Textual Veracity of Luke 22:19-20
- samshmn
- 20 hours ago
- 9 min read
The majority of English versions of the Holy Bible contain the so-called longer reading of Luke 22:19-20:
“And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is My body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.’ And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.’” Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)
However, there are some translations that prefer what is called the shorter reading, which omits the reference to Christ’s body being given for his disciples, and the cup being his blood shed for them and which ratifies the New Covenant:
17Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, 'Take this and share it among yourselves; 18for I tell you, from this moment I shall drink from the fruit of the vine no more until the time when the kingdom of God comes.' 19And he took bread, gave thanks, and broke it; and he gave it to them, with the words: 'This is my body.'
Some manuscripts add, in whole or in part, and with various arrangements, the following: 'which is given for you; do this as a memorial of me.' 20In the same way he took the cup after supper, and said, 'This cup, poured out for you, is the new covenant sealed by my blood.' Gospel According to Luke: New English Bible (NEB)
In this post I will quote from both New Testament textual critical scholars and commentators who supply the manuscript evidence in support of the longer reading being part of what Luke originally wrote.
Footnotes
22:19c–20 Which will be given…do this in memory of me: these words are omitted in some important Western text manuscripts and a few Syriac manuscripts. Other ancient text types, including THE OLDEST PAPYRUS MANUSCRIPT of Luke dating from the late second or early third century, contain the longer reading presented here. The Lucan account of the words of institution of the Eucharist bears a close resemblance to the words of institution in the Pauline tradition (see 1 Cor 11:23–26). See also notes on Mt 26:26–29; 26:27–28; and Mk 14:22–24. New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE; emphasis mine)
49 tc Some important Western mss (D it) lack the words from this point to the end of v. 20. However, the authenticity of these verses is very likely. The inclusion of the second cup is the harder reading, since it differs from Matt 26:26-29 and Mark 14:22-25, and it has much better MS support. It is thus easier to explain the shorter reading as a scribal accident or misunderstanding. Further discussion of this complicated problem (the most difficult in Luke) can be found in TCGNT 148-50. New English Translation (NET: Source; emphasis mine)
Most (though not yet all) of the exegetes under the influence of nineteenth-century theories have yielded to THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE attesting the originality of Luke 22:19b-20 in the Gospel text, recognizing that for the presentation and perspective of the gospel of Luke it is not the “shorter,” but the “longer” account of the Last Supper that is authentic. (Alands, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism [Eerdmans, 2nd Revised ed., 1995], p. 311; emphasis mine)
Considerations in favor of the originality of the longer text include the following: (a) The external evidence supporting the shorter reading represents only part of the Western type of text, whereas the other representatives of the Western text join with witnesses belonging to all the other ancient text-types in support of the longer reading. (b) It is easier to suppose that the Bezan editor, puzzled by the sequence of cup-bread-cup, eliminated the second mention of the cup without being concerned about the inverted order of institution thus produced, than that the editor of the longer version, to rectify the inverted order, brought in from Paul the second mention of the cup, while letting the first mention stand. (c) The rise of the shorter version can be accounted for in terms of the theory of disciplina arcana, i.e. in order to protect the Eucharist from profanation, one or more copies of the Gospel according to Luke, prepared for circulation among non-Christian readers, omitted the sacramental formula after the beginning words.
Considerations in favor of the originality of the shorter text include the following: (a) Generally in New Testament textual criticism the shorter reading is to be preferred. (b) Since the words in verses 19b and 20 are suspiciously similar to Paul’s words in 1 Cor 11.24b-25, it appears that the latter passage was the source of the interpolation into the longer text. (c) Verses 19b-20 contain several linguistic features that are non-Lukan.
