The Acceptance of Enmity

In Jakob Van Bruggen's insightful book, Jesus the Son of God: The Gospel as Message, he paints a picture of Jesus as one who accepted the "path of rejection" which forced itself upon him, a choice which Van Bruggen calls "the acceptance of enmity." His insights are especially relevant in light of this week being the traditional Passion Week (or "Holy Week"). 


Van Bruggen writes:

    The actual acceptance of this enmity can be seen in the peculiar way in which Jesus travels through Palestine. His journeys can be viewed as evasive movements that lead in the direction of the leaders who are waiting to kill him.  

    On the one hand he often evades his enemies. When the Pharisees begin to keep a closer eye on him because of the many people who begin to follow him, he retreats to Galilee (John 4:1-2, 43-44). Later, on several occasions in Galilee, he escapes the growing hostility (Luke 4:28-30; Matt. 12:14-16), and once he even goes across the northern border to the neighboring country for a time (Matt. 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-37); the result is that his opponents often have to travel to remote regions to search for him. When the plans to kill him assume an increasingly more definite shape, he goes to the Feast of Tabernacles, not with the crowds but more or less incognito (John 7:10-14). And during the final months he retreats once more from Judea to the mountains of Transjordan and later to mountains of Judea (John 10:40-42; 11:54).   

    On the other hand, despite all sorts of evasions he always comes back into the public eye and always moves again toward his enemies. He postpones the escalation of the confrontation, but he does not make himself inaccessible. On the contrary, in the end he enters Jerusalem amidst cheering crowds, can be found daily in the temple (which for him is as dangerous as a robbers' den), and finally surrenders himself to the servants of the Sanhedrin.

    Typical of Jesus' behavior is the way he once reacted to the threat that Herod Antipas wanted to kill him. He was in Perea, the tetrarch's territory. Jesus left a few days later, but not to escape death. His goal was Jerusalem--because that was the proper place for a prophet to be killed (Luke 13:31-35).

    This combination of withdrawal and head-on encounters with the enemy indicates that Jesus does not avoid the consequences of hostility but insists on following the path to arrest and death according to his own time frame. He also hints more than once at having his own schedule, and speaks of "his hour" or "his time" which is yet to come (John 7:30; 8:20; 12:23; 13:1; 17:1).

    ...A comparison can certainly be made between the attitude people often assume toward prophets and righteous people, and their attitude toward Jesus.  Jesus' own position, however, is different from that of the defenseless prophets and the powerless righteous. We see this in the fact that he does not eagerly await God's punishment of his enemies or revenge for what has been done to him by those who reject him. On the contrary, he declares that he has come for their salvation, and on the cross he prays for forgiveness for those who execute him (Luke 9:52-56; 23:24). Thus he accepts his suffering, not as a powerless individual who trusts that God will do right by him or her, but as the Ruler who thinks it necessary to allow himself to be bound and killed.1

1.  Jakob Van Bruggen, Jesus the Son of God: The Gospel Narratives as Message [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books; 1999] pp. 157-158

Jesus Marvels

As I was preparing for a bible study this past week, I noticed a handful of differences between Matthew's account of the Centurion and Luke's account (cf. Matthew 8:5-13 & Luke 7:1-10).  Below is a list of five things that stood out to me, one of which deserves some extra special attention (as you will see below):

1)  If both gospels are compared chronologically, Matthew’s story takes place before Luke’s account does. Matthew places the two miracles of healing a leper and a centurion’s servant after the Sermon on the Mount. Luke, however, places the healing of the leper before Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, and the healing of the centurion’s servant after the Sermon. Many faithful scholars attempt to distinguish Luke's "sermon" as being "on a Plain" and not on a "Mount," as in Matthew, and as though they were two separate "sermons." But because the content and environment of each sermon account remains remarkably similar (as though it were the exact same sermon), I am comfortable assuming that they are the same. And I just think that makes many scholars uncomfortable. It may be the case that many Christians don't want to accept the viewpoint that Matthew's gospel was written with different literary conventions than modern ones, because that may lead some people to consider it as historical fiction, instead of true historical accounts. Anyway, sorry for the digression. My point is that the chronology is noticeably different, and I don't think that is enough evidence to conclude that both accounts are contradictory or fictitious. Rather, I believe that this is another very clear indicator that Matthew is writing his gospel to a very specific audience which understood and used different literary conventions than Luke's audience, and therefore none of the history recorded in each gospel ought to be viewed as fictitious or contradictory if interpreted from each perspective (as shown below). 

