Loading...Here is a seemingly simple but inordinately complicated question I received from a read on the blog:
QUESTION:
Although the gospel of Luke doesn’t have an atonement message, what are your thoughts about Acts 20:28: “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood”? This sure sounds like it has atonement implications.
RESPONSE:
When I got the question my idea was to give a direct and simple response. But I realized that would be neither easy nor satisfying. It would take a post. But then I realized that wouldn’t be enough either: it would take several posts. So, right – this will be a thread.
I begin with some background. I have dealt with this particular question about Acts 20:28 only once in my life, to my recollection (never on the blog, I believe), in my book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.
To set up that discussion I need to provide some background: about the book, about my (surprising) claim that Luke (who wrote not just the Gospel but also the book of Acts) does not have a doctrine of “atonement” (that is, the idea that it is Jesus’ death that directly brings about a reconciliation with God – i.e. “salvation”), and about why despite appearances Acts 20:28 is not an exception.
So, I begin with the book, and with a discussion that at first glance may not appear to relate to the question. But, oh boy, it does….
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture argues that there are textual variants still preserved among our manuscripts of the New Testament that were generated by scribes who were trying to oppose various kinds of “heretical” Christologies, including the one that said (at least which its opponents said that it said) that Christ did not have a real flesh and blood body, and that as a result he did not really experience pain and death, but only appeared to do so.
The proto-orthodox theologians who responded to this view insisted that Jesus really was human, and they argued that it was precisely the bodily, human nature of Christ that allowed him to bring salvation. By shedding his (real) blood and experiencing a (real) broken, crucified body, Christ brought about salvation for the world. The docetists (those who claimed that Christ only “seemed” to have a body that could bleed and die), in the opinion of their opponents, had gone way too far in asserting that Christ was a divine being. If he wasn’t human, he couldn’t save humans.
It appears that this debate did affect the scribes who copied their texts of Scripture. One passage that was changed is
Blog members get five posts a week like this, with archives going back ten years. Interested? Join the blog! Click here for membership options
You are not saying that no one knows the answer, but you *are* saying that scholars do not agree as to what that answer is. And since none of them can really confirm or verify their answer in any meaningful sense, perhaps you *should* be saying that no one really knows the answer. (At best, many scholars have an answer that satisfies them, but that isn’t really quite like having “the answer”.) I presume that we will see *your* preferred answer, and perhaps some presentation of the answers proposed by others, in subsequent blog posts.
If it could be shown that Luke does have an atonement understanding of the crucifixion elsewhere in Luke/acts would that tilt the balance in favor of Luke 22:19b-20 being original in you opinion?
It would have to be added to the mix for a reconsideration of the strength of all the arguments together.
But I’d say that remains in the realm of the hypothetical. The only passage that I think is open to much dispute is Acts 20:28, and I’ll be dealing with that in a later post. disabledupes{420b6c1e9d1d645a14eb95b4ba58b1e2}disabledupes
Hi,
I have a question regarding the last supper. I read the passages in chronological order ( 1 Corinthians, Mark, Matthew & Luke). Mark seems to basis his account on Paul, Matthew on mark, and Luke on Paul and Mark. Do you think Paul invented the last supper story because he claims to have received it directly from Jesus?
It’s a great question, but the matter is a bit complicated. Paul and LUke actually have the most similarities between them, and Mark and Matthew the most between *them*. In other words it looks like Paul and Luke have one version of the story (they both riff on it) and that Matthew got his from Mark. There is very little reason to think that the Gospel writers had read Paul’s letters. So the usual explanatoin is that the Lord’s supper was celebrated widely in the Xn communities, with some differences of the words spoken during the ritual. The form in Pauls church was a bit different from the one in Mark’s. Luke was in one of Paul’s communities, so that form of the words was more familiar to him. Matthew simply took his over from Mark.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
I’ve been thinking about your lecture series on Genesis and how you linked the book to the theme of collateral damage- I thought that that was so profound!
I was wondering where collateral damage can be seen in genesis 1-4? (If it can be?)
Thank you!
I suppose the overall collateral damage has included the use of Genesis 2-3 especially to promote patriarchal views of the superiority of men to somen and the need for women to be submissive (and their inherent secondary and — sometimes in Xn history — evil character)!
