We all remember the story in Luke 22:44 where in Jesus in agonizing prayer begins to sweat blood. Remember the extremely rare medical condition where a person being tortured can sweat blood that was cited as proof that the Bible was true and how this should deepen our appreciation for the sacrifice of Jesus? Well the footnote in the reference Bible reveals that the earliest and best manuscripts of the NT do not have verses 43&44. These verses and many others were likely added in the late 3rd or early 4th century (possibly a little earlier)to counter the very early Christian teaching of Docetism (do-seet-ism). This is the belief that Jesus as God was unable to suffer or die because in fact he only appeared to be a man but was in fact spirit. Others of course held that the entire drama (minus the ascension and virgin birth elements which were added later) was allegory. The Roman protoCatholic sect was endeavoring to add humanizing details like sweating blood and agony (or Thomas feeling holes in a body, eating fish etc.) to the story so as to condemn the Docetic Christians as heretics. At any ate whatever the full reason, it doesn't belong to the earliest strata of the Jesus story. The WT knew this, why didn't they tell us? Likely because it was too sensational to leave out.
no sweaty blood
by peacefulpete 24 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
seattleniceguy
Wow, interesting post, Pete.
But the Society knows other things, such as that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John are only four of many gospels of Jesus life, and that the historical evidence indicates strongly that they are wrong - that Jesus had a wife, and that he probably even had a child. But they could never talk about that.
In the latest issue of Time, there was an interesting article about those other gospels. It talked about the sect called the Thomasines, which presumably the disciple Thomas started. Thomasines were known for asking for concrete evidence, rather than simple blind faith. The article suggests that the account of doubting Thomas was added by John as a direct attack on the Thomasines.
"Unless I see the imprint of the nails, I shall not believe," says Thomas, made out to be faithless and stubborn. Then John has Jesus himself come in and chide him, "Happy are those who do not see and yet believe." Amazing how artificial that account seems in the historical context.
Interesting stuff.
SNG
-
Mysterious
But the Society knows other things, such as that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John are only four of many gospels of Jesus life, and that the historical evidence indicates strongly that they are wrong - that Jesus had a wife, and that he probably even had a child. But they could never talk about that.
Do you have a link to that?
-
BluesBrother
I just thought i would post up the Society's take on this.. I must confess that I am not qualified to make further comment. Perhaps one of our more learned members can explain.
***
it-2 p. 1048 Sweat ***"Luke 22:43, 44 is omitted in the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, the Alexandrine Manuscript, the Syriac Sinaitic codex, and in the corrected reading of the Sinaitic Manuscript. However, these verses do appear in the original Sinaitic Manuscript, the Codex Bezae, the Latin Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac, and the Syriac Peshitta"
-
seattleniceguy
Mysterious:
Couldn't find the gospels online, but you might start with a book such as this:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679724532/qid=1072092204/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-7291814-0584925?v=glance&s=booksOr go to your library and research Gnostic gospels. That should lead you to the other gospels as well.
SNG
-
peacefulpete
BluesBrother as I said they know the facts yet come time to discuss the passage it was discussed as original to the story. To be sure if it had been a Trinitarian verse we all would have. heard why it "doesn't belong in the Bible".
"Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman. Maybe a word search using the title will show some online excerpts. Interestingly it is also theorized (based on textural and historical implications) that Peter was a literary creation to legtiize the Roman Church hierchy. Some of his supposed expoits may have been MaryM's or another man's named Cephus. -
nilfun
an interesting link: http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/gospels.htm
-
seattleniceguy
Thank you, Pete, for the excellent information. I need to own some information on that, and the book you recommend sounds like a good place to start. And, nilfun, that link looks great!
SNG
-
-
Earnest
Although Luke 22:43-44 is absent in most ancient texts and is probably not part of the original text of Luke, this is not certain and consideration also has to be given that these verses may have been deleted from the text by those who felt that the account of Jesus overwhelmed with human weakness was incompatible with his sharing the divine omnipotence of the Father.
BluesBrother has already noted that the verses are found in "the original Sinaitic Manuscript [4th century], the Codex Bezae [5th century], the Latin Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac [5th century], and the Syriac Peshitta [5th century]". It is also found in the codex Regius (8th century), codex Coridethianus (9th century), codex Athous Lavrensis (8/9th century), ms 0171 (from about 300), and is cited by Justin, Irenaeus, Hipplytus, Eusebius and many other Fathers. While I agree that the WTS would have probably given more emphasis to the weak manuscript support for this verse if it was trinitarian in nature, I cannot fault them for including it in discussion of the passion.
Earnest