Did Yeshua Die for Our Sins?

I am interested in whether sacrificial language in the Gospels sometimes reflects a secondary theological layer. The documents I call Matthew Annotated and John Annotated were produced by a study group using a method different from academic textual criticism: we read the books verse by verse, asked Yeshua questions about the text, and recorded the answers we believed we received, including indications of added, changed, or moved wording. I do not expect readers to accept this as a scholarly method. What interests me is whether its results make sense to readers familiar with textual criticism.

Let’s begin with Matt. 26:28. The received text says that Yeshua’s blood is “poured out for many unto remission of sins.” Matthew Annotated marks that final phrase as secondary. The parallel in Mark 14:24 says only that the blood is “poured out for many”; it lacks the phrase “for forgiveness of sins.” Scholars have discussed that difference.

John 6 provides an interesting correlation. John Annotated treats the flesh-and-blood material beginning at 6:51 as later material. Rudolf Bultmann likewise regarded John 6:51c-58 as an addition by a later ecclesiastical redactor. Other scholars recognize a major shift there, although they do not all agree that the passage is secondary.

Matt. 20:28 provides the opposite result. The familiar saying ends, “and to give his life a ransom for many.” Matthew Annotated marks that clause as added, but scholars generally do not treat this saying as a later interpolation. Without it, Yeshua still says that he came “not to be ministered unto, but to minister.” Importantly, his whole life can be called sacrificial in the sense of self-giving service, which is different from saying that God required his death as a cultic sacrifice for sin.

This raises a broader question. Could presenting Yeshua’s death as fulfillment of the OT sacrificial system have helped strengthen theological continuity between the OT religious system and the God whom Yeshua called Father?

A related issue is the idea that sin separates people from God so completely that sacrifice is needed to restore the relationship. Paul says, “In him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28), and speaks of “one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all” (Eph. 4:6). If God is already present in and through us, can sin separate us from him? If not, why would the killing of innocent animals be necessary to restore that relationship? Perhaps the real separation is not God withdrawing from us, but our choosing not to communicate with him or live in awareness of his presence.

I would appreciate comments from readers familiar with textual or redaction criticism: how strong is the scholarly case for seeing sacrificial or atonement language in these passages as secondary to earlier tradition, even where it is textually secure in surviving manuscripts? And are there other Gospel passages where scholars have argued that sacrifice, ransom, or forgiveness language reflects a secondary theological development?