Loading...In my previous post I started to discuss a textual variant that I covered in my book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, a very important variant for understanding Luke’s account of Jesus’ last days, for grasping Luke’s view of the importance of Jesus’ death, and for seeing how scribes occasionally modified their texts for theological reasons.
The passage has to do with what Jesus said and did at the Last Supper. Here is the form of the text as found in most of the manuscripts. (I have put verse numbers in the appropriate places)
17 And he took a cup and gave thanks, and he said: “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you that from now on I will not drink from the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes.” 19 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.” 20 Likewise after supper (he took) the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood that is shed for you. 21 But see, the hand of the one who turns me over is with me at the table….”
As I pointed out yesterday, the words in bold and underlined are missing from one of our oldest Greek manuscripts and from some Latin manuscripts. In those witnesses then, the text reads as follows:
17 And he took a cup and gave thanks, and he said: “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you that from now on I will not drink from the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes.” 19 And taking bread he gave thanks and broke it and gave it to them saying, “This is my body. 21 But see, the hand of the one who turns me over is with me at the table….”
So which is it? Did a scribe decide to omit the words in question from a text that originally had them, or did a scribe decide to add the words from a text that originally lacked them? Those are the two choices.
Here’s one way to approach the question: which thing was a scribe in the second century (when the change was almost certainly made, one way or the other) more *likely* to do? And how would you know?
First thing to consider. The scribe who changed the text
Want to keep reading? It is inexpensive to join the blog and every penny you pay goes to charity! Click here for membership options
If the shorter version is original, and Luke does not have an atonement theology, then what might Jesus mean by saying the bread is his body?
It would mean that his body was going to be broken. (Which it was, for Luke: but not “for you” or “for many”)
If Luke did write the shorter version, why not remove all of the material from verses 19 and 20 altogether? I may be missing something, but it seems like that would flow better.
Because he wanted to stress that Jesus knew what was soon to happen to him, and the last supper was a commemoration of that.
To elaborate a bit more on my comment about the flow of the text, it seems to have a flow to it as it reads in the Bible when you include verse 16. Jesus say he will not eat the Passover again until the kingdom comes (although does not take the bread), that he will not drink from the fruit of the vine again until the kingdom comes (takes the cup), takes the bread saying it (his body) will be given, and takes the cup (a second time, having taken the bread only once) saying it (his blood) will be poured out. Taking out the material in verses 17 and 18, but leaving in “This is my body” seems to make the text more awkward that if Luke would have also taken “this is my body out”. Then he would say that he will not eat the Passover or drink from the vine until the kingdom comes, making no mention of body or blood at all. Maybe I’m wrong, or Luke just made an awkward edit, but it makes me wonder if a later scribe may have truncated Luke (accidentally or on purpose).
Yup, I get it. It’s a serious argument, and scholars have applied rather rigorous literary analytical tools to make it. I discuss it, and my response to it, in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture starting on p. 239 (In response to an article written by Jacobus Petzer on the issue). I can’t seem to find an electronic version of the book — I was going to excerpt the discussion for a blog post but need to figure out how to do that….
Sorry Bart , but I get confused in that point
In a previous article in this thread (https://ehrmanblog.org/what-did-jesus-say-at-the-last-supper/) you wrote:
“ without these words Jesus does not interpret the cup and the bread to represent his shed blood and broken body”
but now in answering anthonygale about the meaning of the bread starting “If the shorter version is original” (so he refers to the text “without these words”) you say that “It would mean that his body was going to be broken”.
I agree with you in that the shorter version is the original one,so, for Luke, the bread, does or does not represent Jesus’s body?
Sorry, I didn’t mean to be quoting *Luke* to say “body to be broken.” I meant that by calling the bread his body he seems to be indicating that his body had to be injured (broken in that sense) and the cup represented the idea that he would be shedding his blood soon. This would not be “for you” — it just means he’s going to be executed.
Very interesting plausible argument for the scribal insertion *in this particular passage of 1 Corinthians* of the sacrificial symbolism of “blood shed for for you” and “body given for you” and for the command to in future “do this in remembrance”. However, to draw the conclusion (which I sense that you are about to) that Jesus didn’t think or say that his death was to have sacrificial significance (in the vein – pardon the pun – of Isaiah 52-53) I cannot see is justified. Surely, the hypothetical ‘insertional scribe’ may just have been trying to be helpful by adding a “clarification”. I may be missing something here, but both the blood and body “for you” sacrificial elements appear in Mathew, Mark and Luke and the Isaiah 52-53 sacrificial lamb idea permeates John, Acts and Paul’s writings.
Fascinating.
Our thought is that Paul repeated or created this version of the Lord’s Supper and then the gospel writers included what they had heard, correct?
It’s usually thought that Paul had heard of a version of what had ahppened as did the Gospel writers, and that it was very similar (Pau’s version is more similar to Luke’s and Matthew’s to Mark’s)
Hi Bart,
I just heard a claim to the effect that Joseph, the purported husband of Mary, did not really exist, and that Mary was unmarried all her life. Joseph was invented by the early Christians to give Jesus a Davidic lineage through the male line.
