Jesus' plea for the Father's forgiveness from the cross - question.

brightfame52

Well-known member
When you say that the parable misleads me, what do you mean? That you think the parable is mistaken, or that I'm just misunderstanding it? If I'm misunderstanding it, then what do you think it means?
I mean it misleads you into thinking that forgiveness is conditioned on the sinner/person instead of the grace of God. Im not going into what it means, that"s not my job. If you bring a scripture to a discussion you should have done your due research of it, to see to it that you dont contradict other scripture and teachings of scripture.
 
I mean it misleads you into thinking that forgiveness is conditioned on the sinner/person instead of the grace of God. Im not going into what it means, that"s not my job. If you bring a scripture to a discussion you should have done your due research of it, to see to it that you dont contradict other scripture and teachings of scripture.
I guess I'm not seeing how my interpretation could be anything other than the plainest meaning of the text. What if your understanding of forgiveness is the one that contradicts Scripture, and a sign that you haven't done enough research on this subject yet?
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
I guess I'm not seeing how my interpretation could be anything other than the plainest meaning of the text. What if your understanding of forgiveness is the one that contradicts Scripture, and a sign that you haven't done enough research on this subject yet?
Hey, you believe what you believe, and by believing what you believe, you miss forgiveness by grace and blood of Christ. You believe in conditional forgiveness based upon the sinner ! My understanding is way more to the Glory of God and the Blood of Christ !
 

Stephen

Active member
Its presence or absence probably hinges on who the 'them' is understood to be. If one follows the text beginning at 23:13 through to the passage in question (23:34), the agents of the crucifixion are not Roman soldiers, but the chief priests, leaders and the people. There is no explicit change of subject at the critical juncture in 23:25-26 --- Pilate hands Jesus over to their will and they lead him away, they place the cross on Simon of Cyrene, they crucify Jesus and the two criminals upon arriving at the place of execution. Soldiers are not introduced into the text until 23:36. At best Luke is ambiguous about their involvement, the real culprits in his gospel are the Jewish leaders and the mob. This is consistent with the indictment found in Acts 3:15 when Peter, addressing Israelite men, is narrated to say "you killed the author of life" and adds later that they and their leaders acted out of ignorance (3:17). It is important to note, in light of the OP's claim that those for whom Jesus' petitions for forgiveness are unrepentant, that Luke narrates that some of those listening believed Peter's preaching and were added to the number of believers (4:4), presumably repenting of their involvement in Jesus' death.

Interesting. You are correct. The word "soldiers" in verse 26 appears to be a translation insertion.

However, Matthew 27:27-37 indicates it was the soldiers who acted with Simon of Cyrene.
 

En Hakkore

Active member
Interesting. You are correct. The word "soldiers" in verse 26 appears to be a translation insertion.

However, Matthew 27:27-37 indicates it was the soldiers who acted with Simon of Cyrene.
Yes, and the same could be said for Mark 15:16-21, but that is not justification for shoehorning their version of the story into Luke's, nor for translators to insert a word that violates the context of the work they are translating... the gospel authors' have unique voices that should be heard.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Cynthia

Active member
"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Christ prayed this from the cross over people who were actively killing Him and who were not the least bit repentant about it.

In light of this, I have two questions for consideration:

1. Do you believe that the Father answered Jesus' prayer? I know the text doesn't say; but what do you think?

2. How should it inform our soteriology (if at all), by the fact that (at least on this one occasion) Christ used ignorance as a basis for which the Father ought to forgive sin?
According to "The Original Gospels" by Mark Dumdei, page 157, that verse Luke23:34 was an interpolation. He states, The Received Text has many additions to Luke that were unknown in the Codices B, P4, 45, 69 and 75.

Mark Dumdei used to post here on CARM years ago, as Userid "DOMINUSDEI" but his last post was 9-25-15. I purchased his book and was impressed enough to also purchase his other book "Against Modern Heresies". They were published in 2015 He has a Master of Arts, in Theological Studies. I lost track of him but he lives in the Dallas area and teaches in a Bible College but can't recall which one.

