In the New Testament, the earliest evidence for the Eucharist rite is found in Paul's letter to the Corinthians, where Paul proclaims his version of the Eucharist tradition, ending with what appears to be the Aramaic formula of the Didache Eucharist:
1.Cor.11:23 " For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, " This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 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." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lords' death until he comes.
( 1.Cor.11:23-26, Gk. N.T. UBS. 3rd ed.1990)
The author of Luke, writing perhaps 30 years later, parallels Paul's Eucharist account and, closely follows Paul's phraseology:
Luke.22:19-20 "Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, 19b which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 20 And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, " This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.."
(Lk.22:19-20 Gk. N.T. UBS. 3rd ed.1990)
Can historical scholarship rely on this evidence, i.e., that these two accounts relate a true Apostolic tradition an accurate reflection of the Nazorean teaching of James and the Apostles and, by tradition, Jesus? Or is this Eucharist interpretation of the Passover meal, which Jesus may have celebrated with his disciples, an interpolation due to Hellenistic and Pauline theological interpretations? It is the Eucharist tradition, primarily Paul's, but including others, ( such as those of Mark and Matthew, and especially of Luke), which historically have supported Christian Eucharist interpretations. In the Greek text, the parallels between Paul and Luke are close; exactly word for word in the important phrase touto poieite eis thn emhn anamnhsin ( Lk.22.19b.) which, significantly is not found in any other gospel account it is found only in the longer, controversial version of the Lukan text.
My approach to the evaluation of Paul's Eucharist tradition as being true Apostolic teaching, is based upon a hermeneutic perspective of redaction criticism. The New Testament text itself needs close analysis regarding its description of the Eucharist, but of equal or even greater importance in evaluating Paul's testimony, is the interpretation of socio-political events in Paul's time and, in particular, the evidence and chronology of the earliest non-canonical accounts contemporary with Paul.
It is also helpful to explore throughout this discussion those concepts that shed light on the Eucharist's origins. It needs to be emphasized that Paul was the first New Testament writer to discuss the Eucharist as a tradition. There are, however, serious problems with relying on Paul as the source of true Apostolic tradition. According to the New Testament and early non-canonical sources, Paul was in conflict with Jewish authoritative groups ( i.e. James and the Apostles, including Peter) regarding doctrine and, specifically, Paul's claims to authority as a non-Apostle. We need to carefully examine Paul's statements in Galatians regarding this issue.
Paul, according to his own testimony in Galatians, was not well known in Judea:
Gal.1.22 " And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea." , The author of Luke, however, has Paul state when defending himself against the high priest in Ceasarea, an apparent contradiction:
" 19 Therefore King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus, and in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance. (Acts 26:19-20)
Can this contradiction be explained, after all, if Paul was not known to the Jews of Judea, how could he have persuaded them? It would be logical to assume the author of Luke has Paul referring here to the Apostles as his opponents, and not to some obscure Jewish sect. If this premise is accepted, then we may admit that Paul was directly opposed by a religious group zealous for the law the community of James and the Apostles in Jerusalem, a group which is significantly Nazorean, and referred to as such even in the New Testament. Tertullus, the high priests advocate against Paul, refers to Paul in (Acts.24:5) " We have found this man a pestilent fellow a ringleader of the Nazorenes." Paul even admits he is a Nazorean, undergoing a partial Nazirite vow and submits to the authority of the Jerusalem elders in Luke's account of the Jerusalem meeting, which, from the authoritative perspective of James may have been a serious calling to account of Paul's non-Apostolic preaching.( Acts 21: 19-26)
Support for the above schism involving the opposition of James and the Apostles towards Paul, originated historically within the Tubingen school, this theory is now considered dated. The Tubingen argument, nonetheless, has merit. A variety of textual evidence-written sources that discuss this period, corroborate the Tubingen perspective. This material has been collated by scholars, such as the accounts collected by Gerd Luedemann. These collections include accounts from Hegeseppus, and Elkesaite doctrines dating from the 1st Century CE referred to by Hyppolytus as anti-Pauline, as well as material from the Ascents of James, Josephus, and the New Testament. There is also abundant material within the Pseudo-Clementines, and from the early church fathers such as Origen, who stated the Elkasaites were anti-Pauline, as quoted by Eusebius in, His. Ecc.6.38.