Paul appears to contradict himself since in 1 Corinthians 2:2 he says “When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the testimony of God to you with superior speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified”, but earlier in 1 Corinthians 11:23 he says “I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you”
How could he claim to know Jesus’ exact words at the Lord’s Supper, but then claim all he knows about Jesus was that he was crucified? In Galatians 1:11-16 he said “the gospel that was proclaimed by me…I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ”, but he doesn’t say that Jesus told him the details of the events leading up to his crucifixion.
Am I wrong to conclude that Paul invented this story as a way to sell Christianity to Gentiles, who already had a tradition of ritual meals, and the author of Mark used Paul’s story from 1 Corinthians?
Ah, I think you’re pushing his claim in 1 Cor. 2:2 in a direction different from what he’s saying. He’s not saying Jesus’ crucifixion was the only thing he knew about Jesus, but that his entire gospel message was rooted in a crucified messiah — it was the crucifixion of Jesus that directed all of his theological thinking, reflection, and preaching. (As is true of his account of the Last Supper: it was looking forwward to Jesus’ death)
Thank you. Paul is such a confusing writer to me. I readily admit I’m very skeptical of his claims, but I’ll have to look at 1 Cor. 2:2 differently.
You’ve most likely been asked this before: is there any chance that Judas was innocent, that he was perhaps the first or only apostle to volunteer to hand Jesus over, and as the time progressed from the events then, this innocence became rewritten, forgotten, and undone?
I’m not quite sure how you’re seeing it. If Judas was the only volunteer to hand Jesus over, how would he have been innocent?
Hm, I think I phrased it wrong. If Jesus himself like put it out there that one of them needs to do this so scripture could be fulfilled (and not a bad thing), and Judas was the first or only one to catch on.
I see. If you’re thinking about what *historically* actually happened, my sense is that the “prediction” that he had to be betrayed probably was not historical but was added to the record by Christians who wanted to show that Jesus was not caught unawares. I don’t think the historical Jesus expected to be betrayed — or even to be executed. His mission was to proclaim the kingdom soon to come, not to die for the sins of the world.
Dr. Ehrman. The idea that Jesus’ blood would save the whole world is probably a spiritual interpretation of Exodus, where the blood of the Passover lamb was given a divine power to save the Israelites from the devil / destroyer.
The devil had once tricked Adam and Eve into sinning. But at the first Passover in Egypt, all the inhabitants of the houses who were smeared with the blood of the Passover lamb on the doors were saved.
That’s why we read that “the lame man” was lowered through the roof. No one was allowed to go out or enter through the doors marked with the blood of the lamb.
Exodus 12:22 «None of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning.»
When Jacob fought at Jabbok, he received a blow on his hip – Israel was paralyzed. This was a picture of the crowd of Israelites in Egypt, united in the figure of Israel. Israel had been «carried» by Moses, Aaron and others, but the time had now come for them to carry their own things on their shoulders out of Egypt.
Exodus 12:34 «They wrapped their kneading boards in their cloaks and carried them on their shoulders.»
Matt 9: 6 «Then He said to the paralytic,” Get up, pick up your mat, and go home. “»
But it was the Sabbath that day!
Exodus 12:14 «This day shall be to you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations, as a statute forever, you shall keep it as a feast.»
The Israelites left Egypt on a Sabbath, when no one was allowed to work.
Just as Jacob did not know who he was fighting, the Israelites did not know that Christ was the Lord of the Sabbath. He had the authority to both save on a Sabbath and to command the Israelites to make an Exodus on a Sabbath.
Matt 9:5 «Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk?’»
Israel was 38 years old and he now only needed The Great Commandment to become the perfect number 40. Israel was locked in by the law in the five books of Moses, and had no one to set him free.
In order for the Israelites to be released from captivity in Egypt, they had to both slaughter the Passover lamb and eat it, and put its blood on the door frames. The sacrifice of the Passover lamb was a divine command that had to be performed by the Israelites, if they wanted to be set free.
Luke 22:19 «This is my body that is given for you; do this in remembrance of me.»
Exodus 12:14 «This day shall be to you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations, as a statute forever, you shall keep it as a feast.»
Then the Red Sea would open to the Israelites so that they could walk safely through, just as the curtain in the temple was torn by Christ’s death and a passage opened into heaven.
The Christians read the prosaic events in the Book of Exodus as a spiritual guide.
Some more comments about the connection between Jacob at Jabbok and the Israelites’ camp at the Red Sea.
Jacob defeated the angel he was fighting at Jabbok, and then he was blessed.
The Israelites slaughtered the Passover lamb, and then they were blessed.
