The establishment of the Eucharist.

The so-called report on the establishment of the Eucharist, that is, the words and gestures through which Jesus himself gave himself to the disciples in bread and wine, is at the heart of the whole submission of the Last Supper. In addition to the three synoptic Gospels – Matthew, Mark and Luke – the report of the establishment of the Eucharist is also found in the First Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians (cf. 11: 23-26). All four reports are basically very similar, but they differ in detail. Obviously, these differences have been the subject of continuous, exegetic discussions. Reports can be divided into two basic types: On the one hand, it is a report in Mark’s Gospel, to which largely corresponds Matthew’s text. On the other side stands Paul’s text, with which Luke’s text is related. The oldest literary report is Paul’s: The first letter to the Corinthians was written around 56. The Gospel of Mark was written later, although no one doubts that his text reproduces a very old story. Exegetes dispute which of these two types – Markov or Pavlov – is older. Rudolf Pesch, with powerful arguments, argued that Mark’s account was older and that it had to be dated to the 1930s. However, Paul’s report comes from the same decade. Paul says he continues to convey what he himself accepted as an indication of a tradition going back to the Lord. The epistle of the Eucharist and the tradition of the Resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:38) occupy a exceptional position in Paul’s letters: these are settled texts which the apostle himself “received” as finished and carefully given them in literal terms. In 1 Cor 15, he expressly emphasizes that it is imperative to preserve the verbatim of salvation for salvation, which implies that Paul received the words of the Last Supper in the original community in a way that he could be sure that these words come from the Lord himself Pesch considers that the historical primacy of Mark’s report can be justified by the fact that it is a simple narrative, while Kor n also regards it as a “cult etiology”, a text which is already liturgically elaborated and intended to serve liturgical purposes. – Mark’s Gospel II, pp. 364-377, especially p. 369) There is certainly something to be done about this, but it seems to me that there is no significant difference between the historical and theological quality of the two texts. to express normatively about the celebration of the Christian liturgy. If “cult etiology” refers to this fact, then I agree with such an assessment. In the apostle’s view, however, this text is normative for the Christian liturgy because it accurately reproduces the Lord’s last will. Consequently, focusing on the cult and already adapting the text to the needs of the cult does not contradict the fact that it is a precise presentation of what the Lord Himself said and what was his intention. On the contrary, these words have become normative precisely because they are true and authentic. This accuracy of administration does not preclude the possibility of identification and mold selection. But the choice of words and their formation – that is, Paul’s interpretation – is not a falsification of what the Lord gave that evening to the disciples. A similar liturgical choice of words and their formation also appears in Mark’s Gospel. And even in this “narrative”, it cannot be disregarded that it carries a normative significance for the Church’s liturgy and that it itself presupposes a functioning liturgical tradition. In fact, both types of submission want to convey the Lord’s last will theological perspectives of the whole event and show the unprecedented novelty of what Jesus established that night.
In the context of such an enormous religious and theological act, as reported by the Last Supper, it was naturally expected that modern theology would immediately challenge it. Something so unheard of is difficult to merge with the image of a friendly rabbi, as many exegetes portray Jesus. This cannot be “sewn” to him. And of course, it does not fit Jesus as a political scourge. Jesus’ character, we need to look closely at this Problem.