Did Luke Have a Doctrine of the Atonement?

 written by Dr. Bart D Ehrman 

For this week’s readers’ mailbag I have chosen a question about my claim that the author of Luke-Acts, unlike other writers of the New Testament, does not have a doctrine of the atonement – that Jesus’ death brought about a restored relationship with God (for Luke, it was the *resurrection* that mattered, not the crucifixion).   The questioner sets up the question with an important observation.   I suspect my answer will not be what he expected.

QUESTION:

I have spent a lot of time looking in the gospels for teachings on the atonement. I could only find 5 passages (really more like 2, because they are parallel).

• Mt 20:28/Mk 10:45 Jesus life as a ransom for many Luke leaves this part out of the story

• Mt 26:28–this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
• Mk 14:24–This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
• Lk 22:20 This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Are you saying that Luke (in Acts and in his gospel) is diverging from Matthew and Mark re the atonement? If so, what does Lk 22:20 suggest, if not the atonement?

RESPONSE

First I would say that yes, these are key passages in the discussion.  Another is Mark 15:37-39, where Jesus dies and the curtain in the Temple is immediately ripped in half.  This curtain is to be understood as separating God from humanity – he was believed to dwell in the Holy of Holies behind the curtain, and only the high priest could go into his presence in that room, and that only once a year on the Day of Atonement to make a sacrifice for the people’s sins.  Now, with the death of Jesus, in Mark, the curtain is destroyed, and people do have access to God.  Luke changes the scene significantly: for him the curtain was ripped, but it was *before* Jesus died.  Now it doesn’t show that Jesus’ death brings access to God.  It is a symbol of God’s destruction of the temple because of what the Jewish people have done to Jesus.  (As Luke says “the hour of darkness has come”)

So here’s the deal so far.   Luke omitted Mark 10:45, that Jesus’ death was a ransom for many.  Why’d he do that?  He also changed the ripping of the curtain.  Why’d he do that?   And as significantly, he also omitted Mark 14:24, that Jesus blood was poured out for many?  Why’d he do that?  Or *did* he do that?

The questioner is pointing out that the verse (Jesus’ blood is “poured out for many”) *is* found in Luke 22:20.  BUT, here’s the big deal: it appears that Luke did not originally have the verse.  It was added by later scribes.  Here is my discussion of the passage in my book Misquoting Jesus (I have a much longer and detailed discussion in my book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture).

*******************************************************************

For proto-orthodox Christians, it was important to emphasize that Christ was a real man of flesh and blood because it was precisely the sacrifice of his flesh and the shedding of his blood that brought salvation – not in appearance but in reality.  Another textual variant in Luke’s account of Jesus’ passion emphasizes precisely this reality.  It occurs during the account of Jesus’ last supper with his disciples.  In one of our oldest Greek manuscripts, along with several Latin witnesses, we are told the following:

And taking a cup, giving thanks, he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves, for I say to you that I will not drink from the fruit of the vine from now on, until the kingdom of God comes.”  And taking bread, giving thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body.  But behold, the hand of the one who betrays me is with me at the table” (Luke 22:17-19).

In most of our manuscripts, however, there is an addition to the text, an addition that will sound familiar to many readers of the English Bible, since it has made its way into most modern translations.  Here, after Jesus says “This is my body,” he continues with the words “‘which has been given for you; do this in remembrance of me’; And the cup likewise after supper, saying ‘this cup is the new covenant in my blood which is poured for you.’”

These are the familiar words of the “institution” of the Lord’s Supper, known in a very similar form also from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:23-25).  Despite the fact they are familiar, there are good reasons for thinking that these verses were not originally in Luke’s Gospel, but were added in order to stress that it was precisely Jesus’ broken body and shed blood that brought salvation “for you.”  For one thing, it is hard to explain why a scribe would have omitted the verses if they were original to Luke (there is no homoeoteleuton, for example, that would explain an omission), especially since they make such clear and smooth sense when they are added.  In fact, when the verses are taken away, doesn’t the text sound a bit truncated?  Precisely the unfamiliarity of the truncated version (without the verses) may have been what led scribes to add the verses.

