¹ Westcott, B. F. and Hort, F. J. A., The New Testament in Greek, vol. ii Introduction and Appendix (Cambridge and London, 1882)Google Scholar, Notes on Select Readings, pp. 63.

² Jeremias, J., The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, translated from the second edition by A. Ehrhardt (Oxford, 1955), pp. 87–106Google Scholar. Whether one agrees or not with his conclusions, it is clear that he gives the most lucid and fair statement of the facts available. In this paper I only cite evidence of material importance for its purpose.

³ Schϋrmann, H., ‘Lk. 22, 19b–20 als ursprüngliche Textüberlieferung,’ in Biblica xxxii (1951), pp. 364–392, 522–541Google Scholar. This long article is assumed to have securely established the position for his subsequent study of the sources of the Lucan narrative of the Last Supper, of which two parts have hitherto appeared: Der Paschamahlbericht (1953) and Der Einsetzungsbericht (1955), in the series Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen edited by M. Meinertz (Münster, Aschendorff); thereon see Moule, C. F. D. in J. T. S. new series, V (1954), pp. 88–89Google Scholar, and VII (1956), pp. 112–113.

⁴ Burkitt, F. C., Evangelion da-Mepharreshe (Cambridge, 1904), vol. ii, p. 301Google Scholar; cf. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, p. 89.

⁵ J. T. S. ns. I (1950), p. 202.

⁶ ‘Zur Textgeschichte von Lk. 22, 19b. 20,’ in Biblica xxxiii (1952), pp. 237–239Google Scholar. The weakness of this note is succinctly expressed by the author himself when he writes, as if it were some claim to virtue, at p. 239: “Sie erledigt ein textgeschichtliches Problem auf rein textgeschichtliche Wege, ohne andere Gesichtspunkte zu bedürfen.”

⁷ Jeremias, op. cit. p. 79 n. 4, is of course aware of this when he observes of the early church, that ‘there is no question of the elaborate disciplina arcani of the mystery religions.’ But by his use of the word ‘elaborate’ (ausgebildete) he insinuates the suggestion that the difference is only a slight matter of degree rather than of kind. To the Rabbinic evidence which he cites at p. 76 add the fundamental information given by Origen, Comm. in Cant. Cantic. Prol. p. 62 Baehrens: ‘They say that according to Hebrew custom no one is allowed even to take this book (i.e. the Song of Songs) into his hands unless he has attained to adult and mature age. Moreover, we have been informed that they also observe this custom: while it is their habit that all the scriptures be taught by teachers and wise men to children, and also those which they call Deuteroseis, they reserve until last four sections, namely, the beginning of Genesis where the creation of the world is described; the beginning of the prophet Ezekiel where the cherubim are spoken of; the end where the building of the temple is mentioned; and this book of the Song of Songs.’ (Origen probably derived this information from the Christian Jew who had instructed him in Hebrew and for whose expositions of the Old Testament he had so high a regard.)

⁸ A spectacular instance is given by Clement of Alexandria, Strom, v. 18.3 ff. In the second book of the Stromateis Clement has tried to defend the Christian demand for faith against the criticisms of rationalist philosophy and to assert its saving value against the disparagement of the gnostics; there his main arguments are that faith is (a) a provisional or working hypothesis which subsequent experience verifies, (b) a submission to the authority of divine revelation contained in the scriptures. But in the fifth book this is suddenly cast aside in favor of the view that to demand any kind of rational argument is vulgar; the truth is highly esoteric, the prophets almost unintelligible, and Christianity a vast scheme of symbolism like Egyptian hieroglyphics, the symbols of Pythagoras, or the Mosaic tabernacle!

⁹ Origen, c. Cels. iii. 44–58, vi. 13–14, and frequently.

¹⁰ Methodius, de Creatis (p. 493 Bonwetsch) = Photius, Bibl. 235, p. 301 b, 25 ff.

¹¹ J.T.S.XLVII(1946), p. 53.

¹² As in Luke xxii. 30 ‘that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom.’

¹³ This is the exegesis considered but then rejected by Origen, de Oratione xxvii. 13 (p. 372 Koetschau). From the manner in which it is first presented and subsequently discarded in favor of a more elaborate interpretation I should conclude that it was probably a traditional exegesis already current in the church, which Origen felt himself bound to record out of respect for his predecessors before going on to give the interpretation which his own insight and inspiration had led him to accept. Origen does not explicitly say that it is traditional, and of course it may be simply a possible line of thought which occurred to him independently. Moreover, his words in Horn, in Jerem. xi.3 (p. 80 Klostermann) seem to imply that in such cases he felt some obligation to acknowledge his sources: ‘This has also been expounded by others before us; and since we do not reject their exposition we candidly and openly quote it, not as if we found it out for ourselves but as having received good teaching.' But in that passage he accepts the tradition, whereas in de Orat. xxvii.13 he sets it aside. And there are good analogies elsewhere in his writings for this technique; e.g. the exegesis of the triumphal entry and the cleansing of the temple in the Commentary on St. John, x.29, where the colt and the foal of an ass are the Jewish and Gentile churches drawing the triumphal chariot of Jesus (cf. H.T.R. xlix.3, July 1956, p. 148), is already found in Clement, Protr. 121.1. Again, the exegesis of ‘Render unto Caesar’ in the Commentary on St. Matthew, xvii. 27, to the effect that we must give the body its due in food, clothing, and sleep so far as that is necessary for health while giving the soul, as God's image, what is fitting to its nature, is also found in the Gnomes of Sextus, 19–20 ed. Elter, and in Clement, Ecl. Proph. 24. In both these examples Origen treats the exegesis as ‘possible,’ but there is no explicit reference to a predecessor. If the exegesis of epiousios in de Orat. xxvii.13 is earlier than Origen, it could be old; but how far back it goes it is of course impossible to say.

¹⁴ Cf. Daube, D., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (1956), pp. 330–331Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Cf. Manson, T. W. in J.T.S. n.s. I (1950), p. 203Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Bultmann, , Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition², (1931), p. 286Google Scholar. He cuts the Gordian knot by regarding the whole of 19–20, including 19a, as interpolated. The view I have expressed above differs of course in the all-important respect that 19a is understood as an ‘interpolation’ on the part of the evangelist himself.

¹⁷ Cf. Knox, W. L., The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels, vol. ii (1957), p. 138 and passimGoogle Scholar.