The earliest non-canonical Eucharist text,
the Didache, contradicts Paul's
and Luke's version of the Eucharist. This primary document is
highly informative in regard to early Apostolic teaching. Ch.
9 and 10 of the Didache give us perhaps the earliest non-canonical
references to Eucharist activity, but what is of even greater
import is the complete lack of parallels to the Eucharist rite
described by Paul in
( 1 Cor.11:23-30)
In the Didache, there is absolutely no reference to flesh,
or blood, only to wine first, and then bread. In addition Jesus
is never referred to as the son of God, only as Gods' servant.
Such a format fits well with orthodox Jewish perspectives and
interpretations of Jesus. The Didache is dated from very
early 48 CE to as late as early first century CE. The Didache
also contains an Aramaic phrase, Mara-Na-Tha, which translates
as, Our Lord come! this phrase concludes in apocalyptic fashion
the meal liturgy in this document, indicating an early compilation.
It is acknowledged that this document does not reflect the Eucharist
formula of Paul, nor of Luke that follows; these were later ecclesiastical
compositions. From this example it can be argued then, that this
extremely early, possibly Apostolic non-canonical source, does
not support Paul or Luke's version of the Eucharist rite.
A Talmudic scholar, H. Maccoby has attempted to prove that Paul is repeating in this pericope a formula similar to the one he related regarding his Damascus vision of Jesus. In opposition to this view, other scholars, notably Joachim Jeremias, argue that Paul is not describing a personal revelation of the Eucharist, ( 1 Cor.11:23) Jeremias argues that the term paralambanein equals the Hebrew term " k-b-l ". H. Maccoby argues convincingly that " k-b-l " could also equal "here", direct transmission from God, and that Paul is stating as much, just as in his Damascus vision he claimed to have received the whole of Jesus' teaching by direct revelation! (Gal.1:11-12)Can we assume that Paul later suddenly admits he received a tradition from the Twelve when in Galatians he attempts to convince us of his authority due to exactly the opposite, i.e. a complete lack of dependence upon Apostolic tradition? J. Jeremias argues that ( 1.Cor: 11:23) refers to received within the context of Apostolic tradition, and that the Hebrew equivalent of paralambanein is ( k-b-l ). In the Mishna, however, ( k-b-l ) is the word indicating Moses received the Torah on Mt. Sinai, refuting Jeremias's conclusion that Paul could not be indicating a divine revelation. Paul has, in refutation of Jeremias, previously given us evidence of his claim to revelatory authority in (1.Gal.11-12) Here Paul attempted to convince his audience that he needed no direct contact with Jesus or the Apostles. This point is significant if we are to correctly interpret his Eucharist passage. My interpretation of Paul's Eucharist verses are that they reflect Hellenic and/or perhaps later theological interpolations over Apostolic tradition. These verses reflect Paul's or perhaps someone else's independence from, rather than allegiance to, Apostolic teaching.
Hellenic influence upon Paul's liturgy did not escape A. Schweitzer, who wrote on this subject over 60 years ago, although he avoids ascribing to Paul the Hellenic forms of his Eucharist rite. Schweitzer claimed that, " The Hellenization of Christianity does not come in with Paul, but only after him," yet Schweitzer points out later in this work that the terms Paul used, paralambanein and paradidonai , relate to the mystery cults in Greece. Schweitzer's remarks reaffirm that social and political issues surrounding the teaching of Jesus and his followers need to be compared against Hellenic influences upon their "historical milieu," and against the tendenz of those who adopted this religious movement after the death of the Apostles.
It is common to date the earliest accounts of Paul in Galatians circa 54 CE, Luke-Acts circa 90 CE, and 1.Cor.circa 57 CE. We are, therefore, dependent upon Paul and Acts for the Eucharist tradition. But, at best, these are biased and often contradictory sources and, more importantly, it is upon Paul's accounts of early Eucharist tradition that the Gospels and Acts partly rely. There is also a complete absence of reference to the Eucharist as a contentious problem in Acts, although the author mentions conflict over circumcision and Noahic laws for Gentiles. There is also an almost complete lack of reference to James as the leader of the Twelve Apostles in the New Testament. In fact, the rare statement that James was actually related to Jesus is found, surprisingly in Paul's Galatian letter.(1Gal.19) This raises the obvious question, why is there so little discussion of the role of James in the NT? Does this silence denote a theological bias a tendenz which Luke is aware of, as were the other Gospel author's?
