Bart D. E.
What Did Jesus Say at the Last Supper? 7/2/2022
How Do You Decide What an Author Actually Wrote? The Last Supper7/3/2022
Does Luke Get Rid of the Atonement? 7/5/2022
If Jesus’ Death Was Not an Atonement: Why Did He Die?? 7/6/2022
Does Luke Have Contradictory Views of the Atonement? 7/7/2022
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
Professor Ehrman is drawing attention to an early manuscript of the Gospel of Luke that is different at the Last Supper from
Paul in Corinthians
Gospel of Matthew, and
Gospel of Mark
Bart D.E.
The Last Supper is described in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. Luke’s version is unusual in ways that many casual readers have not noticed. At the meal, Jesus tells his disciples that he has been eager to eat the Passover meal with them. He then takes a cup and gives thanks for it and then hands it on to the others telling them all to partake of it, because he will not drink from it again until the kingdom of God arrives. Then comes the key passage that I want to discuss (vv. 19-20):
And taking bread he gave thanks and broke it and gave it to them saying, “This is my body that is given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” Likewise after supper (he took) the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood that is shed for you. But see, the hand of the one who turns me over is with me at the table….”
I have placed some words in bold, underlined. These are the key words for the textual alteration.
– Bart D.E.
Steve Campbell
Luke Chapter 22
Paul / 1 Corinthians 11: 23-29
Matthew 26: 25-28
Mark 14: 22-24
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
Bart,
Scholars who are your peers agree with you? I ask that because the scholars of the NET Bible do not seem to remove the words. I do not know if they made a footnote explaining the matter you are raising. Is there a version of the Bible that at least footnotes what you are bringing to our attention?
When I look at the registered New Testament Papyri for Luke Chapter 2, verses 19-20, I do not see these verses until Papyrus 75 (Vatican Library), 200-225 C.E. (Dr. Wallace at the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM)–in my city of Plano–has an image.)
Papyrus 75 does or does not have the exclusion.
You are comparing Papyrus 75 to what other manuscript?
= = =
Questions:
Other scholars, particularly scholars who work on versions of the Bible, agree with you on this?
If yes, in which version of the Bible are the two versions of Luke given in translation or in footnote?
Is one version of Luke coming from Papyrus 75?
Which version of Luke is used for comparison?
Finally, I thought this was a second century issue, but with Papyrus 75 dating from 200-225, this is a third century issue?
Thank you.
Steefen
Google,
What denominations use the RSV?
Result:
The RSV is one of the versions authorized to be used in services of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.
Steefen
There is also a NRSV [1989] that probably is chosen over the RSV [1952] because it is “newer.”
It would be good to know if the NRSV kept the footnote.
= = =
Google,
What denominations use the NEB?
[NEB New Testament: 1961; NEB Old Testament with Apocrypha: 1970]
Dating Summary: New Testament 1952 and 1961
Result:
The New English Bible entry at Wikipedia is given.
In that entry: one of the versions authorized for use in services of the Episcopal Church.
The NEB was significantly revised and republished as the Revised English Bible (1989).
It would be good to know what the Revised English Bible does with translation and footnote.
Steefen said
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical AccuracyBart,
Questions:
Is one version of Luke coming from Papyrus 75?
Which version of Luke is used for comparison?
Finally, I thought this was a second century issue, but with Papyrus 75 dating from 200-225, this is a third century issue?
Thank you.
Bart D.E.
It is one of the hotly disputed issues among textual experts. I’ve written at some length of it in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture if you want to see some of the back and forth.
Maybe someone who has the book can answer the questions.
So far, the score seems to be Mark, Matthew, John, and Paul: 4 and Luke: 1.
Marcion is undecided.
Christian orthodoxy likely is not going to pay attention to the point raised when Luke is outnumbered on this issue.
We cannot even raise the issue with Luke being so outnumbered.
Maybe Episcopalian scholars have raised the issue since they acknowledged the issue.
