A. The Last Supper contains phrases in which show that it has been passed through the Greek-speaking community as well as the Jewish community. One in particular is the word “that”. In Scripting Jesus, L. Michael White, it is note worthy that in Greek oral tradition the word “that” is used as means to quote something. This suggests that what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians is likely to have been passed down from the oral tradition. Thus making it likely he has received this information from elsewhere. Although Paul’s account of the Last Supper is the earliest recollection of the event, it still shows an evolution of oral tradition (White, 114). The basic story of the Last Supper is consistent between the four Gospels in this way: Jesus’ body is compared to the loaf of bread, his blood is related to the cup; however, the wording and patterns vary between traditions of Jewish and Greek culture, therein White suggests that there are indeed subtle manipulations of the oral traditions that are present when comparing the phrasing in Mark and Matthew and Paul’s letters to Corinth. 

B. White suggests that the gospels have been narrativized by describing variation of word usage between the four gospels. It could be argued that these differences in the synoptics and Pauline writings are possibly just differences in writing styles. But there’s no denying that the specific usage of certain phrasing and words demonstrates how oral traditions of the Jewish culture was influenced by the Greek communities they were in proximity with. 

The time in which the Gospels were written correlates to unique phrasing that points to the possibility of the Gospel authors reading, editing, and incorporating new ideas and concepts from a previous Gospel or even previous oral tradition. It seems that White is pointing out a differing time period of each of these books, as well as recognizing the redaction of oral tradition. As these stories were shared, they continued to morph over time to fit in with the evolving cultural traditions within that society.

White Argues that the Last Supper tradition was circulated orally and was then written down based on the structure of the passage. White states that the formula for oral tradition following “the formulaic quality and close parallelism of the two sayings ‘This is … Do this … in remembrance of me’” (White p. 114). White goes on to compare the symbolism of the bread and the wine that Paul writes about in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. The use of the Last Supper in the three Synoptic Gospels also hints that these authors shared a common source. White also highlights the difference between using bless and give thanks for describing the bread that Jesus breaks with his disciples (White p. 116). This difference could show the change from a Jewish community to one that is more Greek.

White points out that the gospel writers narrativize the story of the Last Supper by making changes to the oral tradition. White describes on such change as the addition of the phrase ‘Do this in remembrance of me’ to the Gospel of Luke and in 1 Corinthians (White p. 117). The various authors of the gospels and the author of 1 Corinthians use their sources to help build a narrative for their respective audiences. White shows various points in the stories of the gospels and 1 Corinthians where the authors probably changed the oral tradition to fit their story to make it clearer for their audiences (White p. 118). There is evidence that the authors changed the oral history to make it fit with their audience and arguments and shaped the context of the overall stories. These changes can seem minor but also play a larger role in the development of the way that various people understood Jesus and his teachings.