What do you think of that idea?
I’d say there’s no evidence for it. He is mentioned in independent sources, by name.
Some scholars speculate that the “Last Supper” was based on a historical memory of a Passover Seder Jesus had with his disciples. Do we know enough about how such a seder would have been practiced in Jesus’ day to make that kind of determination? (For example, would there have been moments in a seder when unleavened bread or wine was blessed and presented to the participants?)
It’s normally thought to be a seder because it occurs on the night of Passover. Our full knowledge of what happened at the Seder only comes from later times, so we don’t know for sure what was happening then in Jesus’ day — or if there was only one way of celebrating (my guess is: probably not)
Frisson!
This is why we need you. Dude fell on his face crying about the public display necessary to stop the Herodians from searching for him when he escapeyed back across the Jordan.
Bart, might you have any comment on this Strabo writing ~AD 20 vs Parable of the Talents?
“The Nabataeans are a sensible people, and are so much inclined to acquire possessions that they publicly fine anyone who has diminished his possessions and also confer honours on anyone who has increased them.”
(https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/16D*.html).
“For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.”
More of that parable — “Likewise, the one with the two talents gained two more. But the servant who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground, and hid his master’s money.” The king rewards those who make money, and punishes dude for not.
It’s a set of three describing the Kingdom of Heaven. 10 bridesmaids are likely the 10 of 12 tribes not subject to Rome, per Josephus.
Remember, Nabataea’s Lady Liberty was Lord of Heaven! I’m just wondering why y’all aren’t seeing it 🙂
INteresting. I’m not familiar with that line from Strabo.
Leaving aside whether it’s true, do you think that belief in one or more gods is natural or intuitive for most people? Humans who themselves are conscious and have purposes tend to see those things at work in nature even when no intentional agents are apparent. And even when people do not really believe that natural processes have purposes they often explain them as if they have purposes, eg, plants leaning toward sunlight. It’s a major way that humans have of understanding the world.
Of course culture can also inculcate such widespread belief in god(s) that these beliefs seem natural. And it may seem advantageous to weak and vulnerable humans to believe in gods who might be persuaded to help humans—more advantageous than belief in indifferent natural processes entirely outside human control.
Also, it’s hard for me to accept that humans can have purposes if purpose is not already present in the basic workings of the world. Where did human purpose come from-though one could just as well ask where life comes from?
It’s just seems natural to believe that the world is the result of someone’s purposes. Maybe that’s a big reason why religious belief is so stubborn.
I’d say most people in human history have thought that multiple gods were common sense.
Professor.Would a scribe familiar with 1 Corinthians have known it was older, considered it thus more authoritative and added the text to conform?
No, scribes would have considered all the accounts completely authoritative and would not have cared which preceded which chronologically.
Hi Bart!
Only somewhat indirectly related to the content of this post, but I have a question for you.
On Wikipedia, it is said that the Special L material of the gospel of Luke has a high degree of semitisms, much higher than other portions of Luke-Acts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L_source
quoting,
“According to E. Earle Ellis (1999), the L source material exhibits the highest prevalence of Semitisms within the Luke–Acts corpus, so that Semitic sources were probably at the basis of L source verses such as Luke 1:5–2:40; 5:1–11; 7:11–17, 36–50; 8:1–3; 9:51–56; 11:27f.; 13:10–17; 14:1–6; 17:11–19; 19:1–10; 23:50–24:53. By contrast, the portions of the Gospel of Luke that parallel the contents of the Gospel of Mark represented ‘a more polished Greek’ than Mark’s, and show fewer Hebraisms.”
Are you aware of any more up to date sources/explanations on this? This seems to be very good evidence that the special L material truly was a “source” the author was working with, vs just being the product of his own mind. But I don’t know how well accepted this is, or if it has been expanded on since 1999.
I’m not completely sure if that’s true. Certainly Luke 1-2 is made to sound like Scripture — these can just as easily be seen as Septuagintalisms, usually, rather than Semiticisms. I’d have to look furtehr into it, but scholars like Ellis typically made arguments like this without looking at all the options and often for the purpose of showing that the Gospel sources were older than most critical scholars think and therefore more likely “historical” (i.e., accurate)
Ah. Thank you. I had no idea who Ellis was. That statement on Wikipedia sounded pretty strong, but given that it dated to 1999 and I haven’t heard more about it since I didn’t know if it was something well accepted.
