(16 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...I have started giving some instances of what appear to be “intentional” changes made by scribes, as opposed to simple, accidental, slips of the pen. In my previous post I pointed to an example in Mark 1:2, in which scribes appear to have altered a text because it seems to embody an error. If I’m wrong that this is the direction of the change – that is, if the text that I’m arguing is the “corruption” is in fact the original text – then there is still almost certainly an intentional change still involved, but made for some other reason. But either way, the change does not appear to have been made simply by inattention to detail.
Here I’ll give a second instance from Mark of what appears to be an intentional change. I stress that these alterations “appear” to be intentional since, technically speaking, we can never know what a scribe intended to do. I use the term I simply to mean an alteration to the text that a scribe appears to have made on purpose because he wanted to change it for one reason or another. Part of the historical task is trying to reconstruct what might have been a plausible reason.
One of the most intriguing variations in Mark’s Gospel comes in the Passion narrative, in the final words attributed to Jesus in the Gospel. Jesus is being crucified, and he says nothing on the cross until he cries out his final words, which Mark records in Aramaic: “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” Mark then translates the words into Greek: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Jesus then utters a loud cry and dies.
What is striking is that in one early Greek manuscript…
The Rest of This Post is for members only. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!! It costs less than a dime a day, and you get tons for your money. And all the money goes to charity!
What’s the precise meaning of the original Aramaic? (I assume it agreed with the Hebrew.) Was that left the same in all versions, the scribes assuming their readers wouldn’t understand Aramaic, anyway?
It means “forsaken.” yes, it was typically left as is.
A bit rabbit trail-ish, but which gospel contains the highest number of Aramaisms (Mark or one of the other three)?
I suppose it’s John. Mark has the most among the synoptics.
I think of the “tears and gnashing of teeth” that Jesus said would be in the coming new kingdom, when I think of those who were trying to win over the portrayal of Jesus as they thought he should be. There was a lot of wrangling going on, and “gnashing of teeth.” Hopefully, they all had them to do so.
How interesting!
Prof Ehrman
Interesting. I had not heard of this variant before.
But assuming that “forsaken me” was in the original, and taking the traditional view that Mark was quoting Psalms 22, and also assuming he was using the Septuagint, why do you think the writer felt the need to translate the Greek back into Aramaic and then approach it as if he is translating the Aramaic for the benefit of his audience of apparently Greek speakers? I realize we don’t have access to the intentions of the writer but would you care to speculate? Can we draw any conclusions from this (other than the obvious one that Mark and presumably his audience were aware that Jesus spoke Aramaic)?
thanks
For the sake of authenticity he is quoting the words of Jesus as they would have been spoken, since Jesus spoke Aramaic rather than Hebrew.
Hey Bart! 🙂
The NRSV footnotes Mark 15:34 as follows: “Other ancient authorities read *made me a reproach*.”
Is this footnote, then, a reference to the Besae variation?
Thanks! 🙂
Yup, that’s it. Strangely translated (to get God off the hook, I suppose)
Super. Thanks!
I can’t tell you, Bart, how *very* much I am enjoying both your books (I’ve read six since Spring Break) and your blog. You are a joy in my life, my friend.
🙂
Very grateful for your scholarly insights Dr. Ehrman. I realized last night that my previous understanding of Christianity was at best hazy and at worse ignorant. Next I will read your text The Historical Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet. Another unrelated blog question after listening to your videos on Paul. In connecting the dots, would it be accurate to surmise that Paul came to his understanding of the Living and Resurrected Christ from his interpretation of the nature or source of his vision?
Yes, and from what he had heard from other Christians before him.
Also, my listening to your videos on both John and Paul and their theological emphasis on the Death and Resurrection of Christ leading to personal salvation, has lead to more questions about sacrifice itself .. it’s historical roots and significance in both Judaism and Christianity. Have you written specifically about this? If so I would really like to read more. Sacrifice does not occur in Buddhism.
I’ve never written about it. But there is a lot of scholarship on sacrifice, the best being the recent collection of essays by Jennifer Knust and a colleague.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ancient-mediterranean-sacrifice-9780199738960?cc=us&lang=en&
🙂
Thank you.
DR Ehrman:
Your Comment:
Jesus is being crucified, and he says nothing on the cross until he cries out his final words, which Mark records in Aramaic: “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” Mark then translates the words into Greek: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Jesus then utters a loud cry and dies.
My Comment:
I don’t believe Jesus uttered these words at all, because i don’t believe ‘Mark’ is a reliable source. We don’t know who wrote Mark. He certainly wasn’t an eyewitness.
I’m inclined to believe what’s recorded in John’s Gospel because this account was related by an eyewitness.
John 19:35-The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.
John 19:30
30-When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
I don’t think he said them either.
