{"id":1250,"date":"2020-04-07T13:16:18","date_gmt":"2020-04-07T11:16:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/predication.net\/?p=1250"},"modified":"2026-10-07T21:22:56","modified_gmt":"2026-10-07T19:22:56","slug":"the-establishment-of-the-eucharist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/predication.net\/?p=1250","title":{"rendered":"The establishment of the Eucharist."},"content":{"rendered":"
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\u2014Matthew, Mark, and Luke\u2014the report of the establishment of the Eucharist also appears 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. These differences have been the subject of continuous, exegetic discussions. Reports fall into two basic types: on the one hand, a report in Mark’s Gospel, which largely corresponds to 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 an ancient story. Exegetes dispute which of these two types\u2014Markan or Pavlov\u2014is 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 an exceptional position in Paul’s letters: these are settled texts that 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 account of salvation, implying that Paul received the words of the Last Supper in the original community in a way that he could be sure they came 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 Korn also regards it as a “cult etiology,” a text that 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 adapting the text to its needs does not contradict the fact that it precisely presents what the Lord Himself said and what his intention was. On the contrary, these words have become normative precisely because they are true and authentic. This accuracy of administration does not preclude identification and mold selection. But the choice of words and their formation\u2014that is, Paul’s interpretation\u2014does not falsify 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 aim to convey the Lord’s last will, theological perspectives on the whole event, and the unprecedented novelty of what Jesus established that night. \nIn the context of such an enormous religious and theological act, as reported in the Last Supper, it was natural for modern theology to challenge it immediately. Something so unheard of is difficult to merge with the image of a friendly rabbi, as many exegetes portray Jesus. This cannot be \u201csewn\u201d to him. And of course, it does not fit Jesus as a political scourge. Jesus’ character: we need to examine this issue closely.<\/h2>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"