Those who believe the Received Text is superior or even inspired will of course not want to hear this.

It is also mentioned on page 288 of "The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration" 4th Edition, by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman. It states "Among the most intriguing of the nearly two dozen examples that these and other scholars have discussed is the omission in some manuscripts of Jesus' prayer from the cross, 'Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing'. An omission that makes particular sense if Jesus is understood to be asking God to forgive the Jews responsible for his crucifixion." footnote 39 states "For discussion and bibliography, see Joseph a. Fitzmyer, "The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV) (Garden City, NY 1985, pp 1503-4.
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Active member
According to "The Original Gospels" by Mark Dumdei, page 157, that verse Luke23:34 was an interpolation. He states, The Received Text has many additions to Luke that were unknown in the Codices B, P4, 45, 69 and 75.

Mark Dumdei used to post here on CARM years ago, as Userid "DOMINUSDEI" but his last post was 9-25-15. I purchased his book and was impressed enough to also purchase his other book "Against Modern Heresies". They were published in 2015 He has a Master of Arts, in Theological Studies. I lost track of him but he lives in the Dallas area and teaches in a Bible College but can't recall which one.

Those who believe the Received Text is superior or even inspired will of course not want to hear this.
I remember DominusDei... thanks for the update of where his studies have taken him. I raise the point that Luke 23:34 is unstable in the text tradition in post 15 of this same thread, though my conclusion is different... namely that the verse was original to Luke's gospel and later excised by various scribes.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Cynthia

Active member
This reference point is debatable and the text itself is unstable in the manuscript tradition, presented in NA28 within double square brackets. It is missing from a number of key Greek witnesses such as Papyrus 75, Codices Vaticanus, Washingtonianus and Koridethi, as well as the Sinaitic Syriac and numerous Coptic manuscripts. It was originally absent in Codices Sinaiticus and Bezae, but added by correctors in both cases.

Its presence or absence probably hinges on who the 'them' is understood to be. If one follows the text beginning at 23:13 through to the passage in question (23:34), the agents of the crucifixion are not Roman soldiers, but the chief priests, leaders and the people. There is no explicit change of subject at the critical juncture in 23:25-26 --- Pilate hands Jesus over to their will and they lead him away, they place the cross on Simon of Cyrene, they crucify Jesus and the two criminals upon arriving at the place of execution. Soldiers are not introduced into the text until 23:36. At best Luke is ambiguous about their involvement, the real culprits in his gospel are the Jewish leaders and the mob. This is consistent with the indictment found in Acts 3:15 when Peter, addressing Israelite men, is narrated to say "you killed the author of life" and adds later that they and their leaders acted out of ignorance (3:17). It is important to note, in light of the OP's claim that those for whom Jesus' petitions for forgiveness are unrepentant, that Luke narrates that some of those listening believed Peter's preaching and were added to the number of believers (4:4), presumably repenting of their involvement in Jesus' death.

Returning to the disputed passage, my position is that it is original to Luke's gospel and was removed by scribes working in the second and third centuries during the time that the schism between Jews and Christians intensified, the deletions being part of the period's anti-Jewish polemics.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
My Orthodox Study Bible provides the following footnote to the passage in Luke 23:34, "The NU Text brackets the first sentence as a later addition."

I prefer the Septuagint for the OT so the Orthodox Study Bible comes in very handy. They (Saint Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology) published the NT in the Received Text, but where there are major differences with the Nestle Aland United Bible Societies Text, they have added footnotes which are extremely useful. I prefer the NU.
 
Last edited:

Cynthia

Active member
I remember DominusDei... thanks for the update of where his studies have taken him. I raise the point that Luke 23:34 is unstable in the text tradition in post 15 of this same thread, though my conclusion is different... namely that the verse was original to Luke's gospel and later excised by various scribes.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

He also wrote a book on the game of Bridge, available on Amazon. He is quite a Bridge player in his spare time. We used to email each other when he was writing his books on the scriptures and he sent me a draft for review. I asked him to include clarification on a few passages and he did. Yes, he was a great addition to this forum.
 