The Gospels were written during a period of persecution and violence. It is not, therefore, acceptable to separate an evaluation of Paul's testimony from this historical context. Mark, writing about 70CE just after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple for example, calls the Apostle Simon a Cannanean , without translating this Aramaic term for his Greek audience. (Mk. 3:18) Luke, writing perhaps 30 years later about 90CE, uses the term Simon the zealot. (Lk.6:15) S.G.F. Brandon claims that Luke was, unlike Mark, no longer restricted by public and official Roman antipathy towards the zealots in Judea, and therefore he did not need to hide the revolutionary and political nature of Simon's name. Mark, however, knew full well its political meaning and, therefore, used an Aramaic word, a word illegible to Greek readers. I have elaborated upon these historical examples because to interpret both Paul and Luke's Eucharistic accounts, it is crucial to see the relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem elders, within the Sitz im Leben of this period. This context of conflict and religious fanaticism is, however, barely mentioned by Luke, as a conflict between Paul and the authority of James, and instead, is obscured chiefly as a disagreement between Paul and certain Asian Jews.
This is an essential point in our interpretation of these Eucharist passages which helps to answer several questions. Was Luke really writing a theological apologetic for Paul's case? Why was Paul threatened in Jerusalem, why were attempts made to murder him in Jerusalem if he was indeed, a true follower of the Apostolic tradition. Who were the tens of thousands, ( of Nazorean Jews?) referred to by James who were zealous for the law, convinced that Paul was full of false teaching? ( Acts. 21:20)
T o further evaluate the truth of Paul and Luke's statements-that they were relating the Apostolic tradition of the Eucharist- we need to review early records that discuss Paul outside the New Testament canonical literature. The question is, what was the view of Paul held by those Jews who were loyal to James, and by inference, those who carried on the Apostolic tradition of the Twelve as taught by Jesus? My argument is that the relation between Paul and James, and by logical progression, the Twelve Apostles, is revealed truthfully by these sources. I disagree with the view as expressed by H. J. Schoeps that, as he puts it,
"It now appears to me certain that the historical James was never such, that only after his death was his figure embroidered in a Judaizing way, was he made into the "Pope of Ebionite fantasy."
In opposition to Schoeps, is it not Christian theological interpretation that has allowed fantasy to obscure what earlier, and dare we say, more accurate, testimony has recorded. Why would it be a fantasy to suspect that Ebionite traditions reflect more truthfully historical events than modern interpretations? It is crucial, nonetheless, to anchor this premise upon a firm, non-canonical foundation revealing Paul's writing as undeniably contingent upon his relation to James and the Apostles. In support of this premise there is a range of non-canonical literature available which clearly states that James held a position of Apostolic authority until his murder in 62CE, and that before this event, he was in constant opposition to Paul's teaching. Epiphanius has left his estimation of James during his lifetime and that of all credible authorities before him:
"For James was Joseph's son by Joseph's first wife, not Mary, as I have said, and discussed with greater clarity, in many other places. And moreover I find that he was of Davidic descent because he was Joseph's son, and that he was born a Nazirite for he was Joseph's first born, and hence consecrated. But I find further that he also functioned as a priest in the ancient priesthood. For this reason he was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies once a year, as scripture says the Law commanded the high priests. For many before me -Eusebius, Clement and others-have reported this of him. He was allowed to wear the priestly mitre besides, as the trustworthy persons mentioned have testified in the same historical writings."
( Panarion 29.4:1-4)
It is Epiphanius who points out that early Christians were not called Christians, but Nazoreans. Epiphanius, a prominent Bishop of Cyprus, placed James as a leader of the Nazoreans without comprehending the implications this has for the historical conflict between Paul and James. Epiphanius further states:
"They are different from Jews and different from Christians, only in the following. They disagree with Jews only because they have come to faith in Christ ; but since they are still fettered by the Law - Circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest they are not in accord with Christians."
