The Neglect of the Firstborn in New Testament Studies 

The Neglect of the Firstborn in New Testament Studies

Bart D. Ehrman

Presidential Lecture, Society of Biblical Literature, SE Region

March 1997


Bart Ehrman delivered this presidential address to the audience gathered at the Southeastern Commission for the Study of Religion in Macon, Georgia, on March 14, 1997. A fuller discussion of the textual variants mentioned below (Luke 22:19-20) can be found in Ehrman’s book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, pp. 197-209


Interpreters of the NT are faced with a discomforting reality that many of them would like to ignore. In many instances, we don’t know what the authors of the NT actually wrote. It often proves difficult enough to establish what the words of the NT mean; the fact that in some instances we don’t know what the words actually were does more than a little to exacerbate the problem.

I say that many interpreters would like to ignore this reality; but perhaps that isn’t strong enough. In point of fact, many interpreters, possibly most, do ignore it, pretending that the textual basis of the Christian Scriptures is secure, when unhappily, it is not.

When the individual authors of the NT released their works to the public, each book found a niche in one or another of the burgeoning Christian communities that were scattered, principally in large Greek-speaking urban areas, around the Mediterranean. Anyone within these communities who wanted a copy of these books, whether for private use, as community property, or for general distribution, was compelled to produce a copy by hand, or to acquire the services of someone else to do so.

During the course of their transmission, the original copies of these books came to be lost, worn out, or destroyed; the early Christians evidently saw no need to preserve their original texts for antiquarian or other reasons. Had they been more fully cognizant of what happens to documents that are copied by hand, however, especially by hands that are not professionally trained for the job, they may have exercised greater caution in preserving the originals. As it is, for whatever historical reasons, the originals no longer survive. What do survive are copies of the originals, or, to be more precise, copies made from the copies of the copies of the originals, thousands of these subsequent copies, dating from the 2nd to the 16th centuries, some of them tiny fragments the size of a credit card, uncovered in garbage heaps buried in the sands of Egypt, others of them enormous and elegant tomes preserved in the great libraries and monasteries of Europe. It is difficult to know what the authors of the Greek New Testament wrote, in many instances, because all of these surviving copies differ from one another, sometimes significantly.

The severity of the problem was not recognized throughout the Middle Ages or even, for the most part, during the Renaissance. Indeed, biblical scholars were not forcefully confronted with the uncertainty of their texts until the early eighteenth century. The floodgates opened in 1707, when an Oxford scholar named John Mill published an edition of the Greek New Testament that contained a critical apparatus systematically and graphically detailing the differences among the surviving witnesses of the NT. Mill had devoted some thirty years of his life to examining a hundred or so Greek MSS, the early versions of the NT, and the citations of the NT in the writings of the church fathers. His apparatus did not include all of the differences that he had uncovered in his investigation, but only the ones that he considered significant for the purposes of exegesis or textual reconstruction. These, however, were enough. To the shock and dismay of many of his contemporaries, Mill’s apparatus indicated some 30,000 places of variation, 30,000 places where the available witnesses to the NT text differed from one another.

Numerous representatives of traditional piety were immediately outraged, and promptly denounced Mill’s publication as a demonic attempt to render the text of the NT uncertain. Mill’s supporters, on the other hand, pointed out that he had not invented these 30,000 places of variation, but had simply noticed them. One positive outcome of the dispute was that a number of competent, classically-trained scholars entered into the fray, such disparate personalities as Richard Bentley and Johann Albrecht Bengel, and eventually such greats as Karl Lachmann and J. J. Griesbach. For the most part these scholars were less interested in discovering differences in our manuscripts than in figuring out what to do with the differences, with the ultimate objective of establishing the so-called original text, that is, the text as actually written by the New Testament authors themselves. They developed a number of criteria by which manuscripts, and the readings they contained, could be evaluated; building on one another’s work, they labored to establish which of the surviving readings were original and which were later modifications, either accidental slips made by careless or incompetent scribes or intentional alterations made by scribes who thought the text ought to say what they already knew it to mean.

These pioneering efforts at establishing the text represent the first attempts to study the New Testament on critical, rather than confessional, grounds. Long before other kinds of critical approaches to the text–source, form, redaction, rhetorical, structuralist, and post-structuralist forms of criticism–there was textual criticism. It was the firstborn of NT studies.

With the passing of time, and the emergence of new questions and interests, every critical approach to the New Testament becomes antiquated; in some instances this is understandable. The very assumptions underlying form critical and structuralist analyses, for example, are today roundly rejected, probably in most quarters. And the very real contributions to be made through traditional forms of source and redaction criticism have already been made; frankly, there doesn’t appear to be much water left in these wells, even though what has already been retrieved can on occasion be fruitfully recycled. With textual criticism, we are, somewhat ironically, in a different situation altogether. It’s true that some of the fundamental assumptions of the field are undergoing important critique, as a growing number of textual scholars are beginning to question seriously and fruitfully what it might mean to speak about an “original” text, for example, of the Gospel of Mark or John. Even so, at the end of the day, the importance of the basic task is widely acknowledged: you can’t very well interpret what a text means if you don’t know what it says. And the basic methods for establishing the earliest form of the text are widely seen as theoretically defensible and practically indispensable. Yet more importantly, this is one critical well that is not at all dry. It is this latter point that I want to stress in my talk. We have nearly 50 times the number of MSS that John Mill had at his disposal in 1707, and we know of possibly 100 times as many textual variants–far more variants among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. Most of these variant readings are completely insignificant for larger questions, involving such things as misspelled words and fatigue-inspired slips of pens. But a lot of them do have broader implications for other areas of research, such as biblical exegesis, Christian theology, and early Christian social history. Most of these have not been considered adequately in light of these broader concerns. There is in fact a lot that remains to be done in this field that is both interesting and significant.

This is not widely recognized, however, and the firstborn of NT studies has, as a result, suffered from some serious neglect. The neglect is evident on almost all levels. A surprising number of PhD’s in NT–we may as well admit it–are barely competent in Greek. Even more are unable to make sense of the critical apparatus that stands at the foot of every page of the Nestle- Aland Greek New Testament that everyone uses. And even those who can construe the apparatus are rarely equipped to understand why one reading, the one found in the text, has been printed, while others are found only in the apparatus–let alone to come to independent judgments about the adequacy of the decision of the United Bible Society’s committee, comprised of Kurt and Barbara Aland, Bruce Metzger, and others. Commentators typically ignore textual problems, not simply because they have other things to do but also because in many instances they don’t have the wherewithal to deal with the problems.

Many students of the New Testament in divinity schools and seminaries, not to speak of Greek students in colleges and universities, are never taught what the apparatus is all about; many of them don’t know that there is a difference between the various kinds of apparatus that are available; most of them don’t realize that the apparatuses are not exhaustive but barely scratch the surface of the textual variation of which we now have knowledge. And this is not to say a word about the general population, laypeople who don’t know that the New Testament was written in Greek and that we don’t actually have the NT books themselves but only copies produced many centuries later that differ widely among one another.

This is raw ignorance in one of its most crass forms, an ignorance that can be and has been fed upon by well-meaning incompetents and glory-seeking cranks. Very few people in our society have any grounds whatsoever to evaluate the claims that the words of the King James Translation are themselves inspired by God; very few highly trained New Testament scholars are able actually to dispute the claims of Carston Thiede found in a major article of Time Magazine that one of our papyrus MSS, P64, in fact dates to the middle of the first century and may represent an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus by one of his followers. There are lots of knees jerking over these issues, but very few minds working. At the very least scholars of the NT should be equipped to deal with these matters. And, in fact, the training that can prepare them to do so can prove salutary for other reasons, since considerations of the problems of the text naturally involve so many areas of research interest to scholars of the Bible and early Christianity.

This is the point I’d like to emphasize in the bulk of the time I have remaining. In order to illustrate the wide range of relatively interesting issues that can be involved with the textual variation of the NT, I’ve decided to discuss in some detail just one variant reading, out of a cast of hundreds that could readily be chosen for the purpose, a solitary textual problem whose resolution has broad ranging implications for such fields as exegesis, the history of doctrine, the development of Christian liturgy, and, of all things, post-modernist understandings of ancient texts.

I’ve chosen for my illustration one of the most intriguing textual problems of the Gospel of Luke, namely the variant accounts of the Last Supper preserved in MSS of Luke 22:19-20. The NT MSS present the passage in two major forms; one is conveniently labeled the “shorter text,” because it lacks vv. 19b- 20, so that the passage reads as follows (17-19a, 21):

Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them saying, “This is my body. 21 But see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table.”

The longer text includes the familiar material (italicized) between the final two sentences (vv. 19b-20):

Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. 21 But see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table.”

This longer form of the text is the one familiar to most readers of the Bible, since it is the one found in virtually all modern English translations and is very similar to the words of institution recorded by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. It is also the one found in most of our Greek manuscripts of Luke. There are nonetheless solid reasons for thinking that the shorter text was the one originally written by the author, and that the passage italicized above was added by a scribe of the second century, some sixty or seventy years after the Gospel was first placed in circulation.

To analyze the competing merits of the two readings, the first step is obviously to consider the manuscripts supporting each one.

Whereas hundreds of mss attest the longer reading of the text, the shorter form is supported only by one early Greek and a handful of Old Latin manuscripts. That in itself is not a compelling reason for rejecting it, however, precisely because of the nature of the particular manuscripts in question. For technical reasons, whenever these particular manuscripts agree on a reading, scholars generally concede that it goes back at the least to the second century; but the odd thing is that when they do agree, it is almost always in expanded forms of the text, rather than contracted forms. In this instance, the mss that generally preserve longer texts attest the shorter one. This has given scholars pause; in this passage these manuscripts attest a reading that cuts against their known proclivities.

There are strong internal grounds for thinking they do so here because the shorter text is, in fact, the oldest surviving reading. It’s worth noting, for example, that the longer passage preserves an inordinately high number of literary features completely uncharacteristic of Luke-Acts, and that precisely these non-Lukan features are the key elements of the text: the phrase “for you” occurs twice in this passage, but nowhere else in all of Luke-Acts, the word for “remembrance,” occurs only here in Luke- Acts, and never elsewhere does Luke speak of the “new covenant,” let alone the new covenant “in my blood.”