And it is striking to note that the verses, as familiar as they are, do not represent Luke’s own understanding of the death of Jesus.  For it is a striking feature of Luke’s portrayal of Jesus death — this may sound strange at first — that he never, anywhere else, indicates that the death itself is what brings salvation from sin.  Nowhere in Luke’s entire two volume work (Luke and Acts), is Jesus’ death said to be “for you.”  And in fact, on the two occasions in which Luke’s source Mark indicates that it was by Jesus’ death that salvation came (Mark 10:45; 15:39), Luke changed the wording of the text (or eliminated it).  Luke, in other words, has a different understanding of the way Jesus death leads to salvation from Mark (and from Paul, and other early Christian writers).

It is easy to see Luke’s own distinctive view by considering what he has to say in the book of Acts, where the apostles give a number of speeches in order to convert others to the faith.  What is striking is that in none of these instances (look, e.g., in chapters 3, 4, 13), do the apostles indicate that Jesus’ death brings atonement for sins.  It is not that Jesus’ death is unimportant.  It’s extremely important for Luke.  But not as an atonement.  Instead, Jesus death is what makes people realize their guilt before God (since he died even though he was innocent).  Once people recognize their guilt, they turn to God in repentance, and then he forgives their sins.

Jesus’ death for Luke, in other words, drives people to repentance, and it is this repentance that brings salvation.  But not according to these disputed verses which are missing from some of our early witnesses: here Jesus’ death is portrayed as an atonement “for you.”

Originally the verses appear not to have been part of Luke’s Gospel.  Why then were they added?  In a later dispute with Marcion, Tertullian emphasized:

Jesus declared plainly enough what he meant by the bread, when he called the bread his own body.  He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed in his blood, affirms the reality of his body.  For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh.  Thus from the evidence of the flesh we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood.  (Against Marcion 4, 40).

It appears that the verses were added in order to stress Jesus’ real body and flesh, which he really sacrificed for the sake of others.  This may not have been Luke’s own emphasis, but it certainly was the emphasis of the proto-orthodox scribes who altered their text of Luke in order to counter docetic Christologies such as that of Marcion.

****************************************************

Short story: Luke didn’t originally have the verse.  Scribes inserted it.

And that means that Luke omits all references in Mark to Jesus’ death bringing about an atoning sacrifice.

Moreover in all the speeches of Acts, where the apostles talk about the salvation that Christ brought, it is never said to have been brought specifically by his death.  It is the resurrection that matters.

My conclusion: Luke did not have a doctrine of Jesus’ death as an atonement.

