* The formula of faith contained in v.37 is not found in the oldest MSS, but cannot be later than the 2nd cent., as it is quoted by Irenseus (Boer. in. xii. 8).
Kal irpoarayfJidrwv, (is Siv iroKirelas S.px'^v avroreXoOj (' he governs the race and decides trials in court and has charge of contracts and ordinances as if he were an absolute monarch ').
An inscription (Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage arcMologiq^ie en Gr^ce et en Asie Mineure, Paris, 1847-77, vol. iii. no. 2196 = W. Dittenberger, Orientis Grceci Inscriptiones Selectee, Leipzig, 1905, vol. ii. no. 616) from a village, El-MS,likije in the Hauran, mentions by the names 'ethnarch' and ' general (or praetor) of nomads ' a chief of nomad Arabs of the time of Hadrian or Antoninus Pius who must have submitted to the Emperor.
These passages will help to illustrate the refer- ence in 2 Co IP^. The man there mentioned was doubtless ruler of the Jews in Damascus and its territory, who were 'permitted to exercise their own religious law veiy freely and fully' (Ramsay, Pictures of the Apostolic Church, London, 1910, p. 99). He was under Aretas, who has the title ^aai\ev% (' king,' i.e. of Arabia), and, indeed, as has been said, the ethnarch was always lower than a king. This fact is illustrated by interesting pas- sages in Josephus [BJ II. vi. 3, Ant. XVII. xi. 4), where Caesar Augustus makes Archelaus not /Sao-t- XeiJy, but edvdpxv^, of half of the territory that; had belonged to Herod, promising him the higher title later, if certain conditions were fulfilled ; and in Pseudo-Lucian (Macrob. § 17, ed. Jacobitz, Leip- zig, 1896, vol. iii. p. 198), where a man is ' pro- claimed jSao-iXeiJj instead of idvdpxv^ of the Bosporus.'
A. SOUTER.
EUBULUS (Ed'/SouXoj).— A friend of St. Paul and Timothy, Eubulus was present with the Apostle in Rome during his last imprisonment, and along Avith Claudia, Pudens, and Linus sent greetings to Timothy (2 Ti 4^'). Probably he was a member of the Church of Rome ; and, as liis name is Greek, he may have been a slave or a Roman freedman. Nothing, however, is known regarding him.
VV. F. BOYD.
EUCHARIST.— 1. Scope of article.— The scope of this article is limited to the observance of the Eucharist in the Apostolic Church, with especial reference to St. Paul. The Gospels are expressly excluded. Therefore the question as to the possi- bility of the accounts in the Synoptic Gospels having been influenced by Pauline ideas, and the many questions which are raised by the Gospel according to St. John, will not be treated in this article. The evidence which will be used will be that which is furnished by the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles. Other evidence will only be adduced in so far as it has a direct bearing upon this.
2. The Acts of the Apostles. — In Acts we have a description of the life of the earliest Christian community in Jerusalem. We are told that ' they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread [ttj KXdaei. toO dpTov) and the prayers' (Ac 2'^'^). Furtlier, we read that ' Day by day continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread {KXwvres apTov) at home, they partook of food with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God and having favour with all the people' (vv.^-«). The latter passage contrasts their breaking of bread at home with their attendance at the Temple-worship. But the passage may be no more than a general description of the life of the community— that it was cheerful and social. In the former passage, however, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that 7) K\d(n% rod dprov must have some religious significance. It has indeed been held that it has nothing to do with the Last Supper, that com- munity of goods led to community of meals, and that no more than that is intended by the phrase. But the growing belief in the fact of redemption
374
EUCHAEIST
EUCHARIST
through the Death of Christ, together with certain visions of the Risen Lord, who appeared to His disciples, on some occasions, according to our ac- counts, at meals, led to a connexion being estab- lished, in the minds of Christians, between the Last Supper and the common meal. Thence the development is clear; and there is no difficulty in seeing how they came to believe in some mys- terious Presence of Jesus. Thus was evolved the Pauline doctrine.*
It is true that it is impossible to prove any con- nexion between the ' breaking of the bread ' of Ac 2*'' and the Last Supper. But that there was a religious signiKcance attached to the former seems clear from the way in which it is mentioned. And the general course of the history is most easily explained if we suppose that ah'eady in the Ijrimitive community at Jerusalem the connexion existed. It does not seem probable that St. Paul's churches ditiered wholly in their usage from other churches, and the facts are best explained by the supjjosition that, from the first. Christians com- memorated their Master at their common meal. The suggestion, to which allusion has been made, that visions of the Risen Christ led to the con- nexion being established, fails to account for the fact that it is Christ's Death that came to be com- memorated, and that, because of this, the Euchar- ist bore from very early times a sacrificial char- acter. The evidence is not sufficient to lead to any certain conclusions ; but on the whole it seems to point to the germ of the later conception being contained in these earliest 'breakings of bread.' Whether the ' breaking of bread ' denotes the common meal, or a particular action at the common meal, is again not clear. Batitfol t maintains the latter, but hi.'< arguments are not conclusive; J and the matter must be left doubtful.