(Panarion 29.7:5)
Epiphanius states the Ebionites are a heretical group who hold the same views as the Nazoreans they also recognize the authority of James and accuse Paul with false inventions.
"For Ebion was contemporary with the Nazoraeans and, since he was their ally, was derived from them. In the first place, he said that Christ was generated by sexual intercourse and the seed of man, Joseph - I have already said that he agreed with the others in everything with this one difference, his attachment to Judaism's Law of the Sabbath, circumcision , and all other Jewish and Samaritan observances. But like the Samaritans he goes still further than the Jews.
( Panarion. 30.2.1-3
"Nor are they ashamed to accuse Paul here with certain false inventions of their false apostles villainy and imposture. They say that he was a Tarsean ................But they suppose he was of Greek parentage........They then claim that he was Greek and the son of a Greek mother and father, but that he had gone up to Jerusalem, stayed a while, and desired to marry a daughter of the high priest. He therefore became a proselyte and was circumcised.
( Panarion.30.16:8-9)
There is, by Epiphanius, a curious allusion to the "Degrees of James," indicating perhaps that James and the Nazoreans did not agree with the Sadducean priesthood's emphasis upon animal sacrifice and preferred a Samaritan or anti Sadducean cultus. This reference may indicate Jesus was referring to this in his Last Supper dialogue with the disciples. I was supported in this conclusion after reading several articles that discuss how Jesus and his brother James may well have opposed the Temple priesthood regarding the way they monopolized and carried out animal sacrifices in Jerusalem. This would tie in with what we know about some of the Pharisee opposition to the Sadducean emphasis upon Temple ritual.
Jerome , writing in the 3rd Cent CE, does not denigrate the Nazoreans as Epiphanius does. This is an important point, because Jerome lived in Bethlehem for some time and surely knew as much or more about the Nazoreans than Epiphanius, his contemporary. Jerome was a learned scholar, perhaps more informed than Epiphanius, and his work includes positive references to Nazorean interpretations of Isaiah. If the Panarion of Epiphanius is dated 3rd Cent CE, then these are early Christian accounts of anti-Pauline traditions supporting James, recorded in the traditions of the Nazoreans and Ebionites. Epiphanius seems unclear as to the relationship between James and the Nazoreans. He is perhaps indicating they are carriers of Apostolic tradition, as are the Ebionites, who, importantly for this problem, he includes with the Nazoreans. As indicated above, however, Jerome does not see the Nazoreans as a heretical group, which supports the argument that Ebionite and/or the Nazoreans were carriers of true Apostolic traditions, even though, to the Pauline theological interpretations of Epiphanius these groups were heretical.
A negative tradition regarding Paul is also to be found in non-canonical literature, independent of the above sources. In the Clementine Homilies there are many allegations against a figure who parallels Paul and his conflicts with the Apostle Peter, although here Paul is called Simon. In a lengthy public debate between Peter and Simon, Peter replies to Simon:
"Finally you alleged that, on this account, you knew more satisfactorily the doctrines of Jesus than I do, because you heard his words through an apparition..."
In addition to the Clementine-Homilies, there are multiple references to Paul that draw upon traditions of opposition to Paul within those communities that supported the Apostles.
Schlomo Pines provides strong evidence (dated 5-6-7th Cent from an Arabic Ms) that documents a split in the Synagogues after the death of Jesus due to Paul's actions. S. Pines states that this situation is corroborated by the Toldot Yeshu and points out that the Gospel of Barnabus, like this Arabic Ms, contains Ebionite elements that state Paul separated Christianity from Judaism.
Returning to the thesis of this argument, it can be seen that a historical interpretation of Paul and Luke's accounts of the Eucharist is problematic. If Paul was not considered a true Apostle by early followers of the Apostles, i.e. the Ebionites and Nazoreans, how can his claims be verified? The New Testament accounts of Paul have minimized the doctrinal conflict between Paul and the Jerusalem community reflected by the historical primacy of James and the Apostles. Non-canonical sources, however, contradict Luke's attempts in Acts to minimize this conflict, reinforcing the argument against the historical transmission of the Eucharist by Paul as being Apostolic, and following Paul, Luke's account of the Eucharist tradition.
