Loading...In my previous post I pointed out that scholars have often claimed that Luke has gotten rid of the idea that Jesus “died for your sins.” That will seem counter-intuitive to, well, everyone on the planet, and some astute and learned Bible readers will point out that Luke explicitly does indeed have Jesus talk about his death “for you” in Luke, at his Last supper.
I indicated that there’s a textual problem with the verse (it’s not in our oldest and best manuscripts). Years ago I dealt with the problem on the blog. I deal with it again here — over the course of a couple of posts. The issue is focused on the wording of Luke 22:19-20.
Here is the form of the text as found in most of the manuscripts. (I have put verse numbers in the appropriate places)
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Good morning, Dr. Ehrman! =)
I was always taught Penal Subsititionary Atonement (PSA) is THE way to understand Christ’s death. In fact, I didn’t even know there were other ways to understand his death. Learning from you over the past few years, I realized how problematic PSA is, and became very curious about how to resolve this conflict. At this point in my life, I’m most interested in cutting away all the exegetical mistakes I’ve been taught, and better understanding the text for what it intended to say (not just what someone thinks it says or wants it to say). And recently, I learned that idea of PSA wasn’t developed until around 1100 CE. (!!)
When you talk about atonement, I think you are mostly talking about PSA, but you don’t actually distinguish between any of the various ways to understand atonement. (HERE’s MY QUESTION:) Are you are interested in the other models, and do you have any opinion on them?
Perhaps a course on the development of different atonement models, and their distinctions would be interesting to more people than just me.
Here is a web page summarizing 7 of the models. https://www.markhackett.com/writings/exploring-the-kaleidoscopic-world-of-christian-atonement-theory?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1pjUxhMrPHjD4MF2EJ9msW2Be9x-DZ0MKeNu_95eT0LfYnieR1XzO0GHQ_aem_A7Ze80nBA3ylpeKkCG9zLQ
Yes, there are tons of was to understand atonement (look up the term in the Stanford Dictoinary of Philosophy online; it’s an amazing history). When I’m talking about ancient views, I’m trying to understand how the term (and more important, the concept) would have been understood at that time and place. Most (near all) od the later theological reflections among Christian theologians, as intriguing as they are, would not have been ways the earliest followers of Jesus understood it. For them there were such things as substitutionary deaths (one living being dies for another) and redemption (you pay a price to deliver someone else from the penalty), but not the more involved theological views you get later.
Bart, in my opinion, this is one of your most important insights. The supposition that Luke’s editor would discharge “all the crowds” (Luke 23:48) who were on hand at the crucifixion–to return home “beating their breasts”–that is atoning for the sin of whatever responsibility they felt they had shared in Jesus’ death–is a singular Gospel acknowledgment that the Jewish People are to be regarded as having atoned for the murder on the cross. In every other instance of the Gospel record, a good Christian conforming to its text must be a theological antisemite, perceiving Jews as satanic. My paper (see the link) “Christianity’s Salvation Gospel–the Core of Violent Antisemitism” analyzes the subject. https://www.academia.edu/128864660/Christianitys_Salvation_Gospel_The_Embedded_Core_of_Violent_Antisemitism
In the Revised Standard Version of Mark 14:22-24 and Matthew 26:26-28, the accounts of the Lord’s Super do not include the term “new” with regard to covenant. There is footnote that some ancient texts include the term “new”, similar to the bold text you highlighted above in Luke 22:19-20. Does the inclusion of “new” in some ancient texts of Mark and Matthew follow along the same arguments as you present for Luke 22:19-20?
Without the term “new”, the text for the Lord’s Super in the Synoptics make it appear to be associated with the Passover covenant – a Jewish covenant – and not a “new covenant” that Paul is making it in 1 Corinthians 11:22-24. Paul seems to be distancing the Lord’s Super ritual from Jewish characteristics, creating a “new” Christian covenant. These textural versions of the Lord’s Super in the Synoptics appear to be more primitive (more Jewish) compared to 1 Corinthians 11:22-24. The addition of “do in remembrance” in your bold text of Luke 22:19-20 also brings it more in line with Paul’s 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, which includes these words, and are not in Mark and Matthew. Paul completely omits association of the meal with Passover.
