Pretend I'm from Missouri. :-)
Secondly, he is mentioning the literal body and the blood in response to people who deny that Christ really existed in the form of flesh and blood. So, his defense of doctrine (IMVHO) against Docetism is somewhat stretched into some sort of transubstantiation by people reading it now.
So he is just going overboard in driving home the "Jesus really was Incarnated" point and it overflows into Eucharistic expression? Why would he point out, to make the case for Jesus being really really real flesh, a symbolic expression of Jesus' body in the Eucharist? It doesn't make sense.
Thirdly, are we supposed to take the longer or the shorter version of the epistle as authentic?
I don't know.
SD
I don't know.
It does make all the difference. The "longer" version has no such statement of a literal body or blood. It is completely absent. A bit shocking and I'm not sure of a good explanation for this. One would tend to think that the shorter version was the "authentic" version (using hist-crit scholarship methods, which can be suspect). However, why would the longer version, if it was not authentic, not provide the explicit support that the original did? It is a curious little case.
Pretend I'm from Missouri. :-)
Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood;
The footnote on this quote says that the bit "and one cup to the unity" is literally "and one cup into the unity" which could be reasonably translated as "and one cup to show the unity." I am admitting up front that this is a reasonable translation and is not from God's lips :)
I have a better, still unanswered question. If Jesus dwells in each Christian. And given he was not speaking literally in the last supper; why would it be necessary for him to be present in the Bread and wine for people to experience him when it's only meant for true Christians and True Christians experience him every living moment within them? (Mr Trebek, music please).