The above argument does not depend solely upon non-canonical literature. There is supportive evidence within the New Testament, and within the Synoptics themselves indicating that Paul did not transmit true Apostolic tradition. In (Mk. 7:26) Jesus refers to the Gentiles as dogs, a common reference in Rabbinical literature to the Gentiles. In (Mt.10:5-6)Jesus categorically forbids the Twelve, to go nowhere among the Gentiles and to avoid the Samaritans. These statements infer that Jesus was very much a Pharisee in outlook who considered his role as focused upon Jews, as opposed to Gentiles.
Francis Watson claims that Paul and his later interpreters covered over Paul's conflicts with the Apostles and James, in the interest of supporting certain interpretations. Thus a socio-political perspective is applied to Pauline material in order to interpret its traditional validity. J. Munck, writing in the Anchor Bible Series upon this political conflict attempts to explain it away. Munck barely admits that Paul and James were opposed, and by obfiscuration attempts to argue that the most damaging verses against his interpretation in (Acts.21:20-21) are somehow not fitting to the context of Acts 21 Munk's attempt at avoiding the plain meaning of (Acts.21:20-21) is truly amazing,
" Acts.20b -24 For Jews (vs.20b) read "non-Christian Jews" ( see note above), as this will serve to vindicate the reputation of James. Otherwise, James is revealed as a bad Christian and an unreliable and cowardly leader of the church. A member of the Apostolic Council, he had endorsed the mission to the Gentiles and would hardly have neglected to inform his own congregation about Paul's work or failed to convince them of its worth."
See Munk's commentary in Anchor Bible
Munck's statement quoted in full above is an attempt to avoid a theological difficulty. It would be more accurate to state that Munck's theological paradigm insists upon incorporating James as the leader of the so called Church. James would certainly have been confused by such a term, he was after all, according to our early sources a Jewish High Priest in the Temple! Other scholars, like H. Maccoby and Jack Sanders have less difficulty relating these facts and interpreting them accordingly.
Further support for arguments against Paul's authority are to be found in the traditions which relate that James, the Apostles, and the Jerusalem elders were considered the true leaders of the teachings of Jesus. As far as early textual evidence shows, they were considered strict upholders of the Jewish Law. How else can we explain that James wore a High Priests clothing and was privileged to enter the Holy of Holies once per year? Were Josephus, Eusebius, and Epiphanius so uninformed? Would Eusebius a respected Bishop, lie about something which hardly supported what was by his time, a pro-Pauline ecclesiastical bias? Why make up such a history when the true leadership of the early Nazorean Jerusalem community must have been well known by tradition? Josephus as a Jewish exile in Rome, recorded the same tradition and he was an eye witness with no need to support the authority of James or of Paul, he was now a Roman citizen and historian for Vespasian. The evidence is strong, James was the leader of the early community of Jesus known as the Nazoreans, and, like Peter the Apostle, he was opposed to Paul's teaching.
19"Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, 19b which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 20 And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, " This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.."
(Lk.22:19-20 Gk. N.T. UBS. 3rd ed.1990)
Luke's account of the Eucharist is very similar to Paul's although it is claimed Luke's account contains non-Pauline characteristics. It is important at this point to examine the methods used to justify the validity of these Eucharistic verses as accurate reflections of Apostolic teaching. Or are these verses indeed only an introduction or modification by Paul and, perhaps subsequently, by Luke?
The earliest Codex containing the New Testament in a more or less complete form is Codex Sinaiticus, dated about 325CE. There is also Codex D, otherwise known as Codex Bezae, presented to Cambridge university in 1581 by Theodore Bezae; it contains the Gospels and Acts in Greek and Latin, and is dated 5-6 cent CE. The Bezae Codex, found in Lyon is important because of its lack of several verses found in many other manuscripts. In particular, the Codex Bezae lacks the Eucharist verses found in the long version of Luke. The missing words in Luke run between ( Lk. 22.19b) to uper umvn didomenon and the whole of verse 20 ending in to uper umvn ekcunomenon. 31 It is precisely these verses which provide in Luke the fuller account of what is presently known as the Eucharist rite. Furthermore, these pericopes are almost identicle in Paul's account, as pointed out earlier in the introduction. (1.Cor.11:23-26) It appears likely, therefore, that Luke borrowed his account from Paul, or used a source similar to Paul's.
