Loading...This mini-thread within a thread started out with my indicating that among the difficulties I have with the NRSV translation is that it includes as part of the text the account in Luke 22:43-44 of Jesus in agony — the passage commonly referred to as the account of Jesus’ “Bloody Sweat” (from which we get the phrase “sweating blood,” even though he doesn’t sweat blood but sweats sweat like blood drops — presumably meaning “big” drops?)
I’ve already explaine why I don’t think Luke wrote the account. There’s more than can be said, but maybe I’ve said about enough. If you want the fuller scoop, you can find a fuller discussion in my book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. For the purposes of the blog, two main questions remain: why would Luke change Mark’s portrayal of Jesus going to his death so that now he is so clearly calm and collected? And why did later scribes change Luke’s portrayal by adding the two verses in question?
In this post I’ll deal with the first question and with the second in a later post.
One of the most striking things about Luke’s portrayal of Jesus before his arrest — without any agony — is that it is perfectly consistent with other passages in Luke. Luke’s source for the account was Mark, but he changed it in numerous ways — and one effect is that he got rid of Jesus’ agony and added, instead, the idea that Jesus was at peace the whole time.
Take, for example, the crucifixion itself. In Mark Jesus is silent the entire way carrying his cross to the place of execution. One has the impression that Jesus
In this post I talk about one of the absolutely fundamental aspects of Luke’s account of Jesus’ death — one that most readers completely overlook. Wanna see? It costs little to join the blog, and all proceeds go straight to charity. So why not join?Click here for membership options
Dr. Ehrman.
It may be true that the passage about the “Bloody Sweat” was not in Luke from the beginning. But this passage may still give us an allusion to an important source used for the Passion of Christ.
Hints from the Psalms are mentioned, but also the prophecy of Isaiah was important.
From the Book of Job we read that Job sat on a dunghill after the devil smote Job with sore boils from his feet to his head. Then Job took a potsherd to scrape away the discharge from his body.
What was the discharge from Job’s body without blood and other bodily fluids?
It could therefore be said that Job, in his sufferings, was like Christ in shadows and types, and that he sweated blood.
Bart, regarding the phrase “Truly, today you will be with me in Paradise”; has there been discussion on the ramifications of “where” Jesus went during his death and before his resurrection? I have heard speculation that he descended to Hades for the interim but this wording makes it sound he ascended to heaven immediately (along with the criminal) on that very day and then returned to his new body. Thoughts?
Ah, yes, that’s called teh Harrowing of Hell. My book coming out in the spring, Journeys to Heaven and Hell, has an entire chapter devoted to the issue. The book itself is at an academic level, but I’ll think about making some posts on it. The idea has roots in the NT but came to fullest expression later, especially in the Gospel of Nicodemus.
In a recent movie on Paul, Luke is given a scene were he tries to calm jailed children that are most likely going to be sent to the lions. He tries to convince them that their martyrdom is purposeful and that Jesus will be there waiting with joy to receive them. I think this theme of a righteous martyrdom does somewhat underlay much of the the Gospel of Luke. The writer still is supporting that there is going to be a judgement and that death by martyrdom is to be welcomed more than feared in this regard. By having Jesus be more accepting of his fate on the cross, Jesus now appears to backing up his words confidently with his calmer demeanor. If the Christians were still under severe persecution during the writing of Luke, then this makes sense as a means to keep much of the flock from running away. I think this is one of the reasons Lukes perspective has such a high favorability among the flock today.
Two drastically different accounts indeed. Do we have any clue as to which one would be closer to what actually happened?
Luke has changed Mark, so is unlikely to be historical; but I dobn’t think there’s any way Mark either could have had reliable information at his disposal. So I’d say both are telling stories rather than narrating history as it happened.
When you were a pastor, did issues like Mark having multiple endings bother you?
Not a bit. I was already advanced in my PhD work.
