> General Discussions

Did Christ sweat blood?

<< < (7/9) > >>

Bill:

--- Quote from: Pax Vobiscum on April 13, 2007, 11:52:55 AM ---
--- Quote from: Bill on April 11, 2007, 08:03:41 PM ---
--- Quote from: Pax Vobiscum on April 11, 2007, 07:23:44 PM ---I can look up the references if you wish, but my recollection is that the sweating of blood (bleeding of sweat?) was not recorded earlier than the Latin Vulgate.  Since many translations used the Vulgate as their primary source, the entries continued.


--- End quote ---
Hi Pax,

If you would not mind I would be interested in hearing more one this.  When you have the time of course. 

If it is true that you feel it was added and is not scripture why do you feel it was added?

Thanks

--- End quote ---


Well, Bill here’s my two cents on Lk 22:43-44 – remember, you asked for it!

OK, Jesus is on the Mount of Olives the night he was to be arrested and betrayed (of course we know that the Gospels disagree on which night of the week this was).  Jesus enlists his disciples to “pray, lest you enter into temptation” which is a provocative statement in its own context.  Jesus gets on His knees and prays, “Father, if it be Your will…” (anyone want to kick around the non-existence of the Trinity?).

Next comes an event, recorded only in the Third Gospel, in which Jesus is to have “bloody sweat.”  This account is in many early manuscripts, but more on that in a bit.  This thread has already explored the comparative “Like/As” and that needs no reinforcement here.  However, you asked you asked for a more thorough examination of the disputed passage.

When comparing ancient texts, especially when trying to figure out which manuscript is the purest manuscript, many attributes need to be considered.  Chief among them is “shortest wins the day.”  That is to say that the most conservative telling of a tale often enjoys a slight edge over the longer version.

Let’s make up an example that may clarify this point.  Let’s recite the Pledge of Allegiance.  “… one nation, under God, indivisible…”    is published and re-published and is an accepted phrase within this oath.  Perhaps an archivist looks in the Congressional Record and finds the earliest authorized account to date – yet this account has only the phrase “…one nation, indivisible…”  Hmm…

We have three options at this point:  1) “Under God” was added at some later time to assert some agenda, 2) There could perhaps be an undiscovered earliest account which contains “under God,” which leads to 3) Somebody forgot to write “under God” in this earliest account when copying it.  Like I said, in textual criticism option one holds the lead as the most likely explanation.

So, if you are still reading this, let’s get back to our topic…

When we look at this section of the Third Gospel, there are great and accepted manuscripts in which the majorities contain and some others omit the “sweaty blood” reference.  While the majority manuscripts speak loud, the manuscripts which do not contain the “sweaty blood” account are older and just as authentic.  The only thing we can reasonably state is that a corruption of the original text occurred – we just cannot be sure which the corrupted Scripture is.  We can tell when the corruption occurred, however.

If the verses in question were added later, it must have occurred in the middle of the second century (the “100’s” if you will).  We know this because the verses are attested by such early fathers as Justin, Irenaeus, and other Latin and Syriac writings.  If these verses are original, they would have been deleted in roughly the same time period.  These verses are not found in Clement and are missing from the Alexandrian manuscripts which are considered to be the writings of earlier traditions.

There is a considerable body of writings which debate the style and word choices of the disputed passage.  While they are elegant arguments, they are ultimately inconclusive.

So, from a literary criticism perspective, all we can conclude is that a corruption occurred.  We just cannot be precise in determining which the corruption is.  But there is a theological spin in action here which may prove interesting when considering why the corruption took place.

One writer disputes 43-4 in a contextual schema – the writer of the Third Gospel has gone to great lengths to present a condemned Jesus who is calm, in control, and confident of the Father’s Will.  Jesus is the strong, silent type right up to the end.  Now here’s where it gets interesting….

We know that Mark is the earliest written Gospel.  Many believe it is reasonable that Luke knew of Mark’s writing and used it as a source for his own Gospel.  Comparing Mark’s and Luke accounts of the Passion then becomes instructive.  Mark paints a very different picture of the condemned Jesus.  Luke, to produce this stalwart Jesus had to leave out big chunks of Mark’s account to keep Jesus’ stoicism intact – except for 22:43-44!  It is the only place in Luke where Jesus is in such visible agony.

A verse-by-verse comparison of Luke 22 and Mark 14 shows too many contrasts to go into here – look them up and see for yourself.  Mark has Jesus in agony and despair while Luke (except for 22:43-44) has a confident Jesus headed for a fulfillment of God’s Will. 

Nowhere is this more pronounced than the accounts of the crucifixion.  Mark’s walk to Golgotha is silent; the disciples have fled, and even the faithful women look on from a distance.  Jesus is mocked by the crowd – a man who is beaten, even forsaken by God Almighty!  Mark’s Christology, of course, gave reason for this.  Luke, in contrast has a Jesus who is far from silent.  Here is a Jesus who makes confident claims and pronouncements.  He tells women not to weep for Him – He knows what He must do.  On the cross, He remains calm and forgiving.  He does not cry out “Why have You left me behind?” to His God as He does in Mark; instead, He calls upon His Father to forgive His executioners for they don’t know what they’re doing.

Nowhere else in Luke’s two-volume series do we find any reference to Jesus’ agony -- only in these two disputed verses.  Although it doesn’t alter my theology at all, I am of the mind that those verses were added later.  Many Bible publishers agree and often make notations next to these verses.  This type of thing is usually a stumbling block for those who believe that the Bible is a flawless book.

