jkdoyle.com

Here's a little text-criticism exercise (don't be shy...try it even if you don't think you can!):  The Lucan text of the Last Supper has two major versions in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament. The choice between these two versions, the longer (Luke 22:14-20) and the shorter (Luke 22:14-19a), has long been debated by text critics and scholars, with the consensus of their conclusions radically shifting over time.[1] Initially, the majority of scholars supported Westcott and Hort’s opinion that the shorter text was an example of a “Western non-interpolation” which was more original than the longer version found in the Alexandrian texts.[2] However, the publication of the Bodmer Papyrus in 1961 and its subsequent dating to the early 3rd century (200 CE) has led scholars to re-evaluate their positions.   The trend now seems to be to accept the longer text as authentic.[3] In this post, after providing the longer and shorter texts, I will summarize several of the major arguments for and against both texts, present some of my own evaluation, and ask you which text you believe to be original based upon the criteria used by textual critics.

The Longer and Shorter Texts

Below I have provided the Greek[4] and my own translation of the longer and shorter texts of the Last Supper in Luke. The longer text has been placed within brackets and is in italics.

14 Καὶ ὅτε ἐγένετο ἡ ὥρα, ἀνέπεσεν καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι σὺν αὐτῷ. 15 καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς· ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν· 16 λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ φάγω αὐτὸ ἕως ὅτου πληρωθῇ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ. 17 καὶ δεξάμενος ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν· λάβετε τοῦτο καὶ διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς· 18 λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, [ὅτι] οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ. 19 καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου[5] [τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 20 καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων· τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.][6]

14 And when the hour came, he reclined and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, “I have deeply desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I say to you that I in no way eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he said, “Take this and divide among yourselves, 18 for I say to you from now on I will never eat from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 Then after taking a loaf of bread and giving thanks, he broke and gave to them, and said, “This is my body [which is given for you, do this in my remembrance.” 20 Then similarly the cup after the main course, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is pouring out for you.”]

            It is important to note that the longer text contains the familiar references known within Christianity to Jesus’ remembrance, body, blood, as well as the new covenant. The language of the longer text (vv. 19-20) is very similar to 1 Cor 11:24b-25:

. . . ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’

However, since Luke was written after Paul, the Pauline letters or liturgical tradition could have been available as a source for Luke, and the entire passage contains stylistic and grammatical elements which appear to be based upon sources in addition to Mark (For a comparison of all NT and Didache texts of the last supper, see Appendix C) .[7]   Therefore, the presence of material similar to Paul does not in itself provide evidence for a scribal conflation or addition to the passage. Both the shorter and longer texts must be evaluated using the external and internal criteria.

Criteria

Experts in the field of textual criticism use the following critical guides for assessing the reliability/originality of a texts upon which our English translations are based.  These rules are to be followed, but not always rigidly:

1. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE, involving considerations bearing upon:

• The date of the witness or, rather, of the type of text.
• The geographical distribution of the witnesses that agree in supporting a variant.
• The genealogical relationship of texts and families of witnesses: Witnesses are weighed rather than counted.

2. INTERNAL EVIDENCE, involving two kinds of probabilities:

Transcriptional Probabilities depend upon considerations of palaeographical details and the habits of scribes. Thus:

• In general the more difficult reading is to be preferred.
• In general the shorter reading is to be preferred.
• That reading is to be preferred which stands in verbal dissidence with the other. 


Intrinsic Probabilities depend upon considerations of what the author was more likely to have written, taking into account:

• the style and vocabulary of the author throughout the book,
• the immediate context,
• harmony with the usage of the author elsewhere, and, in the Gospels,
• the Aramaic background of the teaching of Jesus,
• the priority of the Gospel according to Mark, and
• the influence of the Christian community upon the formulation and transmission of the passage in question.

(Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 209-210.  See also the "12 Rules of Aland/Aland" provided as appendix 2.)

External Evidence for the Shorter Text

Most of the external evidence weighs heavily against the shorter text of the Last Supper pericope (Luke 22:14-19a). All of the sources for the shorter text belong to the Western text-type, which tends to be a “freer” text-type than the Alexandrian and more open to scribal editorial work.[8] In addition, Codex Bezae (D), dating from the 5th century, is the only existing Greek manuscript containing the shorter text.[9] Additionally, the shorter text is found in several Latin versions (it^{a, d, ff2, I, l}) that date from the 4th century and later, and can also be found with modifications in two Old Latin manuscripts (it^{b, e}) and in the Curetonian Syriac (Syr^c).[10] Notably, Syr^c contains a conflation of wording from 1 Cor 11:24,[11] providing some evidence that scribes did use Pauline texts to lengthen the shorter pre-existing version.

