Mark 14.22-24a: 22 And while they were eating, after taking bread and blessing it, he broke it and gave it to them and said [λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ εἶπεν], "Take, this is [τοῦτό ἐστιν] my body." 23 And, after taking [λαβών] a cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them and they all drank from it. And he said to them, 24a "This is my blood of the covenant, poured out for many."
Friesen summarizes:
The novel shares at least four elements with the New Testament narratives.
1) As in Mark and Matthew, Achilles Tatius has Dionysus repeat the phrase τοῦτό ἐστιν. Dionysus’s words, “this is blood of a grape” (τοῦτ’ ἔστιν αἷμα βότρυος), are nearly identical with Jesus’s words, “this is my blood of the covenant” (τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης).
2) As in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 1 Corinthians, in Achilles Tatius’s myth too, the wine is associated with blood. First, the herdsman identifies the wine as “sweet blood” (αἷμα γλυκύ; 2.2.4) and the god later modifies this declaration to “blood of a grape” (αἷμα βότρυος; 2.2.5).
3) Dionysus’s actions (λαβὼν ἅμα καὶ θλίβων καὶ δεικνύς; 2.2.6) resemble those of Jesus at the Last Supper (λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν; Mark 14:22).
4) Both divine benefactions are understood as part of a formal relationship—“a cup of friendship” (κύλικα φιλοτησίαν) in Leuc. Clit. 2.2.4 and a sign of the covenant (“my blood of the covenant” [τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης; Matt and Mark]; “this cup is the new covenant” [τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη; Luke and 1 Cor]) in the eucharistic narratives—and both result subsequently in ritual commemorations.
These shared elements are too strong to be accidental and certainly could not have gone unnoticed by a reader with knowledge of Christianity.
Leucippe and Clitophon is generally dated to century II. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 3836 contains part of the text and is estimated to date from sometime in century II:
I will not bother to summarize the argument of the article, since it is freely available online. But Friesen concludes:
There is significant evidence that by the late second century, many non-Christians had acquired specific knowledge of eucharistic practices and their associated narrative texts. Furthermore, comparisons of Christianity and Dionysiac religion had become a common feature in the religious discourse of Christians and their critics. Thus, the conflation of the words and actions of Dionysus with those of Jesus in Achilles Tatius’s wine myth would have been readily recognizable as a parody of the Christian Eucharist. Achilles Tatius’s transformation of the Christian source is in keeping with parody elsewhere in his novel and indeed with his larger literary project, which aims at a reappraisal of the ideals of sexual morality in the literary genre of the Greek romance. Whereas many Christians were concerned with creating and maintaining a reputation for sexual chastity, the narrative of Leucippe and Clitophon emphasizes that for Greeks religious celebrations of wine are inherently erotic. An ideal reader of the parody would recognize the incongruity between the eucharistic source and its transformation into an erotic Dionysiac setting and would enjoy the satiric treatment. Consequently, the use of parody in Leucippe and Clitophon’s wine myth illuminates both Achilles Tatius’s literary aims and the relationship between early Christianity and the Greek literary culture of the Second Sophistic.
Such insights into the Christianity of century II from the perspective of outsiders like Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian, Celsus, Marcus Aurelius, and possibly Epictetus can be illuminating. This particular insight, should it be deemed to hold up under scrutiny, was new to me.
Ben.