Eucharist and Lord's Supper

EUCHARIST AND LORD'S SUPPER 73
Considered in itself this evidence also indicates-what is not surprisingthat
the ordinary canons ofhistorical criticism hold good in this case. As a
rule (failing the direct attestation of eye-witnesses, which is almost always
lacking to the classicalhistorian) the earliest and most directly transmitted
account of an incident in ancient history will be found to furnish the best
information. The tradition repeated by S. Paul in I Cor. xi. 24, 25 is
'fresher', more factual, more authentic than the later, more 'ecc1esiasticised',
accounts in Matt. and Mark, which have passed through a longer
and more complicated process of oral transmission before they came to be
written down. If S. Paul's evidence on what Jesus said and did at the last
supper is 'second-hand', that of the gospels is likely to be 'third-' or 'fourthhand'
by comparison. S. Paul's evidence on the last supper is in fact just
about as strong as ancient historical evidence for anything at all is ever
likely to be, stronger indeed than that for almost any other single saying of
our Lord considered in isolation.
Nevertheless though the 'liberal' theory when it is critically examined
may be pronounced in its essentials mistaken and even perverse, it holds a
valuable element of truth. The last supper and what our Lord said and did
at it must be set upon a much wider background, if we are to understand
not only what it meant but what it effected. To tlus end I venture to set
out a rather lengthy extract from the conclusions of a book which I personally
have found the most illuminating single product of New Testament
criticism in any language which has appeared in our time.
'Nowhere in the N.T. are the writers imposing an interpretation upon a
history. The history contains the purpose, and is indeed controlled by it.
That is to say, the historian is dealing in the end with an historical figure
fully conscious of a task which had to be done, and fully conscious also that
the only future which mattered for men and women depended upon the
completion of his task. The future order which it was the purpose of Jesus
to bring into being, depended upon what he said and did, and finally upon
his death. This conscious purpose gave a clear unity to his words and
actions, so that the actions interpret the words, and the words the actions.
The same purpose which caused the whole material in the tradition
[which lies behind the composition of our present written gospels] to
move inexorably towards the crucifixion, forced the theologians [So Paul,
S. John, Hebrews] to concentrate upon his death in their endeavour to
expose the meaning of his life.... The purpose of Jesus was to work out
in a single human life complete obedience to the will of God-to the
uttermost, that is, to death.... The whole tradition agrees in depicting
his obedience to the will of God as entirely unique, isolated and creative;
he consciously wrought out in flesh and blood the obedience demanded by
the O.T. scriptures and foretold by the prophets. His obedience springs
from no mere attempt to range Himself amongst the propheLs of Israel, cr
amongst the righteous men of old, or amongst the best of his contem-