But far more important than the absence of this vocabulary from the rest of Luke-Acts is the matter of its ideational content. For it is surely significant that the understanding of Jesus’ death expressed by these words and phrases is otherwise absent from Luke’s entire two-volume work. When Jesus says in Luke 22:19b-20 that his body is given “for you” and that his blood is shed “for you,” he is stating what Luke says nowhere else: in neither his Gospel nor Acts does he portray Jesus’ death as an atonement for sins.

Although most readers probably haven’t noticed, never in his two volumes does Luke say that Jesus died “for your sins” or “for you.” Significantly when he summarizes the features of the “Christ event” in the speeches of Acts, with remarkable consistency he portrays the death of Jesus not as an atoning sacrifice, but as a miscarriage of justice that God reversed by vindicating Jesus at the resurrection (e.g., Acts 2, 3, and 4). In none of these speeches is Jesus said to die “for” anyone. Instead, the scandal of his death as God’s righteous one drives people to their knees in repentance, and it’s this repentance that brings forgiveness of sins. In one passage in particular one might expect some reference, however distant, to Jesus’ atoning death. In Acts 8 the apostle Philip encounters an Ethiopian eunuch reading the text of Scripture used most widely by early Christians to explain Jesus’ death as a vicarious atonement: Isaiah 53. But somewhat remarkably, when Luke cites the passage as read by the Ethiopian, he includes not a word about the Servant of the Lord being “wounded for our transgressions” (Isa. 53:5), being “bruised for our iniquities” (53:5), or making himself “an offering for sin” (53:10). Luke has instead crafted his quotation to affirm his own view of Jesus’ passion: he died as an innocent victim who was then vindicated (Acts 8:32-33).

It is particularly important to stress that Luke has not simply overlooked or avoided making references to Jesus’ death as an atonement; he has in fact gone out of his way to eliminate notions of atonement from the one source we are virtually certain he had before him, the Gospel of Mark. Mark makes two poignant references to the salvific significance of Jesus’ death and Luke changed them both. The first and most obvious comes in the famous words of Jesus in Mark 10:45: “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” If Luke found this theology acceptable, it is hard to explain what he did with the verse. He omitted it altogether.

The other reference is more subtle, but nonetheless forms a kind of linchpin for Mark’s theology of the cross. In Mark’s account, Jesus’ death is immediately followed by two signs that suggest its meaning: the temple curtain is ripped in half and the Roman centurion confesses him to be “the Son of God” (15:38-39). Mark evidently uses the ripping of the curtain of the Holy of Holies to indicate that in the death of Jesus God has made himself available to human beings, destroying the barrier of access to him. And the confession of the centurion represents the first (and only) instance of a person in Mark’s Gospel who fully recognizes who Jesus is: he is the Son of God who had to die, whose death was not inimical to his divine sonship but was instead constitutive of it. In short, the ripping of the curtain and the confession of the centurion reveal Mark’s understanding of Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice that effects salvation.

Luke’s account of Jesus’ death, which is dependent on Mark’s, also records a tearing of the temple curtain and a confession of the centurion. But the events are modified so that their significance is transformed. The tearing of the curtain in the Temple no longer results from Jesus’ death, because in Luke it occurs before Jesus dies (23:45). What the event might mean to Luke has been debated, but since it is now combined with the eerie darkness that has come over the land, it appears to represent a cosmic sign that accompanies the hour of darkness, symbolizing God’s judgment upon his own people who have rejected his gift of “light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death” (1:79), a judgment that falls in particular on the religious institution which his people have perverted to their own ends (Luke 19:45-46).

So too Luke has changed the confession of the centurion. No longer does it indicate a profession of faith in the Son of God who has died (“Truly this man was the Son of God,” Mark 15:39); now it coincides with Luke’s own understanding of Jesus’ death, for here the centurion proclaims, “Truly this man was innocent” (Luke 23:47). The death of Jesus in Luke-Acts is not a death that effects an atoning sacrifice. It is the death of a righteous martyr who has suffered from miscarried justice, whose death is vindicated by God at the resurrection. Let me emphasize: Luke was able to shift the focus away from the atoning significance of Jesus’ death only by modifying the one account of that death which we are certain he had received. What though has this to do with our textual problem?

In fact only one of the two readings conforms with the theology of Luke otherwise, and specifically with his demonstrable handling of his Marcan source. The verses of the longer text of the institution of the Lord’s Supper stress the atoning significance of Jesus’ death for his disciples. That is, they emphasize precisely what Luke has gone out of his way to eliminate from his entire two-volume narrative. It’s hard to see these verses as coming from Luke’s own pen.

I would like to deal with one final aspect of the passage before drawing out some of the broader implications. One of the reasons most people prefer the longer form of the text is that without the addition of vv. 19b-20 the text appears to end abruptly, so abruptly that it is difficult to imagine a Christian author not supplementing the account with additional material. Look for yourself at the passage. Doesn’t the abruptness of the shorter text suggest that the longer text must have been original?

In fact, as has sometimes been recognized, it probably indicates just the reverse. Readers who are thoroughly conversant with the eucharistic liturgy feel that something is “missing” when Jesus’ words over the bread are not followed by his passing of the cup. But of course this is the case not only for modern critics who assume that Luke could not have ended the passage so shortly, but also for ancient scribes who were equally accustomed to the traditions of Jesus’ Last Supper. What would be more natural for scribes conversant with what “really happened” at Jesus’ last meal than to supplement Luke’s version with the words drawn from a tradition with which they were otherwise familiar?

Interestingly, this “other tradition” (i.e. vv. 19b-20 in the longer text) is not only anomalous within Luke’s Gospel itself, it also has very few connections with Luke’s source, the Gospel of Mark. Instead, the additional words practically mirror the familiar form of the institution preserved in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Is it possible that a scribe has inserted a Pauline form of the institution into Luke’s seemingly too brief account?

This appears to be the best explanation for the longer passage. For in point of fact, no one has been able to provide a convincing explanation for how the shorter text would have come into existence if the longer were original. One of the standard explanations is that a scribe who either could not understand or did not appreciate the appearance of two cups in Luke’s narrative eliminated one of them to make the account coincide better with all the others. The problem is that it’s hard to explain a scribe harmonizing the account to its parallels by eliminating the second cup instead of the first. It is the first that is problematic, since it is distributed before the giving of the bread; and it is the second that is familiar, because the words of institution parallel so closely those of Paul in 1 Corinthians. Anyone wanting to eliminate the problems of two cups and of sequence would have excised the earlier cup, not the latter. Even worse, this explanation cannot at all account for the omission of v. 19b, where the cup is not yet mentioned.

Virtually the only explanation that might account for the shorter text if the longer is original is that vv. 19b-20 dropped out by accident. But this is problematic as well. Only rarely do such long passages (thirty-two words) drop out of a text for no apparent reason. And it scarcely seems accidental (1) that these thirty-words just happen to supply precisely what is missing in the account otherwise, a notion that Jesus’ body and blood would be given on behalf of his disciples, (2) that this theological construal is otherwise alien to Luke’s entire two-volume work, and (3) that these words, and only these words, parallel the words found in 1 Corinthians. In short, it is difficult to explain the shorter text if the longer text is original.

But it is not at all difficult to account for an interpolation of the disputed words into Luke’s brief account of Jesus’ last supper with his disciples. For while Luke’s account of Jesus going to his death proved useful for proto-orthodox Christians of the second century who themselves emphasized the necessity of martyrdom and the need to emulate the tranquility of Jesus in the face of it, it was not at all useful when they wanted to stress, in direct opposition to certain groups of docetic opponents, that Christ experienced a real passion in which his body was broken and his blood was shed for the sins of the world.

We know of a number of Christians who embraced docetic Christologies from at least the beginning of the second century onwards (i.e. from precisely the period in which this Lukan text must have been altered). Representatives of such views are known from the writings of Ignatius and other second- and third-century heresiologists; some of them are known by name, with the arch-heretics Marcion, Saturninus, and Basilides heading the list. Despite the differences among their views, these Christians were unified in thinking that Christ did not have a real flesh and blood existence. He was a phantasm, a specter. By implication, at least in the eyes of their proto-orthodox opponents, these docetists necessarily devalued the salvific significance of Christ’s death, indeed necessarily denied that Christ “really” died and shed “real” blood, let alone that he shed blood “for you.”

For the proto-orthodox, on the other hand, it was precisely the sacrifice of Christ’s flesh and the shedding of his blood that brought redemption to the fallen race of humans. For them, Jesus was a human not in appearance only but in reality; he had real flesh and real blood, he suffered real pain and died a real death. And most importantly for the textual history of this passage, Jesus’ suffering and death were not incidental to salvation but were integral to it. Jesus’ body was given for believers, and it was his blood that established the new covenant.

It is no accident that Tertullian refers on one occasion to Christ’s consecration of the wine as his blood to disparage Marcion’s view that he was merely a phantom (Treatise on the Soul, 17), while on another occasion he cites the entire institution narrative as known from 1 Cor. 11 and the longer text of Luke to the same end, precisely to show that Christ’s giving of his body and blood for his disciples demonstrated the reality of that body and blood (Adv. Marc., 40).

In using the text in this way, Tertullian is closely allied with other proto-orthodox authors of the second century such as Irenaeus, who also used this passage in his attacks on both Marcion and other unnamed docetists.

It is precisely the emphasis on Jesus’ giving of his own flesh and blood for the salvation of believers, as represented in the physical elements of the bread broken “for you” and the cup given “for you,” that made the longer text of Luke 22:19-20 so attractive to the proto-orthodox heresiologists of the second century. And it is the same theological concern that may account for the genesis of the text, which as we have seen, evidently did not come from the hand of Luke himself.

Consider now the areas of research that both impinge upon this textual decision and are affected by it. It is obviously a significant matter of exegesis to know which words belong in Luke’s text. As I’ve pointed out, it’s impossible for interpreters to explain what Luke’s words mean if they don’t know what these words were. Establishing the earliest form of the text also matters for our understanding of New Testament theology, since here is a book that construes the significance of Jesus’ death in a non-Pauline way, not as an atonement but as a ground for repentance that leads to forgiveness. This construal in turn is significant for our understanding of the diversity of early Christianity, as the traditional Christian creeds developed from one of these paths of thought rather than the other. It may well be that liturgical diversity in early Christianity is at issue as well, since the older form of Luke’s text appears to reflect not only a different wording of the institution narrative at the Lord’s supper, but a different sequence within the liturgical act itself, in which the cup is given primacy over the bread. These forms of diversity came to fuller expression in the second century, as historians of liturgy and doctrine know from our early sources; interestingly, it may have been the historical development of Christian doctrine that led to the modification of the text in the first place, as second century Christians searched for texts to combat proponents of docetic Christologies. This in turn shows that the transmission of the text was affected by social disputes in early Christianity, in this case, by the struggles to establish emerging orthodoxy. I might add that other kinds of disputes and social issues played their role on the transmission of the text, though in passages other than this one, issues such as the rise of Christian anti-Judaism, the oppression of women, the apologetic movement, and the rise of asceticism.

