I’ve started to show that scribes sometimes changed the New Testament texts they were copying in ways that certainly seem “intentional” (in addition to making many more simple, accidental, slips of the pen). I last gave an example from the beginning of Mark’s Gospel that appears to be a case where scribes altered a text because it seems to make a mistake.
Here I’ll give a second instance, this time from near the ending of Mark, a passage that is exceedingly interesting but for a comletley different 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 BREAK
(the fifth-century codex Bezae — an erratic manuscript that nonetheless on very rare occasions preserves an original reading when all other Greek manuscripts say something else) and several Latin manuscripts, that often agree with it, Jesus’ cry is translated into Greek as: “My God, my God, why have you mocked me?” Whoa. Mocked me? Could this be what Mark’s Gospel actually said?
One great scholar, Adolph von Harnack (arguably the greatest scholar of Christian antiquity of the 20th century), argued that this alternative reading was in fact original, that scribes changed it from “mocked me” to “forsaken me” because they did not approve of the theology involved with the idea of God mocking his son. Moreover, since this “cry of dereliction” (as it is called) is a quotation of Scripture (Psalm 22:1), and the Hebrew of Ps. 22:1 (as well as the Greek) is clearly “forsaken” instead of “mocked,” then it is likely that scribes would have changed the original “mocked” in order to improve its theology and into line with how the verse is found in the Old Testament itself (and into line with how Matthew records the cry).
In addition, as Harnack pointed out, the word “mocked” fits the literary context of Mark very well. In this scene, in Mark’s Gospel, everyone mocks Jesus: the people passing by his crucifixion, the Jewish leaders, and even both criminals being crucified with him (15:29-32). Now even God himself mocks him.
This was a very powerful argument by an unusually insightful and powerfully intelligent scholar. But it never won very many adherents. Most scholars simply were never convinced. And for several reasons. For one thing, if Matthew’s Gospel indicates that Jesus said “forsaken” and not “mocked” – his source for the passage was Mark! That would suggest that this word is also what Mark had. Moreover, Mark first cites the cry in the original Aramaic. The word in Aramaic for “mocked” is different for the word “forsaken.” The Aramaic word Mark uses is “forsaken.” So why would he even both giving the Aramaic if what he wanted to do was to have Jesus cry out “mocked”? He simply would have given the Greek form of the text.
Moreover, every single Greek manuscript (there are many hundreds) has “forsaken” rather than “mocked”, as does every manuscript in every other language (except the few Latin in support of codex Bezae) and every church father who quotes the verse. All of this is very hard to explain, especially in combination, if Mark originally said “mocked.”
So probably Mark’s version originally said “Why have you forsaken me?”
Why then would a scribe have changed it? I discuss this issue at some length in my book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. For now I’ll mention just a couple of the key points. On one hand, one could argue that a scribe changed the text to this somewhat more surprising reading precisely in order to make the words fit more closely with their context – everyone else mocks Jesus in the immediately preceding verses and now, so too, does even God. That was part of what it meant for Jesus to be crucified for the sake of others.
That would be a strong argument. Another would be that the text was changed because a scribe was not comfortable with what it might mean to say that God had “forsaken” Jesus. This, in my view, is an even stronger argument — and what I think is ultimately the answer to why the change was made (from the original “forsaken” to the altered text “mocked”)
Literally, the Greek word usually translated “forsaken” means “left behind.” Why would that be a problem? Because there were Christians in the second century (various “Gnostics”) who believed that on the cross, the divine element within Jesus – the god residing in him – left him to return to its heavenly realm whence it came.
In this Gnostic view, Jesus Christ was not one being who was both human and divine. He was two beings, one human and one divine. The man Jesus, for these Gnostics, was a real, pure, flesh-and-blood human being, a righteous man, born from the sexual union of his parents, who was more holy than all others and who was chosen by a divine being come from heaven, the Christ, to be his (Christ’s) dwelling place during Jesus’ public ministry up to the time until his death. The divine Christ came into the man Jesus at his baptism (when the Spirit came down from heaven and entered into Jesus) and left him at his death (since the divine cannot suffer or die).
And so, for some Gnostics, Jesus cried out, asking why the divine element had left him: “My God, my God, why have you left me behind?” We know that some Gnostics interpreted this passage that way, because of the surviving Gnostic Gospels. The Gospel of Philip, for example, a Valentinian Gnostic text, quotes the verse and explains that Jesus uttered these words because “it was at the cross that he was divided.” That is to say, the previously unified Jesus Christ again divided into two beings, when the Christ left Jesus.
The controversy over what these words might mean was raging in the second century. That is almost certainly when the text was changed in the ancestor to the text of codex Bezae (that’s widely believed for rather complicated reasons). Why was it then changed?
Possibly to make it fit better in its literary context in Mark (where everyone – and now even God – mocks Jesus). But possibly also because now it cannot be used as easily by Gnostics who want to argue that at the cross the divine element left Jesus behind to die alone. Now, in the changed text, Jesus does not wonder why he has been left behind. With the change, the verse is no longer usable for these Gnostic Christians.