2)  Another thing which stands out is that Matthew’s gospel describes a beloved servant-child1 who is "paralyzed" and "suffering terribly," whereas Luke’s gospel describes a valuable slave (doulos) who is "sick" and "at the point of death." These two descriptions are not contradictory, but the differences do appear to be striking at first glance. It is evident that each author wants his audience to focus upon certain details and not others. In this instance, the focus of Matthew's version is upon a specific illness (paralyzation) which needs healing, and nothing more. Luke's account, however, is more general in it's description. Matthew's account describes a condition in which one can anticipate a life of agony for the servant-son and his loving master, the Centurion; whereas Luke's account get's right to the point: there is a Centurion whose highly valued slave is at the point of death. And this particular Centurion also happens to be highly valued by the Jews because he helped build their local synagogue (Luke 7:5). 

3)  Matthew's account is also written in such a way that it appears as though the Centurion himself is talking with Jesus.  But in Luke’s account, the centurion sends leaders from the Jewish community to represent him, and to talk with Jesus, and there is also no indication that Jesus ever meets the Centurion face-to-face. It's as though the Centurion sends2 his own "apostles" to represent him before Jesus. This again, is another indicator that Matthew is writing his gospel with a different literary convention than Luke.  Matthew records this historical account with a heavy emphasis upon Jesus' communication with the Centurion, and nothing more. The communication between Jesus and the Centurion is the most important factor of Matthew's account, because if the reader can sense what the Centurion is feeling for his servant, the reader can also sense Jesus' feelings for his servant (the Centurion).

4) This brings us to the most striking aspect of Matthew's account (in my opinion). Only Matthew's account records the first and last words which Jesus uses to address the Centurion. Luke's account shows more about Jesus' actions, but doesn't tell us what Jesus actually said to the Centurion. Just look briefly at a red-letter bible. Matthew's account shows what Jesus actually said. And when the Centurion provides a question for Jesus to answer, Jesus doesn't respond immediately with an affirmative "yes" (contrary to modern translations). Instead, Jesus responds with a question: "Am I to come and heal him?"3 Another way of looking at this scenario is through the more subtle lens of Luke's account, which says that after "pleading with Jesus earnestly," Jesus went to visit the Centurion's suffering servant (Luke 7:4). In Matthew's account, the reader is supposed to feel and empathize with the agony of the paralyzed servant-son and his compassionate lord (the Gentile Centurion). But after finally reaching Jesus, he is not immediately received with compassion, as he probably was among the other Jews who knew that he loved Israel and built them a synagogue. Instead, Matthew's account shows that Jesus is the cautious one. And it appears as though Jesus is cautious because he is being solicited by a Gentile from afar. This sets the stage for the reader to imagine what Jesus' reaction might be if other faithful Gentiles in the future came to him from afar. The response of the Centurion is what really seals this feeling of distance between Jew (Jesus) and Gentile (the Centurion), which, as we'll see in a few moments, leads us into understanding why Jesus' spoke even more shocking words to his surrounding Jewish audience.  

After receiving Jesus' sharp response, the Centurion responds as one whose faith was unshakable. Not only does he respond by addressing Jesus directly as his "Lord," but he argues further that he is not even worthy to have the Lord under his roof. Moreover, his faith is so great that he truly believes Jesus only has to say "a word" and his servant would be healed. (Modern translations have "but only say the word," when actually the Greek is much more casual than that: "but say only a word, and my servant will be healed.") The faith of this centurion is marvelous indeed! But this is not all! Not only has the centurion endured a blockade of caution from Jesus, but he presses onward and over that apparent obstacle with a testimony of faith which trusts God so much that even though his servant is far away, all his Lord would have to do is say one word -- any word -- and His will would be done. 

At this point in the story, we might want to take a breath and pause for a moment or two just to reflect upon how great this man's faith was. This Centurion is not acting in mere desperation, believing blindly in anyone who claims they can help him. No! This Gentile has true faith in the Lord of all creation!  And just when we might think the Centurion has shown us how great his faith is, Matthew provides us with one more illustration of his faith, straight from the centurion's own mouth.  It's always great to see a man whose faith is unshaken by obstacles and disappointments in life. It's even more encouraging to see such a man confess a faith so great that he doesn't need to see the miracle in order to know that its power is standing before his very own eyes. But this man has such a marvelous faith that, after all this, he is willing to admit publicly that he is a man under authority like Jesus. He says, "for I also am a man under authority." This Gentile Centurion knows what it's like to tell one of his servants, "Go!" and his will is accomplished. He says "Come!" to another, and his will is obeyed with only a word. And he believes that Jesus is Lord over all creatures, and because He is the Lord, He only has to say a word. This Gentile has an extra-ordinary faith! It has not even dawned across this Gentile's mind that Jesus is merely a prophetic leader like John the Baptizer, or simply another self-proclaimed leader, like Judas Maccabaeus, who has come to restore pure worship and begin a revolution in Israel again. Instead, this Centurion sees Jesus as someone under authority, as well as someone with authority over life itself. And it is to this compound expression of faith which Jesus "marvels" (Matt. 8:10).

