Luke 22:17-20

Luke 22:17-20 {B}

The Lukan account of the Last Supper has been transmitted in two principal forms: (1) the longer, or traditional, text of cup-bread-cup is read by all Greek manuscripts except D and by most of the ancient versions and Fathers; (2) the shorter, or Western, text (read by D it^{a, d, ff2, i, l}) omits verses Luke 22:19 and Luke 22:20 (to. u`pe.r u`mw/n … evkcunno,menon), thereby presenting the sequence of cup-bread. ¹⁷ Four intermediate forms of text, which appear to be compromises between the two principal forms, are the following: (a) two Old Latin manuscripts (it^{b, e}) modify the shorter text by placing ver. Luke 22:19 before ver. Luke 22:17, thus securing the customary order of bread-cup; (b) the Curetonian Syriac reads the same, but is enlarged with the wording of 1 Corinthians 11:24 added to ver. Luke 22:19; (c) the Sinaitic Syriac is still further expanded, chiefly by the insertion of “after they had supped” at the beginning of ver. Luke 22:17 and “this is my blood, the new covenant” (ver. Luke 22:20) between verses Luke 22:17 and Luke 22:18; and (d) the Peshitta Syriac lacks (perhaps due to homoeoteleuton) verses Luke 22:17 and Luke 22:18, as do also ù³², two Sahidic manuscripts, and one Bohairic manuscript. For convenience of comparison the six forms of the text are set forth in parallel columns on p. 149.

It is obvious that the chief problem is concerned with the merits of the two principal forms of text, since each of the others can be accounted for more or less satisfactorily as modifications of either the shorter or the longer form.

Considerations in favor of the originality of the longer text include the following: (a) The external evidence supporting the shorter reading represents only part of the Western type of text, whereas the other representatives of the Western text join with witnesses belonging to all the other ancient text-types in support of the longer reading. (b) It is easier to suppose that the Bezan editor, puzzled by the sequence of cup-bread-cup, eliminated the second mention of the cup without being concerned about the inverted order of institution thus produced, than that the editor of the longer version, to rectify the inverted order, brought in from Paul the second mention of the cup, while letting the first mention stand. (c) The rise of the shorter version can be accounted for in terms of the theory of disciplina arcana, i.e. in order to protect the Eucharist from profanation, one or more copies of the Gospel according to Luke, prepared for circulation among non-Christian readers, omitted the sacramental formula after the beginning words.

Table of six forms of the text of Luke 22:17-20, reproduced (with a few minor modifications) from the chapter, “The Textual Data,” by Sir Frederick G. Kenyon and S. C. E. Legg, in The Ministry and the Sacraments, ed. by Roderic Dunkerley (London, 1937), pp. 284 f. By “Majority Text” at the head of the first column is meant the consensus of î⁷⁵ a A B C K L T^vid W X D Q P Y 063 ¦¹ ¦¹³ apparently all minuscules it^{c, q, r1} vg syr^pal cop^{sa, bo} arm geo. It will be understood that the Greek form given to the versions is in some details uncertain.

Considerations in favor of the originality of the shorter text include the following: (a) Generally in New Testament textual criticism the shorter reading is to be preferred, (b) Since the words in verses Luke 22:19 and Luke 22:20 are suspiciously similar to Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, it appears that the latter passage was the source of their interpolation into the longer text. (c) Verses Luke 22:19-20 contain several linguistic features that are non-Lukan.

The weight of these considerations was estimated differently by different members of the Committee. A minority preferred the shorter text as a Western non-interpolation (see the Note following 24.53). The majority, on the other hand, impressed by the overwhelming preponderance of external evidence supporting the longer form, explained the origin of the shorter form as due to some scribal accident or misunderstanding. ¹⁸ The similarity between verses Luke 22:19-20 and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 arises from the familiarity of the evangelist with the liturgical practice among Pauline churches, a circumstance that accounts also for the presence of non-Lukan expressions in verses Luke 22:19-20.

¹⁷ The same sequence also occurs in the Didache, ix, 2—3; cf. also 1 Corinthians 10:16.

¹⁸ Kenyon and Legg, who prefer the longer form of text, explain the origin of the other readings as follows: “The whole difficulty arose, in our opinion, from a misunderstanding of the longer version. The first cup given to the disciples to divide among themselves should be taken in connection with the previous verse (ver. Luke 22:16) as referring to the eating of the Passover with them at the reunion in Heaven. This is followed by the institution of the Sacrament, to be repeated continually on earth in memory of Him. This gives an intelligible meaning to the whole, while at the same time it is easy to see that it would occasion difficulties of interpretation, which would give rise to the attempts at revision that appear in various forms of the shorter version” (Sir Frederick G. Kenyon and S. C. E. Legg in The Ministry and the Sacraments, ed. by Roderic Dunkerley [London, 1937], pp. 285 f.).