One of the strangest things I ever heard.
Von Harnack,a great scholar,shows no understanding of Aramaic or Hebrew.His lack of interest in what the words “actually” mean in their original, “actual” languages is stunning.
If Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1-no reason to believe Mark invented this-,his words were
“Elahi, Elahi, l’ma shabaktani.”
The word shabak שבק still has the same “ forsaken”, “ abandoned”,” deserted” meaning in modern Hebrew.
I found this link useful. It has the phrase in audio,twice correctly.
http://aramaicnt.org/2015/03/31/my-god-my-god-why-have-you-forsaken-me/
Von Harnack’s eccentric choice of “ mocking” circumvents language research’s due diligence.What did Von Harnack and the early Christians assume would have been the Aramaic word for “mocking”?Or did they all assume Jesus misquoted the Psalm?
How can a scholar make such flimsy decisions?He should have consulted with a Jew😊 Personally, it reminds me of the unlikely naming of YHVH as Yahweh,God of Israel,by a German scholar,now accepted universally,like a reflex.”Yahweh” doesn’t exist in Hebrew.The Name reads straightforwardly Yahuh(a),based on archaeology,theophoric names,usage for magic- reason the name was forbidden-,and simply,Hebrew itself.
Jesus’s cry is one of the most moving and revealing places in the NT.Jesus believed,to the very last minute,that God would intervene and save him.
I haven’t read the article in 30 years so I’m not sure, but if I remember correctly he was reconstucting a variant form of the Aramaic (as the language Jesus would have been speaking, or at least the language that the account would have first been transmitted in) to show that the term for “mock” was homonymous with the term for “forsake” and so was misunderstood by the early tradent who changed the word when translated into Greek. But I may have it muddled.
In some English translations, the passage in Philip is rendered, “It was on the cross that he said these words, for he had departed.” I’m curious, for those of us who don’t read Coptic, what does the text literally say?
Professor, somehow “mocked” seems to fit better with the short ending of Mark which IIRC, is also what is in Vaticanus and Sanaiticus. Any correlation there? Thanx
I’m not sure. What is the correlation you see? (I.e. that “mock” works better for teh short ending than “forsake”?)
“Mocked” seems throw the preceding story more into question than “forsaken” adding to its mystery… which also seems to be the impact of the women not following direction and “telling no one” at the end of short Mark. More mystery… the twisted ending in which the watching father/god/YHWH is not just purposefully letting Jesus die but takes perverse satisfaction in it…. And then the sudden close leaving the reader wondering.
By correlation I meant are the “mocked” witnesses short Marks or Long?
Thanx
The witnesses with “mocked” have the longer ending.
According to Merriam-Webster, the transitive definition of “mocked” isn’t limited to derision, but also to show no respect for something/someone, or disappoint the hopes of someone, or to defy or challenge one’s understanding of an idea or an event. This is the current definition of mocked; what precise definition of the word that a 2nd-century scribe had in mind is too deep a pond for me to fish in. But if the scribe had the last definition in mind, then mocked seems to fit well enough with forsaken to describe Jesus’ gobsmacked reaction to his crucifixion.
Ah, interesting. I don’t believe that is true of the Greek term.
Dear Prof!
“For I have received of the Lord that which also I have set before you, that the Lord (Jesus) on the night in which he was delivered by God into the hands of death, took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and said, ‘Take, eat. This is my body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.” 1Kor11:23-24
This was translated by the prof… you.
“If God Himself did not save His own Son from suffering and death, but gave Him (paredokan) for us all, how can He not give us His grace to share all things with His Son?”. Romans 8:32
The “Lamb” or Son, as mentioned above, was given by God Himself in death. But why is this necessary? Why must God give the Son to death, why did God not entrust Him to man? Because the Son in this narrative is not a real (flesh and blood) human being, but a spiritual being in a human-like state/form (Rom 8:3; Phil 2:6-8). How can one accept the blood of the Son if one does not have it?
That is the question!
I’m not sure that your “because” is the logical corrolary of the earlier quotations. What is the logic that you’re seeing at work? It’s safe to say, at least, that a docetic view has never been the standard interpretation since the second century. In Romans 8:32 it is God himself who is giving Jesus over to death because in the divine scheme of salvation the Son of God had to die for the sins of the world, and 1 Cor. 11:22-24 indicates that one must partake of this death in order to obtain that salvation.
I think the opposite on this one. I think D, it-k,c,i, and the Apokritikos of Macarius have the earliest reading, “reviled.” It seems unlikely to me that scribes would *dis*-harmonize a quote of Ps 22:1 to make a subtle attack against Separationists. There would be easier and more effective ways to do that. Instead, I think the earliest text of Mark had “reviled” and later copyists of Mark harmonized it to Mt 27 and Ps 22. There are also other rough places in the Western text of Mark that are polished to match the LXX better. Sure, “reviled” doesn’t match the Aramaic in Mk 15, but neither does Mark’s translation of Aramaic in Mk 3:17 or 5:41. I think we’ve underestimated the antiquity of a Western reading like this, and in other places in Mark as well.