The fact that Jesus "marvels" is really fascinating. “Marveling” is the typical response of the people who see Jesus’ miraculous works (cf. 8:27; 9:33; 15:31). But Jesus is the one who marvels this time! And then Jesus turns to the crowds that followed him, saying "with no one in Israel have I found such faith!" (v. 10)  And it is to that faith which Jesus finally responds directly to the Centurion. And he does so with only a word. He says "Go." No long drawn-out explanation of what to do next, and no protracted conditions. Further assurance is simply granted by the closing statements of Jesus and Matthew: "' It shall be done for you as you have believed.' And the servant was healed at that very moment."

5)  It's no wonder that Matthew's account includes the somewhat cryptic statement of Jesus about Gentiles traveling from all over the world -- from east and west -- coming to feast with the patriarchs in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 8:11-12). The Jews considered themselves to be the "children of the kingdom" who, of course, thought they had inherent legal rights to recline and feast with the saints of God in heaven. But Jesus does not mince words with the crowds who followed him. He's explicit about a promised flood of faithful saints from east and west -- saints with faith like the Gentile centurion standing before him -- who would inherit a place at the Lord's Table. Interestingly, Jesus describes the kind of place where the "children of the kingdom" (who are wise and righteous in their own eyes) will be while the kingdom of heaven is ushering in faithful saints from east and west. The place is described as a location where there will be "gnashing of teeth" and "weeping" in complete "darkness" (8:12). Now, it doesn't take much imagination to realize that when teeth are being gnashed together, it's probably not because they are trying to express great comfort. And weeping isn't supposed to conjure up expressions of joy either. In other words, this place of "darkness" is probably not a place where the patriarchs spend a whole lot of time when they're not feasting with the rest of God's saints. And that's Matthew's point. That's why he highlights the fact that Jesus "marveled." Jesus wasn't marveling at mere faith, but a faith that stood out as being so contrary to the faith proposed by "children of the kingdom." The self-righteous "children of the kingdom" who remain completely befuddled by the faith of this Gentile are not going to be feasting at the Lord's Table with all His saints.

1.  The Greek word παῖς used here can mean both "servant","child", and "son."

2.  The Greek verb for "sent" used here in Luke 7:3 is apesteilen, from which the noun, "apostle," is derived. The Centurion "sent [apesteilen] to him elders of the Jews."

3.  Most modern translations have Jesus saying: "I will come and heal him." But in order to get that particular translation from the Greek, the pronoun Ἐγὼ ("I myself") has to be overlooked. And that pronoun is not only grammatically unnecessary to form a declarative sentence in Greek, but, according to R.T. France, it "is also given added emphasis" for forming an interrogative sentence "by being placed first in the sentence." [NICNT: The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007) p. 313]. The Nestle-Aland Greek text and United Bible Society Greek text both give the interrogative punctuation in the margin.

Christ's Body: Broken or Given? Part VI

As noted in the previous post, there is no theological contradiction between Paul's statement that Christ's body was broken and John's statement that not one of Jesus' bones were broken. But the discussion still ended with some lingering questions:  Even if there is no theological contradiction, what are we to make of Luke's account which does not say the exact same thing as Paul's?  Which statement did Jesus actually say?  Did he say "broken for you" or "given for you"?

I will attempt to answer this particular concern in this post.

When this series of posts began, I mentioned in passing that there seems to be an assumption that both Paul and Luke were attempting to provide an exact quotation of what Jesus said. Certainly, it is often assumed, Luke was quoting Jesus' exact words! Or, certainly Paul was. Really? Certainly?
What if neither of them were quoting Jesus exactly? Well, one may then object that it's impossible to know what Jesus actually said. At least, that's the allegation.  But let's back up the truck a bit. Is it impossible to know what Jesus actually said when instituting his Supper?  From this point forward, I am going to approach this concern with as much deductive reasoning as possible. My hope is that, in the end, the reader can, in fact, know what Jesus actually said, and might possibly be willing to go one step further by betting on that conclusion.