In the NT Greek version of Westcott and Hort these verses (Lk.22:19b-20) were once defined as "western interpolations," but recent scholarship tends not to agree with this view, stating that the Bezae Codex is unreliable. I question the arguments put forward by scholars such as J. Jeremia to support this position. The major premise used to affirm the primacy of the longer text in Luke, is that most Gk. Codex's contain the longer version, this argument is dangerously close to an appeal ad populum. The author of Codex Bezae may very well have known the author of Luke committed an interpolation, or, perhaps the author of Codex Bezae was recording a more accurate version of Luke that did not contain Eucharist interpolations placed there later, supporting theological interpretations never included by the original author (Bultmann's view).
In support of this argument, A. Voorbus argues that the shorter text is definitive. B.M. Metzger also states that there are strong reasons for supporting the historical accuracy of the shorter Lukan text and, more importantly, that it is the older text. J. Jeremias previously supported the arguments for the short Lukan text, now he favours the longer version. Jeremias proposes that a "disciplina arcana" shrouded the Eucharist and uses this premise to support the lack of crucial detail in the short version of Luke and even in the Didache. This is a weak argument since Paul showed no reluctance in revealing Eucharist details. It appears more probable that these Eucharist verses were inserted due to theological motives. Perhaps this is why the longer versions of Luke are found in all the extant Gk. Ms, except for Codex D.
Prof.K. Snodgrass supports the longer version of Luke by noting the wide support in extant Gk. Ms . He argues his case by asking why only Codex D and its non-Greek allies support the shorter version of Luke. This is an important clue because, as mentioned above, non-Greek texts ( Syriac versions )would perhaps have been less vulnerable to Pauline theology, and accordingly, have handed down to us a purer form of the original text, i.e. the shorter version.
R. W. Funk, in his analysis of Mark for the Jesus Seminar, states that (Mark 14:25) has been overlaid with Christianizing elements. This indicates Luke may have been influenced by early tampering with the Eucharist text. It is also very strange that John does not mention the Eucharist rite at all in Jerusalem. John refers only to some controversial teaching of Jesus in the Capernum Synagogue. ( John.6:52-60) M. Perry argues that the Eucharist rite John mentioned and celebrated referred to the resurrection of Jesus and not to any celebration of his passion. H. Marshal, in his commentary on the Gk. New Testament, concludes that the evidence for the validity of the longer text of Luke is overwhelming but admits the weakness of this argument is the credibility of explaining the origin of the shorter text. Marshal explains the shorter text as a " scribal idiosyncrasy!" Such a conclusion is barely credible. Marshal concludes that the text reflects what we otherwise know of the teachings of Jesus. This is a brave conclusion, which begs the question of just what Jesus did say.
I prefer Funk's summary, derived from the
Jesus Seminar, which states
(Mk.14:23) " the supper tradition has been so overlaid with Christianizing elements and interpretation that it is impossible to recover anything of the original event, much less any of the original words of Jesus."
The authors of the Jesus Seminar also emphasize that there is a curious disinterest in the meal as a Passover celebration, suggesting that the tradition had already been transposed into a cultic meal by Christian interpretation as evidenced by the fact that (Mk. 14:22-25) does not clearly denote a Passover meal.
The Gospel of Luke (Lk.22:19-20) gives the strongest Eucharist account in the Synoptics of the last supper, drawing heavily upon Paul's version in (1.Cor.11:23) If, as has been argued above, Luke based his account upon Pauline tradition, we are supported in concluding that Luke, repeated a Pauline creation and not Apostolic tradition.