At least this one passage is sufficient, though, to make my basic point. There are dozens of passages that need to be worked on in this way with these sets of questions, not just to determine some kind of reputedly “original” text, but also to see how the transmission of this text came to be so thoroughly enmeshed in the concerns and conflicts of the emerging Christian church. Thus the modernist obsession with origins, historically so characteristic of biblical studies, can give way even in the study of the text, a study invested not simply in a hypothetically primal fixed entity (“the autograph”) but in texts that have been construed over time, reread by readers in real contexts, and occasionally rewritten by some of these readers in the process of transmission.

Let me conclude by saying that in recent years the firstborn of New Testament studies has begun to show some internal signs of growth, as specialists in the field have begun to recognize the potential of the data at their disposal for scholars who do not reside among the rare and occasionally endangered species of the professional textual critic. It’s absolutely true that this aspect of NT studies has typically conjured up images of uninteresting, technical, and theoretically naive modernistic discourse, undertaken by uninteresting and theoretically naive modernist technicians who have nothing to say of broader interest to scholars working in the field of NT, let alone to the larger academy of religion. But we are now well positioned to move beyond this banal perception, which indeed we can do, if train a new generation of scholars in the field to pursue new lines of inquiry and so bring this neglected child to an age of maturity.

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/ehrman-pres.html

=======================================================

The Abaikan dari Sulung di New Testament Studies

Bart D. Ehrman Bart D. Ehrman

Presidential Lecture, Society of Biblical Literature, SE Region Presidential Lecture, Society of Biblical Literature, SE Daerah

March 1997 Maret 1997


Bart Ehrman delivered this presidential address to the audience gathered at the Southeastern Commission for the Study of Religion in Macon, Georgia, on March 14, 1997. Bart Ehrman menyampaikan pidato kepresidenan ini kepada para penonton berkumpul di Komisi Southeastern Studi Agama di Macon, Georgia, pada 14 Maret 1997. A fuller discussion of the textual variants mentioned below (Luke 22:19-20) can be found in Ehrman’s book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture , pp. Pembahasan lebih lengkap varian tekstual disebutkan di bawah ini (Lukas 22:19-20) dapat ditemukan dalam buku The Ehrman’s Ortodoks Korupsi Kitab Suci, hlm. 197-209 197-209


Interpreters of the NT are faced with a discomforting reality that many of them would like to ignore. Penafsir PB dihadapkan dengan realitas tidak menyenangkan bahwa banyak dari mereka yang ingin diabaikan. In many instances, we don’t know what the authors of the NT actually wrote. Dalam banyak kasus, kita tidak tahu apa yang penulis PB benar-benar menulis. It often proves difficult enough to establish what the words of the NT mean; the fact that in some instances we don’t know what the words actually were does more than a little to exacerbate the problem. Sering terbukti cukup sulit untuk menentukan kata-kata dari NT berarti; fakta bahwa dalam beberapa hal kita tidak tahu apa sebenarnya kata-kata itu tidak lebih dari sekadar untuk memperburuk masalah.

I say that many interpreters would like to ignore this reality; but perhaps that isn’t strong enough. Saya katakan bahwa banyak juru ingin mengabaikan kenyataan ini, tetapi mungkin itu tidak cukup kuat. In point of fact, many interpreters, possibly most, do ignore it, pretending that the textual basis of the Christian Scriptures is secure, when unhappily, it is not. Dalam kenyataannya, banyak interpreter, mungkin sebagian besar, lakukan mengabaikannya, berpura-pura bahwa dasar tekstual Kitab Suci Kristen aman, ketika sayangnya, tidak.

When the individual authors of the NT released their works to the public, each book found a niche in one or another of the burgeoning Christian communities that were scattered, principally in large Greek-speaking urban areas, around the Mediterranean. Anyone within these communities who wanted a copy of these books, whether for private use, as community property, or for general distribution, was compelled to produce a copy by hand, or to acquire the services of someone else to do so. Ketika penulis individu dirilis PB karya mereka kepada publik, masing-masing buku menemukan sebuah ceruk dalam satu atau lain yang sedang berkembang masyarakat Kristen yang tersebar, terutama dalam berbahasa Yunani besar daerah perkotaan, di sekitar Laut Tengah. Siapa saja dalam komunitas-komunitas yang menginginkan salinan dari buku-buku ini, baik untuk penggunaan pribadi, sebagai milik masyarakat, atau untuk distribusi umum, dipaksa untuk menghasilkan salinan dengan tangan, atau untuk memperoleh layanan dari orang lain untuk melakukannya.

During the course of their transmission, the original copies of these books came to be lost, worn out, or destroyed; the early Christians evidently saw no need to preserve their original texts for antiquarian or other reasons. Selama transmisi mereka, salinan asli dari buku-buku ini sampai hilang, rusak, atau hancur, orang Kristen awal jelas melihat tidak perlu untuk mempertahankan teks-teks asli untuk barang antik atau alasan lain. Had they been more fully cognizant of what happens to documents that are copied by hand, however, especially by hands that are not professionally trained for the job, they may have exercised greater caution in preserving the originals. Apakah mereka sudah lebih sadar sepenuhnya apa yang terjadi pada dokumen yang disalin dengan tangan, bagaimanapun, terutama oleh tangan yang tidak terlatih secara profesional untuk pekerjaan, mereka mungkin telah melakukan lebih hati-hati dalam melestarikan aslinya. As it is, for whatever historical reasons, the originals no longer survive. Karena, untuk apa pun alasan sejarah, aslinya tidak lagi bertahan. What do survive are copies of the originals, or, to be more precise, copies made from the copies of the copies of the originals, thousands of these subsequent copies, dating from the 2nd to the 16th centuries, some of them tiny fragments the size of a credit card, uncovered in garbage heaps buried in the sands of Egypt, others of them enormous and elegant tomes preserved in the great libraries and monasteries of Europe. It is difficult to know what the authors of the Greek New Testament wrote, in many instances, because all of these surviving copies differ from one another, sometimes significantly. Apa yang bertahan hidup adalah salinan asli, atau, untuk lebih tepatnya, membuat salinan dari salinan dari salinan dari aslinya, ribuan salinan berikutnya ini, berasal dari ke-2 abad ke-16, beberapa dari mereka kecil ukuran fragmen kartu kredit, ditemukan di tumpukan sampah terkubur di dalam pasir di Mesir, yang lain dari mereka yang sangat besar dan elegan buku-buku tebal yang tersimpan dalam perpustakaan-perpustakaan besar dan biara-biara di Eropa. Hal ini sulit untuk mengetahui apa yang penulis Yunani Perjanjian Baru menulis, di banyak contoh, karena semua salinan yang masih hidup ini berbeda satu sama lain, kadang-kadang secara signifikan.

The severity of the problem was not recognized throughout the Middle Ages or even, for the most part, during the Renaissance. Indeed, biblical scholars were not forcefully confronted with the uncertainty of their texts until the early eighteenth century. The floodgates opened in 1707, when an Oxford scholar named John Mill published an edition of the Greek New Testament that contained a critical apparatus systematically and graphically detailing the differences among the surviving witnesses of the NT. Mill had devoted some thirty years of his life to examining a hundred or so Greek MSS, the early versions of the NT, and the citations of the NT in the writings of the church fathers. Keparahan masalah tidak diakui sepanjang Abad Pertengahan atau bahkan, untuk sebagian besar, selama Renaissance. Memang, para sarjana alkitabiah tidak kuat berhadapan dengan ketidakpastian teks-teks mereka sampai awal abad kedelapan belas. Yang pintu air dibuka pada tahun 1707, ketika seorang sarjana Oxford bernama John Mill menerbitkan sebuah edisi Yunani Perjanjian Baru yang berisi aparat kritis sistematis dan detail grafis perbedaan di antara saksi yang selamat dari NT. Mill telah mengabdikan sekitar tiga puluh tahun hidupnya untuk memeriksa seratus atau begitu Yunani MSS, versi awal dari NT, dan kutipan dari NT dalam tulisan-tulisan bapak-bapak gereja. His apparatus did not include all of the differences that he had uncovered in his investigation, but only the ones that he considered significant for the purposes of exegesis or textual reconstruction. Aparat-nya tidak mencakup semua perbedaan bahwa ia menemukan dalam penyelidikan, tetapi hanya yang bahwa ia menganggap penting untuk keperluan rekonstruksi penafsiran atau tekstual. These, however, were enough. Ini, bagaimanapun, sudah cukup. To the shock and dismay of many of his contemporaries, Mill’s apparatus indicated some 30,000 places of variation, 30,000 places where the available witnesses to the NT text differed from one another. Untuk kejutan dan kecemasan dari banyak orang sezamannya, aparatur Mill mengindikasikan sekitar 30.000 tempat variasi, 30.000 tempat-tempat yang tersedia saksi untuk teks PB berbeda dari satu sama lain.