First, notice that Matthew's gospel doesn't record the exact same words as Mark or Luke. In Matthew's account (26:26), Jesus merely says "Take, eat; This is my body." In Mark's account (14:22), Jesus merely says "Take; this is my body." If this was all the textual evidence that we were left with, should we therefore assume that they both were intending to quote the exact words of Jesus in full?  Should we even assume that such assumptions were at least Matthew's, simply because his account has the longer reading (i.e. "Take, eat...")?

Let's pretend for a moment that we didn't have Paul's account, but we did have Matthew and Mark, as well as Luke's account which simply says, "This is my body given for you...". Should we therefore assume that Luke intended to quote Jesus' exact words simply because he provides the longest quotation? Certainly Luke was more likely to quote Jesus' exact words because his account is more complete, or so they say. To doubt Luke's more complete account of Jesus' words would be as foolish as doubting Thomas, or so they may say. Actually, the inverse is true. To doubt like Thomas is more like doubting that Luke's account is not a full quotation of what Jesus said. Thomas doubted because he assumed too much about two very different accounts: Jesus alive, and Jesus standing in front of him alive after dying. Likewise, sincere Christians assume too much about two very different accounts: the "full" account of Luke, and the "full" account of Luke after reading the accounts of Matthew and Mark.  Obviously, from the very texts themselves, Luke didn't find it necessary to insert the exact same words as Matthew and Mark. Matthew and Mark both say "Take, eat"; but Luke doesn't. Therefore none of them can contain the "full" quotation of Jesus if we assume that at least two of the three synoptic authors faithfully quote Jesus at all. All three can't be quoting Jesus in full. And so, isn't this prima facie1 evidence that our assumptions about Luke's quote being the full quote are mistaken?

Consider the alternative quotation from Paul's account in I Cor. 11:24. Look at the evidence in favor of the rite which he offers:

1. Paul was an Apostle of the Lord Jesus. The only other account recorded for us by the hand of an apostle is Matthew. (Even though Mark accompanied Peter, and one can safely assume that Mark's gospel was aided by Peter, there is no evidence that Peter's own hand wrote it's content.) And we know, simply by comparing the synoptic gospels, that it's obvious Matthew did not intend to record Jesus' words at the Last Supper in full or with exact precision. Paul's account, therefore, carries some weight as the last remaining apostle to hand-write Jesus' words.
2. As was noted in an earlier posts, both here and here, the textual evidence also favors Paul's record, which says "Take, eat; this is my body broken for you...".
3. Paul's words include every single word which Matthew, Mark, and Luke record, with the exception of the word "given" in Luke's gospel.
4. Neither Matthew, Mark, or Luke go out of their way to claim or even imply that they intended to quote Jesus in full, or with exact precision. Rather, from their own omissions, it is conclusive that none of the synoptic authors intended to give a full, exactly precise quotation of Jesus' words, but rather the essential meaning of Jesus' words. After all, it's not like the exact words which Jesus used are magical. If one word is missing from Mark's gospel (i.e. "eat"), the message of Mark remains just as valid as Matthew's account, as well as the rite itself. Likewise, Luke omits the words "take, eat". This does not mean that Christians should freak out when their pastor chooses to consecrate the elements with Matthew's insertion of "take, eat". Both rites are proper and authoritative, and both accounts convey the same essential meaning of the rite which Jesus instituted.
5. Paul does, as a matter of fact, go out of his way to both claim and imply that he intended to quote Jesus in full. Whether he intended to do so with exact precision, must be left to conjecture. In I Cor. 11:23-24 (NKJV) Paul says:  "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me." Not only does Paul include everything contained within the synoptic gospels, but also, by saying rather clearly that he has delivered and is delivering unto them what he received from the Lord, he is saying, in essence, that this is what the Lord said, so continue to heed what He actually said.  
6. Also, Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians years before Luke wrote his gospel, which lends some more credibility to Luke's expansion of Paul's rite, as well as what Matthew and Mark recorded (assuming that Matthew and Mark's letters were available for him to give an orderly account, Luke 1:1-4).  Interestingly enough, we know that Luke was a companion of Paul's second missionary journey, and was with him in Corinth. It is also very likely that Luke was as an amanuensis of Paul during his missionary journey,2 which means that it is certainly possible, if not probable, that Luke modified the rite which Paul delivered unto the Corinthians. In other words, if we assume that one of two people, either Luke or Paul, had to modify the other's words, Luke is the most likely candidate. Luke may very well have been aware of the rite which Paul delivered unto the church of Corinth, having been there with him, and yet he chose to deliver his gospel with a variant form of Paul's rite. By modifying Paul's rite, "this is my body broken for you" to read instead, "this is my body given for you", the essential message remains the same. If such a modification was made by Luke, it was possibly, if not probably, for the purpose of avoiding any unpleasant connotations of the word "broken" to his audience, the "most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:3).
7. If Jesus really did actually say "broken", not "given" as it's found in Luke's account, there still remains no contradiction in meaning, because the meaning of the rite which Paul delivered to the church of Corinth conveys the same idea as Luke's account: the broken loaf of bread represents Jesus' broken body given for them.

