(16 votes, average: 4.88 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post I tried to argue that the longer version of the account of Jesus’ Last Supper in Luke could have been created by a scribe who wanted to make the passage sound more like what is familiar from Matthew, Mark, and John, and to stress the point made in those other accounts as well, that Jesus’ broken body and shed blood are what bring redemption. The passage as you recall reads like this:
17 And he took a cup and gave thanks, and he said: “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you that from now on I will not drink from the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes.” 19 And taking bread he gave thanks and broke it and gave it to them saying, “This is my body that is given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 Likewise after supper (he took) the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood that is shed for you. 21 But see, the hand of the one who turns me over is with me at the table….”
The words that are in bold and underlined are missing from some manuscripts, and it seems more likely that a scribe would have *added* them to a text that did not have them than that he would have *omitted* them for a text that had them. That was what I argued yesterday.
Today I want to argue that the longer version of the text (with the additional words), which scribes would have preferred, is *NOT* the form of the text that the author of the Gospel of Luke would have preferred. This is a different kind of evidence, based on a different set of questions. Now I’m not asking about how scribes would have been inclined to change the text. I’m asking about what the author himself would have been more likely to have written in the first place.
The reason the words in question are so problematic is that they embrace a theology that Luke himself has gone out of his way to avoid wherever possible (this will sound weird to many readers). It is the theology that says that Jesus’ death was an atoning sacrifice for sins.
It is widely known that Christian authors producing their work *before* Luke definitely did have a doctrine of the atonement, i.e., the idea that it was Jesus’ death itself that brought about the removal of the sins of others, that Christ died “for the sake” of others, so that they could be right with God. That was clearly the teaching of
This is a fundamental issue for understanding the New Testament and early Christianity. Join the blog and you can read all about it. Click here for membership options
Hey Bart. Surely this is just a matter of emphasis. If Luke really didn’t believe in the atonement what do you think the Philip was explaining about Isaiah 53 to the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts? Also, what do you think the two disciples on the Emmaus Road in Luke’s gospel were discussing with the mysterious stranger as he took them through the *Scriptures* that predicted his his death and resurrection?
That’s one of the most intriguing passages o nthe subject. Acts quotes part of Isaiah 53 but precisely NOT the part that says anything about substitionary atonement. He leaves that apart out! As to Emmaus, Luke absolutely thinks that Jesus’ death and resurrection were predicted in Scripture. But he does not think they were atoning. They had a different function for Luke.
There is nothing in isaiah 53 about a substitutionary atonement for sins.
1. Words usually associated with atonement in leviticus are not found in isaiah 53.
I suppose it depends how you read passages like Isa 53:5. It sure *sounds* like someone has been punished for the sins of others.
If x punches y in the face, then y is “bearing x’s punch” in a sense.
“He was pained BECAUSE OF our punches….”
This is just talking about hurtful actions.
If luke does not have sunstitutionary atonement, then i dont see how it was possible for him to see any part of is 53 as substitutionary atonement
I’m not sure what Luke thought about how to interpret all of Isaish 53; all we know is what he quotes and how he uses his quotes. And he never quotes the passages that can be used to support the idea of the suffering and death of one person for another.
quote:
This has probably occurred to you at some point, but do you know where else none of the words “pardon”, “forgiveness”, nor “atonement”, – the familiar “selicha, mechila, and kappara” – nor any derivative of them appear even once? Isaiah 53.
Dr Ehrman, what are your thoughts on this?
“And he never quotes the passages that can be used to support the idea of the suffering and death of one person for another.”
but selicha, mechila and kappara or any derivative do not appear in isaiah 53, even once.
I’m sorry — I don’t understand your question. I’m not talking about specific Hebrew words in Isaiah 53. I’m saying that Isaiah 53:5 and other verses that *could* be taken to refer to some kind of atoning sacrifice of one person for anohter are never quoted int eh surviving words of the historical Jesus.
“And he never quotes the passages that can be used to support the idea of the suffering and death of one person for another.”
Does this mean his readers were ignorant of what came before and after the verses he quoted?