En Hakkore

Active member
My Orthodox Study Bible provides the following footnote to the passage in Luke 23:34, "The NU Text brackets the first sentence as a later addition."

In his textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, Metzger concurs, attributing to the clause the status of a logion that was added relatively early in the transmission history. Ehrman, on the other hand, argues that it is original to the text and later excised for the reasons I offered earlier. In their joint work, from which you cited after I had replied to your post, it is Ehrman's position that is presented. With two solid scholars in the field of text criticism who arrive at different conclusions, I think we can agree to disagree amicably! :)

I prefer the Septuagint for the OT

What is the reason for this preference, if you don't mind my asking?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Cynthia

Active member
In his textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, Metzger concurs, attributing to the clause the status of a logion that was added relatively early in the transmission history. Ehrman, on the other hand, argues that it is original to the text and later excised for the reasons I offered earlier. In their joint work, from which you cited after I had replied to your post, it is Ehrman's position that is presented. With two solid scholars in the field of text criticism who arrive at different conclusions, I think we can agree to disagree amicably! :)



What is the reason for this preference, if you don't mind my asking?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
I also referenced the footnotes pertaining to another book which I have not read that concurred with the position I posted, in addition to the OSB footnote. I'm not a scholar, but I simply quote from them. Yes, we can certainly disagree amicably. I thought since there was a thread on the topic, I would add the scholars notes for information since it seemed to be discussed as a foregone conclusion that the verse was authentic. It may not be (authentic) depending on who one choses to read/follow.

I prefer the Septuagint after having read several books in 2013:
1) When God Spoke Greek, the Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible, by Timothy Michael Law, 2013
2) First Bible of the Church, A Plea for the Septuagint, by Mogens Muller, 1996

and also by researching various websites which are too numerous to mention. Basically I believe it can be proven that the Septuagint is a translation of a much older Paleo-Hebrew Vorlage than that used to develop the recent Masoretic Text in modern block Hebrew.

I initially purchased a Kindle version of the Orthodox Study Bible (its OT is a version of the LXX). I liked it so much I purchased a hard copy, along with the NETS and the interlinear version Apostolic Polyglot Bible.

I switched over to the LXX as my primary OT, but I still refer to the Masoretic Text to have both for my input.

Blessings
 

En Hakkore

Active member
I thought since there was a thread on the topic, I would add the scholars notes for information since it seemed to be discussed as a foregone conclusion that the verse was authentic. It may not be (authentic) depending on who one choses to read/follow.

I had similar motivations for my involvement in the thread, though also to point out that reference to Roman soldiers as the recipient of the plea is not contextually sound if the passage is deemed original to Luke's gospel... that is, it is the chief priests, leaders of the people and the mob, all presumably Jewish, who are the ones Jesus prays for.

I prefer the Septuagint after having read several books in 2013:
1) When God Spoke Greek, the Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible, by Timothy Michael Law, 2013
2) First Bible of the Church, A Plea for the Septuagint, by Mogens Muller, 1996

I have and have read Law's book, but not Muller's. I see it was reprinted in 2009 by T&T Clark in their Library of Hebrew Bible-Old Testament Studies... I'll put it on my to-read list. Thanks for the reference.

Basically I believe it can be proven that the Septuagint is a translation of a much older Paleo-Hebrew Vorlage than that used to develop the recent Masoretic Text in modern block Hebrew.

Law would not go that far... nor would I or the vast majority of Septuagint scholars. Law, for example, states "The Septuagint often preserves a witness to an alternative, sometimes older, form of the Hebrew text" (pg 6; italics in original, bold underline mine). In many cases that different Vorlage represents a text form secondary to that found in the Masoretic Text. Each book of the Septuagint, which includes some original Greek compositions, needs to be assessed on a case-to-case basis as the translation techniques and text basis vary considerably from book to book. I'd be willing to go through some examples if you're interested in a separate thread (would not want to hijack this one, which has its own focus)... just let me know.

