This week we have been examining the Lord’s Supper from a number of angles. In dealing with every Biblical text we must recognize that we do not have the original autographs of any of the books we have. What we have is a collection of manuscripts which never agree with one another 100%. Most of the variants are insignificant and deal primarily with simple scribal errors in the process of copying. However the “words of institution” do contain a variant that merits closer examination.
In a number of early manuscripts Luke 22:19b-20 is missing. This text includes the words “which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” As I discussed earlier in our examination of the various accounts the version in Luke of Jesus’ words has two cups. One before the bread and one after. By removing these verses the text resembles the other passages with only one cup. We must ask the question, “which version is correct,” and “does it matter?”
According to Bruce M. Metzger (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994) the shorter reading is most possibly the result of a confused editor who was puzzled by the order, or perhaps the shorter version was a result of the so called “Disciplina Arcana” (or “The Discipline of the Secret.”) Early Christians may have changed the wording on Gospels made to be distributed to unbelievers. They would do this because the words of the omitted verses are very similar to what many scholars believe to be the words of the liturgy in the church at that time. The distribution of copies that omit this passage would be done to protect the Eucharist from being profaned by those who would be tempted to abuse it. However all this is hypothetical.
There is textual evidence that the shorter version is less authentic as well. The shorter version is only found in the “Western type” of text. The longer version on the other hand is found in all ancient text types INCLUDING the “Western type.”
Although I believe the Longer version is probably the original, it should be mentioned that there are those who argue the shorter version is authentic. They argue that there is non-Lukan linguistic features used in the section in question. However this could indicate Luke was using a source which would not be at all surprising since by his own admission he did collect a number of accounts to craft this Gospel. The other primary criticism is that in general shorter readings are preferred over longer ones in New Testament textual criticism. However this argument is based on an assumption made before the text is even examined, and is therefore suspect.
We can’t ignore the remarkable similarities between the Luke passage and the passage from 1 Corinthians. We may never know what the original origin of this phrasing is, but I have no trouble believing that wherever it came from it can be traced back to Christ Jesus’ own words which inspired the sacred liturgy.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In