If I were a betting man, I would call the bluff of modern translations concerning I Cor. 11:24 because the evidence is stacked in favor of the KJV translation. If the pot was higher than usual, I would then raise double that Paul records the actual words which Jesus said "the night in which he was betrayed".






1.  prima facie is Latin for "first appearance", and it describes something which, based on one's first impression of the evidence, should be accepted as correct until proven otherwise.
2.  For a convincingly detailed historical and textual account of these claims, see David Allen, The Lukan Authorship of Hebrews [B&H Academic: Nashville, TN; 2010]; Also, among the wide variety of discussions on the internet, a few of them caught my attention in the past: 
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/corpus-paul/19990429/000452.html 
http://paulandco-workers.blogspot.com/2010/02/luke-was-from-antioch.html 
http://paulandco-workers.blogspot.com/2010/01/lukeluciusauthor-of-acts.html

Christ's Body: Broken or Given? Part III

As noted in part two of this series of posts, there definitely are variations of statements found among the manuscripts of Paul's letter to the Corinthians, particularly the statement made in I Corinthians 11:24. And there are also many presumptions about those variations too, namely that the older manuscripts which support modern translations are better than the later manuscripts which support the King James Version (KJV).


According to Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman, in their highly acclaimed book, The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, the manuscripts which provide the textual support for the KJV translation are "generally regarded as an inferior form"1 and "the least valuable"2 among all that have been preserved.

The question still remains, how does one assess the value or inferiority of a given rendering so that they can be sure it's the correct one? This post will focus on answering that question, or at least leading into a focused answer to that question; and I will do so by continuing the discussion about varying theories of textual transmission (which I mentioned briefly in the last post).

Also, keep in mind that, as I noted carefully in the last post, I am not a "KJV-only" theologian. I cannot stress this fact enough. I am, in fact, very much opposed to KJV-only-ism because there is simply too much scholarly evidence which conflicts with that ism. The main reason why I repeatedly mention the KJV is to illustrate an english translation based upon a older theory of textual transmission -- a theory which is no longer popular today. The popular modern theories of textual transmission operate on a presumption that certain older manuscripts are "superior" than others. I wish I could, in all honesty, agree with that presumption. That would certainly make this translational difficulty much more convenient to resolve. But I don't agree with that presumption because there isn't enough uniformity among the older, allegedly "superior" manuscripts to convince me that the oldest manuscripts represent an authentic copy of what Paul wrote.

As far as manuscript evidence is concerned, the translations found in the ESV and KJV are not the only options available. There are a few choices to be found among the manuscripts which contain I Corinthians 11:24.  Some manuscripts say "This is my body which is for you." Some manuscripts say "This is my body which is broken for you."  One manuscript even says "This is my body which is shattered for you" (literally, "this is my body which is broken-in-small-pieces for you"). And finally, some manuscripts say "This is my body which is given for you," as it's found in Luke's gospel.

But which manuscripts provide the "superior" preservation of Paul's words?

Modern textual critics contend that the oldest copies of manuscripts available to us today represent the most "superior" and "valuable" manuscripts ever copied in the history of textual transmission. Because of this, the text contained within these older manuscripts are considered to be the most superior as well.3 They don't claim that the oldest are perfect, but when compared with manuscripts dating hundreds of years after the first century, the oldest are presumed to be more authentic and closer to what was originally written. In this sense, the older manuscripts are more-perfect, and presumably so, because they were copied in a time which was much closer to the date of the original perfect manuscript. I think this is a huge presumption, and, in many instances of translational disputes, it's an unnecessarily clumsy one as well.

As Dr. Jakob Van Bruggen has succinctly noted in his book, The Ancient Text of the New Testament:

One of the first things a student must learn regarding the textual history, is the distinction between the age of the manuscript and the age of the text offered in that manuscript. A rather young manuscript can give a very old type of text. 