Numerous representatives of traditional piety were immediately outraged, and promptly denounced Mill’s publication as a demonic attempt to render the text of the NT uncertain. Sejumlah perwakilan kesalehan tradisional langsung marah, dan langsung mencela Mill publikasi sebagai upaya iblis untuk membuat teks PB tidak pasti. Mill’s supporters, on the other hand, pointed out that he had not invented these 30,000 places of variation, but had simply noticed them. Mill pendukung, di sisi lain, menunjukkan bahwa ia tidak menemukan tempat 30.000 ini variasi, tetapi dia hanya melihat mereka. One positive outcome of the dispute was that a number of competent, classically-trained scholars entered into the fray, such disparate personalities as Richard Bentley and Johann Albrecht Bengel, and eventually such greats as Karl Lachmann and JJ Griesbach. Salah satu hasil positif dari sengketa adalah bahwa sejumlah kompeten, terlatih klasik sarjana masuk ke medan, seperti kepribadian yang berbeda seperti Richard Bentley dan Johann Albrecht Bengel, dan akhirnya seperti Karl hebat sebagai Lachmann dan JJ Griesbach. For the most part these scholars were less interested in discovering differences in our manuscripts than in figuring out what to do with the differences, with the ultimate objective of establishing the so-called original text, that is, the text as actually written by the New Testament authors themselves. Untuk sebagian besar para sarjana ini kurang tertarik dalam menemukan perbedaan-perbedaan dalam manuskrip kita daripada mencari tahu apa yang harus dilakukan dengan perbedaan, dengan tujuan akhir membentuk apa yang disebut teks asli, yaitu teks sebagai benar-benar ditulis oleh New penulis Perjanjian itu sendiri. They developed a number of criteria by which manuscripts, and the readings they contained, could be evaluated; building on one another’s work, they labored to establish which of the surviving readings were original and which were later modifications, either accidental slips made by careless or incompetent scribes or intentional alterations made by scribes who thought the text ought to say what they already knew it to mean. Mereka mengembangkan sejumlah kriteria yang naskah, dan bacaan mereka yang terkandung, dapat dievaluasi; membangun satu sama lain pekerjaan, mereka bekerja keras untuk menetapkan mana bacaan yang masih hidup yang asli dan yang kemudian modifikasi, baik disengaja tergelincir dibuat oleh ceroboh atau kompeten ahli-ahli Taurat atau perubahan yang disengaja yang dibuat oleh ahli-ahli Taurat yang berpikir bahwa teks harus mengatakan apa yang mereka sudah tahu hal itu berarti.

These pioneering efforts at establishing the text represent the first attempts to study the New Testament on critical, rather than confessional, grounds. Perintis tersebut mendirikan usaha di teks pertama mewakili upaya untuk mengkaji kritis Perjanjian Baru, bukan pengakuan, alasan. Long before other kinds of critical approaches to the text–source, form, redaction, rhetorical, structuralist, and post-structuralist forms of criticism–there was textual criticism. Jauh sebelum jenis lain pendekatan kritis terhadap teks – sumber, bentuk, redaksi, retoris, strukturalis, post-strukturalis dan bentuk-bentuk kritik – kritik tekstual ada. It was the firstborn of NT studies. Itu adalah yang sulung dari studi NT.

With the passing of time, and the emergence of new questions and interests, every critical approach to the New Testament becomes antiquated; in some instances this is understandable. Dengan berlalunya waktu, dan munculnya pertanyaan-pertanyaan baru dan minat, setiap pendekatan yang kritis terhadap Perjanjian Baru menjadi kuno; dalam beberapa kasus hal ini dapat dimengerti. The very assumptions underlying form critical and structuralist analyses, for example, are today roundly rejected, probably in most quarters. Yang sangat asumsi yang mendasari bentuk analisis kritis dan struktural, misalnya, saat ini secara keseluruhan ditolak, mungkin di sebagian besar tempat tinggal. And the very real contributions to be made through traditional forms of source and redaction criticism have already been made; frankly, there doesn’t appear to be much water left in these wells, even though what has already been retrieved can on occasion be fruitfully recycled. Dan kontribusi yang sangat nyata dilakukan melalui bentuk-bentuk sumber tradisional dan kritik redaksi telah dibuat; terus terang, ada tampaknya tidak akan banyak air yang tersisa dalam sumur ini, meskipun apa yang telah diambil dapat bermanfaat kadang-kadang dapat didaur ulang . With textual criticism, we are, somewhat ironically, in a different situation altogether. Dengan kritik teks, kita, agak ironis, dalam situasi yang berbeda sama sekali. It’s true that some of the fundamental assumptions of the field are undergoing important critique, as a growing number of textual scholars are beginning to question seriously and fruitfully what it might mean to speak about an “original” text, for example, of the Gospel of Mark or John. Memang benar bahwa beberapa asumsi dasar lapangan sedang mengalami kritik penting, karena semakin banyak sarjana tekstual mulai pertanyaan itu dengan serius dan berhasil apa artinya untuk berbicara tentang “asli” teks, misalnya, dari Injil Markus atau Yohanes. Even so, at the end of the day, the importance of the basic task is widely acknowledged: you can’t very well interpret what a text means if you don’t know what it says. Meskipun demikian, pada akhir hari, pentingnya tugas dasar telah diakui secara luas: Anda tidak bisa menafsirkan dengan baik teks apa artinya, jika Anda tidak tahu apa yang dikatakannya. And the basic methods for establishing the earliest form of the text are widely seen as theoretically defensible and practically indispensable. Dan metode dasar untuk menetapkan bentuk awal teks secara luas dilihat sebagai dipertahankan secara teoritis dan praktis diperlukan. Yet more importantly, this is one critical well that is not at all dry. Namun lebih penting lagi, ini adalah salah satu yang penting baik tidak sama sekali kering. It is this latter point that I want to stress in my talk. Ini adalah titik terakhir ini yang saya ingin menekankan dalam pembicaraan. We have nearly 50 times the number of MSS that John Mill had at his disposal in 1707, and we know of possibly 100 times as many textual variants–far more variants among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. Kami memiliki hampir 50 kali jumlah MSS bahwa John Mill telah di pembuangan pada tahun 1707, dan kita tahu mungkin 100 kali lebih banyak varian tekstual – jauh lebih banyak varian diantara naskah daripada kami ada kata-kata dalam Perjanjian Baru. Most of these variant readings are completely insignificant for larger questions, involving such things as misspelled words and fatigue-inspired slips of pens. Sebagian besar varian bacaan yang sama sekali tidak signifikan untuk pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang lebih besar, melibatkan hal-hal seperti kata yang salah eja dan kelelahan-diilhami slip pena. But a lot of them do have broader implications for other areas of research, such as biblical exegesis, Christian theology, and early Christian social history. Tapi banyak dari mereka memang memiliki implikasi yang lebih luas bagi daerah lain penelitian, seperti penafsiran Alkitab, teologi Kristen, dan Kristen awal sejarah sosial. Most of these have not been considered adequately in light of these broader concerns. Sebagian besar belum dianggap memadai dalam terang keprihatinan yang lebih luas ini. There is in fact a lot that remains to be done in this field that is both interesting and significant. Sebenarnya ada banyak hal yang masih harus dilakukan dalam bidang ini yang menarik dan signifikan.

This is not widely recognized, however, and the firstborn of NT studies has, as a result, suffered from some serious neglect. Hal ini tidak diakui secara luas, namun, dan yang sulung dari studi-studi NT, sebagai akibatnya, menderita dari kelalaian serius. The neglect is evident on almost all levels. Mengabaikan terbukti di hampir semua tingkatan. A surprising number of PhD’s in NT–we may as well admit it–are barely competent in Greek. Sebuah jumlah yang mengejutkan PhD di NT – kita mungkin juga mengakuinya – yang hampir tidak kompeten dalam bahasa Yunani. Even more are unable to make sense of the critical apparatus that stands at the foot of every page of the Nestle- Aland Greek New Testament that everyone uses. Bahkan lebih tidak dapat memahami aparat kritis yang berdiri di kaki dari setiap halaman dari Nestle-Aland Yunani Perjanjian Baru yang setiap orang menggunakan. And even those who can construe the apparatus are rarely equipped to understand why one reading, the one found in the text, has been printed, while others are found only in the apparatus–let alone to come to independent judgments about the adequacy of the decision of the United Bible Society’s committee, comprised of Kurt and Barbara Aland, Bruce Metzger, and others. Dan bahkan mereka yang bisa menafsirkan aparat jarang diperlengkapi untuk mengerti mengapa satu membaca, yang ditemukan dalam teks, telah dicetak, sementara yang lain hanya ditemukan di aparat – apalagi untuk datang ke penilaian independen tentang kecukupan keputusan Amerika Alkitab Society komite, yang terdiri dari Kurt dan Barbara Aland, Bruce Metzger, dan lain-lain. Commentators typically ignore textual problems, not simply because they have other things to do but also because in many instances they don’t have the wherewithal to deal with the problems. Komentator biasanya mengabaikan masalah tekstual, bukan hanya karena mereka memiliki hal-hal lain yang harus dilakukan, tetapi juga karena dalam banyak kasus mereka tidak memiliki sarana untuk berurusan dengan masalah.

Many students of the New Testament in divinity schools and seminaries, not to speak of Greek students in colleges and universities, are never taught what the apparatus is all about; many of them don’t know that there is a difference between the various kinds of apparatus that are available; most of them don’t realize that the apparatuses are not exhaustive but barely scratch the surface of the textual variation of which we now have knowledge. Banyak mahasiswa dari Perjanjian Baru di sekolah-sekolah teologi dan seminari, bukan untuk berbicara tentang Yunani mahasiswa di perguruan tinggi dan universitas, tidak pernah diajarkan apa aparat adalah semua tentang; banyak dari mereka tidak tahu bahwa ada perbedaan antara berbagai jenis aparat yang tersedia; kebanyakan mereka tidak menyadari bahwa aparatur ini tidak bersifat mengikat namun hampir tidak menggores permukaan variasi tekstual yang sekarang kita memiliki pengetahuan. And this is not to say a word about the general population, laypeople who don’t know that the New Testament was written in Greek and that we don’t actually have the NT books themselves but only copies produced many centuries later that differ widely among one another. Dan ini tidak mengucapkan sepatah kata pun mengenai populasi umum, orang awam yang tidak tahu bahwa Perjanjian Baru ditulis dalam bahasa Yunani dan bahwa kita tidak benar-benar memiliki buku-buku Perjanjian Baru sendiri, tetapi hanya menghasilkan salinan berabad-abad kemudian yang berbeda secara luas di antara satu sama lain.

