“avenger”(ἔκδικος) of those who lived an improper life (1 Thess. 4:3–8). Both
dangers are thus linked together by the element of God’s imminent judgment,
which is life threatening for sinners. Further, from Paul’s words we gather that
in the Corinthian church“many are weak and ill”(πολλοὶἀσθενεῖςκαὶ
ἄρρωστοι) and“some have died”(κοιμῶνταιἱκανοί) (11:30)—which the apos-
tle interprets as a proof of the seriousness of his warnings. In terms of
(assumed) ancestral hazards that could be connected to these dangers,
food contamination and predation come to mind. The possible connection
between humans’reaction to gods and spirits, on the one hand, and their
reaction to predators, on the other hand, is a classical topic of the Cognitive
Science of Religion. Boyer (2002, pp. 166–8) suggested that this relationship
involves a“predator-avoidance system.”Pretending to eat the predator’s kin
(Christ) could communicate his power to the participants (cf. Durkheim’s
concept of totem below in section 5.3; see Chapter 6 on positive contagion) or
assure participants that they can overpower the predator. However, it is
important to bear in mind that the triggering of the hazard-precaution system
does not depend on explicit interpretations of a ritual practice (although that
does not seem to be excluded, either). In sum, the suggested Pauline reform of
the Corinthian meal practice shows at least some traits of ritualization, and its
potential to trigger the hazard-precaution system (related especially to preda-
tion) could contribute to its attractiveness and success.
Theories of ritualization can also contribute to the understanding of prayer.
The gospels contain a number of remarks on prayer, most famously recom-
mending the Lord’s Prayer as a model. This can be taken as a sign that prayer
was an important form of ritual practice in the earliest Christian communities
that invited reflection. In the section of the Sermon of the Mount leading to
the Lord’s Prayer, especially two instructions on prayer seem relevant to our
present discussion. These instructions employ a confrontational style and
include some harsh vocabulary. Thefirst guideline about prayer prohibits
praying in public (such as in the synagogue and on the street corners) and
assigns prayer to the“inner room”(ταμεῖον), demanding to“close the door”
before praying (Matt. 6:5–6). One possibility (e.g., Luz, 2007, pp. 296–303) is
to understand this advice against the backdrop of the warning against adver-
tising one’s charity in public (Matt. 6:2–4) as showing off one’s“righteous-
ness”(Matt. 6:1). The advice about fasting that follows the Lord’s Prayer
(Matt. 6:16–18) emphasizes that it should remain invisible to others, although
using less harsh expressions. Irrespective of the theological motives that can be
deduced from the context, however, it is quite remarkable that the otherwise
culturally expected practice of public prayer (such as prayer in the synagogue)
is threatened by divine sanction (“they have received their reward,”6:5) and
solitary prayer is idealized. Whether the prohibition is restricted to some
particular kinds of prayer (e.g., free prayer in the synagogue, morning and
evening prayers; Luz, 2007, p. 301) is uncertain, but also not very important
96 Cognitive Science and the New Testament