chapter four
The defenders of the shorter reading have tried to show that the omis-
sion of the idea of Jesus’ blood of atonement would be related to Luke’s
tendency to avoid the idea of the atoning effect of Jesus’ blood.^5 Theolog-
ical arguments easily start to run in a circle because the institution of the
Eucharist is the best example of Jesus’ blood of atonement in Matthew
and Mark, as well. There are not many instances in Mark which might
have given Luke a reason to refer to the idea of atoning elsewhere in his
gospel unless he wanted to put special emphasis on it.
One such occasion would certainly have been Mark :: “... the
SonofMancamenottobeservedbuttoserve,andtogivehislifea
ransom for many.” Luke does not have this verse, which the defenders
of the shorter reading interpret as a sign of Luke’s tendency to avoid the
idea of atonement.^6 However, it is unfortunate for the defenders of the
shorter reading that Luke seems to have deleted here the whole section
Mark :– where the sons of Zebedee would like places next to
Jesus in the future glory. Had Luke decided to follow Mark’s narrative,
he would have told about the sons of Zebedee after Luke :. Later on,
Luke has introduced a passage which deals with the same theme but the
wording differs considerably from Mark :– (and Matthew :–
), showing that Luke either derived this section from his own source
or composed it freely. Had Luke only wanted to avoid referring to Jesus’
atoning death, he could have deleted only a part of Mark :. However,
he obviously had some other reason for removing the whole passage that
was dealing with the question of the sons of Zebedee.
On the other hand, the defenders of the longer reading have been
able to point out places in Luke’s writings, particularly in Acts (most
prominently Acts :, but see also :; :; :–; :), sufficient
to show that Luke is not the most likely editor to have swept the idea of
Jesus’ atoning death totally under the rug.^7
(^5) Parker , –.
(^6) Thus, for instance, Ehrman , . Ehrman also tries to show that, in Mark
:, there is another “deletion.” However, his argumentation is tied with a specific
interpretation of Mark’s description of the tearing of the curtain of the Temple which he
himself admits to be subtle (, –). Only two pages later, this subtle reference
has become an example of Luke blatantly eliminating any notion of Jesus’ death as an
atoning sacrifice (p. ).
(^7) Ehrman , , defending the short reading, argues that the idea of atoning can
be seen in Acts : only if read as a remnant of Pauline theology. However, Acts :
is a part of Paul’s speech and Luke seems to have known at least some of Paul’s letters and
used them as his sources (see Aejmelaeus , ). This speaks for Luke’s conscious
adoption of these “Pauline” ideas.