This is raw ignorance in one of its most crass forms, an ignorance that can be and has been fed upon by well-meaning incompetents and glory-seeking cranks. Ini adalah ketidaktahuan mentah dalam salah satu bentuk yang paling kasar, sebuah ketidaktahuan yang dapat dan telah diberi makan atas oleh makna baik tidak kompeten dan kemuliaan-mencari Cranks. Very few people in our society have any grounds whatsoever to evaluate the claims that the words of the King James Translation are themselves inspired by God; very few highly trained New Testament scholars are able actually to dispute the claims of Carston Thiede found in a major article of Time Magazine that one of our papyrus MSS, P64, in fact dates to the middle of the first century and may represent an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus by one of his followers. There are lots of knees jerking over these issues, but very few minds working. Sangat sedikit orang dalam masyarakat kita punya alasan apapun untuk mengevaluasi klaim bahwa kata-kata King James penerjemahan itu sendiri diilhami oleh Allah; sangat sedikit sangat terlatih pakar Perjanjian Baru benar-benar mampu untuk membantah klaim-klaim Carston Thiede ditemukan dalam artikel utama of Time Magazine bahwa salah satu papirus kami MSS, P64, sebenarnya tanggal ke tengah abad pertama dan mungkin mewakili seorang saksi mata tentang kehidupan Yesus oleh salah satu pengikutnya. Ada banyak lutut menyentak atas isu-isu ini, tetapi sangat sedikit pikiran bekerja. At the very least scholars of the NT should be equipped to deal with these matters. Setidaknya ulama PB harus dilengkapi untuk menangani hal ini. And, in fact, the training that can prepare them to do so can prove salutary for other reasons, since considerations of the problems of the text naturally involve so many areas of research interest to scholars of the Bible and early Christianity. Dan, pada kenyataannya, pelatihan yang dapat menyiapkan mereka untuk melakukannya dapat membuktikan bermanfaat karena alasan lain, karena pertimbangan masalah alami teks melibatkan begitu banyak bidang penelitian menarik minat para cendekiawan dari Alkitab dan awal kekristenan.

This is the point I’d like to emphasize in the bulk of the time I have remaining. Ini adalah titik saya ingin menekankan di sebagian besar waktu saya memiliki sisa. In order to illustrate the wide range of relatively interesting issues that can be involved with the textual variation of the NT, I’ve decided to discuss in some detail just one variant reading, out of a cast of hundreds that could readily be chosen for the purpose, a solitary textual problem whose resolution has broad ranging implications for such fields as exegesis, the history of doctrine, the development of Christian liturgy, and, of all things, post-modernist understandings of ancient texts. Dalam rangka untuk menggambarkan berbagai isu yang relatif menarik yang dapat terlibat dengan variasi tekstual NT, aku memutuskan untuk mendiskusikan dalam beberapa detail hanya satu varian bacaan, dari gips dari ratusan yang bisa langsung dipilih untuk tujuan, teks tunggal penyelesaian masalah yang luas, mulai implikasi bagi bidang-bidang seperti penafsiran, sejarah doktrin, pengembangan liturgi Kristen, dan, dari segala sesuatu, pasca-modernis pemahaman teks-teks kuno.

I’ve chosen for my illustration one of the most intriguing textual problems of the Gospel of Luke, namely the variant accounts of the Last Supper preserved in MSS of Luke 22:19-20. The NT MSS present the passage in two major forms; one is conveniently labeled the “shorter text,” because it lacks vv. Aku telah dipilih untuk ilustrasi saya salah satu dari masalah-masalah tekstual paling menarik dari Injil Lukas, yaitu rekening varian Perjamuan Terakhir diawetkan dalam MSS dari Lukas 22:19-20. MSS NT hadir ayat dalam dua bentuk utama; adalah nyaman disebut sebagai “teks yang lebih singkat,” karena mereka tidak mempunyai vv. 19b- 20, so that the passage reads as follows (17-19a, 21): 19b-20, sehingga bagian berbunyi sebagai berikut (17-19a, 21):

Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” Kemudian dia mengambil cangkir, dan setelah memberikan terima kasih, ia berkata, “Ambillah ini dan membaginya di antara kalian sendiri. 18 Sebab Aku berkata kepadamu bahwa mulai sekarang aku tidak akan minum dari hasil pokok anggur sampai Kerajaan Allah datang.” 19 Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them saying, “This is my body. 21 But see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table.” 19 Kemudian ia mengambil sepotong roti, dan ketika ia diberikan terima kasih, ia memecahkannya dan memberikannya kepada mereka berkata, “Ini tubuh-Ku. 21 Tetapi lihat, orang yang mengkhianati saya adalah dengan saya, dan tangannya ada di meja. “

The longer text includes the familiar material (italicized) between the final two sentences (vv. 19b-20): Teks Semakin lama termasuk materi akrab (dicetak miring) antara dua kalimat terakhir (vv. 19b-20):

Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” Lalu ia mengambil sepotong roti, dan ketika ia diberikan terima kasih, ia memecahkannya dan memberikannya kepada mereka berkata, “Ini tubuh-Ku, yang diberikan untuk Anda. Apakah ini sebagai peringatan akan Aku.” 20 And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. 21 But see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table.” 20 Dan ia melakukan hal yang sama dengan cawan sesudah makan malam, sambil berkata, “Ini piala yang ditumpahkan bagi Anda adalah perjanjian baru dalam darahku. 21 Tetapi lihat, orang yang mengkhianati saya adalah dengan saya, dan tangannya berada di meja. “

This longer form of the text is the one familiar to most readers of the Bible, since it is the one found in virtually all modern English translations and is very similar to the words of institution recorded by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. Ini lagi bentuk teks adalah yang asing bagi sebagian besar pembaca Alkitab, karena merupakan satu ditemukan di hampir semua terjemahan bahasa Inggris modern dan sangat mirip dengan kata-kata institusi yang dicatat oleh Rasul Paulus dalam 1 Korintus 11. It is also the one found in most of our Greek manuscripts of Luke. There are nonetheless solid reasons for thinking that the shorter text was the one originally written by the author, and that the passage italicized above was added by a scribe of the second century, some sixty or seventy years after the Gospel was first placed in circulation. Itu juga merupakan satu ditemukan di sebagian besar manuskrip Yunani dari Lukas. Ada alasan kuat untuk tetap berpikir bahwa teks pendek adalah satu-satunya awalnya ditulis oleh penulis, dan bahwa bagian dicetak miring di atas ini ditambahkan oleh seorang juru tulis dari abad kedua , sekitar enam puluh atau tujuh puluh tahun setelah Injil ditempatkan pertama kali beredar.

To analyze the competing merits of the two readings, the first step is obviously to consider the manuscripts supporting each one. Untuk menganalisis manfaat yang bersaing dua bacaan, langkah pertama adalah jelas untuk mempertimbangkan naskah mendukung masing-masing.

Whereas hundreds of mss attest the longer reading of the text, the shorter form is supported only by one early Greek and a handful of Old Latin manuscripts. Sedangkan ratusan mss membuktikan semakin lama membaca teks, bentuk yang lebih pendek hanya didukung oleh satu awal Yunani dan beberapa naskah Latin Lama. That in itself is not a compelling reason for rejecting it, however, precisely because of the nature of the particular manuscripts in question. Itu sendiri bukan merupakan alasan kuat untuk menolak itu, bagaimanapun, justru karena sifat dari naskah-naskah tertentu yang bersangkutan. For technical reasons, whenever these particular manuscripts agree on a reading, scholars generally concede that it goes back at the least to the second century; but the odd thing is that when they do agree, it is almost always in expanded forms of the text, rather than contracted forms. Untuk alasan teknis, setiap kali ini naskah-naskah tertentu sepakat mengenai membaca, para sarjana pada umumnya mengakui bahwa itu kembali sekurang-kurangnya abad kedua, tetapi hal yang aneh adalah bahwa ketika mereka setuju, hampir selalu dalam memperluas bentuk teks, daripada bentuk-bentuk kontrak. In this instance, the mss that generally preserve longer texts attest the shorter one. Dalam hal ini, mss yang umumnya melestarikan membuktikan teks yang lebih panjang yang lebih pendek. This has given scholars pause; in this passage these manuscripts attest a reading that cuts against their known proclivities. Ini telah memberikan jeda sarjana; dalam bagian ini naskah-naskah ini membuktikan pembacaan yang memotong kecenderungan terhadap mereka yang diketahui.

There are strong internal grounds for thinking they do so here because the shorter text is, in fact, the oldest surviving reading. Ada alasan internal yang kuat untuk berpikir mereka melakukannya di sini karena teks yang lebih pendek, pada kenyataannya, tertua yang masih membaca. It’s worth noting, for example, that the longer passage preserves an inordinately high number of literary features completely uncharacteristic of Luke-Acts, and that precisely these non-Lukan features are the key elements of the text: the phrase “for you” occurs twice in this passage, but nowhere else in all of Luke-Acts, the word for “remembrance,” occurs only here in Luke- Acts, and never elsewhere does Luke speak of the “new covenant,” let alone the new covenant “in my blood.” Ini perlu diperhatikan, misalnya, bahwa semakin lama memelihara bagian yang jumlah tinggi inordinately fitur sastra seperti biasanya sepenuhnya Lukas-Kisah, dan yang justru non-Lukas ini fitur elemen-elemen kunci dari teks: frasa “untuk Anda” terjadi dua kali dalam bagian ini, tetapi di tempat lain di seluruh Lukas-Kisah Para Rasul, kata untuk “mengingat,” hanya terjadi di sini dalam Lukas-Kisah Para Rasul, dan tidak pernah di tempat lain Lukas berbicara tentang “perjanjian baru”, apalagi perjanjian baru “dalam darah. ”

But far more important than the absence of this vocabulary from the rest of Luke-Acts is the matter of its ideational content. For it is surely significant that the understanding of Jesus’ death expressed by these words and phrases is otherwise absent from Luke’s entire two-volume work. Tapi jauh lebih penting daripada ketiadaan kosa kata ini dari sisa Lukas-Kisah Para Rasul adalah masalah dari perwujudan isi. Sebab pasti penting bahwa pemahaman tentang kematian Yesus yang diungkapkan oleh kata-kata dan frasa jika tidak absen dari Luke seluruh dua volume pekerjaan. When Jesus says in Luke 22:19b-20 that his body is given “for you” and that his blood is shed “for you,” he is stating what Luke says nowhere else: in neither his Gospel nor Acts does he portray Jesus’ death as an atonement for sins. Ketika Yesus berkata dalam Lukas 22:19 b-20 yang tubuhnya diberikan “untuk Anda” dan bahwa darah yang tertumpah “untuk Anda,” dia menyatakan apa yang Luke tempat lain: di kedua Injilnya maupun Kisah yang dia melukiskan Yesus ‘ kematian sebagai pendamaian bagi dosa.