...You would expect that... people in the modern New Testament textual criticism would hardly argue from the age of the manuscript. However, the opposite is the case. Time and again you come across a comparison between "older manuscripts" and "many, but younger manuscripts." The common argument used against the Byzantine text-type [which underlies the KJV translation] is even that this type is only found in young manuscripts. This argument, however, does not say anything as such. One must prove that the text-form in these manuscripts is also of a later date.4 

1.  Bruce Metzger & Bart Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration [Oxford University Press: New York, NY; 2005] p. 67
2.  Ibid., p. 70
3.  No scholar has ever affirmed (at least, not to my knowledge) that the manuscripts underlying the King James Version are not as old as the manuscripts discovered since then (i.e. manuscripts which are used as the basis for all modern translations). It's obvious that modern translations use older manuscripts. The real contention comes into play when the age of the underlying text within a manuscript is being disputed, which is the case in point when considering a modern translation of I Cor. 11:24. Based on external evidence, the text which underlies the KJV is considered a "late text" on the alleged grounds that it is not found in the old majuscules and is not followed by the Church Fathers before Nicea in their New Testament quotations. Based on internal evidence, it has also been alleged that the text which underlies the KJV has the tendency to conflate, harmonize, and assimilate readings, and that also leads scholars to believe it is a "late text". These allegations, pertaining to both external and internal evidence, have been clearly and cogently refuted by many reputable and competent New Testament scholars. Jakob Van Bruggen, Harry Sturz, and Wilbur Pickering are but a few scholars who contend with these allegations of external and internal evidence.
4.  Jakob Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text of the New Testament [Premier Publications: Winnipeg; 1994, fifth printing] p. 22. Words in brackets are mine.

Christ's Body: Broken or Given? Part II

As noted in part one of this series of posts, from the historical perspective of English translations, there are three possible statements of Jesus while instituting his Supper:

1)  Jesus said "this is my body for you" with no reference to his body being "broken" or "given".
2)  Jesus said "this is my body broken for you" (not "given").
3)  Jesus did indeed say "given for you" (not "broken").

In light of the fact that there are three alternatives from which to choose, a few factors need to be discussed and settled before reaching any definitive conclusions. First, it's important to ask whether all three statements work together. If they all comport with each other, then there is no reason to dispute any of the readings. But it seems as though the answer to that question is easy to provide if one only looks into a modern translation. Luke's gospel says "this is my body given for you," which does allow some wiggle-room for Paul to say "this is my body for you." Paul just has to omit the verb "given" and then we have two verses which, in the very least, don't contradict each other. At first glance this seems to provide some agreement between Paul's words and Luke's.

But the problem with Paul's letter is that we have a variety of manuscripts which say more than just "this is my body for you", which is the reading contained in most modern translations (e.g. ESV, NIV, NASB, HCSB, etc.,). The KJV translates I Cor. 11:24 as saying "this is my body broken for you" because there are many manuscripts which contain the verb "broken". Other manuscripts containing I Cor. 11:24 say "given for you" (just like it's found in Luke's gospel), and one even says "shattered for you" (literally, "this is my body broken-in-small-pieces for you"). And so the question about the KJV translation (i.e. "this is my body broken for you") working well with Luke's version (i.e. "this is my body given for you") still needs to be asked. At first glance the answer is no. Luke says "given", and Paul, in the KJV, says "broken".  I suppose the only way to dodge that bullet is to argue that Jesus said both words (i.e. "this is my body broken and given for you"), without having any manuscript evidence to support that claim.  There simply is no manuscript evidence to support the use of both words in one statement, and so the answer to the opening question is that all three statements do not work together because, in the very least, Paul's statement -- "this is my body broken for you" -- does not agree with Luke's statement. This conclusion also assumes that both Paul and Luke were attempting to provide an exact quotation of what Jesus said (which is a conservative assumption).

A second factor which needs to be taken into account is the manuscript evidence itself, but that is a very broad subject in itself -- so broad, in fact, that I need to be very careful in what I present as helpful information. Most people are not interested in tedious, technical, textual information about a language that's foreign to them, and so I don't plan on discussing any of that. And if it turns out that I have to mention a little about that, I will wait until it's absolutely necessary; and when it is necessary, I plan on keeping such technical information to an absolute minimum.

Aside from whatever technical information may eventually need to be discussed, a third and far more important factor concerning the manuscript evidence is the theory of textual transmission which underlies each translation. Modern translations, such as the ESV, definitely operate with a different theory of textual transmission than older ones (such the KJV). Even though the ESV and the KJV both use a classical method of textual criticism, they do not operate with the same theory of textual transmission; and this is an important distinction to acknowledge because one's theory of textual transmission affects the selection of all available material and the trustworthiness of evidence on which to base a given text. In other words, when faced with different renderings of a given verse (e.g. I Cor. 11:24), one's theory of textual transmission affects the way in which one determines the "best" text. It also affects many attempts to identify and eliminate perceived errors that are found even in the "best" manuscripts.

