儘管Paul Bradshaw關於感恩禮之建立的理論，與昔日普遍接受的觀點完全相反，但似乎當代大多數研究古代禮儀的學者們都同意Paul Bradshaw的論點，就是：事實上耶穌並沒有最後晚餐的時候建立了感恩禮，他們認為感恩禮儀其實是後人建立的。Paul Bradshaw更也認為，在感恩禮方面，初期教會存在著兩個不同的傳統，分別歸屬若望傳統與對觀福音反映的保祿傳統；具體來說，他否認感恩禮的建立來自任何對「對觀福音」傳統的真實依賴。Bradshaw認為若望傳統使用的「肉體（sarx, flesh）」與保祿／對觀福音傳統中的「身體（sōma, body）」表達出其間的差異；而且這兩條傳統的洪流都也反映在早期基督徒文獻中。在本文中，作者一方面仔細檢視了Paul Bradshaw所使用之新約作品、《十二宗徒訓誨錄》與安提約基亞的依納爵書信文本，另一方面，作者指出：Paul Bradshaw所使用的這些文本根本無法支持他的結論。在研究的課題上，這也引起許多方法論上的問題，其中包括盛行一時的「物化（reification）」論點，即：將抽象的概念視之為物質或具體的事物。

Perhaps the majority of contemporary scholars of the ancient liturgy agree with Paul Bradshaw that, contrary to what was formerly the received opinion, Jesus did not in fact institute the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Rather, they see the eucharistic liturgy as being the work of later hands. Bradshaw also contends that there were but two Eucharistic traditions in the Early Church, those of John, and that of Paul with the Synoptics. Specifically, he denies any real independence to the traditions in the Synoptic Gospels, making them dependent on Paul. Bradshaw contends that the use of the terms “flesh” (sarx) in the Johannine tradition, and “body” (sōma) in the Pauline/Synoptic tradition, respectively, regularly indicates the divergence. Further, these two streams are said to be reflected in early Christian literature. Here, I examine only the New Testament, the Didache, and the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, of the texts Bradshaw employs. I contend that these do not support Bradshaw’s argument. In the course of the study, many methodological questions arise, not least, the prevalence of the argument of “reification”, that is, regarding an abstract concept as if it were a material or concrete thing.