As shown in Mark, the above conclusion is supported by the variety of Eucharist formula within the Synoptic gospels, including the fact that in John there is no account of a Eucharist Last Supper. In the Synoptics, Mark mentions bread and then a cup (Mk.14:22-25) as does Matthew (Mt.26:26-28) The Synoptic gospels do reveal, nonetheless, a common pattern, placing an apocalyptic phrase regarding the coming of God's kingdom at the end of the Eucharist liturgy, paralleling the Didache rite. By contrast, Luke and Paul, are the only New Testament author's who state that Jesus asked his followers to touto poieite eis thn emhn anamnhsin. (Lk.22:19b) As shown earlier, Paul uses exactly this phrase when giving his version of the Eucharist. If, as argued above, Paul reveals here his theological interpretation of the Eucharist rite, this phrase indicates a serious discrepancy between Paul's version of the Eucharist and Mark and Matthew's, as also between Paul, Luke and the Didache. As R. Richardson states, "Eucharist was not from the beginning the churches peculiar secret treasure but became what it is by later accretions of faith and practice."
Robert, E. Van Voorst argues that in " The Ascents of James" there is ample proof that James and his followers practiced the laws of Moses and practiced circumcision, but he then hedges and states this community will be called in this study, "Jewish Christian." Epiphanius, however, did not call James a Jewish Christian, he called him a Nazirite. Gerd Luedemann's research also reinforces the Hebrew community of James. His comprehensive review of anti-Pauline literature provides further support for the argument that Paul was in constant conflict with James and the Apostles. Luke attempts to smooth over this situation, but the recognition of this conflict by the participants themselves substantiates its veracity. One has merely to read Paul's own letters, to see how obsessed Paul was in countering threats and opposition to his teaching. Who was he opposing, if not James and the Apostles? In the New Testament Luke admits there was a serious attempt to murder Paul in Jerusalem, necessitating his removal by an armed Roman escort comprised of 200 spearmen, 200 soldiers and 70 horsemen. If Paul's behavior had not created a major disturbance why did he require a guard of 500 men? (Acts.27:27-36) and (Acts.23:23-25)
After considering the historical correlation's between the Eucharist account of Paul in (1.Cor.11:23-26)and Luke's account in (Luke.22:19-20) what conclusions can be considered? Paul's account of the Eucharist, when examined against early non-canonical traditions and testimony from the New Testament both his own and that of the author of Luke-is suspect. There are serious doubts regarding Paul's authority to deliver testimony regarding Apostolic tradition.
Luke's Eucharist account, ( the longer version
) is also suspect. ( Luke.22:19b-20)
H. Marshal and J. Jeremias, as stated above,
support the longer version of Luke's text, but how convincing
is the evidence? I do not agree with H. Marshal, or J. Jeremias,
who argue that Luke does not borrow from (
1.Cor.11) but from an early Markan account. This
argument is supported by appeals to linguistic differences between
Lukes and Paul's verses. I find, however, complete phrases that
Luke uses ( in italics), which appear to me to be direct
borrowings from Paul. In fact, 90 per cent of the words in Luke's
longer version are directly borrowed from Paul and follow almost
exactly the same wording. (Luke.22:19-20)
On balance, the evidence indicates that Luke and Paul's Eucharist
verses are extremely similar, and since Luke follows Paul historically,
we are left with a compelling conclusion.
Finally, there is the problem of the Didache to consider. Although not a New Testament text, it bears directly upon the Eucharist tradition. If the Didache is a very early account of true Apostolic teaching as many scholars agree, we must note that the author fails to describe Paul or Luke's version of the Eucharist. Also, the Eucharist is not mentioned in the very early Gospel of Thomas. Jeremias raises an argument to support a disciplina arcana, which is not convincing. It is an argument based upon silence that fails to explain why both Paul and Luke describe the Eucharist rite, whereas the author of the Didache did not describe the same rite.
Considering the above points, it follows that it is untenable to argue with confidence that Paul or Luke relate a true Apostolic tradition of the Eucharist. Paul almost certainly did not receive the Eucharist tradition from Jesus as he claimed. If we reconsider Paul's claimed revelation experience near Damascus, and his ability to change his religious and political allegiances, it appears far more probable that once again, the Eucharist is Paul's own anamnhsin of Apostolic tradition.