Luke 22:19,20

Greek Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
1

I didn’t realize that there were textural issues in Luke 22:19,20 when I quoted it in the other thread. Googling, I found this from the NABRE:

Which will be given…do this in memory of me> : these words are omitted in some important Western text manuscripts and a few Syriac manuscripts. Other ancient text types, including the oldest papyrus manuscript of Luke dating from the late second or early third century, contain the longer reading presented here. The Lucan account of the words of institution of the Eucharist bears a close resemblance to the words of institution in the Pauline tradition (see 1 Cor 11:23–26)

Here is Luke:

καὶ δεξάμενος ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν Λάβετε τοῦτο καὶ διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς· λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, [ὅτι] οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ. καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου > τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.

If I’m reading the notes correctly in NA28, the bold section is cut by Bezae (our weirdest major manuscript) and Itala (that is, the majority of old Latin sources). A number of manuscripts have ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον, including a number of unicals, the majority text, the Vulgate, and some Syrian texts. However, our earliest papyrus version has the text as printed, as well as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The NABRE translators probably know the apparatus better than me, but I don’t see any Syrian sources omitting this (in NA28).

Here is 1 Corinthians again:

ἔλαβεν ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν Τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι·

It’s easy to see a marginal note creeping across from here to Luke, perhaps to fill in a too truncated original text. But it’s also easy to see a quotation in one direction or the other, either direct, or by way of the “words of institution” which seem to play an important part in every early liturgy.

Mark:

Καὶ ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ εἶπεν Λάβετε, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου. καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ.

Matthew:

Ἐσθιόντων δὲ αὐτῶν λαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἄρτον καὶ εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ δοὺς τοῖς μαθηταῖς εἶπεν Λάβετε φάγετε, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου. καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων Πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες, τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν· λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπ’ ἄρτι ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω μεθ’ ὑμῶν καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ πατρός μου.

The parallel isn’t as exact as between 1 Corinthians and Luke, but you can notice that every element of the bold section in Luke is present in Matthew + Mark, and that the changes are the standard Lukean-style dressings that he tends to had when he is using Matthew + Mark. If Luke is using these as sources here, it makes sense that the bold section is original to Luke. And the majority of important manuscripts seem to support that it is.

However, the idea that the author of 1 Corinthians was aware of Luke seems impossible. What seems more probable is that the Luke author was aware of 1 Corinthians, and that the 1 Corinthians author was aware of some communion text that was entirely parallel with Mark/Matthew – or even of Mark or Matthew itself.

2

Or that they are all drawing from a common source.

3

Right. NT source criticism has a bad track record. Ignoring the obvious while concocting strange fantasies.

4

If there was some separate source, known by Mark + Matthew + Luke + Paul, but not by us, it would not explain the near verbal agreement between Matthew and Mark. So you have to come down to a source known by (Mark or Matthew) + Luke + Paul. However, what extra information does that source provide for Luke? Nothing, apparently.

That tells me that inventing unknown sources is not necessary here. Something like this explains all of the features of the texts as we have them, and other orderings all have difficulties:

(Early Christian tradition) → Mark → Matthew → Luke
(Early Christian tradition) → 1 Corinthians → Luke

The idea of Luke being aware of the earlier Gospels and the Pauline corpus is not bizarre, and there are various lines of evidence that point to it.

Anything is possible, but at least for this text, postulating an unknown missing source is unwarranted from the evidence.

5

What evidence? All the sources are missing. Every last one of them didn’t survive. All we have is the canonical gospels, acts and epistles. We don’t even have a full copy of Mark. Speculation about who copied from what source is a 19th century parlor game that contributes nothing to exegesis.

NRSV Luke 1:1 Ἐπειδήπερ > πολλοὶ > ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων, 2 καθὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν > οἱ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται > καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου, 3 ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι, κράτιστε Θεόφιλε, 4 ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν.
ˇLuke 1:1 (NRSV) Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.

6

I think that there is rather more evidence to say that we have all or most of the first-generation Christian literature that made it into the hands of the author of Luke/Acts, and that inventing sources is the 19th-century parlor game.

7

Just a couple of points.

Luke’s reason for deciding to write yet another account strikes me as curious: “since” (επειδηπερ) there were many previous ones. The logic is odd. He’s following precedent, and doesn’t really explain why. Perhaps it’s implied that he thinks previous accounts were somehow deficient, but he doesn’t actually say so, and “since” doesn’t suggest it. He does make a point of claiming accuracy for his own account, but if that’s criticism of predecessors it’s exceptionally muted.

And then, the well-worn question: Who were these πολλοί? Jeidsath characteristically thinks he knows: Mk.+Matt.+Paul. Mk.+Matt. have often been proposed, and just as often contested. I don’t suppose the proposed addition of Paul is novel either, and I expect that too has been contested.
To me, the idea that Luke knew only such accounts as were eventually accepted into the NT is a rather implausible one, quite apart from the fact that it’s not what one would naturally infer from Luke’s wording. It may be tenable, but that doesn’t make it right. It’s futile to try to settle the question without more definitive evidence.

8

To be fair, the πολλοι edit was made to C.S.'s comment as I was replying, and I didn’t see it until I had posted. All of my comments are entirely concerned with this specific set of verses, not Luke’s sources in general. I apologize if I was not being clear.

In fact, I think that examining the possibilities in a lot of isolated sections like this is how to attack the larger problem, which may or may not be solvable in general. But that’s no reason not to look at this section in specific.

I’m more than willing to entertain other explanations for sources for this set of verses, and would hope that we could dive into the actual details here, which I find interesting. As I see them, these details are (feel free to disagree):

  1. The Matthew and Mark accounts here are verbally almost the same. The transmission route must have been very short.

  2. The Luke account and the 1 Corinthian account here contains a section that is almost identical. The transmission route here was certainly one step. (Though, of course, a scribe copying from one manuscript to another is an example of one step transmission that would not have involved Luke.)

  3. The other section of the Luke account here also contains something fairly similar to the M+M account. I would assume that it’s a summary of the M+M account, but there are other possibilities.

I’ve given my solution, but I wouldn’t mind hearing from others.

An aside in reply to the επειδηπερ point: The κἀμοὶ indicates to me what at least one of Luke’s concerns is. Why should he, non-eyewitness and non-apostle, be the one to write something? Well, since everybody else is doing it…

Also, he seems to be indicating that his sources don’t necessarily have everything in order, nor do they all begin at the beginning, but he is careful to indicate that he considers them to be based on accurate eyewitness accounts.