Amen! We agree!
if god is dwelling in flesh is that a possession or incarnation? if god “became flesh” then god became physical and took on physical properties, right? if evangelicals say that god added a human nature to himself then god must have increased himself in learning, growing in wisdom and not knowing things. so god is plugged into both natures.
why do evangelicals deceive people by saying ” oh no, this is not the divine nature, but human nature”
but they plug god into both natures.
That would be a possession. *Becoming* flesh is an incarnation.
Does the codex Bezae show any other signs of anti gnostism?
YEs, there are other passages involved.
Can you give a brief comment on your choice to label the view that Jesus and Christ are two separate entities, one fully human and one fully divine, as “Gnostic” as opposed to Docetic?
I understand that The term Docetism is used to describe a variety christological views, including Jesus as a phantasm and Jesus and Christ as two separate beings.
Is it simply the case that Docetism and Gnosticism are not mutually exclusive, or are the majority of Gnostic views also accurately labeled as docetic? It would seem that these terms are perhaps so imprecise as to cause confusion. Does this confusion stem from their broad/vague use from antiquity by herisiologists, or are we left with the imprecise language as a result of the way the terms are used in more modern biblical scholarship?
In my book Orthodox Corruption I differentiate between a “docetic” Christology that said that Christ only appeared to be a human of real flesh and blood (he was a phantasm), and a “separationist” Christology that said that Jesus and Christ were two separate beings, one human and one divine. Most gnostics held to a separationist view, though some were docetic. So I don’t thin either is “the” gnostic view.
That’s a useful distinction that I don’t remember having heard before. My general impression was of the term “docetic” being used in a less precise manner, sometimes including separationist christology, hence my confusion.
I also had the general impression that there would potentially have been groups of Christians with a separationist christology that scholars wouldn’t necessarily be comfortable labeling as gnostic. Perhaps I am mistaken on that front as well. Thanks for the blog and thanks for your response!
YEs, some scholars (especially before about 20 years ago, were not overly precise in their terms. and yes, it would be possible to have a separationist CHristology and not be a Gnostic
I think it’s just a bored, absent minded scribe, probably sleepy after a big lunch with beer, inadvertently using a word over again that he’s already used previously in this context.
Bart, is the last utterings of Jesus, as shown in Mark, likely to be something Jesus said? I’ve seen others say we wouldn’t know what Jesus said on the cross, as the Romans wouldn’t let them bear the cross, but I wouldn’t think this is what you’d want to put in a gospel if you’re a Christian? (My god my god why have you forsaken me)
I agree there is no way to know what Jesus may have said at the end. He says something different in the various Gospels. But I don’t find it surprising that Mark has him say this in particular. It’s a quotation of Psalm 22:1, it shows that Jesus is fulfilling prophecy, and it fits in perfectly with the Markan notion (not found elsewhere) that Jesus was never understood in his life. Here even Jesus wonders….
It’s curious to me that Mark has Jesus say “lama sabachthani” instead of “lama azavthani” (per David in Psalm 22). Do “azav” and “sabach” really mean the same thing? For that matter, “sabach” sounds similar to “zabach” (sacrifice). Are there textural variants of Mark that have a zeta instead of a sigma, giving “zabachthani” (why have you sacrificed me)?
Interesting. The problem of course, is that Mark is written in Greek, and he appears to be trying (as best he can) to represent Aramaic, instead of Hebrew (not knowing either language). But no, I don’t think there are any textual varianst of a zeta.
Indeed, it makes sense that Mark was transliterating Aramaic into Greek here. But the fact that Mark makes such an appropriate pun in Hebrew (“Why have you sacrificed me?”) has me stumped, especially since this pun relates to John’s later interpretation of Jesus’ death.
The most obvious solution is that sabach/zabach (forsake/sacrifice) is an accidental pun. We all make accidental puns from time to time. But this solution is no fun, so I’m just going to ignore it for now.
Let’s assume that the pun was intentional. How would such a pun end up in Mark? Your answer suggests that Mark (probably) knew very little Aramaic or Hebrew. This seems like a fair assumption to me. And so this means that Mark heard about Jesus’ alleged last words from some source, probably from Jesus’ own followers — because who else would even care to know such trivia?
But tradition as an explanation for this pun raises other questions. Where would we even find Christians who understood the pun? In Mark’s community? (But then why didn’t Mark explain the pun?) What about Jesus’ followers in Jerusalem? Or in Galilee? Would observers of his crucifixion get it? Would Jesus himself get it?
I’d say that someone didn’t need to “know” such a thing, just that such a thing was being said in early Aramaic speaking circles. I don’t think there’s anything historical about it, and it doesn’t seem there’s much evidence in the text itself for thinking there was a pun there (i.e., one that was “intended”)