Loading...In my previous post I tried to argue that the longer version of the account of Jesus’ Last Supper in Luke could have been created by a scribe who wanted to make the passage sound more like what is familiar from Matthew, Mark, and John, and to stress the point made in those other accounts as well, that Jesus’ broken body and shed blood are what bring redemption. The passage as you recall reads like this:
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 coverant 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….”
The words that are in bold and underlined are missing from some manuscripts, and it seems more likely that a scribe would have *added* them to a text that did not have them than that he would have *omitted* them for a text that had them. That was what I argued yesterday.
Today I want to argue that the longer version of the text (with the additional words), which scribes would have preferred, is *NOT* the form of the text that the author of the Gospel of Luke would have preferred. This is a different kind of evidence, based on a different set of questions. Now I’m not asking about how scribes would have been inclined to change the text. I’m asking about what the author himself would have been more likely to have written in the first place.
The reason the words in question are so problematic is that they embrace a theology that Luke himself has gone out of his way to avoid wherever possible (this will sound weird to many readers). It is the theology that says that…
The Rest of this Post is for Members Only. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN — or you many NEVER KNOW.
And the moral of the story is that yes, seemingly minor differences between different copies of the same text can actually tell us quite a lot. In this case, not so much about the people who changed the text later on, as the original author of said text, who was in turn changing an earlier text.
Another great post; Do you think that as a result of these passages not being original that the writer of luke did not believe in the theology of atonement and if so, what can we conclude about lukes theology then?
Yup, that’s my view. I’ll deal with it more fully in the next post on the topic.
Are there any older copies of Luke (I mean to say older than the copies that omit the bold text) that have the bold text? Or do the oldest copies of Luke omit the atonement verbiage?
Yes, most of the oldest manuscripts have it.
In your previous post you said one of the oldest manuscripts does NOT have the “bold underlined verses”, I am confused.
One of the oldest does not have the words. The other oldest ones do.
Fascinating. So what, if anything, does Jesus’ death in Luke achieve then?
I’ll try to explain in my next post on the topic!
I understand that this is kind of basic, but I have never understood atonement theology at all. Why would a loving, compassionate, forgiving God require such a sacrifice by Jesus to make the rest of us “OK” with him. The rationale of this entire concept eludes me.
My sense is that in antiquity it was “common sense” that that is how things work
Please help me out. I’m not sure if it was your mentor Metzger or you, but I remember reading somewhere that the earliest belief in the atonement was *not* in a substitutionary sense at all, but that it was what I’ve heard called the moral example” or “exemplar” view, i.e. that Jesus shows us how to live and how to die. This fits with the Gospel record and his call that “no greater love has a man than to die for his friends.” And “You are my friends if you do as I command.”
But above in this post, I hear you lapsing into rather theological and unequivocal statements (perhaps echoes, unconscious or not, of your fundamentalist days) such as “the matter is fairly clear” and “clearly did” and “In Mark, the matter is fairly clear.”
I find it not clear at all. Just as you have in the past (here online anyway, not in your books) discounted an adoptionist interpretation of Christological passages, you seem to be insisting here that the ONLY way to interpret those passages is in a Substitutionist manner, strangely, just as fundamentalist today do.
Frankly, I don’t have access to the Greek, or the insider scholarship, but I suspect that ether the “ransom for many” is a second century or later addition, or at the very least allows for SEVERAL interpretations. Jesus’ life and teachings and self-sacrifice definitely WAS a “ransom” and a noble gesture, for example. (Whether later – 2nd Century and later – Christians took this literally and developed a “Ransom to Satan” view from this ONE WORD in the Gospels is not relevant to my point.)
So, my question: Please explain to me if we MUST view this view as “clear” when the early church (esp. the Apostles themselves, PRE-PAUL) surely would not have such a well developed view of the atonement. Or am I missing your point?
And whatever happened to Moral Exemplar being the earliest theory? Is that no longer what you believe?
No, you wouldn’t have heard it from me. I’d be surprised if Metzger said some such thing either.
If I say that something is “fairly clear”, that’s not really a theological statement or a fundamentalist one. It’s simply how interpreters talk about the texts they deal with. Some points are fairly clear in them. For Mark, a substitionary atonement is fairly clear, given 10:45 and the tearing of the curtain. I don’t think that view is particularly controversial. (I’m simply talking about Mark’s view, but yes, it almost certainly was the view of Paul and others as well at the time.
Well, okay. But the atonement, which has (as you know) undergone MANY permutations over two millennia, with the “substitutionary” atonement in NO WAY established fully until the Middle Ages after Grotius’ writings, the “Ransom to Satan” view being prevalent from the second or third century until Grotius’ time. Yes, the fact that Jesus *in some way* made atonement possible by his ‘work’ was discussed by all the church Fathers, but as you know, these doctrines were fully worked out centuries earlier. To say otherwise doesn’t at all jibe with the “Lost Christianities” view you so ably champion.
