Greco-Roman misunderstanding of Judean sacrifice results in "last supper"

If we go back to earlier Greek writing about Judeans, we can get an idea of how the early church came to its rather confused understanding of Judean praxis.  

Theophrastus’ (372-288BCE) comments on Judean sacrificial praxis outline the difference between that and Greco-Roman praxis.  Moreover, Theophrastus identifies Judeans as “philosophers,” who talk about God during the sacrifice and observe the stars:

Καιτοι Συρων, ων μεν Ιουδαιοι δια την εξ αχης θυσιαν ετι και νυν φησιν ο θεοφραστος ζωοθυτουντων ει τον αυτον ημας τροπον τις κελευοι θυειν αποσταιημεν αν της πραξεως.  Ου γαρ εστιωμενοι των τυθεντων ολοκαυτουντες δε ταυτα νυκτος και κατ αυτων πολυ μελι και οινον λειβοντες αναλισκουσι την θυσιαν θαττον ινα του δεινου μηδ ο πανοπτης γενοιτο θεατης και τουτο δρωσιν νηστευοντες τας ανα μεσον τουτων ημερας κατα δε παντα τουτον τον χρονονν ατε φιλοσοφοι το γενος οντες, περι του θειου μεν αλληλους λαλουσι της δε νυκτος των αστρων ποιουνται την θεωριαν, βλεποντες εις αυτα και δια των αυχων θεοκλυτουντες. Κατηρξαντο γαρ ουτοι προτου των τε λοιπων ξωων και σφων αυτων αναγκη και ουκ επιθυμια τουτο παρχαντες

And indeed, says Theophrastus, the Syrians, of whom the Judeans constitute a part, also now sacrifice live victims according to their old mode of sacrifice; if one ordered us to sacrifice the same way, we would have recoiled from the entire business.  For they are not feasted on the sacrifices, but [are]burning them whole at night and pouring on them honey and wine, they quickly destroy the offering, in order that the all-seeing sun should not look on the terrible thing.  And they do it fasting on the intervening days.  During this whole time, being philosophers by race, they converse with each other about the Deity, and at night-time, they make observatons of the stars, gazing at them and calling on God by prayer.  They were the first to institute sacrifices both of other living beings and of themselves, they they did it by compulsion and not from eagerness for it.

Since we know Judean praxis did not involve human sacrifice, it is possible to infer that the last reference to “sacrificing themselves” may be an acknowledgement of recognition of the Akedah--the sacrificing of Isaac. 

We find a description of Temple sacrifice praxis in Aristeas (better known as “the letter of Aristeas," even though it is not a letter):

In its exhibition of strength and in its orderly and silent performance the ministration of the priests could in not way be surpassed.  All of them, self-bidden, carry out labors involving great toil, and each has his appointed charge.  Their service is unceasing, some attending to the wood, others the oil, others the fine wheat flour, others the business of spices and still others the portions of flesh for burnt offering, employing extraordinary strength in this task.  For with both hands they grasp the legs of the calves, almost all of which weigh more than two talents each, and then with marvelous deftness they fling them to a considerable height with their two hands, and they never fail of placing the victim correctly.  The portions of sheep and the goats are similarly remarkable for their weight and fat, for always those whose business it is to choose beasts that are flawless and especially plump, and then the procedure mentioned is carried out.  For their rest there is a place set apart for them where those who are relieved from duty take seats.  When this happens some of those who had an interval of rest readily rise up, though no one gives an order for them to serve.  Complete silence prevails, so that one might suppose that not a person was present in the place, thought those performing the service amount to some seven hundred—besides the great multitude of persons bringing sacrifices to be offered—bot everything is done with reverence and in a manner worthy of the great divinity.

From Josephus’ "Against Apion": 

Ην δε και κατα πολεις ουκ αγνωστον ημων καλαι το εθνος, και πολλα των εθνων εις τινας ηδη διαπεφοιτηκει και ζηλου πα ενιοις ηξιουτο.  Δηλοι δε ο Θεοφραστος εν τοις περι νομων´ λεγει γαρ, οτι κωλυουσιν οι Τυριων νομοι ξενικους ορκους ομνυειν εν οις μετα τινων αλλων και τον καλουμενον ορκον κορβαν καταριθμει.  Παρ ουδενι δ αν ουτος ευρεθειη πλην μονοις Ιουδαιοις, δηλοι δ ως αν ειποι τις εκ της εβραιων μεθερμηνευομενος διαλεκτου δωρον θεου.

In ancient times, various cities were acquainted with the existence of our nation, and to some of these many of our customs have now found their way, and here and there been thought worthy of imitation.  This is apparent from a passage in the work of Theophrastus on Laws, where he says that the laws of the Tyrians prohibit the use of foreign oaths, in enumerating which he includes among others the oath called “Corban.”  Now this oath will be found in no other nation except the Judeans, and translated from the Hebrew one may interpret it as meaning “God’s gift.” 

It is very likely that the Greco-Roman communities which had wanted to be accepted as fully-functioning members of the Judean Temple cult, on hearing that the Temple had been rededicated, conflated their impression of Judean praxis (which they had not observed first-hand) with text, which they read but lacked the cultural basis on which to assimilate the information accurately.  

The result was that they conflated the Akedah with the Temple sacrifice, and redacted that conflation into the "gospel" narratives (which had been crafted around the Bar Cochba revolt to incorporate that event into the Judean canon) and into 1 Corinthians, as the "last supper" in which Jesus offers himself as a sacrifice in an adult replication of the sacrifice of Isaac.  That conflation was also redacted into the Johanine text as 3:16. 

Letter to Romans proposed that the proto-Christian church inherited the Judean promise by "adoption" and by disowning Judeans from the promise.  This effectively annulled the earlier premise put forth in Galatians, that Christians owned the text by right of descent from the offspring of the "free woman."  

The adoption argument meant that the promise which would have devolved on Isaac had now been bequeathed to a new party.  The "last supper" in replicating the Akedah as the sacrifice of the "only son" in this way manages to not only usurp the promise, but ensure, with the death of the son, that no other could come forward to claim legitimate inheritance.  In this way, the narrative that was intended to place Simon bar Cochba and his restoration of the sovereignty of Israel in the Judean canon was assumed by Greco-Romans who redacted into the narrative their understanding of Temple sacrifice, which conflated the Akedah with the Korban, removed the narrative from its Judean origins, and disowned the Judean people from their heritage.