Loading...In the previous post I mentioned that I first got interested in the textual problem of Luke 22:43-44 (“the bloody sweat”) when I was taking a graduate seminar at Princeton Theological Seminary, my first year in the doctoral program. The seminar was devoted (the entire semester) to the Greek exegesis (interpretation) of Luke. My fellow student, Mark Plunkett, presented a seminar paper in which he dealt with the passage. He was not at all interested in the textual question of whether vv. 43-44 were original. He was assuming that they were not, but it had nothing to do with his presentation.
In his presentation he argued that there was a clear structure to the passage of Jesus’ prayer before being arrested (in Luke’s source this takes place in the Garden of Gethsemane, but Luke doesn’t say so) and he made a convincing argument (to my mind). And then I realized that the structural argument was relevant to the textual problem of whether the verses were original or not. While we moved on to other things in the seminar that afternoon, and someone else was talking, I leaned over to Mark and told him what I had just realized, and told him we should write an article on it. He had the structural argument, and I knew the textual situation with the manuscripts and so on. Neither of us had ever written an article before. So we decided to do it.
His structural argument was that the passage was
If you’re interested in one way scholars decide if a verse was “originally” in one of the books of the New Testament, you can find out here! To do that you’ll need to join the blog. But it costs very little and you get tons for your money. So why not?Click here for membership options
Very interesting. Could you please point us to other texts where we find a chiasmus?
Perhaps also some dubious chiasmus, so we can tell the difference?
Nils Lund wrote an entire book on it (chiasmus in the NT). But almost everyone thinks he was seeing chiasmus under every rock. I haven’t looked at John Welch’s book Chiasmus in Antiquity.
I’ve found that if I pick up pretty much any book in the Anchor Bible Reference Library and look up “Chiasmus” or “Chiastic structure” in the index, there will be lots of examples of such hypothesized structure. For instance, in the Anchor Bible book “Mark 1-8” by Joel Marcus, he lists Mark 2:1-12 (Introduction in vs 1-2, Spiritual healing in vs 3-4, Controversy in the middle, Physical healing in vs. 10b-12a, and Conclusion in 12b), in Mark 3:20-35 (Jesus’ relatives in vs 20-21, Charge of demonic agency, Parable of the Strong Man in the middle, another charge of demonic agency, and Jesus’ relatives again in vs 31-35), and in eight other places just in the first 8 chapters of Mark. I strongly suspect that at least some of these are coincidental.
I once read an article by Lincoln Blumell where he argues that the bloody sweat is original (Blumell, Lincoln H. “Luke 22:43–44: An Anti-Docetic Interpolation or an Apologetic Omission?” Textual Criticism 19 (2014): 1-35).
One argument he makes that I’d like to know your response to is as follows: “Most notably, this passage does not appear in 𝔓69vid, 𝔓75, ℵ2a, A, B, N, T, W, but it is attested in 0171, ℵ*, 2b, D, L, Θ, Ψ, 0233. Here the evidence of 0171 (=PSI II 124), which is sometimes simply unacknowledged or even misquoted, is very significant since this fragment represents a very early and important witness to this passage. In fact, in the most recent paleographical assessment of this piece by Willy Clarysse and Pasquale Orsini, 0171 is dated to the late second or early third century—one of only a handful of New Testament fragments assigned to this early period. Therefore, in their opinion it predates both 𝔓69 and 𝔓75, which they assign to the third century, and so our earliest extant piece of manuscript evidence for Luke 22 attests vv. 43–44!”
Does this analysis of 0171 withstand scrutiny? Does it weigh heavily in favor of the bloody sweat being original?
I’m afraid I’m not familiar with this analytsis of 0171. A parchment of the 2nd century? That would be unusual. It only has about 30 verses in it, so is probably hard to date; usually it is put around 300. But it really doesn’t matter. We KNOW the longer reading was already found in the second century because of patristic quotations. So I’m not sure what 0171 gives us, in terms of external evidence.
Dr. Ehrman, it appears that Justin Martyr knew of this passage in some literature he was familiar with:
“The first to reference these verses is Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho (ca. 155 CE). Here Justin remarks, “For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by his apostles and those who followed them, [it is written] that ‘His sweat fell down like drops of blood’ while he was praying, and saying, ‘[Father] if it be possible, let this cup pass.’” – (Blumell, Lincoln H. “Luke 22:43–44: An Anti-Docetic Interpolation or an Apologetic Omission?” Textual Criticism 19 (2014): 7)
How do you understand this statement of Justin Martyr? Does it lend any credence to the idea that this passage may have been in copies of Luke at this early period?
