The formidable storm of literature concerning the narratives of the Last Supper shows no sign of abating any of its force, and the following reflections are submitted in the none too confident hope that perhaps even at this stage in the discussion the problem can be looked at from an unconventional angle. The Lucan account with its notorious difficulties of text and interpretation, the one being inextricably bound up with the other, has been the Waterloo of many investigators. Both the shorter and the longer texts present the student with their individual mass of problems. Since Hort the arguments against the originality of the longer text have had so wide an influence, especially perhaps on Englishspeaking writers, that if these thorny questions could be settled by taking a vote, it is possible that even now the shorter text would have it. Unfortunately the weight of argument is rather more evenly divided. Only so can we understand how it is possible for a scholar like Joachim Jeremias entirely to change his mind on the fundamental issue. It may very well be, of course, that the position adopted in the first edition of Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu can still be regarded as unrefuted even by its author. (Who knows if the next edition may not revert to it?) But it cannot be denied that Jeremias' statement of the case in favor of the longer text in the second edition is powerfully argued.

In part, perhaps, because of the lack of a modern edition — the most recent, Wilhelm Dindorf's text of 1832, has become extremely scarce — Themistius' orations, and their significance in the religious and intellectual history of the fourth century, have not been as well known as they should be. It is hoped that a new edition may be forthcoming before long. In the meantime the present study will offer some observations on Themistius' writings which will suggest some of his significance in the general picture of the fourth century. Incidentally the writer will venture to point out various passages which suggest that Themistius had some knowledge of the Christian scriptures, especially the New Testament.

St. Paul, the “great vessel of the Holy Spirit” as Dante calls him (Par. XXI, 127–8), expanding the famous epithet of Acts, IX, 15, had the most famous if not the earliest Christian mystical experience. This is the experience he describes in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians and it was to be the point of departure and reference for much of later mystical and theological speculation. St. Paul describes his rapture as follows: “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;), such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”

The Harvard Theological Review has recently carried an article by D. S. Wallace-Hadrill entitled “Eusebius and the Gospel Text of Caesarea.” Students of the Eusebian text have known for some time that Mr. Wallace-Hadrill was working on this problem with what appeared to be unusual thoroughness. His published conclusions in the Harvard Theological Review come as something of a surprise and require some attention.

In the April, 1956 issue of the Harvard Theological Review appeared an article by Jack Finegan on “The Original Form of the Pauline Collection,” which purports to be a refutation of some suggestions of my own about the order of the letters in the primitive collection. Without intending to do so, he seriously misrepresents my position. I should like to correct this error in understanding as well as to make a few additional comments.