The Christians saw a deep spiritual connection between the slaughtered Passover lamb and the defeated angel at Jabbok.
Jacob fought against the angel all night, just as the Israelites ate the Passover lamb at night, ready to go. In fact, the high priest’s interrogation of Christ at night was also a picture of Jacob’s fight against the angel at night.
The sins of the lame man were forgiven. Jacob had been afraid to meet Esau from whom he had deceived the birthright, but now he was forgiven.
Mark 2:5 «Son, your sins are forgiven.»
Exodus 4:22 «Israel is My firstborn son»
So the one and the same Jacob was lame and blessed.
John 5:11 «The man who made me well told me, ‘Pick up your mat and walk.’»
Jacob did not know who the angel was, nor did the Israelites know. But Jacob was blessed in the Israelites who believed in Christ.
Just as the Israelites were commanded to leave Egypt, Jacob was commanded by God to leave Laban. And just as Jacob was ordered to take his own property from Laban and leave, the Israelites were ordered to do the same in Egypt.
After the incident at Jabbok, God commanded Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar.
Bethel; the House of God (Temple)
Genesis 28:17 «This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven»
Genesis 35:1 «Then God said to Jacob, “Arise, go up to Bethel, and settle there. Build an altar there to the God”»
Genesis 35:2 «So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, “Get rid of the foreign gods you have with you, and purify yourselves and change your clothes.”»
Genesis 35:9 «God appeared to him again and blessed him.»
John 5:14 «Afterward, Jesus found the man at the temple and said to him, “See, you have been made well. Stop sinning, or something worse may happen to you.”»
Genesis 35:1 «Then God said to Jacob, “Go up to Bethel and settle there, and build an altar there to God, who appeared to you when you were fleeing from your brother Esau.”»
This is a very strange verse. God commanded Jacob to build an altar to the God who appeared to him at Jabbek, indicating that that angel was a different kind of God than God himself. And important; Jacob was to honor the God of Jabbek by building an altar to Him. A God of flesh and blood with whom Jacob had fought.
By building an altar, a comparison could be made with Abraham’s altar, where a ram was sacrificed in place of Isaac. It could be interpreted as if the angel and the ram had the same purpose, namely atonement for Jacob’s sins against Esau.
I am NOT convinced that this meal he ate with his disciples is a Jewish Seder. Most scholars concur on this. Do you believe this, Dr. Ehrman? If so, why?
Well, it’s the Passover meal in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and Paul presupposes it as well. (when he calls Christ the “passover that has been sacrificed for us”) So I can’t think of a good reason for not thinking so. I think this is the standard view among scholars, except those who want to give priority to the dating of John, which is our last account chronologically.
KingJohn, you and Bart are both right.
The Last Supper was, as Bart says, the Passover meal; one devoted to consumption of the portion of the Korban Pesach (Paschal sacrifice) reserved for that purpose.
However, as you say, it was NOT a Jewish Seder as we now understand those. The concept and the term didn’t exist yet during Jesus’s lifetime!
The seder was invented by the rabbis who wrote the Mishnah in the years after the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. The Mishnah was only compiled in the third century CE.
They created the elaborate Seder and the Haggadah that guides it as a *replacement* for the previous simpler custom of a meal for eating the sacrifice, because without the Temple there could be no sacrifice. (In fact, the present Orthodox custom is not to have lamb in any form at the Seder, or even roast meat of any kind, to emphasize what we lost with the Temple.)
Thus, those who today have developed the custom of holding “Christian Seders” at Easter are not only engaging in a form of cultural appropriation Jews find very distasteful, they are misrepresenting the historical reality as Jesus knew it.
Why does NRSV say which he purchased with the blood of his own *son*? Blood and own are genative?
Yes, both are genitive. Blood is the genitive object of the participle “through” and own is the genitive modifier of blood.
Hello Bart. A small detour. Have often wondered what Paul meant when he recounts the last supper dialogue as something he received directly from the Lord. Does this imply a mystical revelation? Could Jesus’s final meal and words have really come from Paul’s fertile mind? Thanks.
It’s really hard to know what he means. Or impossible, I guess. I could mean he had a dream, a vision, a revelation, an insight; he coudl mean he heard it from someone who said they heard it from someone who was there. It could mean… Well, take your pick. I’ve often been struck by people today who say something like “and the Lord was trying to say to me…” or “The Lord has taught me that…” etc.
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.
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.