interesting

"Dead Sea Scrolls" yield "major" questions in Old Testament understanding

by Richard N. Ostling

November 13, 2000

SOUTH BEND, Ind. – The Dead Sea Scrolls, hidden away in Holy Land caves 2,000 years ago and unearthed after World War II, are often rated the 20th century’s greatest archaeological find. The chief reason for most people: the rediscovery of 230 texts of biblical books, which have begun to change details in the Scriptures read by millions.p. For instance?p. The height of Goliath. ’’He’s barely tall enough to make the all-star game,‘’ remarks Frank Cross, a Harvard University expert on the official team working on the scrolls.p. That is, in 1 Samuel 17:4 most English translations say Goliath stood ’’six cubits and a span,‘’ meaning a towering nine feet plus (about 3 meters). But a damaged Dead Sea scroll can be read as saying ’’four cubits and a span,‘’ a mere six and a half feet (2 meters). That’s why the official U.S. Catholic Bible gives Goliath the shorter stature.p. Or consider Psalm 145, an acrostic where each verse begins with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. This chapter was always a head-scratcher because the verse for one letter is missing in the standard Hebrew text. But a phrase with that letter turned up in a Dead Sea scroll and is tacked onto 145:13 in most recent translations:p. ‘’God is faithful in his words and gracious in all his deeds…’‘p. Further rewordings are expected and some of them could shift meaning. In all Bibles, Deuteronomy 8:6 speaks of ’’fearing’’ or ’’revering’’ God, but a Dead Sea scroll says ’’loving’’ instead. Should scholars consider this change?p. To those for whom each word of the Bible was inspired by God, even such small alterations are significant.p. Still, as Cross puts it, ‘’There is no 11th commandment.’’ The rewording prompted by the scrolls does not challenge basic beliefs.p. But a fellow researcher,Eugene Ulrich, professor of Hebrew at the University of Notre Dameand chief editor of the Dead Sea biblical materials, sees far more sweeping implications for the Old Testament (the Christian term for what Jews call the Tanakh).p. Seated at a customized computer surrounded by galley proofs, infrared photographs and marking pens in six coded colors, the red-bearded, 61-year-old scholar surveys his 23 years of labor.p. ‘’I feel like the person who put the last stone atop the pyramids,’’ he says. ’’I’m as weary as can be, but I’m glad I did it.‘’p. Ulrich was polishing the last volume on biblical texts for the official scholarly series from Oxford University Press, which will be a landmark in this painstaking and highly technical project. The overall effort hit the headlines in 1991 when two independent groups, frustrated with the slow pace of the official scholarly team, rushed unauthorized editions of the texts into print so all scholars could begin assessing them.p. Ulrich’s own assessment? He repeatedly encountered scrolls that ‘’did, and didn’t, look like what we call the Bible.‘’p. His conclusion: In ancient times, two or more contrasting editions of many biblical books existed side by side and were all regarded as Scripture. In other words, back then the Old Testament was far different from what we think of today.p. He concludes that there were multiple editions for at least these books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Samuel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Psalms and Song of Solomon. Ulrich spells out his theory in ’’The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible.‘’p. An example of the problems he and others ponder: In two of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Psalm 33 directly follows Psalm 31, skipping number 32. Did the scribes who wrote those manuscripts believe 32 was not God’s Word?p. And the opposite situation: Various scrolls include 15 psalms that are not found in standard Bibles. Sample: ‘’Blessed be he who has made the earth by his power, who has established the world in his wisdom…’’ Was this Scripture that was later lost, or did Dead Sea scribes merely collect devotional poetry and mix it with biblical psalms?p. ‘’If Ulrich is on the right track, we’ve got some major thinking to do,‘’ acknowledges John H. Walton, a staunchly conservative professor at Chicago’s Moody Bible Institute. The problem as he sees it: ‘’If it could be demonstrated we have two biblical traditions arising independently of one another, instead of one being a revision or corruption of the other, then which one are you going to call God’s Word?‘’p. Personally, Walton thinks Ulrich’s conclusions are premature and professes himself untroubled by any findings to date. The scrolls, which include portions of all books except Esther and Nememiah, were written between 200 B.C. and 70 A.D. In that same period, rabbis began establishing the standard Masoretic Text, the basis for all Old Testaments since the early Middle Ages.p. Should the Bibles used in churches, synagogues and homes be thoroughly revised to reflect all the variations? Not necessarily, says Ulrich, a lay Roman Catholic. But at least serious students should be reading a Bible with multiple options. And he insists that future Bible translations should be less wedded to the Masoretic Text and rely more on the alternate renditions.p. Scholars have just begun work on an ‘’eclectic Bible’’ to show these textual variations, which will take years to complete.p. But Ulrich, with co-editors Martin Abegg Jr. and Peter Flint, has taken the first step with ‘’The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible.’’ The book presents new English translations of the Dead Sea biblical manuscripts (the scholarly Oxford volumes have the original Hebrew) with user-friendly explanations of how they differ from standard Bibles.p. The book is billed as ‘’the oldest known Bible.’’ The reason: The scrolls are a millennium older than the surviving Masoretic Hebrew manuscripts that provide the basis for all modern Old Testaments, which date from around A.D. 1000.p. Specialists know that this puzzle of different Old Testaments, raised anew by the scrolls, is not really new. Before the scrolls were discovered, scholars were aware of three main editions: the Samaritan, which included only the first five books; the early form of the Masoretic Hebrew; and the Septuagint, a Greek translation from a different Hebrew version.p. (Catholic and Orthodox Bibles follow the Septuagint in including seven extra books that Jews and Protestants do not recognize as part of the Bible.)p. Various scrolls provide evidence of all three traditions, plus a fourth group of texts unique to the Dead Sea community.p. In understanding the whole complex situation, it’s important to remember that in ancient times there was no single bound ’’Bible’’ but separate scrolls for each biblical book, and that Judaism did not fix the final list of biblical books till the period after the Dead Sea Scrolls were written.p. Lawrence Schiffman of New York University, co-editor of Oxford’s ‘’Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls,’’ thinks that for Judaism, Ulrich’s theorizing is ‘’irrelevant. No other Bible besides the Masoretic Text has any authority.’’ He says flatly: ’’There’s nothing in the scrolls that could possibly have any interest’’ in terms of revising the biblical canon.p. Schiffman is an Orthodox layman, but says his attitude is shared by more liberal Jews. He sees the variant editions as an issue only in Christianity, where scholars try to reconstruct the best text from whatever source.p. In addition, he’s convinced the Bible Jesus and his Jewish contemporaries knew was Masoretic, substantially the same as ours.p. If the Masoretic version is the one and only true Old Testament, then the Dead Sea Scrolls are extremely good news for Bible believers, Jewish or Christian. The Masoretic manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls are astonishingly similar to the standard Hebrew texts 1,000 years later, proving that Jewish scribes were accurate in preserving and transmitting the Masoretic Scriptures.p. Who originally wrote the scrolls, and who preserved them? Those issues are raised by a leading conservative Protestant scholar, Walter Kaiser, president of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts.p. Though experts are unable to agree, it appears the Dead Sea community was a marginal group, he says. ‘’So we can’t figure out from what perspective they were writing. That has to be factored in. Should cultic groups set the norm?‘’ He warns that relying on non-Masoretic manuscripts could be ’’like going to the Branch Davidians’’ of Waco.p. A related issue is ‘’who decides what is authoritative.’’ He figures the ancient rabbis, ‘’those closer to the scene, obviously had a better shot’’ in determining the best text. He also contends that many of the Dead Sea Scrolls are simply too fragmentary to support Ulrich’s sweeping conclusions about conflicting Old Testaments.p. Kaiser recalls the late Harry Orlinsky, the only Jewish translator on the Revised Standard Version, who used the scrolls to make 13 last-minute changes before that translation was issued in 1952. But he later told Kaiser and other students that 10 of those changes were too hasty and the Masoretic wording would have been preferable.p. Similar caution comes from Ulrich’s Notre Dame colleague James VanderKam, co-editor of the scrolls encyclopedia. ‘’To say that one or another version is more original is very difficult,’’ he thinks. ‘’We have very early evidence for all of them.’’ He says the Masoretic Bible ‘’is the one we’ve always had, and that’s unlikely to change.‘’p. In analyzing the various editions, ’’at the meaning level, most of the variants are not important,‘’ says VanderKam. ’’I don’t know that any issues of faith are involved.‘’p. The implications of Ulrich’s view fall heaviest upon evangelicals and fundamentalists who believe, as the creed at Kaiser’s seminary defines it, that the biblical books ‘’as originally written were inspired of God, hence free from error.’‘p. If so, which version of Jeremiah or Psalms was original? The technique of deciding that, known as textual criticism, has long been recognized and practiced by conservatives, notes Moody’s professor Walton, though until now most energy has been applied to manuscript variations in the New Testament.p. Kaiser readily grants that some implications of the scrolls’ variations could become unsettling but insists, ‘’Truth should never upset anyone. If we think God is a God of truth, real evidence ought never be shunned.’’p. Will all of this ever be settled? Assessments of the ancient texts develop slowly. But now that the Dead Sea biblical manuscripts are becoming fully available, specialists expect that within a decade there could be broader consensus on what they mean and how they should be applied

