[1] Two comprehensive recent and accessible works are Jeremias, J., The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London: SCM, 1973);Google ScholarMarshall, I. Howard, Last Supper and Lord's Supper (Grand Rapids: Mich., Eerdmans, Wm. B., 1980).Google Scholar

[2] Dan, Cohn-Sherbok, ‘A Jewish Note On To Potērion Tēs Eulogias’, NTS 27 (1981), pp. 704–8.Google Scholar

[3] Ibid., pp. 704 f.

[4] Ibid., pp. 706 f., 708.

[5] Ibid., p. 708.

[6] This signification of the term baraklh is well stated by Walter, Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, ed. Ludwig, Koehler (Leiden: E. J. Brill, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1951), 1, 153, when he writes that ‘Gott segnen = Gott als den Ursprung heilvoller Kraft bezeichnen = Gott loben, preisen…’ ‘to bless God… declare God the origin of fortunate power = praise God’.Google Scholar

[7] The usual translation of to potērion meta to deipnēsai, ‘the cup, after supper’ (Revised Standard Version) or something similar, may yield an implication of it being at the end of the proceedings. Actually, more precisely this is to be translated as ‘after dining’, or ‘when he had finished eating’, and only referring to that segment of the evening's proceedings, still prior to the segment in which the third and fourth cups will be taken. Why Paul speaks of the wine first at 1 Cor. 10.16 is a separate matter which cannot be discussed here, but deserves a brief comment. In the synoptic accounts bread precedes wine twice (Mt. 26. 26 f.; Mk. 14. 22 f.), but wine precedes bread at Lk. 22. 17, 19, from one Pauline sequence. When Paul is presenting the actual Eucharistic formula, however, he records bread before wine. It should be noted that in the Gamaliel formulae mazah is taken before the drinking of the wine. The drinking of the wine of the second cup is assumed at the end of M. Pes. 10. 6, when 10. 7 opens with the blending of the third cup. The Matthean account is therefore the correct one, and was adopted by Mark who either learned it directly from Peter or had to choose between Luke and one he regarded as an eye-witness, Matthew. Clearly when Paul reversed the order at 1 Cor. 10. 16 it was in the context of admonition, and he was not careful to treat it as one treats an actual ritual to be performed, as he correctly does at 1 Cor. 11. 24–25.Google Scholar

[8] Dan, Cohn-Sherbok, ‘A Jewish Note On To Potērion Tēs Eulogias’, NTS 27 (1981), p. 704.Google Scholar

[9] The meaning of parparet hapat (10. 3), is obscure, but because it is not relevant to the particular subject under inquiry, it will not detain us here. But it is correctly to be understood as something preceding the meal, and in the light of the following lines of the Mishnah, it refers to the maror soon to be brought along with mazah and the haroset for the dipping of the maror. The lateness of the discussion of the ‘two cooked dishes’ at B. Pes. 114b, deprives it of relevance to our text, except insofar as it bears out indirectly that as late as the fourth and fifth centuries the meal was still taken before the second cup.Google Scholar

[10] See n. 9. Haroset is the clay-like mixture reproduced at the present time by mixing together such ingredients as cinnamon, wine, apples, and nuts, the texture and colour serving as symbolic reminder of the clay with which the Israelites had to fashion bricks, the medium of their bondage.Google Scholar

[11] See also Pes, T.. 10. 9 where the paschal lamb is listed with the mazah, haroset and maror. Seen. 7.Google Scholar

[12] It is my working hypothesis in all things related to the synoptic problem that Matthew is the first gospel, followed by Luke and then Mark, and that Paul will have agreed with the sequence in the gospel retaining the most authentic of the traditions circulating in his time. See n. 7 on Paul's wine-bread sequence. Although he erred in the order of the elements he would not have erred in his reference to the second cup which was the cup oigeullah (redemption), which is what the Eucharist cup is all about. When Luke reproduces the tradition he clearly refers to the second cup as that of the Eucharist (v. 20), while the cup of v. 17 is to be seen as the first cup. That he reports that Jesus divided the first cup among the participants is not a contradiction to this because it is quite in keeping with tradition that the cup of kiddush be shared by participants. Mark (14. 23), like Matthew, only mentions one cup, the Eucharistic, or second cup.Google Scholar

[13] The àfikomen is discussed laconically at B. Pes. 119b–120a; P. Pes. 37d. It is apparent that its meaning was no longer clear, but that M. Pes. 10. 8 was interpreted to mean that mazah was the last item eaten, and was symbolic of the paschal lamb. On the àfikomen, see Louis, Finkelstein, Pharisaism in the Making (New York: Ktav, 1972), pp. 111 f.Google Scholar

[14] The difference in wording at Mt. 26. 28 from that of Paul at 1 Cor. 11. 25 may only be the product of Matthean midrash. Space does not permit to discuss here the various sources that relate the paschal blood to forgiveness and atonement. See for example, Targum Ez. 16. 6.Google Scholar

[15] We need not here enter into the question of the textual problems at Lk. 22. 19–20. See Bruce, M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (N.p.: United Bible Societies, 1971), pp. 173–7. I assume the longer text of Luke is reliable among other reasons, because of its affinity with Paul.Google Scholar

[16] It is not possible here to relate to our subject a discussion of Didache 9–10. There the cup and bread are reversed at what is called the Eucharist. But no contradiction to the N. T. order is to be seen here. Didache is an early Christian Jewish halakhic digest in which Chaps. 9–10 record a suggested liturgy either at the agapē meal or at a Seder-like meal that preceded the Eucharist. After the meal, Grace After Meals was recited, and this was followed by the Eucharist which was not included in this popular handbook. See for a brief discussion of this matter, The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. 3 Barnabas and the Didache, ed. Robert, A. Kraft (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1965), pp. 165–8.Google Scholar