As for Adoptionism, in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Chapter Two (titled, “Anti-Adoptionistic Corruptions of Scripture”) it reads “adoptionistic Christologies can be traced to sources that predate the books of the New Testament.” This book was the first time I had ever heard of it, but I believe the Apostles of Jesus were the very first to believe it, in some fashion.
“But when Jesus died, according to Mark, the curtain was ripped in half – meaning that in the death of Jesus God was now available and accessible to all people. It is the death of Jesus that brings a restored relationship with God.”
Steefen:
When the curtain was ripped in half, nothing was behind it, not the Wizard of Oz, and not the God of Adam, Noah, and Moses who was powerful and vengeful, and not the God who could not make things better after exiles and Roman occupation.
This post is so excellent it reminds me of my reader satisfaction of having bought one of your books.
Paul obviously believed in the atonement that Jesus delivered. Could this point of yours that Luke’s agenda is theologically at odds with Paul on this issue be more circumstantial evidence that maybe Luke wasn’t the companion of Paul that he has long thought to have been? I’m thinking about your posts from a while back about how Acts doesn’t match Paul’s chronology and the “we” passages.
Yes, I think it is circumstantial evidence. What Paul preaches in Acts is not what he holds to in his own letters.
Although NT writings describe Jesus as a sacrifice for mankind’s sins, I’m not convinced that they explain WHY a sacrifice was even necessary, or effective. It’s like saying that mankind is beset with sin, so the solution is for mankind to commit the biggest sin ever, which is to kill God’s own son. Do you think the NT writings provide an explanation for why a blood sacrifice, particularly of God’s son, can grant atonement? I think it’s just a holdover from earlier religions (including Judaism) that thought God needed to be appeased by blood sacrifices.
No, they don’t explain why one needed a sacrifice. They simply assume (as did most ancient people; in fact, the vast majority) that sacrifices would appease (or please) the divinity.
in other words is violent bloody sacrificial rituals more closer to the gods hearts than forgiving?
for many ancient people, yes!
Prof Ehrman
Is there a book you can recommend for the non-specialist that discusses the uses to which Luke and Matthew put Mark and the changes they made and how their use of Mark differs?
thanks
I would suggest you read a book about “the four Gospels,” where — if it’s a good critical scholar — you would get just that information, e.g., the older book by Graham Stanton or the one by Mark Powell (or even the classic by Keith Nickle)
Well that does sound like a pretty convincing argument. How do scholars who think the verses are original counter it? One other point that strikes me is Luke writes like Paul is his hero, yet he disagrees on the atonement idea. Makes me wonder if Luke ever read Paul’s letters.
Yeah, I’m not sure he know the letters of Paul. One thing other scholars emphasize is that virtually all the Greek manuscripts (except the one) have it, and that seems to be overwhelming evidence to them. But they do more or less grasp at straws when it comes to explaining why a scribe would omit the lines.
First: Are all scholars agreed that Mark meant what you say about the ripping of the curtain? It *could* be construed as an angry God’s response to what was going on, whether it took place before or after Jesus’s actual death.
And…do you think there’s *any* possibility of this scenario being correct? Jesus had realized that he’d antagonized the priests more than he’d intended, and they’d be planning to have him arrested – find some excuse to have him executed. Having realized that as soon as he did, he could have *escaped*. But he knew that if he fled – and even if his Galilean disciples got away safely – there would be reprisals against any Judeans who could be identified as having supported him. So he did something we actually would consider “noble”: let himself be captured and executed, so there wouldn’t be any (possibly deadly) reprisals against others.
A tradition of *that* having happened could also explain the line about “giving his life as a ransom for many”!
I doubt if all scholars are agreed on anything! But my interpretation is a pretty standard one. On your possibility: *anything* (just about) is possible! One, though, needs to look for evidence; I don’t know of any hints in the traditions that this is what Jesus had in mind. (I’m not sure which other Judeans you have in mind; but the reality is that the authorities did not arrest his disciples, who did help him!)
I looked at the translators’ comments in one recent translation by a largely evangelical group (the New English Translation) and there is no suggestion at all that they even considered whether the passage in question was consistent with themes developed by the author of the work. They support the authenticity of the longer passage primarily using the argument that “it’s the more difficult reading because it differs from Matthew and Mark”. I find your argument a good deal more persuasive as the passage’s departure from Luke’s ongoing theological views seems pretty obvious once it is pointed out. I have to wonder why this approach isn’t at least taken into consideration by the others. Do they not at all recognize the theological discrepancy introduced by the passage?
No, they don’t! Many of them find it very hard to believe that Luke lacks a doctrine of atonement.