I initially purchased a Kindle version of the Orthodox Study Bible (its OT is a version of the LXX). I liked it so much I purchased a hard copy, along with the NETS and the interlinear version Apostolic Polyglot Bible.

I use NETS for English translation, though I also have a copy of Brenton in interlinear format. I read Greek, as well, so for that I use Gottingen for those books that are available in the series, Rahlfs-Hanhart for the others. Glad to see you are equipped for any future dialogues we may have on the subject of the Septuagint...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Last edited:

Cynthia

Active member
You will enjoy Muller's book. He is more direct than Law was. Law tended to give himself wiggle room.
 

Redeemed

Well-known member
We're still alive aren't we?
Is God saving us from our sin, and freeing us to become Christ-like in our lives?


Nope.... NOT ignorance.
Forgiveness.
According to Psalm 103, God casts our sin as far as the east is from the west.
In Micah 7:19 he says

You will cast all our sins
Into the depths of the sea.

there's a whole lot more on this.
This is not ignoring our sin. Jesus' death paid for our sin--- all sin, the sin of every single human being to ever have lived, all the way to all who every will live.

So, God isn't ignoring them, he's forgiving them. He's releasing us from the debt we owe him.
In 1 John 1:9 we read---

If we confess our sin, God is faithful (he can be relied upon), and Just to forgive our sin, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Justice due sin was handled by Jesus' death. So God is totally just to forgive our sin, and to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness....
Not some, but ALL.

We then have Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is also quoted in Hebrews 10

God will not remember our sins, ever again.

For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

So.... and this cannot be overemphasized......

God does not ignore our sin. He forgives our sin. He cleanses us, he forgives us, he wipes our debt away.
"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Maybe Jesus is just being true to himself... to what he taught us to do.

Luke 6:27"But I tell you who hear: love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, and pray for those who mistreat you. 29To the person who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from the person who takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt either. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask him who takes away your goods to give them back again. 31"And as you would like people to do to you, you also do the same to them. 32If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive back as much. 35But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back; and your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil. 36Therefore be merciful, even as your Father is also merciful.

37Do not judge, and you won't be judged. Do not condemn, and you won't be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38"Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the same measure you measure it will be measured back to you."
 

En Hakkore

Active member
You will enjoy Muller's book. He is more direct than Law was. Law tended to give himself wiggle room.
What you call wiggle room I call scholarly acumen... :)

LXX does not represent the oldest form of the text in many cases so Law is correct to offer the restrained position that is it sometimes older. If Muller claims this is so all or even in a majority of cases, then I'm afraid he's incorrect and overstated his case...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Cynthia

Active member
What you call wiggle room I call scholarly acumen... :)

C

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Really Jonathan,

Please quote the page number of your position stated...

Muller is a theological and textual scholar, Professor of NT Exegesis at Univ of Copenhagen, Denmark.

Why not read Muller for yourself before declaring him incorrect, unless your mind is already made up...

Law states on page 1 of his first chapter, "Apart from the numerous quotations of the OT in the New, which were almost entirely from the Greek, the language and theology of the New Testament writers are indebted far more to the Septuagint than to the Hebrew Bible. Consequently, the Septuagint plays a critical role in the history of Christian theology and exegesis."

Furthermore, he recommends Moguns Muller in his chapter on Further Reading. Law had co-authored a book which was still forthcoming in his 2013 book, and I have not read it. It is the Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint and may be a resource for anyone with interest in that area.

I encourage you to reread page 169 of Law's Postscript.

Aside from these two books, my research into Orthodox Christianity has provided me with sufficient background to put my trust in the LXX, just as the ancient church has always done, until Jerome that is.