Do you think there’s any chance Jesus actually said something like Psalm 22:1 or is it pure invention by Mark? Or possibly based on something reportedly said by jesus on the cross? A cry of despair Mark molded into Psalm 22:1?
Well it’s within the realm of human possibility he said it, sure. But then again so is any other saying someone wants to put on his lips that is a quotation of Scripture or something that can be said in Aramaic. I’d say there is no way that the author of Mark could have had any idea what Jesus said at the very end. Mark probably heard that he said that, and so reported it, to show that Jesus was fulfilling scripture.
Well it’s within the realm of human possibility he said it, sure. But then again so is any other saying someone wants to put on his lips that is a quotation of Scripture or something that can be said in Aramaic. I’d say there is no way that the author of Mark could have had any idea what Jesus said at the very end. Mark probably heard that he said that, and so reported it, to show that Jesus was fulfilling scripture.
Very interesting Bart! I tend to think how Christianity started to developed creating a book of their own thinking in many ways contrary to what actually Jesus thought!
Hi Bart,
Excellent post. What’s intriguing is how first-century Christians would have grappled with Mark’s crucifixion account for over 10 or 20 years before Luke’s version appeared. I wonder if Luke’s version would have stirred up some controversy or even rejection in light of Mark’s original and most senior testimony/gospel.
Bart, do you know of such early first-century church conflicts as these later gospels appeared, i.e., Mark established first, then Matthew, followed by Luke and finally John? Or were they just automatically accepted with very little scrutiny?
Thanks!
I think early on most people who knew Luke’s Gospel did not know Mark’s, adn those who did would not have had the linguistic ability to do a detailed comparison. But since neither was considered Scripture, I suppose those who knew both woudl simply think they were different accounts. Even today the vast majority of readers don’t realize they are at odds — even highly educated readers.
4 Questions for Professor Erhman:
1. When the biblical Jesus says “Truly, today you will be with me in Paradise”, is the author of the Gospel of Luke implying that both Jesus and the kind crucified criminal will wake up a) in Heaven in the sky OR b) in Heaven on Earth?
2. If the answer to the first question is (a), is the author of the Gospel of Luke implying that the kind crucifified criminal will die, be exalted and become one of the rare human beings to live in Heaven (like Enoch and Elijah) OR that all human beings who follow Jesus will die and live in Heaven?
3. Is there any mention in any canonical or apocryphal text of what happened to the kind crucified criminal after he died and went to Paradise?
4. In your opinion, did the historical Jesus actually say “Truly, today you will be with me in Paradise” OR did the author of the Gospel of Luke put those words in the mouth of the biblical Jesus?
1. Almost certainly in the sky. 2. Probably all believers in Jesus (Paul sayssomething similar i 2 Cor. 5) 3. Non in the NT, but in later apocalyptic texts he is the first one there and welcomes newcomers! 4. I think he definitely did not say it but that it was put on his lips by Luke to show that savlation comes right after death for those who accept jesus.
Is there any indication that the historical Jesus anticipated his death would be humiliating in nature?
The Gospels all indicate that he expected to be crucified. But I don’t think there’s any historical reason to think that’s what Jesus expected.
“I think he definitely did not say it but that it was put on his lips by Luke to show that salvation comes right after death for those who accept Jesus.” I agree with your firm decision. Do you feel there are more of such cases?
“Luke has changed Mark, so is unlikely to be historical;” Good stand. Respectful.
Isn’t Mark’s “Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the council” a likely edit of
Luke’s “Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the council”.
and isn’t
Matthew “they found a man form Cyrene named Simon and forced him to carry the cross”
Luke “the took hold of a certain Simon from Cyrene, on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him”
Mark “they made Simon of Cyrene on his way in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry the cross”
the likely progression of the accounts?
I don’t see why it would likely go that way, no.
Each successive author is contributing a small irrelevant detail to the account.