Although most readers probably haven’t noticed, never in his two volumes does Luke say that Jesus died “for your sins” or “for you.” Meskipun sebagian besar pembaca mungkin belum melihat, tidak pernah dalam dua jilid Lukas mengatakan bahwa Yesus mati “untuk dosa-dosamu” atau “untuk Anda.” Significantly when he summarizes the features of the “Christ event” in the speeches of Acts, with remarkable consistency he portrays the death of Jesus not as an atoning sacrifice, but as a miscarriage of justice that God reversed by vindicating Jesus at the resurrection (eg, Acts 2, 3, and 4). In none of these speeches is Jesus said to die “for” anyone. Instead, the scandal of his death as God’s righteous one drives people to their knees in repentance, and it’s this repentance that brings forgiveness of sins. Signifikan ketika ia meringkas fitur “peristiwa Kristus” dalam pidato-pidato Kisah Para Rasul, dengan konsistensi yang luar biasa ia menggambarkan kematian Yesus bukan sebagai kurban penebusan, tetapi sebagai keguguran keadilan bahwa Tuhan dibalikkan oleh vindicating Yesus pada kebangkitan (misalnya , Kisah Para Rasul 2, 3, dan 4). Dalam pidato tersebut tidak ada adalah Yesus berkata kepada mati “untuk” siapa pun. Sebaliknya, skandal kematian-Nya sebagai Allah yang benar satu drive orang untuk berlutut dalam pertobatan, dan pertobatan inilah yang membawa pengampunan dosa. In one passage in particular one might expect some reference, however distant, to Jesus’ atoning death. In Acts 8 the apostle Philip encounters an Ethiopian eunuch reading the text of Scripture used most widely by early Christians to explain Jesus’ death as a vicarious atonement: Isaiah 53. Dalam satu bagian tertentu bisa diperkirakan beberapa referensi, tetapi jauh, untuk Yesus ‘kematian penebusan. Dalam Kisah Para Rasul 8 Filipus bertemu dengan seorang sida-sida Etiopia membaca teks Kitab Suci paling sering digunakan secara luas oleh orang-orang Kristen awal untuk menjelaskan kematian Yesus sebagai penebusan pengganti : Yesaya 53. But somewhat remarkably, when Luke cites the passage as read by the Ethiopian, he includes not a word about the Servant of the Lord being “wounded for our transgressions” (Isa. 53:5), being “bruised for our iniquities” (53:5), or making himself “an offering for sin” (53:10). Tapi agak luar biasa, ketika Lukas mengutip ayat yang dibaca oleh orang Etiopia, dia tidak termasuk kata tentang Hamba Tuhan yang “terluka untuk pelanggaran kita” (Yesaya 53:5), karena “diremukkan oleh karena kejahatan kita” (53 : 5), atau membuat sendiri “suatu korban untuk dosa” (53:10). Luke has instead crafted his quotation to affirm his own view of Jesus’ passion: he died as an innocent victim who was then vindicated (Acts 8:32-33). Lukas telah disusun bukan kutipannya untuk menegaskan pandangannya tentang penderitaan Yesus: ia meninggal sebagai korban yang tak berdosa yang kemudian dibenarkan (Kis. 8:32-33).

It is particularly important to stress that Luke has not simply overlooked or avoided making references to Jesus’ death as an atonement; he has in fact gone out of his way to eliminate notions of atonement from the one source we are virtually certain he had before him, the Gospel of Mark. Sangat penting untuk menekankan bahwa Lukas tidak hanya diabaikan atau dihindari membuat referensi kepada kematian Yesus sebagai penebusan dosa, dia sebenarnya telah pergi keluar dari cara untuk menghilangkan pengertian penebusan dari satu sumber kita hampir yakin dia telah hadapannya , Injil Markus. Mark makes two poignant references to the salvific significance of Jesus’ death and Luke changed them both. Mark membuat dua pedih referensi tentang pentingnya keselamatan kematian Yesus dan Lukas berubah mereka berdua. The first and most obvious comes in the famous words of Jesus in Mark 10:45: “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” Yang pertama dan paling jelas terkenal datang dalam kata-kata Yesus dalam Markus 10:45: “Sebab Anak Manusia datang bukan untuk dilayani, melainkan untuk melayani, dan untuk memberikan nyawanya menjadi tebusan bagi banyak orang.” If Luke found this theology acceptable, it is hard to explain what he did with the verse. Jika Lukas menemukan teologi ini dapat diterima, sulit untuk menjelaskan apa yang ia lakukan dengan ayat. He omitted it altogether. Dia dihilangkan sama sekali.

The other reference is more subtle, but nonetheless forms a kind of linchpin for Mark’s theology of the cross. Referensi lain yang lebih halus, tapi tetap saja bentuk-bentuk semacam pasak pd as roda untuk Markus teologi salib. In Mark’s account, Jesus’ death is immediately followed by two signs that suggest its meaning: the temple curtain is ripped in half and the Roman centurion confesses him to be “the Son of God” (15:38-39). Mark evidently uses the ripping of the curtain of the Holy of Holies to indicate that in the death of Jesus God has made himself available to human beings, destroying the barrier of access to him. Dalam Markus, kematian Yesus segera diikuti oleh dua tanda-tanda yang menunjukkan artinya: tirai Bait Allah robek menjadi dua dan perwira Romawi mengakui dia menjadi “Anak Allah” (15:38-39). Markus jelas menggunakan yang merobek tirai dari Tempat Mahakudus untuk menunjukkan bahwa dalam kematian Yesus Allah telah membuat dirinya tersedia bagi manusia, menghancurkan penghalang akses kepadanya. And the confession of the centurion represents the first (and only) instance of a person in Mark’s Gospel who fully recognizes who Jesus is: he is the Son of God who had to die, whose death was not inimical to his divine sonship but was instead constitutive of it. Dan pengakuan mewakili perwira pertama (dan satu-satunya) Misalnya seseorang dalam Injil Markus yang sepenuhnya mengenali siapa Yesus itu: dia adalah Anak Allah yang harus mati, kematian yang tidak bertentangan dengan-Nya sebagai Anak Allah tetapi malah konstitutif itu. In short, the ripping of the curtain and the confession of the centurion reveal Mark’s understanding of Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice that effects salvation. Singkatnya, merobek tirai dan pengakuan dari perwira Markus mengungkapkan pemahaman tentang kematian Yesus sebagai kurban penebusan yang efek keselamatan.

Luke’s account of Jesus’ death, which is dependent on Mark’s, also records a tearing of the temple curtain and a confession of the centurion. Lukas tentang kematian Yesus, yang tergantung pada Markus, juga mencatat robeknya tirai Bait Allah dan pengakuan dari perwira. But the events are modified so that their significance is transformed. Tetapi peristiwa-peristiwa yang dimodifikasi sehingga maknanya berubah. The tearing of the curtain in the Temple no longer results from Jesus’ death, because in Luke it occurs before Jesus dies (23:45). Yang robeknya tirai di Bait Allah tidak lagi hasil dari kematian Yesus, karena dalam Lukas itu terjadi sebelum Yesus mati (23:45). What the event might mean to Luke has been debated, but since it is now combined with the eerie darkness that has come over the land, it appears to represent a cosmic sign that accompanies the hour of darkness, symbolizing God’s judgment upon his own people who have rejected his gift of “light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death” (1:79), a judgment that falls in particular on the religious institution which his people have perverted to their own ends (Luke 19:45-46). Apa acara mungkin berarti untuk Lukas telah diperdebatkan, tetapi karena sekarang digabungkan dengan kegelapan yang mengerikan telah datang atas tanah, tampaknya untuk mewakili tanda kosmik yang menyertai jam kegelapan, melambangkan penghakiman Allah atas orang-orangnya sendiri yang telah menolak karunia-Nya “cahaya untuk orang-orang yang duduk dalam kegelapan dan bayangan maut” (1:79), suatu penilaian yang jatuh pada khususnya pada institusi keagamaan yang orang-orangnya telah menyimpang untuk tujuan mereka sendiri (Lukas 19:45 — 46).

So too Luke has changed the confession of the centurion. Begitu juga Lukas telah mengubah pengakuan kepala pasukan. No longer does it indicate a profession of faith in the Son of God who has died (“Truly this man was the Son of God,” Mark 15:39); now it coincides with Luke’s own understanding of Jesus’ death, for here the centurion proclaims, “Truly this man was innocent” (Luke 23:47). Tidak lagi melakukan hal itu menunjukkan pengakuan iman dalam Anak Allah yang telah meninggal ( “Sungguh, orang ini adalah Anak Allah,” Markus 15:39); sekarang bertepatan dengan pemahaman Lukas sendiri Yesus mati, sebab di sini perwira menyatakan, “Sungguh, orang ini tidak bersalah” (Lukas 23:47). The death of Jesus in Luke-Acts is not a death that effects an atoning sacrifice. Kematian Yesus dalam Lukas-Kisah bukanlah kematian yang efek sebuah kurban penebusan. It is the death of a righteous martyr who has suffered from miscarried justice, whose death is vindicated by God at the resurrection. Ini adalah kematian syahid yang benar yang telah menderita dari keguguran keadilan, kematian yang dibenarkan oleh Tuhan pada kebangkitan. Let me emphasize: Luke was able to shift the focus away from the atoning significance of Jesus’ death only by modifying the one account of that death which we are certain he had received. Mari saya tekankan: Luke dapat mengalihkan perhatian dari makna penebusan dari kematian Yesus hanya dengan memodifikasi satu account dari kematian yang kita yakin dia terima. What though has this to do with our textual problem? Meskipun telah ini apa hubungannya dengan masalah tekstual kita?

In fact only one of the two readings conforms with the theology of Luke otherwise, and specifically with his demonstrable handling of his Marcan source. Bahkan hanya satu dari dua bacaan sesuai dengan teologi Lukas sebaliknya, dan khususnya dengan penanganan dibuktikan dari sumber Markus. The verses of the longer text of the institution of the Lord’s Supper stress the atoning significance of Jesus’ death for his disciples. Ayat-ayat teks yang lebih panjang lembaga Perjamuan Tuhan menekankan pentingnya penebusan dari kematian Yesus bagi para murid. That is, they emphasize precisely what Luke has gone out of his way to eliminate from his entire two-volume narrative. Yaitu, mereka menekankan apa yang Lukas justru telah keluar dari cara untuk menghilangkan dari seluruh dua volume narasi. It’s hard to see these verses as coming from Luke’s own pen. Sulit untuk melihat ayat-ayat ini berasal dari pena Lukas sendiri.

