Comment 3

I ask one or more questions. Then I read comment 3.
The question is not satisfied in my mind.

What is the critical question?
Does anyone know what Luke and Bart are talking about that atonement is not promoted by the death of Jesus?
Then, why was Jesus in agony in the Garden of Gethsemane in the Gospel of Luke?

Step 1:
Check if Jesus is in Gethsemane agonizing about his death being needed to save the world.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son who agonized in Gethsemane over being given.

Luke 22:44
And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

Step 2
Reread Comment 3.

ETA? Estimated Time of Arrival?

Robert
Repentance and forgiveness, rather than atonement, is Luke’s theological view, which Bart also thinks was the view of the historical Jesus.

Steefen
So Jesus was agonizing over an undeserved killing?
He prayed more fervently. What, this is wrong, the killing of a healer and preacher when other prophets had also been killed?

Robert
Westcott-Hort’s theory on Western non-interpolations in the gospel of Luke

I have to look up what Robert is talking about.

Chat, what is Robert talking about?

What is Westcott-Hort’s theory on Western non-interpolations in the gospel of Luke

Westcott and Hort’s theory of Western non-interpolations is a significant concept in New Testament textual criticism, especially concerning the Gospel of Luke.
Overview of the Theory

Westcott and Hort, in their 1881 critical edition of the Greek New Testament, proposed that the “Western” text-type (primarily represented in Codex Bezae and some Old Latin manuscripts) is characterized by frequent paraphrasing, expansions, and other editorial liberties. However, they also noticed certain shorter readings in Western manuscripts—especially in Luke—that seemed more original than the longer readings found in the Alexandrian and Byzantine traditions.

This led to their theory of “Western non-interpolations”: they believed that in some cases, the Western text preserved the original text by omitting material that had been added later in other textual traditions.
Key Points of the Theory

Interpolations are additions: In these cases, the longer readings in non-Western texts are viewed as interpolations, i.e., later insertions that weren’t part of the original Gospel of Luke.

Western omissions may be authentic: Although the Western text-type is generally considered less reliable due to its tendency to embellish, some of its omissions (especially in Luke) are thought to reflect the original text, not losses or errors.

The Gospel of Luke is the primary focus: This phenomenon is particularly prominent in Luke’s Gospel, and Westcott and Hort identified about nine passages where they believed the shorter Western reading was more likely to be original.

Examples of Western Non-Interpolations in Luke

Here are a few notable passages where Westcott and Hort supported the shorter Western reading:

Luke 22:19b–20 – The longer reading includes “which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me… which is poured out for you,” echoing Pauline Eucharistic language. The shorter Western reading omits this, which some argue reflects an earlier stage of the tradition.

Luke 24:12 – The verse about Peter running to the tomb is missing in some Western manuscripts but present in others. Westcott and Hort considered this verse to be a later addition, influenced by John’s Gospel.

Luke 24:51 – The phrase “and was carried up into heaven” is absent in some Western witnesses. Again, Westcott and Hort argued this may have been added later to harmonize with Acts 1.

Scholarly Debate

Support: Some scholars agree with Westcott and Hort’s intuition that scribes were more likely to add explanatory material than to remove it.

Criticism: Others argue that omissions in Western texts could result from accidental loss, deliberate editing, or theological motivations—so shorter doesn’t always mean earlier or more authentic.

In recent decades, the theory has been re-evaluated and is treated with more caution. Most modern critical editions (like the Nestle-Aland or UBS) note these Western non-interpolations but don’t always prefer them as original.

If you’d like, I can list all nine of the passages Westcott and Hort identified, or walk through one of them in detail.

STeefen:
Do any of the 9 passages explain why Repentance and forgiveness, rather than atonement, is Luke’s theological view?

Steefen & Chat
Luke 24:46-47
He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,
and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Chat:
Standard reading (non-Western text):

“…and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”

Western variant (shorter text):

Some Western texts, like Codex Bezae, omit the phrase “and forgiveness of sins”, rendering it closer to:

“…and that repentance should be preached in his name…”

🤔 Why is this theologically significant?

Luke’s theology, especially in the Gospel and Acts (which he also wrote), emphasizes repentance as the key to forgiveness—rather than the idea of Jesus’ death being a substitutionary atonement in the Pauline sense. Even when forgiveness is mentioned, it often follows repentance, not sacrifice.
🧠 Westcott and Hort’s interpretation

Westcott and Hort didn’t focus heavily on theological implications, but their classification of this as a Western non-interpolation suggests that “and forgiveness of sins” might have been a later addition, possibly influenced by:

Liturgical formulas

Pauline atonement theology, like Romans 3:25 (“a propitiation by his blood”)

Or simply an effort to clarify the goal of repentance

🔍 Implications for Lukan Theology

If the original Luke 24:47 did not include “and forgiveness of sins,” it bolsters the idea that:

Luke’s Jesus teaches repentance as a sufficient step toward restoration with God.