2nd edition + “on his way in from the country”
3rd edition + “on his way in from the country” + “the father of alexander and rufus”
Here’s how the four gospels portray the final utterances of Jesus on the cross:
Matthew 27:46-50: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”
Mark 15:33-37: Now when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” which is translated, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”
Luke 23:46: And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.” Having said this, He breathed His last.
John 19:30: [W]hen Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
When you compare them, I think Matthew and Mark’s reports have the sound of a genuine, spontaneous utterance. The fact that Mark was probably written first adds further weight to that conclusion. What Luke and John have him say sounds much more purposefully composed by them. [Continued…]
[Continued from previous comment]
Given that I agree with the description summed up in Bart’s book title, that Jesus was an “Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium,” his expression of abandonment makes sense.
I think he was in a very bad way in the garden, anticipating his arrest, but he was able to hold it together and retain his dignity under duress because he simultaneously sincerely believed that if his life were at stake, the dawn of the New Millennium would be signaled by God’s public rescue of him. When, at the end, it was clear that really wasn’t happening, the despair he expresses is understandable and completely believable.
Bart, do scholars see any significance to the way Mark and Matthew assign the time of death specifically to the ninth hour? And what time, in our terms, was that?
It’s 9:00 am. I think it’s in order to show that a) he died quickly (haveing been flogged) and b) before the sun went down, so he could be buried quickly, but not formally, to allow teh events on Sunday morning.
I had thought that the 6th hour was noontime, so I was surprised to see you say that the 9th hour was 9 AM. Is that possible?
I searched and found a site, JEWISH TIME DIVISIONS IN THE 1ST CENTURY AD, which had the following quotes:
“The Jewish daytime hours began with dawn and ended with sundown, which began the next day. The hours are seasonal, so the length of the daylight hours varied with the season of the year.”
“Notice that according to St. Mark, Jesus went to the cross at the third hour, which in Jewish time corresponds to our 9AM [Mark 15:25], and according to the Gospel accounts He gave up His life at the ninth hour, our 3PM.”
Did you mis-state it? or is this site (and my memory) wrong?
Sorry sorry sorry. Yes, in Mark the 6th hour is noon (when the darkness arrives) and the 9th hour is 3:00 pm. I don’t know what I was thnking. I probably wasn’t thinking…
Is it really 9 a.m.? I’m no expert, but I thought the ancients started numbering hours at sunrise. So the ninth hour would be something like 3 p.m. in our system.
There were different numbering systems in different cultures.
Correct Publilius; Bart just mis-spoke; even Homer nods.
After asking my time question, I remembered learning in yeshiva that the ancient Jews began the day at dawn and divided it into twelve relative hours — שעה זמנית “shaot zemaniyot” — that vary in length throughout the year. Our noon was their sixth hour and their 9th hour would correspond to our 3 PM. The Romans used the same scheme. So in both Aramaic and Latin, the ninth hour was mid-afternoon.
This arrangement was retained by the Church. As Wikipedia writes: “The daytime canonical hours of the Catholic Church take their names from the Roman clock: the prime, terce, sext and none occur during the first (prīma) = 6 am, third (tertia) = 9 am, sixth (sexta) = 12 pm, and ninth (nōna) = 3 pm, hours of the day.“
Now that we’ve cleared that up, I’d still like to know what the Gospel writers thought was so special about the ninth hour. Was it because they thought it fulfilled a prophecy? Or should we just accept that here for once we simply have accurate reporting of what really happened?
OK, here’s one possible clue about the emphasis on the ninth hour. Wikipedia says:
In Jewish tradition, prayers were usually offered at the time of the daily whole-burnt offerings. The historian, Josephus, writing about [them], says that it was offered twice each day, in the morning and about the ninth hour.”… Elsewhere, when describing the slaughter of the Passover offerings on the eve of Passover (the 14th day of the lunar month Nisan), Josephus writes: “…their feast which is called the Passover, when they slay their sacrifices, from the ninth hour to the eleventh, etc.”
