(3 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)
Loading...My problems with the NRSV continued – Part 5! Trust me, I eventually get back to the question of my relationship with Bruce Metzger. I keep getting sidetracked, but the tracks on the side are interesting. At least I *think* they are!! In my last post, I pointed out that the famous passage of the so-called “bloody sweat” in Luke 22:43-44 is thought by some scholars not to have been original to the Gospel of Luke. I count myself in that number.
Problems with the NRSV – The Bloody Sweat
One of my very first scholarly articles was devoted to the question. I wrote it when I was a first-year graduate student – or rather, co-wrote it, with a friend of mine who was in the Ph.D. program at Princeton Seminary with me. A fellow named Mark Plunkett did a study of the passage of Jesus’ prayer before his arrest and realized something about the structure of the passage. In turn, I realized that if he was right, the two verses about the bloody sweat could not have been original to the passage.
I’ll comment more about that in my next post. At the time, one of the reasons I thought that was so significant is that it confirmed what was already clear to me otherwise. These verses convey a theological understanding of Jesus going to his death that is completely unlike what you find in the rest of Luke.
Our article was published in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, in 1983, and was called “The Angel and the Agony: The Textual Problem of Luke 22:43-44”.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, NOW’S YOUR CHANCE! DON’T BLOW IT!!!
I personally really enjoy these “rabbit trails”.
Haha “amen” to that! I feel like with this blog I’m attending an ongoing lecture series with an expert; what a deal for only $24.95 a year!
Tell all your friends!!
I agree! Truly great. (…Don’t tell Bart he may raise the price! Lol)
I wish you’d just write a translation for the entire Bible that puts all this in brackets where brackets are needed. That would be so great! At least you could do the NT. That would be such a help and we all wouldn’t have to feel such fools. It would be the greatest translation ever. Never mind the naysayers.
I’ll keep it in mind!
“But the tracks on the side are interesting. At least I *think* they are!!”
They are! For those of us who got hooked on “Jesus, Interrupted” and “Misquoting Jesus” the side tracks are like heroin. (Sorry if the comparison is distasteful.) Keep up the great work!
Dr Ehrman,
I read this blog every day and absolutely love it!! Get side tracked as much as you want. 🙂
Although Luke’s passion narrative is less melodramatic than Mark’s, he hasn’t removed all references to Jesus’ suffering (e.g. 22:15, and Jesus’ plead to have the cup of suffering removed from him in 22:42).
Why are scholars so sure Luke’s passion narrative is a redacted version of Mark? There doesn’t appear to be much textual overlap. Couldn’t Luke be basing the narrative on L or Q instead or a combination of all three? Unless it can be shown Luke’s passion narrative is based solely on Mark, then surely one can argue the omission of Jesus in agony is due to a different strand of oral tradition that emphasises Jesus being in control?
Right! I’m not saying that Jesus doesn’t suffer in Luke (he does get crucified!). I am referring to his *attitude* toward suffering. In Luke he is calm and in control, not in deep agony and virtual terror, as in Mark.
Some fascinating rabbits!
What I find provocative is what all this reveals about Luke’s attitude towards Mark. Luke obviously valued Mark enough to use him as a source but he equally obviously didn’t reverence Mark enough to prevent him from modifying his text at will. So much for the inerrency of the original autographs!
While you’re discussing why someone would add the more passionate verses please also discuss a bit why Luke (or whoever) would want to downplay Jesus’ passion to begin with?
thanks
Yup, will do.
Can you write a post on Mark 15:34? The footnote of the NRSV adds: “Other ancient authorities read ‘made me a reproach’. Do you think this was the original? If so, this would rule out the possibility that Jesus was reciting from Psalms 22.
Yup, it’s a key textual problem. I’ll put it on the list of things to post on. Unfortunately, it’s becoming a rather long list….
No problem, take your time. At your current rate of one post per day on most days, assuming you continue this blog until retirement, you will get through the list 😉
Yes, one can understand why Luke would have omitted Mark’s emphasis of Jusus’ distress, in that Luke wanted to portray Jesus “as being obedient, and surrendering to his calling”. This can be understood in terms of Jesus knowing, and Luke showing that Jesus was born, rejected, preached, and died as a prophet. This could be why Luke wanted to show Jesus as not being perturbed by what is going to befall him as this happened to prophets before.
Moreover, in Mark’s Gospel, Jesus dies in agony, whereas in Lukes’s Gospel, it is different ( Too long to explain-see for yourself). In short, Luke links Jesus to “Israel’s prophetic line which Jesus accomplishes” and thus, the non-chalant attitude of Jesus ( Luke 22:42).
However, (Luke 22: 42-45), is different – someone has added to what Luke has wrote. Why? I will wait for Prof Bart to explain!! Surely, it cannot be just because, whoever inserted it, wanted to show Jesus as being scared!! (laughing now). Maybe those two verses could relate to ( Luke 4:13) and ( Luke 12:49) and therefore, it seemed logical to put it in. It is just an afterthought. I also think that Prof Bart has wrote somewhere that putting 43 and 44 in, has spoilt the rest of what Luke is trying to portray. I am not quite sure.
I read that there is a plan to review/revise the NRSV.
https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/SocietyReport2017.pdf (page 7)