The emphasis is on moral and behavioral transformation, not sacrificial atonement.

This aligns with other Lukan teachings: the Prodigal Son (Luke 15), Zacchaeus (Luke 19), and even Jesus on the cross forgiving without conditions (“Father, forgive them,” Luke 23:34—though ironically, that verse is also debated textually!).

🧩 Summary

So yes, one of the nine Western non-interpolations—Luke 24:47—reinforces the idea that Luke’s theology centers on repentance and divine mercy, rather than ritual or substitutionary atonement. If “forgiveness of sins” was a later scribal addition, then Luke may have been originally presenting repentance alone as the message to be preached.

Steefen
Forgiveness follows repentance more than forgiveness following sacrifice.

Chat
Remember, I told you:
“and forgiveness of sins” might have been a later addition, possibly influenced by Pauline atonement theology Romans 3:25
God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—(26) he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Steefen
Luke 22:15 – 21
Well, look at this: in Luke’s Last Supper, Jesus doesn’t say why his blood is being shed and why his body is given. He goes into claims about Judas.

So much for Jesus telling Paul what’s what.

BUT, Luke has, beginning at 20:9, the Parable of the Wicked Tenants BUT that is the Son being killed by Wicked Tenants, not sacrifice. Sacrifice is not the reason. BUT God does not ask the wicked tenants to repent.

Bart
Luke did use Mark.

Second,

Tell us where the Temple establishment conspirators repented.

Comment 7

Bart
Luke did use Mark.

Luke knew the Mark 10:45 verse:

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

But he did not carry it into his own gospel, on purpose, because he did not agree with it.

Jesus is not a ransom for many, according to Luke.

Jesus didn’t die for the sins of the world, he died as a setup for resurrection.

That’s the price he paid in order to pull off being resurrected.

= = = = = = =

Comment left for the History Valley video:

With the mention of Decius Mundus by Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.4, Decius Mus (History of Rome, Book 8, by Livy) gave his life as atonement for victory over a military opponent, not because of sins. So, there can be atonement unrelated to sin. // The title of your video of Ehrman’s answers should be “The Atonement for Sin Fraud …” Jesus did atone, pay the price, for the resurrection set up. Jesus’ crucifixion and death was the atonement God needed him to pay to be victorious as a syncretic resurrection religion.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy

Bart’s position and the interviewer’s position for even presenting the topic this way does not strengthen Christianity.

Did Jesus say he needed to die for our sins?

Yes, Jesus explicitly stated that he needed to die for our sins. For example, in Mark 10:45, Jesus said, “For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many”. This passage indicates that Jesus came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for the sins of many.

In John 10:11, Jesus also stated, “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep”. This emphasizes his willingness to sacrifice himself for the well-being of his followers. Additionally, in John 10:15-18, Jesus said, “I lay down my life for the sheep. I lay down my life that I may take it up again”. This highlights his voluntary sacrifice and his power to choose his own death.

Christianity stands on Mark and John.

The New Testament exhibits poor editorial leadership: get your thesis together: either Jesus died for sins or he didn’t.

The Gospel is that Jesus died for the sins of the world
or
he didn’t.

= = = = = = =

Both the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed are currently in use by various Christian denominations.

The Nicene Creed, or Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, is the more widely used of the two,
The Nicene Creed, or Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, is the more widely used of the two,

particularly during the celebration of the Eucharist in Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and other traditions.

THE NICENE CREED
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, God
of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father,
through Whom all things were made:

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary,
and was made man:

Who for us, too, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried:
the third day He rose according to the Scriptures, ascended into heaven,
and is seated on the right hand of the Father:

He shall come again with glory to judge the living
and the dead, and His kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son:
Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified: Who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy, Christian, and apostolic Church.

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins,
and I look for the resurrection of the dead and life of the age to come.

Amen.

= = =

THE APOSTLES CREED
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit;
Born of the Virgin Mary; Suffered under Pontius Pilate; Was crucified, dead and buried;

He descended into Hell; The third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven;
And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit; The Holy Christian Church, the Communion of Saints; The Forgiveness of
sins; The Resurrection of the body; And the life everlasting.

Amen.

= = = = = = =

The Apostles Creed does not say why Jesus died.

The Nicene Creed does say Jesus died for us:

Who for us, too, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried:
the third day He rose according to the Scriptures, ascended into heaven,
and is seated on the right hand of the Father:

Steefen:
So the Orthodoxy of the Church, via the Nicene Creed, says it was for us that Jesus was crucified, buried, and rose again.

But the minimum is that he died for us but not for our sins which can be forgiven regardless of His death.