are entirely compatible with the closest adherence to the procedure of the Last Supper. Who presiiied, we do not know, but it may oe taken as certain that someone did. In v.** we see the first impulse toward the separation of the Eucharist proner from the common meal in whicli it was embedded (see Weizsacker, p. 601). St, Paul's account of the words of institution has probably crept into the text of St. Luke's account of the Last Supper {see Hort's critical note). But it has recently been aryued by Percy Gardner ( The Origin of the Lord's Supper^ 1893) that a revelation to St. Paul at Corinth (so he very questionably understands 11^) may have been the sole source of the institution of tlie Eucharist ; and it is suggested furtlier, that this revelation was larj^ely coloured by the neigh- bouring mysteries of Eleusis. The tradition of the institution in the first two Gospels is enough to refute this view. That they have derived it from Pauline influence is not to be believed for a moment ; nor, in view of its thoroughly Palestinian and Jewish antecedents, can great weight be assigned to the fact that they do not expressly record a command to repeat the ordinance (ci. Bickell, Messe und Pascha; Anrich, Antike Mys- terienwesen, p. 127). AVe note the stress laid by the apostle on previous preparation (11^). The solemnity of the rit« in St. Paul's eyes can hardly be exaggerated.
12. LiTBftATi:RE.—<For complete commentaries on the XT see Kbw Tbstamk.vt; (or commentaries on the Epp. of St. Paul generally, and Introductions to them, see Paul, Romans; for grammuUcal works, see Lanouaok op tub NT.) A very com-
Slete list of works c ' '" - -
leyer's Commentan Corinthians in Stni 8<Wflf., 378; Reuss, Gtsch. der U. SchH/ten NT, §88£f. In a •elect bibliography* we must be content with mentioning a few books of special importance without implying in any way that those omitted are without (often great) value, (a) On both Epistles : The historical Bittiation bos been specially discussed (amon;! others) by Bleek, UK 1830 ; Baur, Tub. Z. liWl (import- ant for the *-r«>/«tT<x), Pa\dvjfiy pp. 2S7-3-13; Rabiger (see above, S 7); Scnenkel, De eccl. Cor. factionxbux turbata, ls;J8; Beyschlag, De eccl. Cor. factione Christiana, 1861, and in SK, 1865, 1871; Hilgenfeld in his /AVTh. 1805, 18tJ0, 1871, 1872; Ht-inrici, da* ergte SS. des Ap. P. an die Kor. 1880, and in his edd. of Meyer (see below) ; Kldpper (see next article) ; Krenkel, B^traae z. An/hellujio d. Ges'-h. u. d. Brv^e det P. WM) ; Eviau, Zur Chron. d. P. Dritfe, 1873 ; Ilagge in J. prot. Th. 1870 ; Weizsacker (as cited above and) in J. Th. 1876; Pfleiderer, Urehnvtentum, pp. 8&-117, 1887; Ilauarath, Paulu^, 1805 (see also his llirt. of N.T. Tiims, Eng. tr. 1S95); Lisco, Paulu* Antipaulinut {& very novel theory on 1 Co 1-4), 1894; Ektdal, Jjiter Paul, et Corr. quce intercengerint rationes utq. ad [1 Cor] (London), 1887 ; Godet, iMrod. (txiin.) 1894 ; Clemen (see above, I 6), and Schmiedel in Iland-Komtnentar^, 1891, 2 umji, the most •earching and accurate digest of the iminy complicated ques- tions involved ; 7jxhn,Einleit. ind.MT.'i. 195 fT. Of commentaries on both Epp. the homilies of Cbrysostonj ' have ever been con* Bidere«i by devout men as among the moat perfect specimens of his mind and teaching' (see Ni^ene and P. N. JAlrrary, series i. vol. xii.) ; they were delivered at Antioch, i.e. before 308 ; 44 are on 1 Co, SO on 2 Co. On the commentaries of Tlieodoret, John Damascene, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Euthymius, ' Ambrosi- aster,' I*etagius, Thomas Aquinas, the reader may be referred to the remarks in Sanday- Headlam, Romang, p. xcixff. The 'Postils' of Nic. deLyra(flr8t in 1471-1472) mark a revival of exc- gctical insight upon some points in our Ep]>. Melanclithon wrote on both Epp., but 2 Co was not flnialied. Of more modem writers, Ix)cke*8 Paraphrase and Essay on St. Paul (170.'»-1707) dealt with 1 and 2 Co. For lists of 17th and I8th cent, com- mentators, see the references given above. The list of strictly modem commentaries opens with Pott, 1820; Billroth, 1853; Riickert^ 1830. Olshausen, de Wette, Meyer dealt with the Epistles in their general works on the NT. Meyer remains the nearest approach to a standard commentary; his latest edd. have been revised by Heinrici, who had previously publislu-d a (y)mmentary of his own. Osiander, 1847-1858; Ncander, IH'.O ; Kling In I-ange's Hibelwrrk, isr.l ; Maior(Itom. Cath.). 1857-1806 ; Schne'lcnnann (in Stnu:k-Z<ickier). 1887 ; Si;hniieflel (see above). On both Epistles, in EngliHh, the best mo<lem works are those of Hodje (New York), ls57-lS0J); K. W. Robertson i> (Ictures) ; eUnley, < 1976 J. A. Beet. 3iss5; Kay. 1887 (scholarly but ■light, posthumous) ; Lias (in Cainb. Greek Test.). 18.S0-18U2. We may add T. K.AblM»tt, Short Notes on St. Paul's Kpp. 1892. Several excellent coraiuentarics exist on 1 Co only. Dean Colct's (cd, by LupT^n). 1874; Hoydonreich. 1825-1823; IIoIsten(in Dag K vat* q. des PatUtut), 18S0 ; T. C. Kdwarrls. 1S85 (ven.' valuable); ElU- oott, 1887 (possibly the most thorough Engh'sh commentary); Evans (In Speaker's Coinin.\ 1881 (unsurpassed insight in many passages); >odet, 1887 (•xccllent) ; Bois, Adwrsaria Critica,
1887; Milligan, The Resurrection of the Dead (on 1 Co 15), 1894 ; Lightfoot's Notes on Epistles of St. Paul, 1895, contain notes on 1 Co 1-7. References to Field's Otium Norvicense, to articles in the Expositor^ etc., a.re given by Plumraer in DIT',8.v.