Wearing of the cross

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

there are compelling reasons to believe that this reference was a later addition that was not in the original manuscript

I’m fairly convinced that the reference was not written by “Luke” (or whatever his or her name was). That doesn’t necessarily mean that it isn’t an authentic statement. As I recall, the passage appears in all the oldest manuscripts, and the entire argument that it doesn’t belong is based on the text itself; how it interrupts a chiasmus and how it betrays weakness in the Savior (being in agony, needing to be comforted) – something that “Luke” goes out of his/her way to counter elsewhere. Because it is a very early addition, it’s entirely possible, if in no way knowable, that the passage may have existed as a tradition among many believers, and that at some point it was added in, because it was viewed as an overlooked fact by the original author. That it was only added to Luke leads me to believe it was added very very early. Later modifications tended to make the gospels agree, rather than make them differ.

DarkJedi wrote:

Before joining the church I always interpreted that scripture in Luke to be a sort of a comparison (his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground). Most other translations of the Bible support that interpretation. http://biblehub.com/luke/22-44.htm” class=”bbcode_url”>http://biblehub.com/luke/22-44.htm So, the idea that it was actually blood was new to me, and I still prefer to interpret it the old way I did – D&C 19 notwithstanding. In fact, D&C 19 is one of the things that gives me doubts about Joseph Smith and the D&C. I simply believe Luke 22 is misinterpreted and D&C 19 is made up or perhaps Joseph Smith misinterpreted the revelation. Either way, I think we as a church too often focus on Gethsemane and ignore the parts others consider the more important parts of the atonement (while they tend to ignore Gethsemane).

IMO, the early Christians didn’t think of any special anguish that Jesus experienced other than the unfairness of being brutally executed even though he was innocent and the least deserving of anyone to be put to death, and the way that God abandoned him on the cross, again, even though he was totally loyal to God (the opposite of God’s relationship to Israel). In that sense, the LDS theology of Jesus’ taking on sins as a cosmic happening beyond the comprehension of any mortal being is actually pretty profound. In our theology, the cross was the final act within a four-act play: 1) Jesus in total submission and anguish in the Garden, beyond our ability even to suffer 2) Jesus betrayed by his own people 3) Jesus wrongfully judged 4) Jesus wrongfully punished on the cross. I find much to admire about either the traditional version or the LDS version. For me personally, I don’t find any reason to chose between the two. They are both edifying.

BTW, DJ, search your feelings, come away from the dark side, and start using biblegateway instead of biblehub. The former includes the NRSV; the latter does not. Sine the NRSV is my go-to translation, biblehub is a non-starter for me. You can find the NRSV in the drop-down list, along with most any other translation that you can think of. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22%3A43-44

[Anonymous]

I wasn’t saying we need to choose one or the other, OON, i was trying to point out that church members/culture tends to focus on Gethsemane while other churches seem to focus more on the crucifixion. My personal belief is that all of it is part of the atonement, beginning with the institution of the sacrament and ending with the resurrection.

I do use Bible Gateway. I used Bible Hub in this reference because it gives a whole list of different scriptures on one page. I also have a preference for the NRSV – I have an app on my phone for that. When I’m in class and looking for another translation perspective I generally use the app, although I do go online as well.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

I’m fairly convinced that the reference was not written by “Luke” (or whatever his or her name was). That doesn’t necessarily mean that it isn’t an authentic statement. As I recall, the passage appears in all the oldest manuscripts, and the entire argument that it doesn’t belong is based on the text itself; how it interrupts a chiasmus and how it betrays weakness in the Savior (being in agony, needing to be comforted) – something that “Luke” goes out of his/her way to counter elsewhere. Because it is a very early addition, it’s entirely possible, if in no way knowable, that the passage may have existed as a tradition among many believers, and that at some point it was added in, because it was viewed as an overlooked fact by the original author. That it was only added to Luke leads me to believe it was added very very early. Later modifications tended to make the gospels agree, rather than make them differ.

I agree. However there are several religious traditions that have made the literal “bloody sweat” into part of their dogma and therefore are not open to having this discussion.

From the biblehub page DJ linked:

Quote:

Verse 44. – And his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. Some (for instance, Theophylact) understand this “as it were” to signify that the expression, “drops of blood,” was simply parabolic; but it is far better to understand the words in their literal sense, as our Church does when it prays, “By thine agony and bloody sweat.” Athanasius even goes so far as to pronounce a ban upon those who deny this sweat of blood. Commentators give instances of this blood-sweat under abnormal pathological circumstances. Some, though by no means all, of the oldest authorities omit these last two verses (43, 44). Their omission in many of these ancient manuscripts was probably due to mistaken reverence. The two oldest and most authoritative translations, the Itala (Latin) and Peshito (Syriac), contain them, however, as do the most important Fathers of the second century, Justin and Irenaeus. We have, then, apart from the evidence of manuscripts, the testimony of the earliest Christianity in Italy and Syria, Asia Minor and Gaul, to the genuineness of these two famous verses. They are printed in the ordinary text of the Revised English Version, with a side-note alluding to their absence in some of the ancient authorities.

[Author]

Posts