So the emphasis on the ninth could be part of the Gospel authors’ campaign to identify Jesus with the Paschal Lamb.
Ah, maybe. But the problem is that in Mark this is happening the day after the lambs had been slaughtered. It’s John that has him die on the Day of Preparation.
The only real points of the 9th hour, so far as we can tell, is that it serves to show that Jesus died quickly (possibly becuase he was burdened with having to atone for the sins of the world, or because he was flogged first) and that he died not long before it got dark.
Dr Ehram, Mike Licona said:
“Paul was a skeptic”
“he was against the movement”
licona never informs what LEVEL of skepticism paul had
how do we know pauls “skepticism” was a thing? why wasnt he an angry person with low level skepticism?
paul never mentions anything about jesus’ body being stolen
liconas argument is “paul was in agreement with the apostles….because he was a skeptic and persecuted the movement, then he changed his mind”
how is this evidence that the apostles and paul were one big happy jail bird family ?
Do disagreements disappear once one stops persecuting and being a skeptic?
Then he says “students of the apostle peter (polycarp and clement) say that paul was telling the truth”
you have any skepticism on this?
Mike Licona says that Polycarp and Clement were Paul’s students and that they indicate he was telling the truth? Really? You sure about that? They weren’t and they didn’t.
“Betrayed, denied, abandoned, forsaken”
Most unusual and illogical. None of the thousands dedicated followers of Jesus had any squabble or dissatisfaction with their Master for their instantaneously disloyalty, double cross, and unfaithfulness.
Is there any historical evidence/explanation for the most unique betrayal in the history of mankind where thousands who had enjoyed free food, receiving normal life after Jesus had cured various types of sickness and disease suddenly deserted and rejected Jesus?
“two criminals being crucified with him.” Is there any valid historical evidence that Roman jurisdiction can crucify thief?
“Truly, today you will be with me in Paradise” Was Jesus or author encouraging to be thief?
Any verse Jesus was having reported to confirm “Paradise in the sky”?
“but the other tells him to be silent, since Jesus has done nothing to deserve this fate.” These criminals likely to be in prison, secluded, before their crucifixion. Any historical news that must have reached one of the criminals for his remark “nothing to deserve this fate.” It is fair to ask why none of the thousands of Jesus staunch disciples and followers, at least, made such a remark or do something as expected of a normal human being who had enjoyed so many benefits?
I don’t believe any of these stories is historical.
Greg Sterling (Yale Divinity School) writes that Luke “carefully reworked the death of Jesus at critical points to remind the hearer/reader of Socrates, the paradigmatic martyr of his society.” That is, Luke was trying to show Jesus dying a hero’s death in the manner of a true philosopher, just like Socrates. This may have been Luke’s way of dealing with the Gentile dismissal of worshiping a crucified criminal as “foolishness.”
Can you give us a hint as to why Luke chose such a different portrayal of Jesus on the way to his death from that presented by Mark?
It’s usually thought that he wanted to show his fellow Christians how they too should face persecution, with no fear and in full assurance that God was on their side.
Dr. Bart,
-Agree none of the accounts is historical but mightn’t the opening cry of Ps 22 have been a stock phrase of despair that a good Jewish boy could have said in such a moment, and which people around him (women) heard and passed on?
-I don’t buy it but I like, poetically, someone’s notion that invoking Eli Eli was meant not just to conjure the end of Ps 22 but the supposedly linked Ps 23, carrying us – and Jesus – from catastrophe to living with full tables and oiled heads in the House of YHWH le’orekh yamim.
-Does the Paradise reference mean that by Luke’s time, the idea of pneumata existing in noncorporeal heaven was in circulation, as opposed to bodily resuscitation on earth in the end times?
Thanks
We don’t know if it was a stock phrase, but it would certainly have been appropriate.. And yes, Luke seems to be starting to think there could be a soul existing outside the body — not odd for a gentile writing in hte 80s, of course. (Also: Lazarus and the Rich man in Luke 16)