But don't misunderstand my purpose in pointing out this major difference between old and new English translations. Modern translations are necessary, helpful, and very reliable. I am not an advocate of "King-James-only-ism," nor will I ever be (primarily because I actually have studied a lot of evidence pertaining to its viability as a theory). But modern translations are not perfect, nor are their theories about textual transmission. And this will become important to remember when we have to sort through some technical information later on in this discussion. It is not always necessary to jump on the bandwagon of belief that modern translations (like the ESV) are better than older ones (like the KJV). It is because modern translations are not perfect, nor have they ever claimed to be, that we must be, in the very least, somewhat hesitant to jump on this bandwagon.

But we still need to ask, in what way does one's theory of textual transmission affect the translation of Paul's letter to the Corinthians?

If a modern theory proposes that the manuscripts transmitted to the translation committee of the KJV were not "trustworthy", then that affects one's assumption about it's authenticity. And when we finally need to sort through some of the technical information at a later time, presumptions about the authenticity of the text which underlies the KJV seems to be a very important factor underlying the omission of the word "broken" in modern translations of I Cor. 11:24. If the KJV used manuscripts that are presumed to lack authenticity, and those manuscripts say "this is my body broken for you," then that presumption theoretically helps narrow the "likelihood" of what Paul actually wrote. In other words, it makes the job of modern translators that much easier if they can discard hundreds of manuscripts which are presumed to lack authenticity.

But there is another factor to consider when deciphering a text's authenticity (or lack thereof): the factor of theological contradictions. This too plays a part in the textual dispute of I Cor. 11:24. Wouldn't Paul's statement, "this is my body broken for you" contradict John's statement that Jesus' bones were not broken (John 19:36)? And if it contradicts other doctrines of Scripture, is that not also evidence of a manuscript which lacks authenticity?

The factors of theological contradictions and manuscript evidence will be discussed further in the next post, but for now, I hope this helps clarify that there are a lot of important factors and hidden presumptions involved in determining differences in translations. Some translational differences are easy and simple to settle because the errors are so elementary and plain, but others still remain truly difficult. Not many remain difficult, but some for sure. What perplexes me is when textual critics and scholars notice a truly difficult text to sort through, but yet, because they are committed to advancing modern theories of textual transmission, they gloss over the difficult text -- which may be the authentic one -- and proclaim dogmatically which reading is obviously "better" and more "trustworthy". Modern theories of textual transmission allegedly sort out many of the difficulties -- even the difficult renderings found among the manuscripts of Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

• But does anyone seriously believe that the modern theories of textual transmission are inerrant? 
• Is it possible that Paul actually said "broken," and modern translations of I Cor. 11:24 have made a mistake by omitting the word "broken" from the text? 
• Is there really a contradiction to be found in Paul's statement if the word "broken" remains?
• And is it necessary, or even essential in this discussion, to assume that both Paul and Luke were attempting to provide an exact quotation of what Jesus said?

In following posts, I plan on discussing a few important assumptions, as well as the alleged theological contradictions of I Cor. 11:24. But I promise to keep the technicalities to an absolute minimum.

Christ's Body: Broken or Given? Part I

I recently shared in a discussion with a faithful Christian brother about Paul's words in I Corinthians 11. In I Cor. 11:23-26, the English Standard Version (ESV) records these words:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for [footnote] you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

The "footnote" which I added in brackets is important because it states that "some manuscripts" contain the words "broken for". I will discuss more about the importance of this footnote in part 2 of this series of posts.

Let's now compare the ESV with the New King James Version (NKJV). The words are recorded as follows:

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till he comes.

Which is it? Did Jesus say "This is my body for you" or did he say "Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you"?

In Luke's gospel, the Word of Jesus are also different from what Paul records concerning the institution of the Lord's Supper (but they read the same between the NKJV and ESV). Luke 22:19-20 (ESV) records Jesus' words as follows:

And he took 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." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

So now, from the historical perspective of English translations, we have three possible statements of Jesus: First, he said "this is my body for you" with no reference to his body being "broken" or "given"; second, he did indeed say "broken for you", not "given"; and third, he did indeed say "given for you", not "broken".

• Which one is it?
• Which of the two translations contains the "better" reading?
• Why are there three different options from which to choose?
• Why did the ESV translators choose a different reading than the NKJV?

Some important answers to these questions will be discussed in Part II.

How well do you know the Gospels?

