My Flesh is Meat Indeed: Theophagy and Christology in John 6:51c–58 Meredith Joan Catherine Warren Faculty of Religious Studies McGill University, Montréal July 2013 A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy © Meredith Warren 2013 i Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………….. iii Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………….. v Dedication…………………………………………………………………….. vi Introduction…………………………………………………………………… 1 “The Word Was Made Flesh” (John 1:14)…………………………………… 22 1.1 Introduction………………………………………………………… 23 1.2 Johannine Christology……………………………………………… 26 1.3 John 6 and Christology……………………………………………… 37 1.4 John 6 and the Ecclesiastical Redactor………………………………43 1.5 Sacramental Theology in John’s Gospel…………………………… 59 1.6 Jesus, Heroes, and the Mortal and Immortal Divide……………….. 65 1.7 The Greco-Roman Novels and Johannine Christology…………….. 71 “Second Only to Artemis” (Leucippe and Clitophon 7.15)………………….. 80 2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………… 81 2.2 History of Scholarship: The Greco-Roman Novels………………… 88 2.3 The Novel in its Context……………………………………………. 98 2.4 Epiphanies in the Novels……………………………………………. 101 Excursus: Three Epiphanic Verbs…………………………….. 118 2.5 Instances of Epiphany in the Greek Romance Novels……………… 122 2.5.i Chaereas and Callirhoe…………………………………. 128 2.5.ii An Ephesian Tale……………………………………….. 136 2.5.iii Leucippe and Clitophon………………………............... 139 2.5.iv An Ethiopian Story……………………………………... 142 2.6 Allusions to the Heroines of Classical Literature in the Novels……. 148 2.7 Conclusions…………………………………………………………. 157 “Her Viscera Leapt Out” (Leucippe and Clitophon 3.15)……………………. 159 3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………. 160 3.2 Antagonism Between Gods and Heroes……………………………. 161 3.3 Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religion……………………………. 172 3.4 The Sacrificial Meal………………………………………………… 184 3.5 Human Sacrifice in the Greco-Roman Imagination………………… 188 3.6 The Function of Cannibalism in Antiquity…………………………. 204 3.7 Human Sacrifice and Implied Cannibalism in the Greek Novels…... 207 3.8 Sacrifice and Simultaneity………………………………………….. 225 3.9 Conclusions…………………………………………………………. 227 “My Flesh is Meat Indeed” (John 6:55)………………………………………. 231 4.1 Introduction: Reconsidering John 6:51c–58…………………………232 4.2 Cannibalism and Christianity: An Overview……………………….. 238 4.3 Other Interpretations of Anthropophagy in John 6:51c–58………… 247 ii 4.4 Antagonism Between Jesus and God……………………………….. 252 4.5 Jesus’ Death and God’s Glory: Contemporaneity in John 6:51c–58.. 267 4.6 Conclusions: Cult Meals and Jesus’ Words………………………… 275 Conclusion: “Equal to God” (John 5:18; Iliad 20.447)………………………. 286 Appendices: Plot Summaries of the Greek Romance Novels………………… 299 A. Chariton’s Chaereas and Callirhoe…………………………………..300 B. Xenopohon of Ephesus’ An Ephesian Tale………………………….. 311 C. Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon……………………………. 316 D. Heliodorus’ An Ethiopian Story……………………………………... 319 Bibliography………………………………………………………………….. 323 Ancient Texts…………………………………………………………… 323 Modern Sources………………………………………………………… 326 iii Abstract This project argues that John 6:51c–58 makes christological rather than eucharistic claims. While scholars have often viewed the “Bread of Life Discourse” as a later addition of eucharistic theology to John’s supposedly anti- sacramental gospel, I propose that the narrative of consumption in this pericope functions to make Jesus “equal to God.” The moment when Jesus exhorts those around him to eat his flesh and drink his blood is when Jesus identifies himself with the God who put him on earth to die a sacrificial death. The series of statements in John 6:51c–58 brings about the identification of Jesus with God because of shared cultural expectations in the ancient Mediterranean world about the nature of heroic sacrifice: sacrifice, and the accompanying sacrificial meal, establish the identification of a hero with a deity when the hero and deity have an antagonistic relationship in narrative. John’s Jesus emphasizes his submission to the will of God, who from the start of the gospel is described as having put Jesus on earth to die. Indeed, Jesus’ death is alluded to throughout John. While the pattern of antagonism in narrative and association in cult has previously been demonstrated in Homeric literature and historical cult practice in the work of Gregory Nagy, I trace the development of this trope through the Greek romances, where antagonism, death, and meal collide in narrative. The romantic heroines are associated with divinities, are sacrificed, and are consumed. In other words, where antagonism and association as tropes occur in distinct realms in Homer’s time, by the Common Era, association and antagonism both occur at the level of narrative, juxtaposing divinely beautiful heroines with their horrific human sacrifices. The novels are therefore a lens through which to view John 6:51c–58. In light of Chaereas and Callirhoe, An Ephesian Tale, Leucippe and Clitophon, and An Ethiopian