Good day
 

En Hakkore

Active member
Why not read Muller for yourself before declaring him incorrect, unless your mind is already made up...
I did not declare Muller incorrect without having read him; since I haven't (yet) my comments were phrased conditionally:

LXX does not represent the oldest form of the text in many cases so Law is correct to offer the restrained position that is it sometimes older. If Muller claims this is so all or even in a majority of cases, then I'm afraid he's incorrect and overstated his case...

And I stand by that. If Muller adopts the position that you appear to be articulating here (and that remains to be seen), then he is mistaken... the basis for that judgment is my reading of far more than two scholarly books on the subject, as well as my own research and firsthand familiarity with the views of many LXX scholars, primarily through attendance at conference presentations, but also through informal post-conference gatherings and email correspondence. None of them think that LXX, as a whole, represents an earlier or more authentic text tradition than that found in MT. Such judgments are made on a case-to-case basis... sometimes in favor of LXX, at other times in favor of MT.

Law states on page 1 of his first chapter, "Apart from the numerous quotations of the OT in the New, which were almost entirely from the Greek, the language and theology of the New Testament writers are indebted far more to the Septuagint than to the Hebrew Bible. Consequently, the Septuagint plays a critical role in the history of Christian theology and exegesis."
I have no objection whatsoever to this claim... it is spot on.

Furthermore, he recommends Moguns Muller in his chapter on Further Reading.
Recommendations for further reading in any book are not wholesale endorsements of their contents, only an acknowledgement of their importance to that particular field of study.

I encourage you to reread page 169 of Law's Postscript.
I've re-read it and found nothing that challenges my position or my understanding of Law's nuanced approach to the subject.

Please quote the page number of your position stated...
I've already supplied where Law actually comes down on my side of this debate (see post 32), but I will use Law as a bridge to one more supporting source. In the introductory paragraph to his Further Reading (pg 201), he writes the following:

One scholar has done more for the study of the Septuagint, the Hebrew Bible, and the Dead Sea Scrolls than any other in modern times, and it would be difficult to select a number from his more than five hundred publications. In addition to the meager few provided here, ambitious readers would do well to search for publications by Emanuel Tov.

I've had the pleasure of meeting and talking with Tov and he is undoubtedly one of the world's foremost authorities on the subjects Law lists, which includes LXX. Following are two pertinent points Tov makes as it regards the text-critical value of LXX. In these citations, G is LXX and M is MT with the bold underlined emphases mine. They are taken from Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Third Edition, Revised and Expanded; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012):

These G variants are equally important for text-critical analysis as the readings found in Hebrew sources. Some scholars even claim that they are more important than these sources since the G readings are often superior to elements in M. However, G also reflects many secondary readings (especially harmonizing variants in the Torah). (pg 136)

the assumption is unavoidable that the Hebrew scrolls used for the Greek translation were valuable, authoritative, and sometimes more ancient than M. (pg. 140)

Both Law and Tov note that LXX does not always preserve either the earlier or superior reading when compared to MT... only sometimes is its Vorlagen more ancient and it contains many secondary readings. Enthusiasm for LXX must be tempered by these facts...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Cynthia

Active member
I did not declare Muller incorrect without having read him; since I haven't (yet) my comments were phrased conditionally:

LXX does not represent the oldest form of the text in many cases so Law is correct to offer the restrained position that is it sometimes older. If Muller claims this is so all or even in a majority of cases, then I'm afraid he's incorrect and overstated his case...

And I stand by that. If Muller adopts the position that you appear to be articulating here (and that remains to be seen), then he is mistaken... the basis for that judgment is my reading of far more than two scholarly books on the subject, as well as my own research and firsthand familiarity with the views of many LXX scholars, primarily through attendance at conference presentations, but also through informal post-conference gatherings and email correspondence. None of them think that LXX, as a whole, represents an earlier or more authentic text tradition than that found in MT. Such judgments are made on a case-to-case basis... sometimes in favor of LXX, at other times in favor of MT.


I have no objection whatsoever to this claim... it is spot on.


Recommendations for further reading in any book are not wholesale endorsements of their contents, only an acknowledgement of their importance to that particular field of study.


