1 Co 117-*,
ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ἣ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαρ- ἱστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν Τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν" τοῦτο ποιεῖτε
* The elements common to all four are in thick type; those
tommon to the three Gospels are in spaced
type. The text
ollowed is that of Westcott and Hort.
There is strong reason for believing that the latter part of the passage in the Third Gospel is not original, but a very early interpolation from 1Co. Dad ff,il omit from τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν to ἐκχυννό- μενον, while be Syr-Cur. omit and put vv.)” 8 in the place of the omitted passage, so as to harmonize with Mt and Mk and relieve the difficulty of the twocups. Syr-Cur., like Syr-Sin., retains the whole of v.”, be only the first half. According to this arrangement the verses run 16: 19. 17.18.21. ete, Syr- Sin. exhibits a more elaborate rearrangement with considerable changes of wording ;—"* 19. 20a. 17. 20b. 18. 21.22 etc. In Internat. Crit. Comm. on St. Luke,
p. 567, 568, these attempts at avoiding difficulties Ee transposing parts of the text are shown in full. WH consider that there is ‘no moral doubt that the words in question were absent from the original text in Lk’ (ii. App. p. 64; see Introd. § 240). With this Brandt, Crate, Grass, Haupt, Schiirer, J. Weiss, and Wendt agree. Spitta Το ed Ven only, and accepts as original the whole οἵ v., the second half of which has the support of Syr-Cur., Syr-Sin., and Justin. Serivener, Schultzen (op. cut. PP. 5-19), R. A. Hoffmann (Abendmahis- gedanken Jesu Christi, 1896, pp. 5-25), and others defend the genuineness of the whole passage. But in a discussion of the accounts of the institution the whole passage should be treated as at least doubtful. It does not support the Pauline account, if it is (as is probable) borrowed from it.
The primary account is that given by St. Paul. Those in Mt and Mk are virtually one and the same; an account written later than his and inde-
endent of it. Among the features which are ound in both Mt and Mk but not in 1 Co are the change from εὐλογήσας of the bread to εὐχαριστήσας of the cup, the Λάβετε of the bread, the λαβὼν εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν of the cup, their all drinking of it, the blood being ‘shed for many,’ and the declaration about not drinking of the fruit of the vine. This last, and εὐχαριστήσας of the cup, are common to Lk also. The features which are common to all four are the taking bread, giving thanks or blessing, breaking, the words ‘This is my body,’ and the mention of the cup.
n four points St. Paul differs from the Synopt- ists. (1) Hie gives no indication that the meal was a paschal one, and thus seems to agree with St. John: it is the new covenant, rather than the cor nexion with the old rite, which interests him (Baur, Ch. Hist. i. pp. 161, 162). But 1Co57 must be remembered. (2) While Mt and Mk place the taking of the bread during the meal (ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν), he places the taking of the cup after the supper (μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι). If both are right, there was a con siderable interval between the distribution of the bread and the circulation of the cup. Lk gives no intimation. (3) While St. Paul has ‘ This ev is the new covenant in my blood,’ Mt and Mk have ‘This is my blood of the covenant,’ where ‘new’ may have been dropped for the sake of closer resemblance with Ex 248. In any case, Riickert’s proposal to take μου with diaéjxns—‘the blood of my covenant,’ and Bousset’s to reject the words about the covenant, because Justin omits then, are inadmissible. (4) St. Paul piven twice, Mk and Mt not at all, and Lk probably not at all, the important charge, τοῦτο ποιεῖτε els τὴν ἐμὴν dvduynow The explanation perhaps is, that the evangelist+
LORD’S SUPPER
treat the repetition as a matter of course, and as involved in the word ‘covenant,’ which implies vermanence: whereas, in order to convince the orinthians of the enormity of their misconduct, it was necessary to point out that irreverence to either bread or cup was a violation of what Christ Himself had prescribed. It follows from this that the divine injunction to the Church to continue the Eucharistic celebration in memory of its Founder rests solely upon the testimony of St. Paul. Let us admit that this is so. e do not thereby render probable the hypothesis that Jesus gave no such charge. The apostle could not have invented such an injunction, if it had not been in harmony with Christian practice already established. And how could such a rite have been established with- out the authority of the Twelve, who knew well whether Christ had commanded it or not?
Paulus was perhaps the first to deny that Christ said τοῦτο ποιεῖτε. But Briggs, P. Gardner,* Grafe, Immer, Jiilicher, Mensinga, Pfleiderer, Spitta, Titius, and Wittichen are disposed to think that the earliest tradition, represented by Mk and Mt, knew nothing of an institution by Jesus, on the night of His betrayal, of a sacrament to be observed continually.+ And the earliest Christian observ- ance of the Lord’s Supper as a permanent institu- tion is explained by the hypothesis that Christ save this command after His resurrection (Briggs,