(ii.) Luke 22i5--'o._The difficulties of the text are such that so far no final decision has been reached with regard to them, some scholars indeed think- ing that the textual problem is involved in the Synoptic problem. The evidence is as follows : (1) The TH is supported by KABCL. (2) Old Latin b e (k defective) have the order 16. 19". (/cat \a8<hv ipTov . . . rb adJuLd fiov) 17. 18, and omit 19''.*20. Old Syriac (Syr ^in and Syr <^"f) agree in the main with old Latt., though with interpolations. Their order is 16. 19. 17. 18. 21. ' And he took bread and gave thanks for it and brake it and gave and said : This is my body which is for you (Syr *'" + 'is given') : do this in remembrance of me. And (Syr*'" 'after they had supped') he took a cup and gave thanks over it and said : Take this and share it among yourselves (Syr *'" + • this is my blood of the new covenant'). I say to you that from this time on I shall not drink of this growth of the vine (Syr *'° ' fruit ' ) until the kingdom of God comes.' The Pesh. omits 17. 18 ; Egyp. omits 16-18; Marcion omits 16. 18. 19'', and" after 19* comes the cup, but there is only one. (3) D a ff- i 1 omit 19b and 20. Hort, with whom Nestle agrees, is strongly of opinion that vv.i^b * were not part of the original text of Luke. Weiss, Schlirer, Zahn, and others also believe in a shorter text, but Zahn looks to the oldest versions rather than to D a, etc., for the proper order. Their testimony is uniform for the order of Mk.-Mt.-Paul (for 1 Co 1016 even with the Didache can hardly, in the face of 1 Co 112*, be cited for primitive practice) and for only one cup. However, Mark and Paul seem to have influenced the oldest Syriac directly, in its additions ' this is my blood,' etc., and the command for repetition. If the longer text be accepted, as it is by many scholars, the mention of the two cups may be due to the recapitulatory propensity of Luke (Thayer), or the first cup may signify the close of the Old Covenant in the last Passover (16-18), while the second cup belongs to the New Covenant (19". 20). In favour of the latter view it may be observed that ' a cup ' occurs in v.i', but in v.2^ 'the cup,' as though well known in the Church (Holtzmann). There is, however, other evidence in this chapter of unsuitable order if not disarrangement, as e.g. vv.'*-i-23, where a change of position would fit the narrative better : and if Jn l^i-'" may be taken as a guide, it would seem that Lk 22-'»--' should come before the institution of the Supper. Hence Hort's excision of vv.is''-20 is as
yet the simplest solution of the difficulty. In that case Luke did not intend to give the detailed ac- count of the institution of the Supper, but rather its meaning. Whatever the original order may have been, there can be no doubt that he desires to lay stress on the Paschal character of the meal. The old dispensation is closing. For the last time Jesus hands His disciples the Passover cup : in the coming Kingdom He will provide for them a heavenly vintage (cf. Jn lo^). (See Hort, 'Notes on Select Readings,' p. 63 f. ; Nestle. Textual Crit. of Gr. Test. p. 270 f. ; Zahn. Einl. in d. TI', ii. 357 ff. ; Sandav, Hastings' BB ii. 636 ; Plummer, St. Luke, 496.)
(iii.) Paid. — 1 Co 11-3-26 jg evidently drawn upon by the author of the longer account of the Supper in Luke. The Apostle gives unimpeachable author- ity for his view of the Supper, claiming that he had a revelation from the Lord, though it is highly probable that he derived it indirectly through the Apostles (airo seems to involve a reuiote source ; .see Schmiedel, IJaitd-Com. ii. 162). Of the varia- tions from Mk.-Mt. the most important are the repetition of • Do this in remembrance of me,' and the change of ' This is my blood of the covenant ' into ' This cup is the new covenant in my blood ' : while the common Synoptic prophecy of Jesus that He will drink the new fruit of the vine in the Kingdom with His disciples, gives way to a Pauline interpretation of the forward aspect of the Supper — ' ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.'
In 1 Cor. the subject is introduced incidentally. There is no formal description of the first Supper, with full historical detail. The narrative is in- tended to correct abu.ses among light-hearted Greeks, who seem to have degraded the Supper to the level of their former heathen club-banquets {ffvffa'iTLa, tpavoi). They had few such sacred a.s.'^o- ciations as the Jews, whose annual Passover was a valuable discipline in reverence for Jehovah their Redeemer. These Corinthians had poor ideas of the awful cost of their redemption, when they failed to recognize the meaning of this memorial of Christ's redeeming death, and by their selfish party-spirit profaned the Lord's Supper, instituted as it was at such a time as the night on which pre- parations for His betrayal were being matured (irapediSero). The rite as described here is es.sen- tially the same as in the Gospels ; but in the Gospels we have the historical account of its creation ; while 1 Cor. describes an ideal celebration for the Chris- tian brotherhood.