I've re-read it and found nothing that challenges my position or my understanding of Law's nuanced approach to the subject.


I've already supplied where Law actually comes down on my side of this debate (see post 32), but I will use Law as a bridge to one more supporting source. In the introductory paragraph to his Further Reading (pg 201), he writes the following:

One scholar has done more for the study of the Septuagint, the Hebrew Bible, and the Dead Sea Scrolls than any other in modern times, and it would be difficult to select a number from his more than five hundred publications. In addition to the meager few provided here, ambitious readers would do well to search for publications by Emanuel Tov.

I've had the pleasure of meeting and talking with Tov and he is undoubtedly one of the world's foremost authorities on the subjects Law lists, which includes LXX. Following are two pertinent points Tov makes as it regards the text-critical value of LXX. In these citations, G is LXX and M is MT with the bold underlined emphases mine. They are taken from Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Third Edition, Revised and Expanded; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012):

These G variants are equally important for text-critical analysis as the readings found in Hebrew sources. Some scholars even claim that they are more important than these sources since the G readings are often superior to elements in M. However, G also reflects many secondary readings (especially harmonizing variants in the Torah). (pg 136)

the assumption is unavoidable that the Hebrew scrolls used for the Greek translation were valuable, authoritative, and sometimes more ancient than M. (pg. 140)

Both Law and Tov note that LXX does not always preserve either the earlier or superior reading when compared to MT... only sometimes is its Vorlagen more ancient and it contains many secondary readings. Enthusiasm for LXX must be tempered by these facts...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Good grief Jonathan.

And yes, I have Tov's book that you mention.
 

TrevorL

Member
Greetings Cynthia and En Hakkore:
Good grief Jonathan.
While we seem to have two experts on the job, perhaps you could comment on the accuracy of a very old list from Barnes’ Notes. I have copied the following from Bible Hub. I have been interested in OT quotations in the NT, especially from Isaiah.

Section 6. Quotations of Isaiah in the New Testament
{I have clipped nearly every item as they would not Post in a full copy, please refer to Barnes' Notes}
Isaiah refers [clipped] arrangement, I am mainly indebted to Horne. Introduction vol. ii. p. 343ff:

I. Quotations agreeing exactly with the Hebrew text:

II. Quotations nearly agreeing with the Hebrew text:

III. Quotations agreeing with the Hebrew in sense, but not in words:

IV. Quotations which give the general sense, but which abridge, or add to it:

V. Quotations which are taken from several different places:

VI. Quotations differing from the Hebrew text, but agreeing with the Septuagint text:

VII. Quotations in which there is reason to suspect a different reading in the Hebrew text, or that the words were understood in a sense different from that expressed in our Lexicons:

VIII. Allusion to a passage in Isaiah:

IX. Quotations made from the Septuagint: Many of the passages above referred to are made also from the Septuagint, when that version agrees with the Hebrew. I refer here to a few passages which have not been noted before. The apostles wrote in the Greek language and for the use of those among whom the Septuagint was extensively used. Occasionally, however, they quoted directly from the Hebrew, that is, made a translation themselves, or quoted according to the general sense. All the quotations that are in accordance with the Septuagint, or that vary from it, may be seen in Horne's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 387, 428. Isaiah 49:6 quoted in Acts 13:47 Isaiah 65:1-2 quoted in Romans 10:20-21 Isaiah 52:15 quoted in Romans 5:21 Isaiah 49:8 quoted in 2 Corinthians 6:2 Isaiah 29:13 quoted in Matthew 15:8-9 Isaiah 55:3 quoted in Acts 13:34 Isaiah 53:12 quoted in Mark 15:28; Luke 22:37

X. Quotations which differ from the Hebrew, and the Septuagint, and which were perhaps taken from some version or paraphrase, or which were so rendered by the sacred writers themselves: Isaiah 9:1-2 quoted in Matthew 4:15-16 Isaiah 42:1, Isaiah 42:4 quoted in Matthew 12:18, Matthew 12:21

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Top