The weight of these considerations was estimated differently by different members of the Committee. A minority preferred the shorter text as a Western non-interpolation (see the Note following 24.53). The MAJORITY, on the other hand, impressed by the OVERWHELMING PREPONDERANCE OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE supporting the longer form, explained the origin of the shorter form as due to some scribal accident or misunderstanding. The similarity between verses 19b-20 and 1 Cor 11.24b-25 arises from a familiarity of the evangelist with the liturgical practice among Pauline churches, a circumstance that accounts also for the presence of non-Lukan expressions in verses 19b-20. (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament – A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament Fourth Revised Edition, Second Edition, pp. 148, 150; emphasis mine)
In defense of the longer text, [Joachim] Jeremias concentrates his discussion in four main areas: 1) the mass of evidence in favor of the longer reading; 2) a comparison of similar textual phenomena at other points in Luke’s gospel; 3) objections raised to the longer version and 4) a rationale for the development of the shorter text from the longer.105
The manuscript evidence is decidedly in favor of the longer reading. With this in mind Jeremias states:
To hold the short text as original would be to accept the most extreme improbability, for it would be to assume that an identical addition to the text of Luke (22:19b-20) had been introduced into every text of the manuscripts with the exception of D a b d e ff 2 i l syrcur sin.106
As far as the omission is concerned, Jeremias says that this is not the only place where a longer reading stands beside a shortened form in Luke, with the short form attested by D it vet-syr. According to Jeremias when these other passages 107 in Luke are scrutinized the longer is always to be preferred except in two cases (i. e. Luke 24:36, 40). The longer readings demonstrate, in part, Lucan style and the shorter form can be accounted for by scribal assumption that assimilation to Matthew and Mark is going on. To say that the Western text is correct each time is tantamount to saying that the Eastern text (usually judged as the better text) had been obliterated. Jeremias also adds that the Western readings in Acts are generally thought to be secondary as well. This further supports the longer Eastern reading in Luke…
Like both Jeremias and Marshall, [E. E.] Ellis agrees that non-Lucan style is no argument against verses 19b, 20 since they are liturgical in nature and that the two cups can be accounted for if the meal is indeed a Passover meal. But, says Ellis, a Gentile scribe who did not know the ritual of the Passover meal might excise 19b, 20 as a repetition of verses 15-18. This then is how one might account for the shorter reading arising from the longer. (Greg Herrick, An Examination of Key Texts in the Discussion: http://bible.org/seriespage/examination-key-texts-discussion; emphasis mine)
107 Ibid., 148-52. Jeremias cites Luke 5:39; 7:7a, 33; 10:41, 42; 11:35; 12:19, 21, 39; 19:25; 21:30; 24:6, 12, 21, 36, 40, 50, 51, 52. (Ibid.: http://bible.org/seriespage/examination-key-texts-discussion#P246_76170)
Luke 22:19-20
TR WH NU
17 καὶ δεξάμενος ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν· Λάβετε τοῦτο καὶ διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς· 18 λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, [ὅτι] οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ. 19 καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 20 καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων· Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.
"17Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks for it, he said, 'Take this and share it among yourselves.18For I tell you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the Kingdom of God comes.' 19Then he took a loaf of bread; and when he had given thanks for it, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' 20And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.'"
P75 א A B C L Tvid W A Δ Θ Ψ f1,13 itc syrP copsa,bo
KJV NKJV RSV NRSV ESV NASB NIV TNIV NEBmg REBmg NJB NAB NLT HCSB NET
variant 1
omit 22:19b-20, yielding this translation:
"17Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks for it, he said, 'Take this and share it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the Kingdom of God comes.' 19Then he took a loaf of bread; and when he had given thanks for it, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body.'"
D ita,d,i,l Didache
NKJVmg RSVmg NRSVmg ESVmg NASBmg NEB REB NABmg NLTmg HCSBmg NETmg
variant 2
transposed order (22:19a, 17,18)
"19aThen he took a loaf of bread; and when he had given thanks for it, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body.' 17Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks for it, he said, 'Take this and share it among yourselves.18For I tell you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the Kingdom of God comes.'"
itb,e
none
variant 3
transposed order (22:19,17,18)
"19Then he took a loaf of bread; and when he had given thanks for it, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body, given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' 17Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks for it, he said, 'Take this and share it among yourselves.18For I tell you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the Kingdom of God comes.'"
syrc
none
variant 4
transposed order (22:19,20a, 17,20b, 18)
"19Then he took a loaf of bread; and when he had given thanks for it, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body, given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' 20aAnd after supper, 17he took a cup, and when he had given thanks for it, he said, 'Take this and share it among yourselves; 20bthis is my blood of the new covenant.18For I tell you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the Kingdom of God comes.'"
syrs
none
variant 5
shortened version (22:19-20)
"19Then he took a loaf of bread; and when he had given thanks for it, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body, given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' 20And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.'"
syrp
none
All Greek manuscripts except D testify to the presence of Luke 22:19b-20 in the account of the Last Supper. Very likely, the Bezaean editor (D) was puzzled by the cup/bread/cup sequence, and therefore deleted this portion, but in so doing the text was left with the cup/bread sequence, contrary to Matt 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; and 1 Cor 11:23-26. As far as we know, the Bezaean order is found only in the Didache 9.2-3 and some Old Latin manuscripts. The other four variants show translators' attempts to resolve the same problem of cup/bread/cup, but their deletions and transpositions produce the more usual bread/cup sequence. The Bezaean editor, Latin translators, and Old Syriac translators must not have realized that the cup mentioned in 22:17 was the cup of the Passover celebration, occupying 22:15-18. Going back to 22:16, it seems clear that the food of the Passover is implied when Jesus speaks of never again eating it until the kingdom of God is realized. Then, according to 22:17-18, Jesus passed around a cup of wine, again saying that he would not drink of it until the kingdom of God came. Thus, 22:16-18 has its own bread/cup sequence as part of the Passover meal. Following this, 22:19-20 has the bread/cup sequence of the new covenant.
All the translations except the NEB and REB include this portion, though several provide a marginal note as to its omission. Tasker (1964,422-423) provides a lengthy discussion as to why the translators of the NEB did not include Luke 22:19b-20. The REB persists in leaving the shorter reading in the text. (Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the variant readings of the ancient New Testament manuscripts and how they relate to the major English translations [Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Il, in 2008], pp. 231-232; emphasis mine)
Further Reading
Comments