Yes, I’ll be talking about it later. I deal with it in my analysis. Justin uses the verse to help establish that Jesus really was fully human.
I guess the scribe who inserted the interpolation about Jesus sweating blood didn’t know a chiasmus when he saw one. Or perhaps it had to be inserted there or not at all. Fascinating
GREATEST chiasmus from GOD MOST MERCIFUL.
(A) ALLAH! there is no god but He, the Ever living, none worthy of worship except HIM, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal.
(B) No Slumber can seize Him nor Sleep.
(C) To Him Belongs what is in the Heavens and Earth
(D) Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permit?
(E) He Knows what (appear to his creatures as) before or after or behind them.
(D4) Nor shall they compass aught of His Knowledge except as He Will.
(C3) His Throne do extend over the Heavens and the Earth
(B2) He feel No Fatigue in Guarding and Preserving Them (Heavens and Earth) .
(A1) For He is the Most High the Most Supreme (in Glory).
Quran 2: 255.
Chiasmus in Entire Chapter (56) with 96 VERSES.
Semitic alphabet has numerical value attached to each alphabet. GREATEST MIRACLE written using each alphabet value with several mathematical formulas. Only book in the world written using both alphabet and numbers.
“If the whole Of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like Of this Quran, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.”
SAVE MANKIND.READ.
Thanks for your comments on the Qur’an. But please stop trying to evangelize people and urging them to see the truth of Islam. That is not what this blog is for.
I am not quite clear on this. If Mark Plunkett argued for a chiasmus in this passage did he do so with the scribes verses still at vv 43-44? Surely this would not have worked and he must have presented his argument by removing them. In which case why did he not see that this proves they must have been an insertion at a later point?
No, the chiasmus works only without the verses. THat’s why it shows they are probably not original. That’s his view.
one link to other chiasmus passages:
http://www.chiasticstructures.com/iTodd__Moore_Vanity/Chiastic_Structures/Chiastic_Structures_files/Chiasmus_Slusser.pdf
The argument about the chiasmus is the strongest in support of an interpolation of verses vv. 43-44.
It’s true, many times the so-called “chiasmus” are somewhat forced by people trying to see structures in the text that aren’t really there, but in this case the structure emerges from the text rather clearly (once somebody discovers it for us!!!), so with the explanation about it’s meaning , the difference between Jesus praying at the “very center” and the disciples that did not pray.
The argument in the previous post about Luke’s ““passionless passion” was not as compelling to me but it’s true that the Luke-Acts author wanted to “soften” everything , he even healed the high priest servant’s ear that one of his followers cutoff (Luke 22:51) and Paul ended up in Rome ( last words in his twofold work) “proclaim[ing] the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and WITHOUT HINDRANCE”, …what a difference with John of Patmos depiction of Rome as “the woman drunk with the blood of God’s holy people” in Rev 17:6 !!
I think that some of the more liberal/progressive Christian writers think that most Christians overemphasize the crucifixion which leads to an underemphasis on the Resurrection. My question has that issue in the background.
Jesus’s disciples came to believe in the Resurrection before they came up with the atonement doctrine for the crucifixion. The Resurrection validated that Jesus was the messiah and that God’s kingdom was imminent. Presumably at that point they already felt saved-at least as long as they kept Jesus’s Great Commandment.
So there was a period of time when the disciples felt saved but did not have the atonement doctrine. Do we have any evidence of their views, particularly about sin and salvation, before the atonement doctrine was developed? Would Luke’s views, both in his gospel and in Acts, reflect that very earliest understanding, ie, before atonement got worked out.
I know Luke’s views are different from the other other gospel writers but do they reflect an earlier, pre-atonement understanding? Luke still thinks that Jesus’s crucifixion plays a big role in salvation.
Dr; Ehrman: You always talk about the inconsistencies of the Synoptic Gospels; in most of your essays on this blog, especially recently, you use the Book of Luke quite often. I am curious to know, in your view, what Gospel has the most inconsistency, (English) grammar errors, exaggeration, fabrication? In addition to this, what is your ACCEPTED translation of the Bible into English?
I’d say John is the least accurate of the Gospels; I use Luke only for passages that I think can be established as historically reliable. My preferred traslation is the NRSV, though of course my research is not based on English translations (as is true of all NT scholars).