Thanks for this information, Philip.
May I ask you a question?
In Ferguson (Encyclopaedia of Early Christianity) I read that “table” (trapeza) was the normal Greek/Eastern word for the place where the communion was held, whereas the Western/Latin people spoke of an “altar” (ara?). If that would be true (and: as no real table has been uncovered yet in Megiddo) I could ask: what ‘s the point in all this?

I’m not an expert in early Christianity (but I studied Latin & Greek).
So I’m very curious: how should I interpret this “table” thing?

Best regards,
Bouke Slofstra

3:36 AM
Delete
Phil Harland
Phil Harland said…

Thanks, Bouke: You may well be right that they, the archeologists (or at least the media reports), are making a lot out of what could be somewhat insignificant with regard to terminology (the designation of the dedicated object as a “trapeza”, table). “Trapeza” was a common term for refering to a table, including a table connected with the celebration of the Lord’s supper. Paul uses “trapeza” when he talks about the “table of the Lord” and the opposing table of demons in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. Gradually the development of the idea of the Lord’s supper as a sacrifice made “altar” a possibility as a designation. There is an online article that, although from a specifically Roman Catholic perspective, seems quite reliable at the following address (they also discuss how there was an avoidance of “pagan” terms for altars, such as bomos in Greek, in reference to the Christian table for eucharist):

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01362a.htm

Hope this helps.

1:12 PM