The “why” question is pretty simple.  Second century Christians believed many different things about Jesus.  There were Docetists (actually there were two main Docetic camps), followers of Marcion, Ebionites, and on and on.  Each with a different Christology.  One of the loudest arguments was the Jesus as Phantasm vs. Jesus as Man debates.  The agony (that Jesus sweat blood, felt pain, was strengthened by angels, etc) was used to “prove” Jesus’ humanity.  That He was “fully human” as it were.  The polemic of “fully human/ fully divine” came much later and after much debate – a theological compromise which I feel is not supported by the Scriptures. 

Making Jesus fully human in the Gospels and possibly adding passages to support this was meant to quash the Docetic movements which were gaining a foothold in early communities.   Making Jesus Fully divine was John’s job.  Have you ever tried to make a decent argument for the divinity of Jesus without using the writings attributed to John?

Anyway, I hope that this lengthy reply is received in the spirit in which I write it – to edify the community of believers who want to know a bit more about our faith.  This was fun and got me reviewing things that I had not considered in a long time.  I hope it helps.

Whew!

Peace



--- End quote ---

Hi Pax,

Thanks for taking the time to write all that.

If you do not mind I have a couple more questions:

Can you show me the alternative verse with out the bloody sweat?  Is it just the mention of bloody sweat that is stricken or the whole verse?  Also do have any reference of other scripture that are contention like this.  I believe mark 28:19 (Email to Ray) has had some discrepncy as well.  But it would be interest if there is such a list of controversal verses.

Also you mentioned that you feel that this may have been added to strengthen Marks account and Mark and Luke had a different outlook.  Why is that? shouldn't the gospels build upon each other and witness to each other and not show differences?

I will do as you suggested and do a verse-by-verse comparison of Luke 22 and Mark 14.

God Bless

Deborah-Leigh:
The Gospel of Mark omits the birth of Jesus and begins with John the Baptist’s preaching. Does this mean Jesus was not born?

The message of Mark is written  to encourage and to prove beyond a doubt that Jesus is the Messiah by what He does and not necessarily by what He says.

Luke affirms Jesus’ divinity with emphasis on His humanity. Mark records more of Jesus’ miracles than sermons. Luke put emphasis on dates, details and relationships as he was a medical doctor and historian.

This does not mean that the scriptures contradict or disagree. It also does not mean that there are not errors in translations such as hell or eternal, that give rise to  beliefs in purgatory, the trinity and free will, or that there are not openings for theologies of man that bite the dust and would have others do the same.

The scriptures do not contradict and neither do they disagree. They are spirit and are only discerned by the spirit and not by intellectual rationalisations assumptions and innuendo. To teach through mans understanding and not by revelation is to walk where angels fear to tread.

Ray teaches through revelation and uncovers the mysteries that cause us to have stronger faith and greater confidence and knowledge of God. Compare other teachers who’s teachings lead to weakened faith and shipwrecked confidence in Gods word. This is what should be compared, not one scripture against the other to prove fallibility of Gods word that has survived down through the ages despite errors in translations.

The Apostles were the body of Christ. They were of like mind and in accord not in competition. They had their growing pains and challenges to be of one mind that was not left undone or unsettled or in discord or competition. The writings of the apostles are not examples of variance, disagreement or contradiction. In fact, they are a portrait of our Lord and each Gospel offers its own colour that makes up the body of the message and beautiful and full choreography of Gods Holy Spirit and word. To suggest otherwise is blasphemy.

Peace to you

Arcturus :)

DWIGHT:
Hi all,

I must agree with our sister, that these "supposed contradictions" that you surmise, are nothing more than God sending a strong delusion to them who believe the lie.  It is not God's intention for everyone, yea only a few, that can ever see the spirit behind the letter.  The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life. We can analyze scripture till the cows come home, and all be for naught.  We must always be on guard as Peter wrote....

" 2 Peter 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."

"2  Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

Believe the scriptures that say, "John 4:1
Most dear brethren, do not ye believe to each spirit, but prove ye the spirits, if they be of God; for many false prophets went out into the world."

We have been commisioned by the Lord Himself, to judge the world and angels and to try the spirits whether they be of God. 

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils. I Tim. 4:1

 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Rev. 22:19

 

 

hillsbororiver:
Excellent post Arcturus and a brilliant follow up Dwight, thank you.

The fact that all 4 Gospels are not word for word is no reason to automatically throw doubt on what is written, of course we should scrutinize and search the original Hebrew and Greek and pray for spiritual discernment but I do not see Luke's account as being outside of what we know was an extremely excruciating time for our Lord. I did find it interesting that it was Dr. Luke who wrote about this rare stress related phenomena, there is medical verification that blood pigmented sweat can and does occur, the ancient Greeks wrote of this as well as modern medical journals.

Read a synopsis of a sporting event by 4 different authors, an accident report by 4 different witnesses, they will each have their own unique perspectives and vantage points resulting in 4 somewhat different versions, putting them all together gives a more textured and complete picture.

One of my areas of responsibilty at the Residential Home Builder I am employed with is Quality Control, I have 8 people on staff and typically I have at least 2 more often 3 people (individually, one at a time over a one or two day period)  go through a house to do a Quality Walk and complete a check list that covers every room and every portion of the house interior and exterior, it is no longer amazing how the reports are never exactly the same, ever. The result is a more thorough snapshot of where the house is at that time resulting in a house our customer is less likely to find fault with.

I must say this has been a very interesting thread, so many perspectives.  ;)

His Peace to you,

Joe 

 

Deborah-Leigh:
Thank you Joe and Dwight for the Scriptures.

Joe I found it very constructive that you gave the medical information regarding this condition and that the ancient Greeks also knew of it too!

Peace to you

Arcturus :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page