No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Lukan Tradition of the Lord's Supper
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 November 2011
Extract
In its effort to determine the historic sense of the New Testament records, and thus to understand them genetically, modern criticism has developed no instrument more effective than the method of comparison. In former days the aim was harmonization, because the interpreter started with the assumption of a mechanical agreement among the witnesses. Today the aim is distinction, because mechanical coincidence is neither assumed nor desired. On the contrary the broader the contrast in point of view, the surer the ultimate inference. Stars so remote that they give no parallax, their rays seeming to come at precisely the same angle no matter from what point of the earth's orbit the observer takes his measurements, afford small hope of determining their real position. There must be difference of angle when the earth has swung round half its orbit, or there is no basis for measurement. Fortunately for the problem of the historical Jesus, the rays which come to us from him do not travel along precisely parallel lines. On the other hand the problem is enormously complicated by the process of mixture; for the testimony of one witness has visibly affected that of another, detracting from its independent value.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1912
References
1 See The Resurrection in Primitive Tradition and Observance, Yale University Press, 1911Google Scholar (reprinted from American Journal of Theology for July, 1911), and Beginnings of Gospel Story, Yale University Press, 1909, pp. 190–232.Google Scholar
2 Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus, 1903, and “Abendmahl” in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, i, pp. 19–51.
3 Das Abendmahlsproblem auf Grund der wissenschaftlichen Erforschung des 19. Jahrhunderts und der historischen Berichte, 1901; and Geschichte der Paulinischen Forschung, 1911, pp. 141–180.
4 Jn. 6; cf. Jn. 13. The discourse of Jn. 15 f. develops eucharistic themes, and thus throws an indirect light on the problem.
5 Jn. 1 19–34; cf. 2 1–11 and 3 1–30.
6 Cf. for instance 14 26 with Ex. 12 22.
7 Ex. 16 and 17. The order of events in the narrative makes here the order “ate … drank” inevitable.
8 The expression τόν ϑάνατον τοῦ κυρίου καταγγέλλετε, as Rev. G. H. Box points out in his admirable article, “Jewish Antecedents of the Eucharist” (Journal of Theological Studies, April, 1902, p. 364), corresponds to the haggada (from higgid, “to tell a tale”), the ἱερὸς λόγος, of the passover, “which consists mainly of the telling of the story of the Exodus.” Cf. Deut. 26 1–11.
9 See the passage quoted below, p. 024.
10 See below, p. 014. Mark borrows Lk. 22 18 in 14 25; the preceding clause (17b) is the source for his additions, “take” and “and they all drank of it,” in 14 23 f.
11 The rabbis interpret the command: “Remember the Sabbath day to hallow it” as inculcating the use of the kiddush.
12 Life of Christ, vol. ii, p. 497.
13 Op. cit.
14 “And I saw thrones and they [those who had endured the great trial] sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them, … and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”
15 Italics have been used in vss. 22 and 24 to indicate the changes which bring the record into conformity with 1 Cor. 11 17 ff. and the Pauline point of view. The clauses, “And they all drank of it,” in vs. 23, and “Take ye” in vs. 22, which at first might seem to be mere editorial additions, are found on comparison with Lk. 22 17 to have warrant in the older source.
16 On the significance of this editorial insertion, breaking the connection of vss. 27–29, and its relation to the missing conclusion of Mark, see my Beginnings of Gospel Story, ad loc.
17 Didache 9, 10.
18 The preamble (vs. 15 f.) contains a clause (“before I suffer”) which we have enclosed in brackets as perhaps an addition of the evangelist; for the references of Jesus to his “suffering” are so distinctively characteristic of Luke (cf. 24 26, 46; Acts 1 3; 3 18; 17 3; 26 23) that this partial exception must be reckoned of the kind which “proves the rule.”
19 See, however, above, note 15.
20 Didache, 9, “As touching the eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus. First as regards the cup: We give thee thanks, Our Father, for the holy vine of thy servant David, which thou madest known unto us through thy servant Jesus. (Response:) Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
“Then as regards the broken bread: We give thee thanks, Our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou didst make known unto us through thy servant Jesus. (Response:) Thine is the glory forever and ever. As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may thy church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom. (Response:) For thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever and ever.”
21 For a discussion of the relation, with demonstration of Mark's dependence on this element of Q (Qlk), see my Beginnings of Gospel Story.