About two years ago, I had the privilege of teaching the book of Hebrews to a fine group of Christians from the Milwaukee area, but after that study was complete, we needed to start something new. At that time I wasn't sure what book to teach next, particularly because I still had much to learn about the people in our small group. I wasn't quite sure which other books of the Bible were too theologically "heavy" for the group. I definitely wanted to offer something less heavy than Hebrews. And so my wife came up with the great idea of having a Bible trivia night to mellow things out a bit and provide room for discussing what book of the Bible we all wanted to study next. And as an extra bonus, the winner of the Bible trivia would get a prize! (The gift was a card to Half-price Books, the perfect gift idea for our small group because we all like to read books. And that was the idea of our great friend, Jenny Provost. Thank you Jenny!)

A bunch of people were interested in studying the gospels, and so I decided to narrow our trivia & discussion to the Gospels, and other general information relating to them. It was a very fun night, a night which I'll never forget, because I got to learn the perspectives of each and every person in our small group and just how much they learned (and didn't learn) from their Pastors or teachers in Sunday School.

Below are the 40 trivia questions I asked that night. (Fun fact: 40 is a biblical number for "testing".)

How well do you know the gospels? 

The person with the most correct answers wins.

1. Which of the following is not a synoptic gospel: Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John?
2. How many "gospel" books are there and who wrote the longest one?
3. How many books of the New Testament were written by Gentile (non-Jewish) authors?
4. Which gospel emphasizes Christ as a "king" the most, both in it's frequent use of that word, and in its literary structure?
5. Which gospel frequently says that the words or actions of Jesus have taken place "to fulfill" the Scriptures?
6. In which gospel does Jesus speak of "the days of vengeance"; and what city was Jesus preaching in when he spoke of those soon-coming "days"?
7. Which author of the gospel mentions the last words of Jesus on the cross as saying, "It is finished."?
8. Which gospel focuses the geographical scope of Jesus's life and ministry within Jerusalem?
9. Which gospel does not mention the institution of the Lord's supper (i.e. "This is my body," "take, eat,...", "This is my blood of the covenant...", etc...)?
10. Which gospel does not mention Jesus' Olivet Discourse?
11. Which synoptic gospel does not mention the Lord's Prayer at all?
12. Which gospel frequently emphasizes the "knowledge" of God and the way in which his readers "know" that Jesus' words are true?
13. What is the only gospel that does not mention the veil of the temple being "torn apart" during the crucifixion of Jesus?
14. What is the only gospel that mentions the graves of dead people opening and many dead bodies rising out of their graves?
15. Which synoptic gospel contains more references and illustrations of the Holy Spirit's work than the other two synoptic gospels combined?
16. What is the only gospel that records the words of the thief who was crucified with Christ?
17. In which gospel are "the times of the Gentiles" mentioned by Jesus?
18. When did "the times of the Gentiles" begin in history (i.e. what era of biblical history)?
19. In which gospel do we find four, and only four, consecutive beatitudes?
20. Which of the synoptic gospels gives us no information about Jesus' birth or his early childhood?
21. Which author mentions Peter in his gospel more than any other disciple?
22. Which author wrote his gospel with what scholars consider to be "elegant" and "proper" Greek?
23. Which author wrote his gospel in the most grammatically poor and "common" style of Greek?
24. Which author incorporates both Aramaic and Latin phrases in his (Greek) gospel?
25. Which author incorporates the most Semitic (Hebrew/Aramaic) styles and phrases in his (Greek) gospel?
26. Which gospel-author had the surname of Levi?
27. Which gospel-author was the nephew of Barnabas?
28. Which gospel is structured around five main discourses (i.e. topical speeches)?
29. What is the repeated phrase that author (just mentioned) uses to indicate that his gospel is structured around five main discourses?
30. Which gospel author emphasizes the "power" and actions of Jesus rather than his discourses (i.e. which author shows Jesus doing a lot of things, instead of saying a lot of things)?
31. Which gospel mentions the "Kingdom of Heaven" the most (instead of "Kingdom of God")?
32. What are the first words of Jesus recorded in the gospels?
33. What is the first miracle of Jesus recorded in the gospels?
34. What is the second miracle of Jesus recorded in the gospels?
35. Which gospel contains the most quotations from the Old Testament (i.e. Genesis through Malachi)?
36. Which gospel was written first, and why?
37. Which gospel was written last, and why?
38. To whom was John's gospel written: Palestinian Jews, Hellenistic Jews of the Dispersion, Gentiles, or all of the above?
39. To whom was Matthew's gospel written?
40. To whom was Luke's gospel written?