Currently, it seems like I see a LOT of debate on M and L. L especially, because we still need some explanation for special L material regardless of whether we take two-source or Farrer hypothesis. So the idea that the special L material might be noticeably different from the rest of Luke-Acts would lend support to that notion, which made me surprised that I just saw it as here on Wikipedia and haven’t heard it from anywhere else. Wasn’t sure if it was something you had ever been familiar with
I don’t think there needs to be a lot of evidence for Luke having a source of information for his stories. Whether it’s a single source or a number of sources, oral and/or written — he must have gotten it from somewhere, unless he made it all up himself. But since he indicates thathe knows a lot of earlier sources and we appear to know that he used two for lots of his material, I would think it’d be hard to argue that he simply made up everything else. But one is always open to arguments!
We know that Christians forged entire books of the New Testament, so it appears reasonable to conclude that the author of Luke-Acts may have used Mark and Matthew as his basis for Luke and then made up and/or used oral tradition the rest.
I think this is a strong argument given that Acts appears to say things in Paul’s name that Paul disagreed with in his letters.
It’s possible that the authors were just “makin’ stuff up.” But it’s more likely, given what we know about early Chrsitianity, that they have all heard alternative stories about this that and the other thing, and they changed accounts they received in light of other ones they knew about, and told stories they heard far more often than made them up on the spot.
Bart I just saw a video on YouTubedi NT Wright about preterism. Not being an expert, his arguments seemed convincing to me. What do you think? It speaks of an interpretation of a prophecy in Daniel 7 about Jesus regarding the destruction of Jerusalem. If you could help me, you would be doing me a great favor. Thank you
I’m not really sure what he was saying or arguing in this video; but I do know that he does not think Jesus was predicting the history of the world as we know it — so that Jesus was not wrong to say that it would all happen in his disciples lifetimes. In fact, for Wright, he was right on target: the apocalyptic imagery used by Jesus was fulfilled in 70 CE. My view is that this is a theologically driven interpretation that he probably would not use with respect to *other* predictors of apocalyptic doom in Jesus’ day (even John the Baptist?)
Luke 22:21 referring to Judas says “but see, the hand of him handing me over is with me on the table”.
Doesn’t this line only work if it actually is preceded by Jesus telling the disciples how his blood will be shed for them?
His body will be broken and blood poured out and see the hand of him who betrays him is on the table with him.
Otherwise we get “And he took the bread gave thanks and broke it and gave it to them saying this is my body but see the hand of the one handing me over is with me on the table”
Doesn’t really work.
I don’t think so. He indicates that Judas will hand him over, but he doesn’t say anything about his death then being an atonment (e.g., he doesn’ say, “handing me over to die for many” or “to shed my blood for you”) It’s precisely what he doesn’t say.
But he then says “The Son of Man will go as it has been appointed. But woe to that man who hands him over.”
“as it has been appointed” means Isaiah 53. Luke 22:37 “he will be numbered with the transgressors. These things about me are being fulfilled”
The suffering servant in LXX is “handed over” to death and “handed over” παρεδόθη for their sins.
Judas is the one “handing over” the suffering servant. The word is used 5 times in Luke 22.
Apologies, I read this post too fast and mixed up Luke 22 with 1Cor 11, but I think my point still stands, so, rephrasing it: very interesting and plausible argument for the scribal insertion *in this particular passage of Luke * of the sacrificial symbolism of “blood shed for for you” and “body given for you” and for the command to in future “do this in remembrance”. However, to draw the conclusion (which I sense that you are about to) that Jesus didn’t think or say that his death was to have sacrificial significance (in the vein – pardon the pun – of Isaiah 52-53) I cannot see is justified. Surely, the hypothetical ‘insertional scribe’ may just have been trying to be helpful by adding a “clarification”. Both the blood and body “for you” sacrificial elements appear in Mathew, Mark and the Isaiah 52-53 sacrificial lamb idea permeates John, Acts and Paul’s writings. Importantly, it is found in the Ethiopian Eunuch passage of Acts and strongly implied in the road to Emmaus dialogue: “ Luke 24: 26-27. I am not convinced that neither Luke or Jesus did failed to buy into the Isaiah 53 sacrificial “motif”.
I find your lay out very interesting. As you pointed out in your first draft, the verbiage is almost word for word as in Matthew, just a matter of a bit rearranged. The second illustration shows a lack of wording. For myself, I have to agree with your first layout. The second appears incomplete. Your supposition that a line was mistakenly left out in one of the manuscripts, is quite plausible.
Can it possibly be that the added words also were meant to stress the divinity of Jesus? The texts were after all written for gentiles, who were familiar with the idea that godgiven products like wine (Dionysos) and bread (Ceres) by many were regarded as gods themselves.
I don’t think you have a concept of a pagan god giving himself over as a sacrifice for the sins of others; the added words help bring the text into line with what you find in Matthew, Mark, and Paul — so I’m not sure they function strictly for gentiles.
RE the order of serving wine and bread. Was there a tradition of which came first?
Usually bread.
Is there a version of the new testament with these added/altered passages removed. I see this passage still exists in the NIV. I realize that there may not be agreement on all these verses. I have been trying to highlight them, but it is a long process.
Yes, different translations handle them differently. I don’t have a list of ones that leave them out, but I imagine there are very few of them.