Robert said
If ‘Luke’, one of the later canonical evangelists, can raise the issue, why can’t anyone else raise the same issue? Even if he were outnumbered, as you say, his gospel is nonetheless part of the canonical Christian scriptures so orthodox Christians can appeal to his views as authoritative, right?As for specifically Episcopalian scholars raising this issue, this really isn’t a denominational issue. It’s a theological issue rooted in a text-critical question for scholars of any stripe. Any theologian, believer, or reader of the Christian scriptures who accepts a scholarly, ie, critical, approach to the text and its interpretation can raise this question.
The NET bible scholars, the NAB bible scholars, the King James bible scholars, etc. effectively considered it a fringe idea, otherwise it would have at least gotten a footnote.
Robert said
Steefen said
The NET bible scholars, the NAB bible scholars, the King James bible scholars, etc. effectively considered it a fringe idea, otherwise it would have at least gotten a footnote.
Steefen, you’re mistaken. ** you do not have permission to see this link ** does indeed footnote this text-critical issue:
tc Some significant Western witnesses (D it) lack the words from this point to the end of ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Further discussion of this complicated problem (the most difficult in Luke) can be found in TCGNT 148-50.
If they considered this the most difficult text-critical problem in the gospel of Luke, they obviously do not dismiss the contrary position as nothing more than a “fringe theory.”
Likewise, the ** you do not have permission to see this link ** at Lk 22,19-20 also includes the following footnote:
“Which will be given…do this in memory of me: these words are omitted in some important Western text manuscripts and a few Syriac manuscripts. Other ancient text types, including the oldest papyrus manuscript of Luke dating from the late second or early third century, contain the longer reading presented here. …”
The King James translation was made in 1611 and simply used the textus receptus, prior to the development of text-criticism, so that example is completely irrelevant.
The source I was using did not show the footnote.
This source does:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
However, the authenticity of these verses is very likely. It is found in a variety of witnesses that represent a broad geographical base (P75
Papyrus 75, the oldest copy does show the verses.
Still, the NET Bible DID include the extra verses.
= = =
There is the King James Bible but there has been The New King James Version, 1982.
Post #2
Papyrus 75 does or does not have the exclusion?
Post #6
I’ve written at some length of it in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture if you want to see some of the back and forth.
Post #10
P75 does have the extra verse
= = =
So, a later version of gLuke does not have the verses?
A later version of the gospel of Luke does not have the verses.
Now that I know the older P 75 copy has the verses:
I am going with the oldest copy: P 75.
I am sticking with the King James version.
On this one, I am also sticking with the majority: Mark, Matthew, and Paul.
I am going with the text, not the footnote.
Luke does not seem to be the first gospel. If Luke was the first gospel the issue would be more significant: “the first gospel may not have run afoul of Leviticus 17: 10,” but we cannot say that because Luke has not been recognized by most critical scholars as the first gospel.
One may say Marcion’s gospel based on a version of Luke was the first gospel, but that’s not my battle to fight. Hopefully, my reading wish list will eventually have me reading about Marcion, but until there, there is no way I am going against the established dating of the gospels. I am not prepared to put the date of gospel of Mark after Marcion’s collection.
I have not had a Chtistian adult class at Highland Park United Methodist Church, Dallas Unitarian, Marble Collegiate Church (NYC) , or at a Baptist Church raise this issue. Even when I visited an Episcopalian Church on Fifth Avenue in NYC, it was not an issue. St. Bart’s on Park Avenue–it was not an issue there either.
Again, the NET footnote says
the authenticity of these verses is very likely. It is found in a variety of witnesses that represent a broad geographical base (P75
there is no moving the goal posts: it is not an important battle. I read Bart’s posts. This time, I am not adopting his scholarship. I am certainly not a member of an Episcopal church.
No need to get bent out of shape, play gotcha, be disparaging. If this issue is more important to you than to me and one or more of you think Luke overturns Mark, Matthew, and Paul on this point, We agree to disagree.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)