This discussion of the atonement is very interesting and I certainly agree that the text we are discussing is way too long not to have been “intentionally” changed. But, once again, I get stuck in the same place, This discussion often seems, at least to me, to imply that Gospel authors and scribes intentionally changed, or even made up, stuff in order to fit a given theology. I guess this may have happened. On the other hand, I have often seen current Christians cherry pick texts or “creatively” interpret texts to fit a given theology, but I have never known one to just make up a text to fit a given theology. Indeed, many current Christians would be horrified at the thought of such alterations because of their view of an inerrant, inspired Bible. So, I struggle with the idea that ancient Christians would manufacture texts or make stuff up to fit a given theology. Wouldn’t they have considered it all too important, even prior to canonization, to intentionally change it???
Apparently not! Since they were definitely changing the text in significant ways (either adding something or taking it away in this case.)
Thanks for the post professor. I was unaware that passage in Luke was in question. Your explanation as to why it would be added later by scribes makes sense. Now that I look at it in that context, it does seem incongruous with the rest of the text, being such an overtly theological statement. Is the Greek in keeping with the style of the rest of Luke/Acts, or is it too short of a passage to notice a difference in writing style?
There are parts of the verses that are very much unlike the rest of Luke/Acts (for example, Christ dying UPER hYMOWN — “for you”).
Two questions.
-If Luke did not view his death as an atonement, what meaning did he derive from it if any?
-Considering that Paul was so important to Luke, how could it be that Luke disagreed with such a fundamental teaching of his hero? Seems very strange.
I’ll discuss Luke’s meaning in my next post! And yes, it does seem strange. But there are a lot of followers of other deep thinkers who don’t really “get” what they’re saying I suppose.
In Mark and Matthew, Jesus, quoting scripture, cries out to God in desperation and terror: “My God My God, why have you forsaken me?” In Luke, Jesus forgives his killers, reassures the penitent thief, and calmly commends his spirit to the Father.
I can see that people would be persuaded by the numbers (1 greek ms vs hundreds? Thousands?) but I don’t think it follows. To me it just means it was an early change, and one version was much more popular with scribes than the other (which ever way it happened). I think it’s very likely there have been early changes in the NT that we don’t know about because the original version died out. So I don’t put much faith in counting manuscripts and comparing numbers.
Hi!
So, if I understood correctly, in your view Luke never wrote those verses because that’s not his theology. And he did this despite the fact that those verses were part of one of his main sources (Mark) and also despite the fact that the Eucharist was probably being performed among Christian communities for about 40 years before Luke wrote his Gospel (I am assuming this in regards to the Eucharist because Paul talks about it).
My question is why this is more plausible than these verses been omitted (not sure if the tense of the verb is right, sorry) by a scribe that, for instance, was Marcionite? They were docetists, Marcion lived at the right time frame of the most scribal changes, it has been postulated that Marcion intenttionally redacted Scripture and version of Luke was among what he considered authoritative together with some letters of Paul.
My other question is: is this a complete manuscript or a fragment? Are there other changes in this manuscript the points to one way or another? Does Jesus sweat blood, for instance, in this manuscript?
Thanks!
It’s a complete manuscript. And the verses *could* have been omitted by a Marcionite scribe — that’s one of the options. The manuscript does have other verses that point in the same direction, changes that (in the longer form of the text) appear to combat docetism. (Or, with your theory, verses that were modified to *allow* for docetism by taking out passages that seemed contrary to it)
It occurs to me that Jesus was crucified for teaching what Rome would have thought was sedition ..a crucifiable offense. I think the belief that Jesus died for our sins was theology of a rather primitive people. Perhaps in believing that, they justified that he actually died…instead of ushering in God’s Kingdom.
Hey so I bought the membership that says all questions will be answered. (silver) My question to you is that if the original Gospel of Luke does not say that Jesus Christ died as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. What does? Are there ANY original gospels that say that Jesus Christ was an atoning sacrifice for our sins? Do you have any evidence supporting this? Can you link any articles supporting this? Thank you!! Also, are all of the earliest gospels docetic? Was Marcion the first gospel? Do ANY of the ancient manuscripts mention Jesus’ death as an atomizing sacrifice for our sins?
Paul sees Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice; so do Mark and Matthew. And no, none of the early Gospels was docetic.
I think you’re putting too much theological weight on the tearing of the temple curtain in Mark’s gospel. Seems to me it functions very well merely as a portent of the temple’s destruction in Mark. That’s not to deny that there is something of a ransom theology in Mark in a couple of places, but it just doesn’t seem that fully developed in Mark, but you have a whole chapter based on the temple’s destruction and Jesus’ apocalyptic predictions.
You said Luke claims the veil was torn before, doesn’t kai also mean “and” as oppose to just “then” ? How are we sure he claims it was torn before?
There is no KAI int he verse. It’s pretty clear that in Luke 23:45 the veil rips before Jesus’ dies.