It doesn’t necessarily mean that. They may have known what came before and after and noticed that he chose not to quote those bits, and possibly wondered why; or, more likely I thnk, they didn’t have the passage memorized. Most of his hearers of course were illiterate, and would not have had Isaiah memorized, any more than people do today. Apart from that, I thnk it’s a mistake to think that ancient readers thought like we do, that the context of a quotation is as important as the quotation itself. Biblical passages in particular could be plucked completely out of context to refer to one thing or another, whether they did in context or not. (Think iof the use of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew’s birth narrative; that’s the more common approach)
How do these manuscripts date compared with those that have the passages?
I love this material and similar threads. Thanks for posting it.
Both readings can be dated back to the second century — so who ever changed it (whether adding it or deleting it) made the change then.
Isn’t it better to understand the point of Luke moving the curtain being torn in two to before Jesus’s death as the temple now being unveiled and able to accept the sacrifice which is happening outside the temple walls.
In Matthew/Mark the temple is veiled when the sacrifice is made.
I don’t think there’s any reason to import sacrifice into a pssage that doesn’t mention it, no.
In the short version, why would Luke end with “this is my body”? That seems to fit with the long version. In the short version it seems opaque. Why would Luke have Jesus say the bread was his body? It just sort of sits there all by itself. Though we don’t have manuscripts without that statement, is that statement also suspect, ie, might an even earlier manuscript not have contained even that phrase?
The bread is his body because like the bread, his body is going to be broken. That doesn’t mean it will be broken “as an atonement.” It just means he is going to be bodily destroyed.
I can barely understand biblical greek but the theory would be
16 λεγω γαρ uμιν οτι οu μη φαγω αuτo εως οτου πληρωθη εν τη βασιλεια τοu θεοu.
17 καὶ δεξαμενος ποτηριον εuχαριστησας εἱπεν, λαβετε τοuτο καὶ διαμερισατε εις εαυτοuς·
18 λεγω γαρ uμιν οτι οu μη πιω απo τοu νuν απo τοu γενηματος της αμπελου εως οu η βασιλεια τοu θεοu ελθῃ.
19 καὶ λαβwν αρτον εuχαριστησας εκλασεν καὶ εδωκεν αuτοις {λεγων, τοuτο εστιν τo σwμα μου}[τo uπερ uμwν διδομενον· τοuτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν
20 καὶ τo ποτηριον ωσαuτως μετα τo δειπνησαι, λεγων, τοuτο τo ποτηριον η καινη διαθηκη εν τw αιματι μου, τo uπερ uμwν εκχυννομενον.]
21 πλην ιδοu η χεὶρ τοu παραδιδοντος με μετ᾽ εμοu επὶ της τραπεζης·
{} – first text added
[] second text added
without {}[] the text goes :
v16-17 from λεγω to εαυτοuς
v18-19 λεγω to αuτοις
without {} and [] you got what Luke really wrote.
It is not made explicitly in Luke. I don’t see any evidence of two editions: Luke, I think, certainly agrees thatthe Lord’s supper is a commemoration of the Last Supper.
Is an atoning sacrifice traditionally understood to be necessary (by many Christian theologians)-in part-because God is both perfectly just and perfectly forgiving, merciful, and loving? Have Christians often claimed that God resolved that dilemma by, in effect, punishing-if not literally himself-then by punishing his beloved son who was also God, ie, a member of the same monotheistic Trinity as the father? In other words, God’s para-self-punishment upheld both his justice and his mercy?
I’d say these are later theological explanations of teh death of Jesus, but it’s not the original one. At first it was almost certainly seen as a sacrifice to end all sacrifices (not based on the character of God the way modern Christains argue)
Bart,
2 questions –
1. Jack Miles, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his book God: A Biography, did a followup – Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God…this is a quote from that book (you probably know this but he treats Yahweh and then Jesus as a protagonist in a novel rather than in a theological or historical sense)
“Jesus being God incarnate, all of God’s earlier words were Jesus’ words as well and may – indeed must – be taken into account as evidence about his character.”
Would you agree with Miles here? This seems to be something completely overlooked when most people discuss the character of the NT Jesus.
2. Are there any sections of the Bible at all that you think may have been authored by a female?
TY for your time,
SC
1. I’d say that this is a theological view about the divine character of Jesus; but I’d say it’s not at all a view overlooked by theological scholars, but is rather one commonly shared. 2. Nope, I don’t think so.
So what was Luke’s soteriology exactly? Or his understanding of the significance of Jesus’s death?