One impressive example of a textual variation that Dr. Parry and I found was Deuteronomy 32:8-9. I will present the divergent texts and offer an explanation below. The King James (Masoretic) Version of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 reads: 8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. 9 For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

The Dead Sea Scrolls version reads: 8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the sons of God. 9 For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance. [J.A. Duncan, in Qumran Cave 4. IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, ed. E. Ulrich and F.M. Cross, DJD XIV (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 90.]


--------------

First let me start with the basic outline of how old various manuscripts are. The Dead Sea Scrolls (in Hebrew) are the oldest manuscripts, and are roughly from between 200BCE and 100CE. Other Hebrew manuscripts are much much later, mostly from the 10th century onward with a little bit of 9th century material. The reason for this is that around that time the Masoretes developed a system for copying very accurately, and this lead to a standardization of the text and the replacement of older copies. The oldest Greek manuscripts (mostly the Septuagint translation) are much older than non-DSS Hebrew manuscripts. They fall into two kinds of manuscripts: papyri and uncials. Papyri are written on papyrus (Egyptian paper) while uncials are written on parchment (animal skins), both are written in the old all-caps "uncial script" (while miniscules are much latter manuscripts written with lower-case). Papyrus does not preserve as well, and most papyri are fragments. The oldest Uncials are 4th and 5th century CE, while some Papyri are 2nd or 3rd century CE or even older.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have two very incomplete copies of Genesis: 1QGen and 2QGen (found in caves 1 and 2 respectively). 1QGen has 1:18-21; 3:11-14; 22:13-15; 23:17-19; 24:22-24 and 2QGen appears to have even less. From roughly the same time (estimate 2nd century BCE) there are a few tiny fragments of a Greek papyrus Fouad 266 with parts of a few verses of Genesis (wikipedia only mentions the Deuteronomy portion, but there's also some fragments from Genesis). These three manuscripts are the earliest partial copies of Genesis.

A full list of early Greek fragments of Genesis can be found in the appendix of Hurtado's "The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins" (available online on his website). From the 2nd and 3rd century CE there are 7 or 8 other manuscripts (all but one of which are papyri). Most of these are short fragments with only a few verses, but a couple are more substantial: The Berlin Genesis Codex from the end of the 3rd century has 30 leaves containing most of Genesis and Papyrus Chester Beatty V from the second century has nearly 16 chapters. Between the two of them they have most of Genesis (completely missing 36-39 and 47-50).

Turning to the Uncials, in the 4th century CE you have the remaining small portion from Sinaiticus (which still has almost all of the New Testament, but is damaged in the Old Testament), and slightly later a more complete manuscript which was later damaged in a fire. Vaticanus is an almost complete manuscript also from the 4th century, but unfortunately is missing Genesis.

Unless I missed something, the oldest essentially complete Greek copy of Genesis is the 5th century CE Codex Alexandrinus which has two damaged pages but is otherwise complete in Genesis.

Around the same time there's also the earliest Syriac (Aramaic) copy of Genesis, in the London palimpsest 5b1 dated exactly (the copyist wrote the date) to 463/464. I was unable to find exactly how complete this copy is. Slightly earlier (4th century) there's a few chapters in Coptic in the Bodmer III Papyrus. It's possible, but unlikely, that I'm missing some other ancient translations into more obscure languages.

For an essentially complete Hebrew copy of Genesis you need to go to the 10th century Aleppo Codex, except that the Genesis portion of this manuscript was destroyed in anti-semitic riots in 1947. So for an extant essentially complete Hebrew copy of Genesis, I think the oldest is the Leningrad Codex from 1008/1009 CE.