A Response To Bart D. Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus I Antidocetic Changes Lk. 22:17–20.
A Response To Bart D. Ehrman’s
Misquoting Jesus
Thomas A. Howe, Ph.D.
A Response To Bart D. Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus I Antidocetic Changes Lk. 22:17–20.
Lk. 22:17–20
Interestingly, in attempting to demonstrate the existence of antidocetic changes, Ehrman again appeals to D, Codex Bezae, as “one of our oldest Greek manuscripts.”43 He is very cunning in the way he presents the problem. After quoting the section following the D manuscript, he asserts, “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.”44 He is referring to the fact that some manuscripts omit some or all of the material from verse 17 to verse 20. Metzger points out that there is an “overwhelming preponderance of external evidence supporting the longer form… .”45 (see Figure 2 below, also see the Appendix, for information on the witnesses for each reading and the dates associated with these witnesses). In the way Ehrman states the case he prejudices the reader to think of the material in question as an “addition” to the original text that has “made its way,” somehow, into our English translations. But, if this material is original, it is not an “addition,” and the reason it is in our English translations is because it is original, not because it “made its way into most modern translations.” Ehrman attempts to poison the well with his wording.
Figure 2: Apparatus for Lk. 22:17–20
The material in question primarily concerns the latter part of verse 19 and verse 20: τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων· τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.46 In support of his claim that these verses are not part of the original text of Luke, Ehrman says, “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.”47
What is “difficult” for Ehrman is apparently not difficult for other textual critics who have at least equal competency in the field. Metzger asserts, “The rise of the shorter version can be accounted for in terms of the theory of disciplina arcana, i.e., in order to protect the Eucharist from profanation, one or more copies of the Gospel according to Luke, prepared for circulation among non-Christian readers, omitted the sacramental formula after the beginning words.”48 In other words, this was not an antidocetic alteration, but an adaptation for public use. It is very unlikely that Ehrman is unfamiliar with either of these explanations, but he does not bother to provide this information to his reader, implying that there is no reasonable explanation for the rise of the shorter version. Ehrman argues that the material was added, “to stress Jesus’s (sic) real body and flesh, which he really sacrificed for the sake of others.”49 Citing an apologetic argument from Tertullian, Ehrman seems to argue that just because the passage was used against Marcion, this is sufficient to prove that it was added, whereas, it is much more likely that Tertullian referred to this material because it was authentic.
43 Ibid., 165.
44 Ibid., 166.
45 Metzger, Textual Commentary, 150.
46 “‘This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood’” (Lk. 22:19b–20a).
47 Ehrman, 166. Homoioteleuton means, “same ending.” It occurs when two words, phrases, or lines end with the same sequence of letters. The scribe, having finished copying the first, skips to the second, omitting all intervening words.
48 Metzger, Textual Commentary, 149–50. Metzger also quotes G. Kenyon and S. C. E. Legg’s explanation of the rise of the shorter version (see Appendix 1, page 31).
49 Ehrman, 167.
[1]Christian Apologetics Journal Volume 5. 2006 (vnp.5.2.13). Matthews, NC: Southern Evangelical Seminary.
Related fragments
Uncial Manuscript: +0113
Location: Paris
Uncial Manuscript: 0125
Location: Paris
Uncial Manuscript: 0139
Location: Paris
Contents: p
Location: Athos; Kiev; Moscow; Paris; St. Petersburg; Torino
Date: VI
Location: Athens; Lerma; London; New York; Patmos; Città del Vaticano; St. Petersburg; Thessalonica; Vienna
Date: VI
Contents: ea
Location: Paris
Date: XII/XIII
Edition: Jülicher/Aland; Wordsworth/White
Contents: e
Location: Brescia
Date: VI
Edition: Jülicher/Aland
Contents: p
Location: Cambridge
Date: IX
Edition: Scrivener
Contents: e
Location: Munich
Date: VI/VII
Edition: Jülicher/Aland
Contents: c
Location: Munich
Date: VII
Edition: Thiele
Contents: ea
Location: Cambridge
Date: V
Edition: Scrivener; Jülicher/Aland
Contents: p
Location: Paris
Date: V/VI
Edition: Tischendorf
Contents: e
Location: Berlin
Date: VIII
Edition: Jülicher/Aland
Contents: ac
Location: León
Date: VII
Edition: Fischer; Thiele
Contents: e
Location: Verona
Date: V
Edition: Jülicher/Aland
Contents: p
Location: Budapest
Date: VIII/IX
Edition: Frede
Contents: e
Location: Trent; Dublin; Rome; London
Date: V
Edition: Jülicher/Aland
Contents: a
Location: Oxford
Date: VI
Edition: Tischendorf