Long story, but his basic idea was that salvation came when God forgave people when they repented for their sins.
“But see, the hand of the one who turns me over is with me at the table….”
Seems like a rather abrupt segue Jesus is making. Jesus is warmly giving thanks to his disciples (the only time in the gospels that Jesus thanks anyone?) but in the same breath, he delivers a rather bitter j’accuse to the disciple who betrayed him. My impression is that the two don’t fit together. Do scholars think that line was an addition to the text?
I should probably post on that. In my book on the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture I try to explain how the argument flows and has an internal coherence.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
Thanks for a fascinating post. I have a question: where did Paul (for I presume he was the originator) get the idea of a substitutionary atonement from, in the first place? It’s my understanding that according to Judaism, it’s simply impossible for one person to die for another person’s sins, as each person is punished for their own sins. So how did the early Christians come to think otherwise? I’m guessing you’ll probably say that it was because of the influence of Isaiah 53:12. Does Judaism interpret this passage as referring to an atonement of some sort (e.g. Israel’s atonement for the sins of the world)? Thanks.
It’s based on a sacrificial theology: atoning sacrifices in Judaism happened when an animal was killed in the place of a human. In this case it was the extreme “animal sacrifice,” a human sacrifice to end all sacrifices.
In your previous post I asked about the idea of the “Last Supper” perhaps being a historical memory of a Passover Seder and what we know about such practices in Jesus’ day. I suppose the next logical question would be to ask your own opinion. Is it your intuition that the “Last Supper” was probably based on a memory of a Passover Seder that would have taken on a special significance in hindsight?
Yes, that’s my view.
How do any of our Last Supper narratives in Luke or the other Gospels compare to what we know about the Passover seder ritual in Jesus’s day? Was it the same as today? Wine is poured several times, for example, during the seder. Could that explain why Luke mentions “the cup” twice?
Unfortunately we do not have any detailed accounts for how the Passover meal was celebateted in Jesus’ day, or even if there was a set ritual as happened later. I very much doubt it, but we just don’t know. THe Seder as it came to be practiced over the ages developed later.
Is saying “Jesus’ death ransoms others from their sins” equivalent to saying that Jesus’ death paid the ransom needed to release others from enslavement to sin (as in Romans 6:22)? And to whom might Mark have imagined this “ransom” was paid?
Hi Bart, My question is tangent to your post, but do you think Luke 18:31-34 was part of the original text? or a scribal addition?
Luke 18: 31-34: “Then he took the twelve aside and said to them, ‘Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be handed over to the gentiles, and he will be mocked and insulted and spat upon. After they have flogged him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise again.’ But they understood nothing about all these things; in fact, what he said was hidden from them, and they did not grasp what was said.” (NRSVUE)
Best,
James
It is almost certainly original.
Thank you.
Next, do you think that the reference to being flogged and killed implied bloodshed?
Furthermore, do you think that the essence of these sayings traces back to Jesus? or do you think that Q and Mark invented that these concepts originated with Jesus?
You’ll need to remind me which verse you’re talking about when you ask a followup, since I don’t have the full thread. But I wold say being flogged normally implies bloodshed in antiquity, but not being killed.
Sorry, I now see that replying to your reply to me does not let you easily see back to my original reference.
I referred to Luke 18: 31-34: “Then he took the twelve aside and said to them, ‘Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be handed over to the gentiles, and he will be mocked and insulted and spat upon. After they have flogged him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise again.’ But they understood nothing about all these things; in fact, what he said was hidden from them, and they did not grasp what was said.” (NRSVUE)
Since Mark and Matthew said something similar, then as far as I know you assume that Luke used this from Mark.
Do you think that the essence of these sayings traces back to Jesus? or do you think that Mark invented that the essence of these sayings originated with Jesus?
Best,
James
I think neither! 🙂 I don’t think Jesus said such things; but I don’t thnk Mark made them up either. After Jesus died, very soon, I should think, his followers who believed that his death was part of the divine plan had to explain that he knew all about it in advance — i.e., that he wsan’t caught unawares. So this was a standard view among Christains by the time Mark was writing.
What I find very intriguing is that “Luke” is a big fan of Paul, yet he (he?) doesn’t believe in the core theological point made by the apostle. Do you think “Luke” was from a church founded by Paul? What was the nature of the influence by Paul on “Luke”?
