Iltm tranap. w.". is omittmt (Clir.) rtl partim intfrifct« (Sln.l v.*** Syrr. (Sin. -Cur.). ['"... ««« otoo wAijpwdp it Tn fiaa. TOO ©eoe. '• tai Aa^ui' apTOe tv\apiaTri(xai cicAatTd' tai iStiiKtv airoK Atywe" toOto em to aui/^d ^ou TO ijnia iifiiiv itiofifvoii (oin. Cur.)' touto irotttTt «»« Tiji* in'riv ai'd ^i-ijati*. " Kai (wiravTw? nerit Tit ficiirv^crat inn. etr v.'** Sin.) iifdM'i'O? woTiiptoe l c<7 to wot.) «u>fapc<rT^<T«? clire' Ad0(T« ToiiTQ iiat^tpiaaTt tii «aeToe? (TOuTO eiTTi to alfid juoe [h] Kaivi) UaO^Kt) add. (sill.). A*yw {inn. yap 8lli.) i'M'i' oTt dirb too viiv oi/ firi irtu* dub Toy ytri'ijuaro^ rovTov TTj^ aiini^ov (ret om.y) ew« oTou q fiaa. tow StoO .■A9n]-
To the textual critic these phenomena are fairly clear. The omission of vv.'"b-»' (1) a ff- i 1) belongs to the oldest form of the Western text. Tlie next step (be) wa.s to transpose the order of vv.''- "* and '"*, so as to make the setjuence of the Bread and the Cup corrrespond to that in the other authmities. Tlie next (Cur.) \va.s to supplement the wonls re- lating to the Uread from 1 Co 11--'. The next (Sin.) was to suiiplcment in like manner the part relating to the Cup by somewhat free interpola- tions partly suggested by Mt, Mk, but mainly finm 1 Coll'^. In this instance Syr.-Sin. represents a later stage than Syr.-Cur., though it is more often earlier. The oniissions of vv.['«] ■'■ "< are prob- ably not important.
We have then confronting each other the primi- tive form of the Western text, which is shorter, makes Lk transpose the onler of the Bread and the Cup, and omits all mention of a second Cup, and the great mass of Gk. MSS and other authori- ties, which introduce a second Cup, or second men- tion of the Cu|), anil till out the whole mainly from St. Paul. We cannot doubt that both these types of text existed e.arly in the 'Jnd cent. Kither may be original. And tliis is just one of those cases where internal evidence is strongly in favour of the text which we call Western. The tcinptalion to exjiand was much stronger than to contract ; and the double mention of the Cup raises real difliculties of the kind which suggest interpolation.
(•2) Itekilion (i/tlir Texts to earh iithcr.— The a<\o\>- tion of the Western text of Lk greatly diminishes the coincidences between St. Luke and St. Paul. Indeed it reduces them to the practically ciiuivalent evxapiarrjo-as for (v\oy/i<ras (in reference to the Bread , Mt, Mk use it of the Cup). Tlie greatest loss is that of the apparent conlirmation by St. Luke of the command to repeat the rite in memory of its Founder. It may be doubted, however, whether the introduction of this into the text of Lk, which — to obtain tlie circulation it had — must have taken place exceedingly early, and must have been carried out at the headquarters of the Church, is not even stronger testiniuny to the current practice of the Church than that of a single writer could be, even though that writer was an evangelist.
As to the main lines of the rite all the authorities are agreed. All note the taking of the Bread, the blessing (or 'giving thanks'), the breaking, the words, 'This is my Body.' All note the Cup, which both in the Synoptic (Mt, Mk) and Pauline tradition is related to the [new] Covenant in- augurated by the shedding of the Blood of the Messiah. In the Synoptics (Mt, Mk, Lk) there is an express mention of the giving of the Bread to the disciples, with the further command, ' Take ' (Mt, Jlk), 'eat ' (Mt), and a like communication of the Cup (Synoptics, though with some difference of phrase). And whereas St. I'aul empha.sizes the redemptive value of the sacriliced Body (t6 inrip u/iw" lectio vera), Mt, Mk do the same for the shedding of the Blood (rb wepi [Otrip] ToWCiv iKxv.- pdfjievov Mt, Mk, and els icpeaii' a/xapTiCiv Mt). St. Paul not only doubles the command for repetition, but also adds, ' For a-s often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.'
JESUS CHKIST
JESUS CHRIST
C.J 7
(:J) Otiier NT Evidence. — We thus have the insti- tution of the Saciainent fully set before us. Bui if we luuk at one of the d(jcumeiits upon which we liave been drawing, tlie lirst in order of writing, though it is only incidentally historical, 1 Co 11, we find there that the Siicranient proper is a.sso- oiated with something else — the coinnmn meal or aijrtpe (Jude '-, '2 V J'* var. led. ). \\\- ask ourselves wlial can be the origin of tliis association? It can hardly go back to the original institution. It is more probable that the association arose out oi the state of Koivavia described in Ac 2*-- ♦*-*' 4**-^ 0>-2.
Perhaps it goes back further still, at least to the very beginning of the period. For one of the characteristic expressions is ^ xXdiris tou dprou, K\^f 6.0T0V (Ac 2'-- ■•"), of which IJIa-ss says, 'est autem k\^v tAi/ ipTov solleninis designatio cenaj dominicie.' It must, however, be somewhat wider than that, for in the immediate context we have xXuiTts rt kut' o'tKOf if)Toi> tieTeXaii/iamv rpo^ij!, k.t.X., where Tpoi»)7) would seem to embrace the common meal as well as the Kucharist.