In terms of dating, the fairly early date of both D (5th century) and it^a (4th century), combined with evidence that a Western text-type was in use by church Fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, precludes an a priori conclusion that Western textual traditions—of which Bezae is the best witness—was always later or secondary to the Alexandrian.[12] This leaves open the possibility that the Bezan version of Luke could derive from textual traditions at least as old as P75.[13] However, the bottom-line is that there is no direct or specific support for the shorter text prior to the 4th or 5th century, whereas P75 does provide earlier evidence for the longer text. Because of this the primary arguments for the shorter text rely upon internal rather than external evidence.

Internal Evidence for the Shorter Text

A) Transcriptional Probabilities
It is significant that Bezae, a Western manuscript known for a tendency towards paraphrasistic expansions of passages, omits vv. 19b-20 in the Last Supper account.[14] This is especially problematic since there is no textual evidence of an accidental omission of 19b-20, and it is difficult to explain why a scribe would have intentionally omitted references to Jesus’ body and blood, which were known to have been common references in liturgical practice.[15] While some have argued that the shorter text derives from a scribe’s effort to remove the difficulties of a 2nd cup from the Eucharistic meal (cup-bread-cup), this theory of intentional omission of 19b-20 by a liturgically concerned scribe fails to provide an adequate explanation to the remaining liturgical difficulties in the text.[16] Bart Ehrman, working from similar questions posed by Hort, asks:

If a scribe was concerned with harmonizing the account to its parallels, why did he eliminate the second cup instead of the first? It is the first that is problematic, because it is distributed before the giving of the bread; and it is the second that is familiar, because the words of institution parallel so closely those of Paul in 1 Corinthians.[17]

These transcriptional factors, combined with the general guideline that “the shorter reading is to be preferred,” give some weight to arguments for the shorter text despite its lack of strong external manuscript support.

B) Intrinsic Probabilities
Supporters of the shorter text have pointed out that vv. 19b-20, with its emphasis on the atoning death of Jesus rather than table fellowship, does not seem to coincide with understandings of Jesus’ death and meal motifs found in Luke.[18] According to this argument, with the possible exception of Acts 20:38, Luke nowhere else depicts the death of Jesus as an atonement, but most often portrays it as an unjust execution of an innocent martyr that is powerfully overcome by God’s vindication of Jesus through the resurrection (see Luke 23:47; Acts 2:22-36; 3:12-16; 4:8-12; 7:51-56; 8:32-33;13:26-41).[19] Ehrman points out that atonement themes are so absent from Luke-Acts, that the author actually seems to have “gone out of his way to eliminate just such a theology from the narrative he inherited from his predecessor Mark,” e.g. by ignoring verses such as Mark 10:45: “For the Son of Man came . . . to give his life a ransom for many”.[20] This lack of atonement concepts in Luke is also highlighted in regard to later meal scenes in Luke-Acts, where rather than presenting on an understanding of the sacrificial death of Jesus Luke instead maintains a theme of fellowship, continuance of Jesus’ mystical presence in the “breaking of bread” (Luke 24:35), and expectation of “the future blessings of the messianic banquet”.[21]

In addition, the atonement theme of the longer ending of 19b-20 detracts from an eschatological emphasis surrounding the meal that would be more evident if shorter text is original. Dennis Smith points out that the eschatological/messianic banquet theme, with its corresponding concepts of reversal, reward and judgment, runs throughout the Lucan narrative (6:20-26; 13:25-30; 14:15-24; 16:19-31),[22] and the shorter text, especially combined with Jesus’ pronouncement of reward and judgment during the meal (Luke 22:38-30), would naturally maintain this consistent theme whereas the longer text would obscure it.[23] Additionally, earlier Lucan meal scenes depict Jesus as sharing table fellowship with those standing opposed to Jesus and God’s plan and who will ultimately be judged or left outside the kingdom.[24] This finds correlation in Luke’s placement of Jesus’ announcement and judgment of the “one who hands over” after the Eucharistic meal elements rather than before as is found in Mark (cf. Mark 14:17-26).[25] This is a fitting thematic contrast of blessing and judgment consistent in Luke that is easily lost if vv. 19b-20 are added to the pericope.

External Evidence for the Longer Text

The greatest argument for the longer text of Luke’s Last Supper pericope is in its overwhelming manuscript support. Other than the shorter version found in Bezae, the longer reading (Luke 22:19b-20) is found in all other Greek NT manuscripts containing this passage.[26] Most significantly it is found in Papyrus Bodmer (P75), which has been dated to the early 3rd century (200 AD).[27] Other important manuscripts with the longer text include Codex Sinaiticus (א), Codex Alexandrinus (A), Codex Vaticanus (B), and Codex Ephraemi (C).[28] This grouping of manuscripts dates from the 4th century and is represented in the Alexandrian text-type, which is considered a more reliable text tradition that shows less evidence for scribal modification.[29] It is also found in most lectionaries and versions beginning in the 5th-6th centuries (it^{aur, c, f, q, r1}, vg, sry^h, pal, cop^sa, arm, eth, geo, slav, Eusebian Canons), the majority of early Church Fathers, and (less importantly) in early Byzantine text-types.[30] Not only this, but many sources representing the Western text-type also support the longer reading.[31] This manuscript support—extremely positive in terms of number, reliability, and (with P75) dating--has led to the broader acceptance of the longer text as original.[32]