I would like to deal with one final aspect of the passage before drawing out some of the broader implications. Saya mau berurusan dengan salah satu aspek akhir dari bagian sebelum menarik keluar beberapa implikasi yang lebih luas. One of the reasons most people prefer the longer form of the text is that without the addition of vv. Salah satu alasan mengapa kebanyakan orang lebih suka bentuk panjang dari teks adalah bahwa tanpa penambahan vv. 19b-20 the text appears to end abruptly, so abruptly that it is difficult to imagine a Christian author not supplementing the account with additional material. Look for yourself at the passage. 19b-20 muncul teks untuk mengakhiri tiba-tiba, begitu mendadak sehingga sulit untuk membayangkan penulis Kristen tidak melengkapi rekening dengan materi tambahan. Lihatlah sendiri di lorong. Doesn’t the abruptness of the shorter text suggest that the longer text must have been original? Bukankah kecuraman teks yang lebih pendek menunjukkan bahwa semakin lama pasti teks aslinya?

In fact, as has sometimes been recognized, it probably indicates just the reverse. Bahkan, seperti yang kadang-kadang telah diakui, mungkin hanya menunjukkan sebaliknya. Readers who are thoroughly conversant with the eucharistic liturgy feel that something is “missing” when Jesus’ words over the bread are not followed by his passing of the cup. Pembaca yang benar-benar fasih dengan liturgi Ekaristi merasa bahwa ada sesuatu yang “hilang” ketika kata-kata Yesus atas roti tidak diikuti oleh berlalunya cangkir. But of course this is the case not only for modern critics who assume that Luke could not have ended the passage so shortly, but also for ancient scribes who were equally accustomed to the traditions of Jesus’ Last Supper. Tapi tentu saja hal ini terjadi tidak hanya untuk kritikus modern yang berasumsi bahwa Lukas tidak bisa mengakhiri bagian begitu lama, tetapi juga bagi ahli kitab kuno yang sama-sama terbiasa dengan tradisi Yesus ‘Perjamuan Terakhir. What would be more natural for scribes conversant with what “really happened” at Jesus’ last meal than to supplement Luke’s version with the words drawn from a tradition with which they were otherwise familiar? Apa akan lebih wajar bagi ahli-ahli Taurat fasih dengan apa yang “benar-benar terjadi” pada Yesus yang terakhir untuk melengkapi makanan daripada versi Lukas dengan kata-kata yang diambil dari tradisi yang mereka jika tidak akrab?

Interestingly, this “other tradition” (ie vv. 19b-20 in the longer text) is not only anomalous within Luke’s Gospel itself, it also has very few connections with Luke’s source, the Gospel of Mark. Menariknya, ini “tradisi lain” (yaitu vv. 19b-20 dalam teks lagi) tidak hanya menyimpang dalam Injil Lukas sendiri, yang juga memiliki sedikit hubungan dengan sumber Lukas, Injil Markus. Instead, the additional words practically mirror the familiar form of the institution preserved in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Sebaliknya, kata-kata tambahan yang akrab cermin praktis bentuk lembaga yang tersimpan dalam surat pertama Paulus kepada jemaat Korintus. Is it possible that a scribe has inserted a Pauline form of the institution into Luke’s seemingly too brief account? Apakah mungkin bahwa seorang ahli Taurat telah memasukkan Paulus bentuk institusi ke Luke tampaknya terlalu singkat?

This appears to be the best explanation for the longer passage. For in point of fact, no one has been able to provide a convincing explanation for how the shorter text would have come into existence if the longer were original. Hal ini tampaknya menjadi yang terbaik lagi penjelasan atas bagian ini. Sebab dalam kenyataannya, tidak ada seorang pun yang telah mampu memberikan penjelasan yang meyakinkan untuk bagaimana teks yang lebih singkat akan muncul lagi jika itu asli. One of the standard explanations is that a scribe who either could not understand or did not appreciate the appearance of two cups in Luke’s narrative eliminated one of them to make the account coincide better with all the others. Salah satu penjelasan standar adalah bahwa seorang ahli Taurat yang baik tidak dapat mengerti atau tidak menghargai penampilan dua cangkir dalam narasi Lukas menghapus salah satu dari mereka untuk membuat account bertepatan lebih baik dengan semua yang lain. The problem is that it’s hard to explain a scribe harmonizing the account to its parallels by eliminating the second cup instead of the first. Masalahnya adalah bahwa sulit untuk menjelaskan seorang ahli Taurat untuk mengharmonisasi account ke paralel dengan menghilangkan cangkir kedua bukan yang pertama. It is the first that is problematic, since it is distributed before the giving of the bread; and it is the second that is familiar, because the words of institution parallel so closely those of Paul in 1 Corinthians. Ini adalah pertama yang bermasalah, karena itu didistribusikan sebelum pemberian roti, dan itu adalah yang kedua tidaklah asing, karena kata-kata institusi yang sejajar begitu dekat Paulus dalam 1 Korintus. Anyone wanting to eliminate the problems of two cups and of sequence would have excised the earlier cup, not the latter. Siapa saja yang ingin menghilangkan masalah dua cangkir dan urutan akan dipotong cangkir sebelumnya, bukan yang terakhir. Even worse, this explanation cannot at all account for the omission of v. 19b, where the cup is not yet mentioned. Lebih buruk lagi, penjelasan ini sama sekali tidak bisa menjelaskan kelalaian dari ay 19b, di mana cangkir belum disebutkan.

Virtually the only explanation that might account for the shorter text if the longer is original is that vv. Hampir satu-satunya penjelasan yang mungkin bisa menjelaskan teks yang lebih pendek jika lagi adalah asli adalah bahwa vv. 19b-20 dropped out by accident. 19b-20 drop out oleh kecelakaan. But this is problematic as well. Tapi ini bermasalah juga. Only rarely do such long passages (thirty-two words) drop out of a text for no apparent reason. Jarang melakukan hal seperti ayat-ayat yang panjang (tiga puluh dua kata) drop out dari sebuah teks tanpa alasan yang jelas. And it scarcely seems accidental (1) that these thirty-words just happen to supply precisely what is missing in the account otherwise, a notion that Jesus’ body and blood would be given on behalf of his disciples, (2) that this theological construal is otherwise alien to Luke’s entire two-volume work, and (3) that these words, and only these words, parallel the words found in 1 Corinthians. Dan tampaknya hampir tidak disengaja (1) bahwa tiga puluh kata-kata ini hanya terjadi untuk memasok tepat apa yang hilang di rekening lain, gagasan bahwa Yesus tubuh dan darah akan diberikan atas nama para murid-Nya, (2) bahwa teologi ini construal jika tidak asing bagi seluruh Lukas dua volume kerja, dan (3) bahwa kata-kata ini, dan hanya kata-kata ini, paralel dengan kata-kata yang ditemukan dalam 1 Korintus. In short, it is difficult to explain the shorter text if the longer text is original. Singkatnya, sulit untuk menjelaskan teks yang lebih singkat jika teks yang lebih panjang adalah asli.

But it is not at all difficult to account for an interpolation of the disputed words into Luke’s brief account of Jesus’ last supper with his disciples. Tapi itu sama sekali tidak sulit untuk menjelaskan suatu interpolasi dari kata-kata yang dipersengketakan ke rekening singkat Lukas Yesus makan malam terakhir dengan murid-muridnya. For while Luke’s account of Jesus going to his death proved useful for proto-orthodox Christians of the second century who themselves emphasized the necessity of martyrdom and the need to emulate the tranquility of Jesus in the face of it, it was not at all useful when they wanted to stress, in direct opposition to certain groups of docetic opponents, that Christ experienced a real passion in which his body was broken and his blood was shed for the sins of the world. Untuk sementara Lukas tentang Yesus akan kematian-Nya terbukti berguna untuk orang-orang Kristen proto-ortodoks dari abad kedua yang diri mereka menekankan perlunya kesyahidan dan kebutuhan untuk meniru ketenangan Yesus dalam wajah, itu sama sekali tidak berguna ketika mereka ingin stres, yang bertentangan secara langsung dengan kelompok-kelompok tertentu docetic lawan, bahwa Kristus mengalami gairah nyata di mana tubuhnya patah dan darahnya ditumpahkan untuk dosa-dosa dunia.

We know of a number of Christians who embraced docetic Christologies from at least the beginning of the second century onwards (ie from precisely the period in which this Lukan text must have been altered). Kita tahu dari sejumlah orang Kristen yang memeluk docetic kristologi dari setidaknya awal abad kedua dan seterusnya (yaitu dari periode tepat di mana teks harus Lukas ini telah diubah). Representatives of such views are known from the writings of Ignatius and other second- and third-century heresiologists; some of them are known by name, with the arch-heretics Marcion, Saturninus, and Basilides heading the list. Despite the differences among their views, these Christians were unified in thinking that Christ did not have a real flesh and blood existence. Perwakilan dari pandangan seperti itu diketahui dari tulisan-tulisan Ignatius dan lain-kedua dan ketiga abad ke-heresiologists; beberapa dari mereka yang dikenal dengan nama, dengan lengkungan-bidaah Marcion, Saturninus, dan Basilides menuju daftar. Terlepas dari perbedaan-perbedaan di antara pandangan-pandangan mereka , orang-orang Kristen ini bersatu dalam berpikir bahwa Kristus tidak memiliki daging dan darah nyata adanya. He was a phantasm, a specter. Dia adalah seorang khayalan, sebuah momok. By implication, at least in the eyes of their proto-orthodox opponents, these docetists necessarily devalued the salvific significance of Christ’s death, indeed necessarily denied that Christ “really” died and shed “real” blood, let alone that he shed blood “for you.” Implikasinya, setidaknya di mata proto-ortodoks mereka lawan, ini selalu docetists mendevaluasi makna penyelamatan kematian Kristus, memang selalu membantah bahwa Kristus “benar-benar” mati dan mencurahkan “nyata” darah, apalagi bahwa ia menumpahkan darah “untuk Anda. ”

For the proto-orthodox, on the other hand, it was precisely the sacrifice of Christ’s flesh and the shedding of his blood that brought redemption to the fallen race of humans. Untuk proto-ortodoks, di sisi lain, justru pengorbanan Kristus daging dan penumpahan darah-Nya yang membawa penebusan kepada jatuh ras manusia. For them, Jesus was a human not in appearance only but in reality; he had real flesh and real blood, he suffered real pain and died a real death. And most importantly for the textual history of this passage, Jesus’ suffering and death were not incidental to salvation but were integral to it. Bagi mereka, Yesus adalah bukan dalam penampilan manusia saja, tetapi pada kenyataannya, dia telah nyata nyata daging dan darah, ia menderita sakit dan meninggal dunia nyata benar-benar mati. Dan yang paling penting bagi sejarah tekstual bagian ini, Yesus ‘penderitaan dan kematian yang tidak insidentil untuk keselamatan tetapi integral untuk itu. Jesus’ body was given for believers, and it was his blood that established the new covenant. Tubuh Yesus diberikan untuk orang percaya, dan itu adalah darah yang menetapkan perjanjian baru.