I have to read the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture again!
I should too!
Whether it’s “forsaken” or “mocked”, the “why” appears to indicate that Jesus didn’t understand the divine purpose behind his crucifixion and wasn’t expecting it.
That’s certainly my view.
An unpopular and controversial view among conservative Evangelical Christians I assume!
Jesus is quoting the very beginning of Psalm 22. It certainly sounds like he was despairing. And, whether the historical Jesus actually said this, my guess is that he was in fact despairing when he was crucified.
However, as a whole, Psalm 22 is hopeful. Is it thought that Mark intended the statement to be hopeful or despairing? Or maybe Mark was aiming at ambiguity? At best it was an ambiguous situation.
Interpreters who are committed to the view that Jesus could *not* really have been in doubt and despair appeal to the end of Psalm 22, which he doesn’t quote, to explain who he must have meant by quoting the part (the beginning) that he *does* quote. I don’t find that exegetical move persuasive, and in fact misguided….
How well did Mark understand Aramaic? Is it possible that he misunderstood the sentence which he quotes in Aramaic?
I don’t think he knew it at all. He had heard it and remembered it (just as people today quote it without knowing Aramaic)
Sorry if I sounded too critical. Some aspects of the ” mocking” theory, particularly the fact that it was even considered and debated, must have irked me.
Besides the apparent disregard for Jesus’ last words, the language he spoke and the quoted Psalm,I can’t begin to understand what absurd theology might be conceived from the notion of God mocking Jesus.
There is no context for mocking. it seems to me: God certainly cannot stand side by side with the “evil” Jews in such a vile act as mocking Jesus; theirs is not a club God would want to join.
Particularly, the new Christian God. The cruel, inadequate God of the HB has been superseded by a merciful, loving, comforting God. Yet this merciful God is mocking Jesus, his son, whom he sent to suffer and die, adding to his humiliation and pain.
The coup-de-grâce for me was to see a great scholar adopt such a senseless notion. It brought to mind other excesses by non-Jewish scholars whose arbitrary conclusions reached points of no return, such as the God of Israel’s name.
BTW, I made a mistake in ” shavaktani”. It is a v sound, not a b.
Was escaping a violent marriage another exception for divorce? Did Jesus ever mention this in his ministry?
He never explicitly discusses it.
Hi Dr Ehrman
There seems to be 2 events during Jesus crucifixion that may be historical.
Firstly, there’s the King of the Jews title put on the cross. There seems to be general scholarly consensus that this was indeed the reason the Romans crucified Jesus. Would that indicate its likely that this bit of the story does have a basis in fact ?
The other is ‘Why has thou forsaken me ?’. That has always stood out to me as something the gospel authors would definitely not want to record. Jesus is almost criticising God in this moment.
In addition this cry fits the theory that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who believed God would intervene at the appropriate moment. And yet, here Jesus was on the cross in absolute agony and God was still not intervening. Does that suggest that maybe this cry for help was also based on an actual event ?
I believe your general position is that all of the disciples fled once Jesus was arrested, and therefore most of the narrative after Jesus is arrested is probably not historical. Is that a fair summary ?
I think the placard on the cross does accurately explain why he was crucified (though I’m not sure we can know for certain it was placed on his cross); the sayng about being “forsaken” is a quotation of Psalm 22:1 and makes sense in the context of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ death; he may have come up with it. My view is that there’s no way we could possibly know Jeus last words. His disciples weren’t there, the women were at a distance, and the Roman soldiers who would have been reasonably close probably weren’t taking notes!
Dr. Ehrman, I’d like to hear your thoughts on this question. Some argue that since every New Testament manuscript of the Gospels includes a title, there’s no room for skepticism about their authorship. Personally, I’m not convinced by this argument. Is it even accurate to claim that every Greek manuscript we possess today includes a title? If not, could you name any manuscripts that lack titles or have significant variations in their titles?
The titles don’t start appearing until over a century after the books were in circulation; by then, everyone agrees they went by those titles. The question is what they *originally* were entitled, if anything. I”m pretty sure that whoever wrote what we call the Gospels of Matthew did not give it the title found inthe earliest manuscripts, which is “According to Matthew,” any more than I will entitle my next book “According to Bart.” It’s not a title. It’s an indication by a reader/scribe who the author of this particular account was.
To my understanding, Psalm 22 is written in Hebrew while Mark gives the quote in Aramaic. If the author of Mark intended to show Jesus as quoting Psalm 22, wouldn’t he have had Jesus say it in Hebrew? Even if Jesus’ language was Aramaic, he would’ve quoted the Torah in Hebrew, I would think. Are there any thoughts on why it’s in Aramaic or is it just a mystery?
Mark likes using Aramaic to provide authenticity to his account (e.g., Talitha cumi). I doubt if he knew what the Hebrew actually said. Mark may have thought it was most reasonable to assume that Jesus quoted Scripture in his own language, just as Greek people quoted it in Greek and American’s quote it in English. (I.e., he may simply not have realized it was a problem)