Yes, I do. And I think Paul came to be misunderstood widely, and in lots of different ways over the years, even among his faithful followers (and still today!)
Good argument.
I see the footnote in the NRSV: “22.20 Other ancient authorities lack, in whole or in part, 22.19b–20 (which is given . . . in my blood).”
Has any modern translation omitted the words in question from the text and relegated them to a footnote? Do you think they should?
Because of the Yom Kippur implications of the Barabbas story, why do you think Luke kept it in his gospel?
I’m not sure the Yom Kippur connections are a necessary part of the story, but one reading of it. Most peole today don’t read it that way, and I think most Christians in antiquity didn’t either. It’s just as easy to read it as a story showing that Jews rejected their own Christ for a crook — which is how I think it’s still typically read.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy:
Repent and get baptized. Lead me not into temptation. Deliver me from evil (including sin).
Father, forgive our sins, trespasses, and debts.
Pray for help to avoid acts of sin.
Pray for sins to be forgiven.
Keep Yom Kippur.
Repent and be remorseful for sins committed.
God did not ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac for sin atonement; Yom Kippur; John the Baptist; and Jesus with the Lord’s Prayer all fail to support lethal human sacrifice atonement.
God commanding human sacrifice from a son of god seems to be baseless in Ancient Judaism.
Is it retrograde, predating Jewish Apocalypticism, in that, if you are disobedient, something bad will happen: your Messiah will be sacrificed?
Paul wrote about this before the gospel writers did.
QUESTION: Paul has a pagan rationale instead of a Jewish rationale?
the Africans who used to sacrifice their children to Saturn, the Taurians and the Egyptian Busiris who sacrificed foreigners, the Gauls, and lastly the Romans themselves, who in the past would bury alive two Greeks and two Gauls and who in his own day sacrifice men to Jupiter Latiaris
“Human Sacrifice among Pagans and Christians”
by J. Rives / Cambridge University Press
[Extract]
My sense is that pagan and Jewish sacrificial practices were conceptualized fairly similarly on the whole. The difficulty is knowing exactly what the understandings of sacrifice were; there were almost certainly numbers of different understandings. James Rivews whom you quote, is writing a book on it now, trying to unravel it all.
Do you think Mark’s view of atonement was corporate or individual? Mark only states that Jesus’ death was “for many” (10:45; 14:24) without clarifying further. Matt 26:28 (but not Mark) has “for many for the forgiveness of sins” which sounds more individualistic. By “corporate atonement,” I mean, for the good of the nation, or the majority of the people collectively, not unlike the death of the Jewish martyrs in 2 Macc 7. Fourth Maccabees explicitly speaks of those martyrs as sacrifice, atonement, expiation, and purification for the good of the nation. See 4 Macc 17:20-22; 1:11; 6:29; 18:4. Do you think Mark has that kind of corporate atonement in mind?
It depends what you mean. When he says that he dies for “many” that means a group of people, presumably all of whom participate in teh salvific effect, but not others.
Hello Bart. I have two questions regarding your personal opinions on the Atonement :
1. Do you have any personal reservations / concerns about the Christian doctrine of the Atonement, and if so, what are they ?
2. Do you believe the Atonement doctrine has caused problems for Christians and non Christians over the millennia, and if so, what are they ?
Thank you.
1. I think it’s a horrible idea. 2. Absolutely. God requires the death of his own son in order to forgive people? Why can’t he just forgive people? When my daughter does something terribly wrong, do I tell her I can’t forgive her unless I slaughter her puppy?
Hello Bart. Thanks for that. I completely agree with you.
I guess with my question 2 above, I was curious to hear your thoughts on the “day to day” implications of the Atonement doctrine, how has it affected the psyche of the Church as a whole and individual Christians, does it make the Church more violent, does it make the Church value life less, what the Church would be like if such a doctrine never existed etc. I realize these questions are rather free wheeling and esoteric, but I imagine you’ve had so many discussions with Christian folks over the years, perhaps you may have gleaned a peak into how this doctrine shapes them.
Thank you.
Ah, that would be worth knowing. But I’m not sure how it could be determined. Some speculation would be interesting though.
Yes I agree. It would be great to know.
Thank you Bart.