A Response To Bart D. Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus I Antidocetic Changes Lk. 22:17–20.
Admin 1
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.
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).
157 Minuscules Manuscript: 157 Contents: e Date: about 1122
180 Minuscules Manuscript: 180 Contents: e Date: XII
205 Minuscules Manuscript: 205 Contents: er Date: XV
565 Minuscules Manuscript: 565 Contents: e Date: IX
579 Minuscules Manuscript: 579 Contents: e Date: XIII
597 Minuscules Manuscript: 597 Contents: e Date: XIII
700 Minuscules Manuscript: 700 Contents: e Date: XI
892 Minuscules Manuscript: 892 Contents: e Date: IX
1006 Minuscules Manuscript: 1006 Contents: er Date: XI
1010 Minuscules Manuscript: 1010 Contents: e Date: XII
1071 Minuscules Manuscript: 1071 Contents: e Date: XII
1241 Minuscules Manuscript: 1241 Contents: ecp Date: XII
1243 Minuscules Manuscript: 1243 Contents: ec Date: XI
1292 Minuscules Manuscript: 1292 Contents: ec Date: XIII
1342 Minuscules Manuscript: 1342 Contents: e Date: XIII/XIV
1424 Minuscules Manuscript: 1424 Contents: e Date: IX/X
1505 Minuscules Manuscript: 1505 Contents: ec Date: XII
Byz The reading of the Byzantine witnesses, i.e., the text of the great majority of all Greek manuscripts, especially of the second millennium.
[ in the text enclose words whose presence or position in the text is regarded as disputed; in the critical apparatus, immediately following the symbol Byz, enclose the symbols for certain Byzantine witnesses (cf. p. 4*).
E Uncial Manuscript: E 08 Contents: a Location: Oxford Date: VI
G Uncial Manuscript: G 012 Contents: p Location: Dresden Date: IX
H Uncial Manuscript: H 015 Contents: p Location: Athos; Kiev; Moscow; Paris; St. Petersburg; Torino Date: VI
N Uncial Manuscript: [N 022] Contents: e Location: Athens; Lerma; London; New York; Patmos; Città del Vaticano; St. Petersburg; Thessalonica; Vienna Date: VI
Lect The majority of the selected lectionaries together with the lectionary text of the Greek Church (i.e., the text of the edition published by Apostoliki Diakonia, Athens).
it Old Latin (Itala) version. Superscript letters identify individual manuscripts.; see p. 23*ff.
aur Latin Manuscript: aur 15 Contents: e Location: Stockholm Date: VII Edition: Jülicher/Aland
c Latin Manuscript: c 6 Contents: ea Location: Paris Date: XII/XIII Edition: Jülicher/Aland; Wordsworth/White
geo Georgian version. (Blake [Mt]; Blake [Mk]; Brière [Lk]; Blake/Brière [Jn]; Garitte [Ac]; Dzocenidze/K. Daniela [Paul]; K’. Lort’k’anidze [Cath], here as a rule only the earliest revision A1 of both Sinaitic manuscripts from A.D. 974 and 977 were used). Georgian Rev was not available.
slav Slavonic version, or a Slavonic translation of a work by a Greek Church Father.
( in the critical apparatus, indicate that a witness supports the reading for which it is cited, but with minor differences; in the discourse segmentation apparatus, indicate minor differences of detail in segmentation, while the authority supports in general the segmentation for which it is cited.
Basil Greek Church Father: Basil, the Great Date: 379
Augustine Latin Church Father: Augustine Date: 430
D Uncial Manuscript: D 05 Contents: ea Location: Cambridge: Bezae Cantabrigiensis Date: V
a Latin Manuscript: a 3 Contents: e Location: Vercelli Date: IV Edition: Jülicher/Aland
ms indicates that individual manuscripts differ from others or from the text of the standard edition of the version. This symbol is used only rarely with the earlier, less reliable editions.
Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., Wikgren, A., Aland, B., & Karavidopoulos, J. (2000; 2009). The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (with apparatus); The Greek New Testament, 4th Revised Edition (with apparatus). Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; Stuttgart.