It is no accident that Tertullian refers on one occasion to Christ’s consecration of the wine as his blood to disparage Marcion’s view that he was merely a phantom ( Treatise on the Soul , 17), while on another occasion he cites the entire institution narrative as known from 1 Cor. Bukan kebetulan bahwa Tertulianus mengacu pada suatu kesempatan untuk Kristus konsekrasi anggur sebagai darah untuk meremehkan pandangan Marcion bahwa ia hanyalah sebuah hantu (Treatise on the Soul, 17), sementara pada kesempatan lain dia mengutip seluruh institusi narasi sebagaimana diketahui dari 1 Kor. 11 and the longer text of Luke to the same end, precisely to show that Christ’s giving of his body and blood for his disciples demonstrated the reality of that body and blood ( Adv. Marc. , 40). 11 dan teks yang lebih panjang Lukas akhir yang sama, justru untuk menunjukkan bahwa Kristus pemberian tubuh dan darah untuk para murid-Nya menunjukkan kenyataan bahwa tubuh dan darah (Adv. Marc., 40).

In using the text in this way, Tertullian is closely allied with other proto-orthodox authors of the second century such as Irenaeus, who also used this passage in his attacks on both Marcion and other unnamed docetists. Dalam menggunakan teks dengan cara ini, Tertulianus berhubungan erat dengan penulis proto-ortodoks dari abad kedua, seperti Irenaeus, yang juga menggunakan bagian ini dalam serangan di kedua Marcion dan docetists tanpa nama lain.

It is precisely the emphasis on Jesus’ giving of his own flesh and blood for the salvation of believers, as represented in the physical elements of the bread broken “for you” and the cup given “for you,” that made the longer text of Luke 22:19-20 so attractive to the proto-orthodox heresiologists of the second century. Justru penekanan pada Yesus sendiri memberikan daging dan darah untuk keselamatan umat beriman, seperti digambarkan dalam unsur-unsur fisik roti patah “untuk Anda” dan piala diberikan “untuk Anda,” yang membuat teks lagi Lukas 22:19-20 begitu menarik bagi heresiologists proto-ortodoks dari abad kedua. And it is the same theological concern that may account for the genesis of the text, which as we have seen, evidently did not come from the hand of Luke himself. Dan itu adalah keprihatinan teologis yang sama yang mungkin menjelaskan asal-usul teks, yang seperti telah kita lihat, jelas tidak datang dari tangan Lukas sendiri.

Consider now the areas of research that both impinge upon this textual decision and are affected by it. Pertimbangkan sekarang bidang-bidang penelitian yang kedua menimpa tekstual ini keputusan dan dipengaruhi oleh itu. It is obviously a significant matter of exegesis to know which words belong in Luke’s text. Ini jelas merupakan masalah yang signifikan penafsiran untuk mengetahui kata-kata yang termasuk dalam teks Lukas. As I’ve pointed out, it’s impossible for interpreters to explain what Luke’s words mean if they don’t know what these words were. Seperti yang saya tunjukkan, tidak mungkin untuk juru bahasa untuk menjelaskan apa arti kata-kata Lukas jika mereka tidak tahu apa kata-kata ini. Establishing the earliest form of the text also matters for our understanding of New Testament theology, since here is a book that construes the significance of Jesus’ death in a non-Pauline way, not as an atonement but as a ground for repentance that leads to forgiveness. Menetapkan bentuk awal teks juga penting bagi pemahaman kita tentang teologi Perjanjian Baru, karena di sini adalah sebuah buku yang menafsirkan makna dari kematian Yesus di jalan non-Paulus, bukan sebagai pendamaian tetapi sebagai dasar untuk pertobatan yang membawa kepada pengampunan. This construal in turn is significant for our understanding of the diversity of early Christianity, as the traditional Christian creeds developed from one of these paths of thought rather than the other. Ini pada gilirannya construal signifikan bagi pemahaman kita mengenai keragaman agama Kristen awal, seperti akidah Kristen tradisional dikembangkan dari salah satu jalur ini pemikiran daripada yang lain. It may well be that liturgical diversity in early Christianity is at issue as well, since the older form of Luke’s text appears to reflect not only a different wording of the institution narrative at the Lord’s supper, but a different sequence within the liturgical act itself, in which the cup is given primacy over the bread. Mungkin saja bahwa keragaman liturgi di awal kekristenan adalah persoalan juga, karena bentuk lebih tua teks Lukas tampaknya tidak hanya mencerminkan kata-kata yang berbeda dari narasi di lembaga Tuhan makan malam, tapi urutan yang berbeda dalam tindakan liturgi itu sendiri, di mana cangkir diberikan keutamaan di atas roti. These forms of diversity came to fuller expression in the second century, as historians of liturgy and doctrine know from our early sources; interestingly, it may have been the historical development of Christian doctrine that led to the modification of the text in the first place, as second century Christians searched for texts to combat proponents of docetic Christologies. Bentuk-bentuk keragaman datang untuk lebih penuh ekspresi pada abad kedua, sebagai sejarawan dari liturgi dan doktrin tahu dari sumber-sumber awal kami; menarik, itu mungkin perkembangan historis doktrin Kristen yang menuju ke modifikasi teks dalam tempat pertama, sebagai orang Kristen abad kedua mencari teks untuk memerangi para pendukung docetic kristologi. This in turn shows that the transmission of the text was affected by social disputes in early Christianity, in this case, by the struggles to establish emerging orthodoxy. Hal ini pada gilirannya menunjukkan bahwa transmisi teks dipengaruhi oleh perselisihan sosial pada awal Kekristenan, dalam hal ini, oleh perjuangan untuk mendirikan muncul ortodoksi. I might add that other kinds of disputes and social issues played their role on the transmission of the text, though in passages other than this one, issues such as the rise of Christian anti-Judaism, the oppression of women, the apologetic movement, and the rise of asceticism. Saya mungkin menambahkan bahwa jenis perselisihan dan isu-isu sosial memainkan peran mereka pada pengiriman teks, walaupun dalam bagian-bagian lain daripada yang ini, masalah-masalah seperti munculnya Kristen anti-Yudaisme, penindasan perempuan, gerakan apologetik, dan munculnya asketisme.

At least this one passage is sufficient, though, to make my basic point. Setidaknya satu bagian ini sudah cukup, meskipun, untuk membuat titik dasar. There are dozens of passages that need to be worked on in this way with these sets of questions, not just to determine some kind of reputedly “original” text, but also to see how the transmission of this text came to be so thoroughly enmeshed in the concerns and conflicts of the emerging Christian church. Terdapat puluhan ayat-ayat yang perlu bekerja dalam cara ini dengan rangkaian pertanyaan ini, bukan hanya untuk menentukan beberapa jenis konon “asli” teks, tetapi juga untuk melihat bagaimana transmisi teks ini datang begitu benar-benar terlibat dalam keprihatinan dan konflik yang muncul gereja Kristen. Thus the modernist obsession with origins, historically so characteristic of biblical studies, can give way even in the study of the text, a study invested not simply in a hypothetically primal fixed entity (“the autograph”) but in texts that have been construed over time, reread by readers in real contexts, and occasionally rewritten by some of these readers in the process of transmission. Jadi obsesi modernis asal-usul, sejarah yang khas studi Alkitab, dapat memberikan jalan, bahkan dalam studi teks, sebuah studi yang diinvestasikan tidak hanya dalam sebuah entitas tetap primitif hipotetis ( “tanda tangan”) tetapi dalam teks-teks yang telah ditafsirkan atas waktu, membaca kembali oleh pembaca dalam konteks nyata, dan kadang-kadang ditulis ulang oleh beberapa pembaca ini dalam proses transmisi.

Let me conclude by saying that in recent years the firstborn of New Testament studies has begun to show some internal signs of growth, as specialists in the field have begun to recognize the potential of the data at their disposal for scholars who do not reside among the rare and occasionally endangered species of the professional textual critic. Izinkan saya menyimpulkan dengan mengatakan bahwa dalam beberapa tahun terakhir yang sulung dari studi Perjanjian Baru mulai menunjukkan beberapa tanda-tanda internal pertumbuhan, sebagai spesialis di bidang mulai mengenali potensi data yang mereka miliki untuk sarjana yang tidak tinggal di antara langka dan kadang-kadang spesies terancam profesional kritikus tekstual. It’s absolutely true that this aspect of NT studies has typically conjured up images of uninteresting, technical, and theoretically naive modernistic discourse, undertaken by uninteresting and theoretically naive modernist technicians who have nothing to say of broader interest to scholars working in the field of NT, let alone to the larger academy of religion. Memang benar bahwa aspek ini studi-studi NT disulap biasanya gambar-gambar menarik, teknis, dan secara teoritis naif wacana modern, dilakukan dengan tidak menarik dan secara teoritis modernis naif teknisi yang mengatakan tidak ada kepentingan yang lebih luas bagi para cendekiawan yang bekerja di bidang NT, apalagi akademi yang lebih besar agama. But we are now well positioned to move beyond this banal perception, which indeed we can do, if train a new generation of scholars in the field to pursue new lines of inquiry and so bring this neglected child to an age of maturity. Tetapi kita sekarang posisi yang baik untuk bergerak di luar persepsi dangkal ini, yang memang bisa kita lakukan, jika melatih sebuah generasi sarjana baru di lapangan untuk mengejar baris baru penyelidikan dan membawa anak terlantar ini sampai usia dewasa.

http://translate.google.co.id/translate?hl=id&sl=en&u=http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/ehrman-pres.html&ei=HjsiS8q7Lozc7APpxpXABg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBAQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Daparatus%2Bmill%2B30.000%26hl%3Did%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3Dn74%26sa%3DG

Advertisements