Yes, the oldest and generally best manuscripts of both Matthew and Mark do not have the word “new.” Scribes who eventually inserted it in these places were probably influence by 1 Cor 11 “the new covenant.” But I’d say that it’s hard to think that the version in Mark and Matthew is *older* than the one in 1 Cor, since it was written long before. It’s possible of course. But the passage itself does seem to suggest, without the word “new,” that the covenant is not the traditional (“old”) covenant, since the covenant(s) (there were several) were signed and sealed without Jesus’ blood having anything to do with it/them. You’re right that in 1 Cor Paul doesn’t associate the meal with Passover, but that is usually thought to be because he is not concerned in the passage with when it happened (at the Passover) but with the words themselves, because the Corinthians are precisely violating the point: that Jesus sacrificed himself for others (but THEY can’t even be bothered to share their food and drink with others). It’s important to remember that Paul DID associate Jesus’ death with Passover — “Christ our passover was sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7).
Even so, I’m open ot the ideat that that Paul was separating the ritual meal from Jewish ceremony.
Tangent, but when Paul talks about the Lord’s supper when writing to churches (like the one where the affluent are eating all the food before the laborers are free to come), is he talking about a communion rite, commemorating the body and blood bit, that at some point became imbedded in the mass, or is it an additional practice of dining together as a congregation?
In his churches the ritual event happened at the common meal, a weekly affair where food and drink was brought and shared and the last meal of Jesus was remembered and celebrated for what it foreshadowed about his sacrifice for others.
Thank you Dr Ehrman. On a (slightly) related note, I was watching a YouTube video and the speaker, Diana Butler Bass, referred to ‘Papyrus 66’ which she said was the earliest, best preserved version of (most of) the Gospel of John. She claimed that, in Chapter 11 (the raising of Lazarus), Lazarus has only one sister, Mary (Martha is missing) and that ‘Mary’ could in fact be Mary Magdalene. I was intrigued by this and wondered what you thought about it?
Diana is not a textual scholar of course (but a terrific thinker and writer); she picked that idea from Libby Schrader; I’m afriad I and most manuscript scholars and (different group) scholars of John have not found it unconvincing. Mary and Martha are both part of the story, and this is not Mary Magdalene. (P66 is indeed one of our oldest and most interesting mss of John; it has been widely studied in particular because of the inordinate number of mistakes made by the scribe, most of which, luckily in the end were rectified).
You have said bluntly that “Luke has gotten rid of the idea that ‘Jesus died for your sins.” (and you are now explaining the perceived exception to be found in Luke’s account of the Last Supper.)
Please are you able to list the passages which the other gospel writers use to give their atonement theology and indicate the verses in Luke where he can be seen to have removed this concept.
Ah, great question! I answered it in the next post (which is now yesterday’s — Feb. 19)!
Does it really take days for a rather rudimentary comment such as I have posted to be approved? Rather disconcerting. Abram
Yes, I’m afraid that sometimes it does take a few days. I wish it were otherwise, but, well, I do the best I can with the time available to me. But I hope I did give you a useful answer.
I think you’ve overplayed your hand in stating that Luke didn’t originally include v.22. Your mentor Bruce Metzger writes,
“Considerations in favor of the originality of the longer text include the following: (a) The external evidence supporting the shorter reading represents only part of the Western type of text, whereas the other representatives of the Western text join with witnesses belonging to all the other ancient text-types in support of the longer reading.
“[The] members of the Committee. A minority preferred the shorter text as a Western non-interpolation. The majority, on the other hand, impressed by the overwhelming preponderance of external evidence supporting the longer form, explained the origin of the shorter form as due to some scribal accident or misunderstanding.”
“The similarity between verses 19b–20 and 1 Cor 11:24b–25 arises from the familiarity of the evangelist with the liturgical practice among Pauline churches…”
Metzger, Bruce Manning, United Bible Societies. 1994. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.
You’ll notice that Metzger does not indicate whether he himself was in the minority or majority.
He changed his mind over several textual variants in Luke over time; he and I had several discussions about it after I wrote my book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. I remember that he remained convinced that the voice at the baptism in 3:22 did not say “today I have begotten you” (as I argue in my book) but that he came to think that the “bloody sweat” in 22:43-44 was a later addition. But for the life of me I can’t remember what he ended up thinking about the Last Supper passage. (His comment that you quote involves conversations among the committee members before my book came out)
Thanks, Bart for taking the time to respond. Good point regarding his position. I, too, wonder where he stood. btw: I thought I had a copy of your book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, but I can’t find it! I guess I’ll have to get another copy.
It makes nice presents as well….
‘without the added words, Jesus in this passage never says anything about how the bread represents his broken body’.
It does though doesn’t it? As the shortened text still has him take the bread and say ‘this is my body’. But the key point is it doesn’t say ‘given for you’. So the bread symbolises his body that will be broken but not as a sin offering?
Or have I missed something?
Yes, he could be saying: see this loaf I’ve just broken apart? that’s what’s gonna happen to my body.