Internal Evidence for the Longer Text

A) Transcriptional Probabilities
The greatest questions of authenticity for the longer text is that it seems to introduce non-Lucan concepts and a possible Pauline harmonization/conflation with 1 Cor 11:24b-25, which ultimately results in an otherwise unknown 2nd cup to the Eucharistic patterns known from the NT and other early sources.[33] However, since the 2nd cup is the most difficult reading from the perspective of known practices and given the editing tendencies of the Bezan scribe, it is very plausible that shorter reading could have been the result of a liturgically minded scribe who attempted to smooth over this difficulty by simply removing the references to last cup.[34] While modification to the shorter reading would not have eliminated all the liturgical difficulties, it would have removed the most obvious problem of the 2nd cup.

Also, the perception that the cup-bread rather than bread-cup Eucharistic order would have been an issue for the early church may be over-emphasized. For example, the Didache also seems to present an order of the Eucharist that is cup-bread rather than bread-cup, and there may also be evidence of this order in Paul.[35] This has often been used to argue in favor of the shorter text.[36] However, it also provides plausible support that a scribe could have removed the problematic second cup without feeling that he was leaving a reading that had remaining difficulties.[37] In addition, it is more problematic to explain why a scribe--for whatever reasons, whether to introduce atonement interpretations, repair the bread-cup order, or harmonize with Pauline Eucharistic practices--would have added the 2nd cup to an existing shorter text.[38] Such a liturgical pattern has no attestation outside of Luke. This type of modification, rather than smoothing over an existing difficult reading, actually results in the most difficult reading in terms of Christian practice.

B) Intrinsic Probabilities
It is in its intrinsic evidence that the longer text finds its weakest support. As has already been mentioned under the evidence for the shorter reading, the longer reading lacks thematic and theological coherence with the Luke-Acts understandings of the death of Jesus and table-fellowship. In addition to this, there are recognized stylistic and grammatical issues with this passage in that some of the language appears nowhere else or seldom in Lucan material.[39] This latter intrinsic issue is lessoned somewhat by the understanding that Luke is primarily working from existing written sources and may have had some contact with Pauline Eucharistic phraseology,[40] but combined with the thematic and theological differences these grammatical issues cannot easily be dismissed.

From a structural and formal perspective, Charles Talbert, building upon the work of Kobus Petzer, argues that the dual parallel structure of vv 15-18, 19-20 (two phrases consisting of “for I tell you I shall not…until…the kingdom of God” paralleled with two “this is given/poured out for you” statements) provides additional internal evidence to the external manuscript evidence that the passage is an original unit.[41] Talbert finds in this unit elements of “farewell speeches characteristic of Jewish and Christian materials,” where the narrative hero:

. . . gathers his primary community together and gives a farewell speech with two standard components—there is first a prediction of what will happen after he is gone and then there is an exhortation about how to behave after his departure.[42]

However, there are weaknesses to Talbert’s assessment. First, by focusing on the farewell speech aspects of the meal, he has overlooked the eschatological thematic elements consistent with Luke. Second, as Dennis Smith points out, though Talbert argues for unity he is forced to differentiate between the focus of vv. 15-18 and vv. 19-20.[43] Concerning vv. 15-18 Talbert makes the statement that they “are not Eucharistic as such” but are part of the farewell,[44] whereas the emphasis of vv. 19-20 is the remembrance of Jesus.[45] Third, in terms of the unity of the dual parallel structure of vv. 15-18, 19-20, Ehrman points out that similar parallel structures based upon the contrasts of “for I tell you” in vv. 16, 18 with “but” in vv. 21, 22b can be found by omitting vv. 19-20 of the longer text.[46]

Considerations and Conclusions

Evaluating the textual problems surrounding Lucan version of the Last Supper is a complex matter that may never find conclusive resolution. Since the Last Supper has been and remains such an important point of focus for Christian belief and practices when it comes to the meaning of Jesus death and the liturgy of the Eucharist, the differences in the two versions may have significant theological and practical implications.

I have attempted to weigh and evaluate the major external and internal arguments for each reading (see Appendix A).

What are your thoughts ?

Bibliography

Aland, Barbara et al., eds. Greek New Testament: With English Introduction Including Greek/English Dictionary (Greek Edition). American Bible Society, 1998.

Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture : The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke X-Xxiv. The Anchor Bible 28A. Doubleday & Co, 1985.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Oxford University Press, 1980.

_______. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart [s.l.]: Deutsche Biblegesellschaft United Bible Societies, 1994.

Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th Edition). Oxford University Press, USA, 2005.

Monks, George Gardner. “The Lucan Account of the Last Supper.” Journal of Biblical Literature 44, No. 3/4 (1925): 228-60.

Smith, Dennis Edwin. From Symposium to Eucharist : The Banquet in the Early Christian World. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

Talbert, Charles H. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary. 2nd Revised ed. Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2002.

 

Appendix A [Back]