Story, it becomes apparent that John, not through direct literary dependence but through participation in the literary milieu of the ancient Mediterranean, manipulates this trope of association and antagonism, and in doing so, establishes Jesus as God in John 6:51c–58, where sacrifice, consumption, and divinity likewise intersect. Résumé Ce projet soutient que Jean 6:51c–58 contient les affirmations christologiques plutôt que eucharistiques. Bien que les chercheurs aient souvent vu le « Discours du Pain de Vie » comme un ajout tardif de la théologie eucharistique à l'évangile soi-disant anti-sacramentel de Jean, je propose que le récit de la consommation dans cette péricope fasse de Jésus «l’égal de Dieu». Alors que Jésus exhorte ceux qui l’entourent à consommer sa chair et boire son sang, il s’identifie au dieu qui l’a mis sur terre pour mourir en sacrifice. La série d’énoncés dans Jean 6:51c–58 entraîne l'identification de Jésus avec Dieu en raison des attentes culturelles communes du monde méditerranéen antique entourant le sacrifice héroïque. Dans le contexte d’une relation narrative antagoniste, le sacrifice et le repas sacrificiel servent à identifier un héros avec un dieu. Le Jésus de Jean met en relief sa iv soumission à la volonté de Dieu, qui, depuis le début de l'Evangile est décrit comme ayant mis Jésus sur la terre pour mourir. En fait, la mort de Jésus est évoquée tout au long de Jean. Bien que Gregory Nagy ait déjà démontré le modèle d’antagonisme dans la littérature homérique et dans les pratiques de culte de l’époque, je suis l’évolution de ce trope à travers les romans grecs, où l’antagonisme, la mort et les repas se rejoignent dans le récit. Les héroïnes romantiques sont associées aux divinités, sont sacrifiées, et sont consommées. Si l’antagonisme et l’association sont des tropes très distincts à l’époque d’Homer, rendu à l’Ère Commune, ils se trouvent au niveau de la narrative où des héroïnes d’une beauté divine sont juxtaposées avec l’horreur de leurs sacrifices humaines. Les romans sont donc une lentille à travers laquelle on peut voir Jean 6:51c–58. À la lumière de Chéréas et Callirhoé, les Éphésiaques, Leucippé et Clitophon, et les Éthiopiques, on constate que Jean, et non par la dépendance littéraire directe, mais plutôt en faisant dans le milieu littéraire de la Méditerranée antique, manipule ce trope d'association et d'antagonisme, et de cette manière établit Jésus comme Dieu dans Jean 6:51c–58, où le sacrifice, la consommation, et la divinité se croisent de même. v Acknowledgements The wealth of friends, family, and colleagues I am lucky to have had supporting me throughout my degree deserve my utmost thanks. I am grateful for friends who distracted me when I needed to get out of my head, who understood when I turned into a hermit for weeks at a time, and who listened to me, especially Emily Deimert, Andréa Schnell, Shayna Sheinfeld, and Lucy Gofton. Likewise, my parents, sisters, and grandparents gave me the emotional support I needed to accomplish my goals. I could not have done this without them, so I thank them for always being on my side, for always encouraging me along the way, and for their patience. My conversations with colleagues at the Faculty of Religious Studies helped me open my eyes to new points of view, to sharpen my arguments, and to learn how to express them with grace. In particular, I would recognize both the members of the 2011 trip to Rome and the members of the graduate student softball team for being my steadfast friends as well as colleagues. I could not have completed this dissertation without the careful eyes and the warm friendship of my Writing Group. Sara Parks and Shayna Sheinfeld have read this work almost as many times as I have and were invaluable to me, not only in pointing out flaws in logic or spelling, but also in being my constant cheerleaders and bosom friends. Of course, the mistakes that remain in this dissertation are wholly mine. I also owe thanks to Sara Parks and to Andréa Schnell for helping me with the French translation of my abstract. The administrative staff at the Faculty of Religious Studies have countless times smoothed the path for me, whether through cheerful conversation or helping me figure out the copy machines or advising me on how to navigate the bureaucratic waters of McGill. Deborah McSorely, Francesca Maniaci, Luvana Di Francesco, Peggy Roger, Samieun Khan, and Shelly-Ann Soares: thank you. I am especially grateful for my advisor, Ellen Aitken, who has been a font of support and wisdom throughout the dissertation-writing process. Her encouragement, criticism, and expertise have been incredibly valuable, not only with the production of my dissertation but also with advice on my career in academia. Words cannot express my gratitude for her mentorship. To my husband Mike goes the final expression of gratitude, for being by my side for the whole of my degree. Mike celebrated my victories and helped me recover from my missteps. I thank him for his patience and his love, which he could not help but give.