ETHIOPIAN WOMAN

of Cioraelius by St. Peter, the case of the Ethiopian eunuch marked an important stage in the question of the admission of the Gentiles to the Christian Church.

ETHIOFIAIT WOMAN.— According to Nu 12' (JE), when the cliildren of Israel were at Hazeroth, Miriam and Aaron 'spalce against' Moses on account of his marriage with an Ethiopian (RV 'Cushite') woman. As the 'Ethiopian woman' is mentioned nowhere else, and the death of Moses' wife Zipporah is not recorded, some of the early interpreters thought the two must be identical; and this view is favoured by the Jewish expositors. But it is more likely that a black slave- girl is meant, and that the fault found by Miriam and Aaron was with the indignity of such a union. It may perhaps be inferred from the context that the marriage was of recent occurrence.

ETH-EAZIN. — A town on the E. frontier of Zebulun, whose site has not been identified (Jos 19").

ETHNAN.— A Judahite (1 Ch 4').

ETHN ARCH is a Greek word translated by ' governor ' in 2 Co 11*2. It is used also of Simon the high priest (1 Mac 14" 15'' '). Its exact meaning is uncertain, but it appears to indicate the ruler of a nation or tribe which is itself living with separate laws, etc., amidst an alien race. A. Souter.

ETHNI.— An ancestor of Asaph (1 Ch 6", called in V.21 Jeatherai).

EUBULTTS. — A leading member of the Christian community at Rome, who sends greeting to Timothy through St. Paul at the time of the second imprison-ment (2 Ti 421). His name is Greek, but nothing further is known of him.

EUCHARIST.— This is the earliest title for the sacra-ment of the body and blood of Christ. It is found in Ignatius and the Didache, and is based upon the eu-charistia or giving of thanks with which our Lord set apart the bread and wine at the Last Supper as memorials of Himself (Mt 26", Lk 22"- i', 1 Co ll^). The name Lord's Supper, though legitimately derived from 1 Co 11™, is not there applied to the sacrament itself, but to the Love-feast or Agape, a meal commemorating the Last Supper, and not yet separated from the Eucharist when St. Paul wrote. The irregularities rebuked by the Apostle (ll^i' 28) are such as could only have accom-panied the wider celebration, and doubtless contributed to the speedy separation of the essential rite from the unnecessary accessories. The title Communion comes from 1 Co 10", where, however, the word is a predicate not used technically. The breaking of (the) bread (Ac 242. St) probably refers to the Eucharist (ct. 20', Lk 24''?), but until modern times does not seem to have been adopted as a title.

1. The institution is recorded by each of the Synoptic Gospels, but not by St. John. A fourth account appears in 1 Corinthians.

Mk 1422-K. Mt 26«-M.

22 As they were eating, he ^ Ab they were eating, Jesus took bread, andwhen he had took bread, and blessed, and blessed, he brake it, and gave brake it; and he gave to the to them, and said. Take ye: disciples, and said, Take, this is my body. 23 And he ' eat: this is my body. 27 And t9ok a cup, and when he had he took a cup, and gave given thanks, he gave to thanks, and gave to them, them: and they all drank of saying. Drink ye all of it; it. 24 And he said unto 28 for this is ray blood of the them. This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for covenant, which is shed for many unto remission of sins, many, f Verily I say_ unto 29 But I say unto you, I will you, I will no more drink of not drink henceforth of this the fruit of the vine, until fruit of the vine, until that that day when I drink it new day when I drink it new with in the kingdom of God. you in my Father's kingdom

Lk 22»-2». 1 Co 1123-26.

" When the hour was come, 23 1 received of the Lord that hesatdown.andtheapostles which also I delivered unto with him. ^^ And he said you, how that the Lord Jesus imto them,'With desire I have m the night in which he was >

244

EUCHARIST

desired to eat this passover betrayed took bread; 24 and with you before I suffer: when he had given thanks, he IS for I say unto you, I will brake it, and said.This is my not eat It, until it oefulfilled body, which is for you: this inthekingdomof God.i'And do m remembrance of me. he received a cup, and when 25 Jq h^q manner also the he had given thanks, he said, cup, after supper, saying. Take this, and divide it This cup is the new covenant among yourselves: *3 for I in my blood: this do, as oft say imto you, I will not drink as ye drink it, in remem-f rom henceforth of the fruit brance of me. of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. " And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body [which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 jind the cup in like manner after supper, saying. This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you].

A comparison shows variations of minor importance between Mark and Matthew. But the most remarkable differences are those of Luke, which mentions what is apparently a second cup. It seems scarcely credible that at a supreme moment, like that in which a sacred rite was being established, our Lord should have created the possibility of confusion by solemnly delivering two of the Paschal cups, dividing between them the words which, according to the other Synoptics, belong, as it would seem appropriately, to one. Nor, if He were about to hallow a succeeding cup as Eucharistic, is it likely that He would have spoken of the fulfilment of the Paschal wine in relation to another (v."). In spite, therefore, of the fact that the majority of MSS and Versions favour its inclusion, Westcott and Hort are probably right in regarding the passage inclosed in brackets above as an interpolation. With this omitted, the narrative is assimilated to the other Synoptics. The inversion of bread and cup, which now becomes apparent and which probably belongs not to Luke but to his source, is perhaps due to the fact that the writer, dwelling on the Lord's intention that the Passover should be fulfilled in a Messianic rite, records at the opening of his narrative a declaration similar to that which Matthew and Mark assign to a later stage, the delivery of the cup (Mt 262', Mk 142«). These words, though referring more particularly to the Eucharistic bread, yet, as extending to the whole meal (' this pass-over'), require no mention of the action that would accompany them; whereas the companion statement concerning the fruit of the vine (Lk 22i8) necessitates the mention of the cup (v."). The first half of v." (the consecration of the bread), which, if the account were symmetrical, would appear (as arranged in Rush-brooke's Synopticon) before v.", is then added to complete the institution. A copyist, assuming a part of the narrative to be wanting, would then introduce, probably from a contemporary liturgical formula, the second halt of v." and v.2», which bear a striking resemblance to the Pauline account, of which Luke is otherwise independent. A similar inversion is found in the sub-Apostolic Teaching of the Apostles.

2. From the Synoptic record the following inferences may be drawn: (1) The words of institution cannot themselves determine the meaning of the rite. Luke (unless v.2« be genuine) omits 'This is my blood of the covenant.' [Notice also that the other traditional form varies the phrase — 'the new covenant in my blood' (1 Co 1125).] This may be due to the fact that Luke introduces the cup primarily in relation to our Lord's utterance concerning the fruit of the vine. But the sentence may be an interpretation of Christ's action, based on its correspondence with the hallowing of the bread. Matthew futher amplifies by adding the words, ■unto remission of sins' (Mt 2628). it is clear that.