in the course of evolution. Boyer and Liénard remain unclear, to my under-
standing, on the issue of where“pathological”variants of ritualization start
and whether the adaptive nature of ritualization lies in carrying out actual
precautionary measures (perhaps unknowingly) or in alleviating anxiety (even
if only temporarily).
An important distinction that Boyer and Liénard make is the one between
ritualization androutinization(Boyer & Liénard, 2006, p. 611; Liénard &
Boyer, 2006, p. 824), following Roy Rappaport and some other scholars.
Whereas ritualized behavior (the phenomenon they are explaining) involves
high control, intentional focus, and emphasis on proper performance, routin-
ized action is possibly automatic, demands low attention, and has lesser
emphasis on proper performance. While making a distinction based on the
respective amounts of attention demanded by routinized and ritualized
actions is meaningful and indeed helpful, one may question the value of a
distinction in terms of “proper performance.”Whenever people practice
activities to the point that they can carry them out without paying atten-
tion there is in fact much emphasis on“proper performance”—as Robert
Turner remarks in his critique (Turner, 2006), over-practicing is standard
procedure among musicians. One may counter, however, that in artistic
performance meaningful and proper deviations from the script are often
allowed (and even celebrated), whereas any practicing minister of the
Church can tell that such deviations are scrutinized and usually rejected by
a congregation.
We can now return to our previous remarks on the Corinthian meal
practice, bringing in some of the insights from the discussion of thefirst
type of cognitive approaches to ritual. The transformation of communal
meals in the Corinthian assembly, initiated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, can
be understood as an example of ritualization. The instructions given by Paul
introduce rigidity and a non-trivial set of sub-goals to the event that are not
causally related to its overall goal (which is probably still nourishment).
Whether Paul wanted to separate functional meals from what he calls the
“Lord’s Supper”(κυριακὸνδεῖπνον, 11:20) is open to interpretation (see esp. his
words“Do you not have homes to eat and drink in?”in 11:22 and“If you are
hungry, eat at home”in 11:34), still it is perhaps safe to assume to that Paul in
this text did not want to strip the meal of its functional aspect, and it is even
possible to argue that Paul’s adjustments to the meal partly meant to improve
the nourishment of the poor (Theissen, 1982, pp. 145–74; Smith, 2003,
pp. 193–5). In this context, it has to be noted that it is impossible to establish
a strict and straightforward division between“religious”and“non-religious”
banquets in antiquity (Smith, 2003, pp. 5–6, 79; Estienne et al., 2004,
pp. 278–9, 282) and in all likelihood the communal meals practiced in Corinth
had some religious (and ritual) character to begin with, albeit Paul disap-
proved of it. The sub-goals introduced by Paul include waiting for each other
94 Cognitive Science and the New Testament