Possibly related the what thelad2 asked above:
Apologists sometimes argue that the eucharist–the idea that Jesus gave his body for us to eat–is too insane not to be true. It was the most improbable thing anyone, pagan or Jewish, would make up. And yet it is in Paul, all three synoptics, and jn6. The argument has a certain purchase with me.
So how might it have arisen?
I guess once we have the idea of Jesus as pasche (already in Paul, as you noted), it isn’t too hard to say you have to eat him–just like you had to eat the paschal lamb. I mean, if you have embraced human sacrifice why not embrace cannibalism too?
But if that was the logic, why would it be in Luke, if he didn’t have an idea of the crucifixion as atonement in the first place?
I’m not sure I follow. If it’s too insane for anyone to say, why do New Testament authors say it? Someone had to say it first. The fact that it seems “too insane” to be said surely isn’t an argument that one person must have been the first to say it instead of some other person. See what I mean? It clearly isn’t too insane to be said. THe issue is who first said it.
And the Synoptics and Paul say nothing about eating Jesus. That comes later.
Sorry, I elided their argument somewhat. I think fleshed out it would go something like this: no Christian would have made it up because it is crazy and repulsive to most people, and Jesus only would have said it (they argue) if he thought he really was God (able to make bread his body, establish arbitrary requirements to test people faith, etc).
So yes, the question is precisely, if Jesus didn’t think he was god, who might have been the first person to say it, and why would he have said it given how crazy the idea is and what an obstacle it would be to winning converts to Christianity?
I am confuse by your assertion that Paul and the synoptics say nothing about eating Jesus. Perhaps they don’t say it in so many words but the idea of eating Jesus’ body seems clearly implied in their relation of the institution narrative. “This is my body” said by Jesus in reference to a piece of bread the disciples are given to eat. Or am I reading something into the texts?
Yes, I’d say you’re reading later theological understandings into the text. The older view appears to have been that when the discplies break bread together at a meal, they remember Jesus as the one whose body was broken. THe eucharistic/sacramental view of the meal came later.
Thanks Pr. Ehrman for your so stimulating blog. Do you identify a possible link between the textual variant you point out in Luke 22:19-20 (short version) and the Eucharist as described in the Didache as you translated it some years ago?
Yes, they appear to stand in somewhat similar lines of tradition.
Dr. Ehrman,
7/2/2022, you wrote, What Did Jesus Say at the Last Supper?
12/20/2015, James Tabor wrote a blog post “Eat my body, drink my blood – Did Jesus Ever Really say this?
https://jamestabor.com/eat-my-body-drink-my-blood-did-jesus-ever-really-say-this/
James Tabor:
The precise verbal similarities between these two accounts [Paul at 1 Cor 11:23-25 and Mark 14: 22-24] are remarkable considering Paul’s version was written twenty years earlier than Mark’s.
Paul got such a detailed description of what Jesus had said (1 Cor 11: 23) from the Lord what I hand to you: Jesus said this is my body and this is my blood. Do this in remembrance of me.
Mark got body and blood from Paul.
The Didache mentions a Eucharist without Paul’s mention of body and blood. The Last Supper without body and blood was a Messianic Banquet [traced to the Dead Sea Scrolls] instead of remember my body and blood [or as in gospel of John 6: 51-66 an injunction given before the Last Supper.]
Wine represents the blood of Osiris in a magical papyrus spell.
QUESTION: With the removal of Luke 22: 19-20, is the Last Supper a Messianic Banquet?
Steve Campbell
I don’t think Mark got it from Paul. Paul’s version is actually most like Luke’s long version; Mark’s and Matthew’s are different in key ways. That suggests there were at least two forms floating around.
I don’t know what you mean about a Messianic Banquet. In Luke (short text) it is a meal remembering Christ when the celebratory meal of bread and wine are consumed.
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. They are not found in some of our manuscripts
– Bart
= = =
In Luke’s short version, it is a meal remembering Christ? The request to remember Jesus is removed from the short version. Then, how did you arrive at your response?
To your question about Messianic Banquet, James Tabor suggested that with Jesus being the Messiah, his Last Supper was his Messianic Banquet borrowed from
The Messianic Rule 2. 10-20 (1QSa), in Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 159-160.
He indicates taht the bread is his body. Given the passage in ch. 24 (the Road to Emmaus, where they “recognized him in the breaking of the bread”) I take Luke to mean that when JEsus’ followers break bread they will think of him and recognize what he did.