chapter four
thesecondhalfofverse.^10 A suggestion by Jeremias, according to
whom the rest may have been deleted since it was a liturgical tradition
known to everyone, is more desperate than convincing.^11 Overall, the
inability of the defenders of the longer reading to provide a satisfactory
reason for the shortening of the text is still considered to be the best
argument for the shorter reading.^12
In my view, the simplest explanation would be that the text was short-
ened by a copyist^13 who was offended by the idea of Jesus’ sacrificial
death and atonement. The copyist simply skipped the part where these
ideas were expressed. What kind of theological tradition would a copy-
ist like that come from? Obviously, the copyist did not represent any of
the theologies that were acknowledged in the formative Catholic tradi-
tion. Therefore, our chances finding appropriate comparative material for
the shorter reading increase if we direct our attention outside the “main-
stream,” to the writings and theology of the Ebionites.
...Reconstructing the Passion Narrative
in theGospel of the EbionitesThe Ebionite literature Epiphanius quoted (see Chapter ..) was prob-
ably derived from the Ebionites he met in Cyprus where he was bishop
(Pan. ..–; ..). Epiphanius knew passages from a gospel that
was used by the Ebionites, the Ebionites’Acts of the Apostles(different
from the canonical one) and fromPseudo-Clementinesources that are
presumed to precede the presentPseudo-Clementine Recognitionsand
Homilies. At some points, Epiphanius also quoted theBook of Elchasai.In
the following discussion, I will especially draw on theGospel of the Ebion-
itesand Pseudo-ClementineRecognitions:– while illuminating the
central features of Ebionite theology.
Rec. :– is generally considered to be one of the Pseudo-Clem-
entine sources that was available to Epiphanius.^14 In any case, it has
(^10) Cf. Jeremias , –; Ehrman , .
(^11) Nevertheless, it is still cited approvingly as the best possible one by Nolland ,
. For criticism, see also Ehrman , .
(^12) See Fitzmyer , ; Nolland , .
(^13) By “copyist,” I simply refer to the person who originally shortened the text. This
was not necessarily the one who prepared the D text of Luke. D has not found the idea
of sacrifice problematic in Matthew and Mark. If these were not prepared by different
copyists, then the short text must already have been in the exemplar that was used as the
basis for the D text of Luke.
(^14) See Chapter ...