So-called Christian cannibalism and incest

[Jona Lendering]

On several occasions, I have read that the Pagans accused the Christians of incest and cannibalism. The first accusation is a misunderstanding of the Christian custom to call each other brother and sister, the second accusation is a misunderstanding of the nature of the eucharist.

But what is the source for this accusation? Most Pagan writings are lost; so, it is likely that we know of this accusation because a Christian author refuted it. But which one?

[Forty-One]

It's in Chapter IX of the Octavius of Minucius Felix:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iv.iii.ix.html

[Jona Lendering]

Thanks pal!

[Michael J. Taylor]

The Passion of the Martyrs of Lugdunum, preserved by Eusebius (Church History, 5.1.14) suggests that the Christians in AD 177 were accused by pagan slaves of "Thyestean feasts and "Oedipal intercourse."

[Forty-One]

There are actually lots of references. I've found some more even earlier ones:

The Apology of Justin the Martyr (Apol I, 26) of the mid 2nd century also mentions: "[P]romiscuous intercourse, and...meals of human flesh".

Pliny (Letters X, 96) also says "it was their custom to ... partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food", possibly implying that he'd heard the accusations of cannibalism too.

[M. Demetrius]

And yet, accusation and allegation are not proofs.

Some of the misconception about Christian cannibalism comes from a passage in John 6:56 (Jesus speaking) "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him". He is speaking metaphorically about an event called Communion, or the taking of the Sacraments. It amounts to eating a small piece of bread and a sip of wine, in memory of Jesus' having given himself in sacrifice. But eating bread and wine is nothing newly introduced, as that goes back as far as bread and wine are known.

Those who knew nothing of Christianity and wanted to detract from it created and spread the legend that Christians cannibalize someone and drank their blood in a ceremony called "the blood of the lamb". The allegation is false, of course, yet it persists.

There are many such false allegations about many religions.

I'm not sure about the incest part, unless it has something to do with the Christian practice of calling fellow believers with the appellation "Brother/Sister"...in which case, one would marry brothers and sisters. But Jewish people in older times called each other bretheren, too, as do people from some other religions.

Remember, the admonition not to drink blood is still a Biblical mandate, both in the Hebrew and Greek sections of the Bible. So clearly, that is a metaphor, too. It is similar in intent to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, another legend that is intended to slander Jewish people.

[john roberts]

There might be a too-literal translation as well. The Latin "incestum" meant any unlawful sexual intercourse. Sex with a Vestal, for instance, was "incestum."

[Jona Lendering]

And yet, accusation and allegation are not proofs.

Yes, exactly; and you are right in pointing at the parallel of the blood libel. What brought me to my question, is Prudentius' description of the taurobolium sacrifice. Very great, and admired, scholars like Cumont and Vermaseren have taken this accurate; the latter even called Prudentius "an eye witness". Both authors are on record for correctly identifying the accusation of incest and cannibalism as slander; both were not impressed by the blood libel. Isn't it remarkable that they took Prudentius seriously?

[M. Demetrius]

It's always easy to believe the worst about people you don't like, or those who don't fit into your political ambition, isn't it?