting only the Torah as scripture) and the centrality of the Temple.

Yet it also seems that the Pharisees, at least after the Maccabees, also were influenced by Hellenism, i.e., the rabbinic hermeneutic parallels Greek rhetoric, according to some of the folks I've been reading. (Of course, others deny that the rabbinic tradition draws upon Hellenistic thought, positing only a superficial resemblance or that both Hebrew and Greek traditions draw upon a shared current of thought in the Near East.) I think there is a good case to be made for Hellenistic influence on the Pharisees, one, in fact, that I think continued for a good period of time. I would even go so far as to suggest that the process would have continued had it not been for the rise of Christianity that perhaps pushed Judaism is a different direction. (Just my thoughts.)

Leaving the Pharisees aside, what to make of the influence of Hellenism on Jews not in Palestine? The Alexandrian Jewish literati certainly shows influences of Greek philosophy, and the creation of the apocalyptic genre seems to be a result of the confluence of Jewish tradition and Greek philosophy. (Philo of Alexandria comes to mind as he attempted to seek compatibility between Platonism and Hebrew religion and his use of the Logos.)

Just some random thoughts.

I think it would be very difficult to determine with much accuracy how much each generation, including the generation of Jesus was influenced by hellenistic philosophy and culture. Philo certainly shows hellenistic influence with regard to his hermeneutics. It is a field of study that I need to examine more carefully. Thanks for you insightful "random thoughts."

You are right about the Sadducees rejecting the oral traditions of Sinai, and so the Mishnah would only reflect the variations in the Phariseeic traditions.

 

[The Biblicist]

Therefore, the Mishnah provides an historically accurate picture of the passover as observed in the first century according to the traditions followed by the two major Jewish parties (Sadducees and Pharisees). The Sadducees and Pharisees controlled the Sandhedrin in the day of Christ and the Sadducees held the majority power in the Sadhedrin as the High Priest was a Sadducee.

Therefore, these two dominate Jewish factions and their views and practice of the Passover are accurately portrayed in the Mishnah. In the Mishnah the third division of the Passover, thus third cup is specially called "the cup of blessing" because the benediction is said over the meal at this cup, which is the exact wording used by Paul, who is a former Pharisee to describe when the Lord's Supper was instituted (1 Cor. 10:16).

"After they have mixed for him the third cup, he says the Benediction over his meal"- The Mishnah, Pesshim, 10:7

In the Mishnah, the prayer that is to be said to bless the wine in the cup uses the precise words "fruit of the vine."

"What Benediction do they say over fruits? Over the fruit of the trees a man says, '[Blessed art thou....] who createst the fruit of the trees', except over wine, for over wine a man says '......who createst the fruit of the vine'." - Mishnah, Berakoth 6:1

Futhermore, The Mishnah states:

"On the eve of the Passover, from about the time of the Evening Offering, a man must eat naught until midnight. Even the porest in Israel must not eat unless he sits down to table, and they must not give them less than four cups of wine to drink, even if it is from the [pauper's] dish." - Mishnah, Pesahim, 10:1

Rabbi Gamaliel is quoted as one source in the Mishnah at this very section with regard to the passover (Pesahim 10:5) who is mentioned in the New Testament as Paul's teacher (Acts 5:34; 22:3).

They mixed water with the wine in order that none get drunk during the passover.

"They do not say the benediction over the wine until water has been added to it. So R. Eliezer. But the Sages say, They may say the benediction [even over wine without water"]." - Mishnah, Berakoth, 7:5

So, the Mishnah reflects the differences in the Phariseeic oral traditions. The Phariseeic traditions do not dispute the use of wine or that it was mixed with water or the fourfold division of the passover. Paul was of the Phariseeic order and he is the primary conveyor of the Lord's Supper in Scripture (1 Cor. 5, 10, 11). His teacher Gamaliel is specifically mentioned in the Passover section of the Mishnah and Paul uses terminology that is consistent with the Mishnah, as the third cup in the Mishnah order was the benediction over the meal or "cup of blessing." Jesus uses terminology that is consistent with the Mishnah description of the benediction over the wine at the first cup where in the benediction it is called "the fruit of the vine."

As far as I know, there is no other Jewish historical sources where either designation of the "fruit of the vine" or "the cup of blessing" with regard to the Passover can be cited or any other historical sources that would contradict the Phariseeic use of these phrases. Moreover, I don't know of any modern Jew, regardless of what variety, who would claim that grape juice was ever used or even heard of being used by Jews in the Passover for the past 2000 years.