From Claude.ai on 2/18/2026. In addition, after that response is a Q&A with Bart Ehrman’s answer concerning a scripture from Acts that some say shows Luke did believe in Atonement.
Talking Points from the text below:
- In the sermons in Acts, the apostles never preach that Christ’s death brought an atonement.
- The Markan phrase “poured out for many” (echoing Isaiah 53) shifts in Luke to “for you” with the emphasis on covenant inauguration rather than vicarious sacrifice.
- A notable case is that Luke omits any equivalent to Mark’s theological summary statements about the death being for sinners. Instead, Luke’s Jesus on the cross says: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34, NRSVUE) And to the criminal: “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43, NRSVUE). Salvation here is presented as something Jesus grants in the moment, not something accomplished by his death as an atoning sacrifice.
- The dominant view (Conzelmann’s Theology of Luke, Fitzmyer’s Anchor Bible commentary, Green’s NICNT commentary) is that Luke does not deny atonement but is simply less interested in it as an explanatory category. Luke’s soteriology is broader — Jesus saves through his whole life, his teachings, his resurrection, and the sending of the Spirit — rather than focusing narrowly on the cross as the atoning mechanism.
First Prompt: What do critical bible scholars cite as passages in the Gospel of Luke that are taken from the Gospel of Mark, but Luke removed where Mark said Jesus died for a person’s sin i.e. atonement? Cite all scripture from the NRSVUE.
This is a great question about Synoptic source criticism. The dominant scholarly consensus is that Luke used Mark as a source (Markan Priority), but scholars like Conzelmann, Fitzmyer, and Craddock have long noted that Luke appears to have deliberately omitted or reshaped Markan material with explicit atonement theology. Here are the key passages:
1. The Ransom Saying (Mark 10:45 → Luke 22:27)
The most cited example. Mark 10:45 reads:
“For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45, NRSVUE)
Luke has a parallel scene at the Last Supper but replaces this saying entirely:
“For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.” (Luke 22:27, NRSVUE)
The word lytron (“ransom”) — with its substitutionary connotations — simply disappears. Scholars like John T. Carroll and Joel Green consider this one of Luke’s most deliberate theological redactions.
2. The Cup Word at the Last Supper (Mark 14:24 → Luke 22:20)
Mark reads:
“He said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.'” (Mark 14:24, NRSVUE)
Luke’s version (in the longer text) reads:
“And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.'” (Luke 22:20, NRSVUE)
Scholars note that Luke reframes this: the cup is the new covenant rather than Jesus’ blood being shed for atonement. The Markan phrase “poured out for many” (echoing Isaiah 53) shifts in Luke to “for you” with the emphasis on covenant inauguration rather than vicarious sacrifice. Fitzmyer and Raymond Brown both flag this.
3. The Passion Narrative — Absence of Interpretive Atonement Framework
Mark frames the entire passion with a sacrificial lens. Luke preserves the events but strips out Markan interpretive glosses. A notable case is that Luke omits any equivalent to Mark’s theological summary statements about the death being for sinners. Instead, Luke’s Jesus on the cross says:
“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34, NRSVUE)
And to the criminal:
“Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43, NRSVUE)
Salvation here is presented as something Jesus grants in the moment, not something accomplished by his death as an atoning sacrifice. Scholars like Mark Allan Powell and I. Howard Marshall note that Lukan soteriology locates salvation in Jesus’ ministry, resurrection, and ascension holistically, not specifically in his death as atonement.
4. The Isaianic Servant Echoes Muted
Mark’s passion narrative is saturated with allusions to Isaiah 53 (the suffering servant who bears sin). Luke’s passion, while drawing on the Psalms of lament, largely avoids the specific Isaiah 53 atonement texture that Mark emphasizes. Luke 22:37 does quote Isaiah 53:12 (“he was counted among the lawless”), but scholars like David Moessner argue Luke uses this to establish fulfillment of scripture rather than to make a vicarious atonement claim.
Scholarly Consensus
The dominant view (Conzelmann’s Theology of Luke, Fitzmyer’s Anchor Bible commentary, Green’s NICNT commentary) is that Luke does not deny atonement but is simply less interested in it as an explanatory category. Luke’s soteriology is broader — Jesus saves through his whole life, his teachings, his resurrection, and the sending of the Spirit — rather than focusing narrowly on the cross as the atoning mechanism. Whether this represents a conscious theological correction of Mark or simply a different emphasis remains debated.
2nd Prompt: Some critical scholars identify a verse and a half that was added to Luke to add atonement theology where Luke had removed it from the Markan material. Which verse do they cite and why?
You’re referring to the text-critical debate around Luke 22:19b-20 — the so-called “longer text” of the Last Supper institution narrative.
The Textual Problem
Luke 22:19-20 in full (NRSVUE) reads:
“Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.'”
The disputed portion — the “verse and a half” scholars identify — is everything after “This is my body,” specifically:
“which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.'” (Luke 22:19b-20, NRSVUE)
The shorter text, found in the Western manuscript tradition (most importantly Codex Bezae, D), ends at simply “This is my body” in verse 19a and omits verses 19b-20 entirely.
Why Scholars Flag This as an Interpolation
1. The Western Non-Interpolation Problem
Westcott and Hort famously identified a category of readings they called “Western non-interpolations” — places where the Western text omits material found in the Alexandrian tradition, and where the omission may actually be original. Luke 22:19b-20 is one of the most discussed of these cases.
2. It Creates an Odd Cup-Bread-Cup Sequence
The shorter text gives a sequence of cup then bread (see Luke 22:17-19a), which is unusual but not unprecedented in Jewish meal practice. The longer text creates a cup-bread-cup sequence, which strikes many scholars as liturgically awkward and more likely the result of a later scribe harmonizing Luke toward the Pauline institution narrative in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, which contains almost identical language to the disputed passage.
3. The Pauline Parallel is Suspiciously Close
Paul writes:
“This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Corinthians 11:25, NRSVUE)
The verbal overlap between 1 Corinthians 11 and Luke 22:19b-20 is so close that scholars like Bart Ehrman (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture) argue a scribe imported the Pauline atonement language into Luke precisely because the shorter Lukan text lacked it — essentially filling in what appeared to be a theological gap.
4. It Restores What Luke Removed from Mark
This is the crux of the argument as it relates to your question. As Ehrman and others argue, if Luke deliberately omitted the Markan ransom saying and softened the cup word, a later scribe familiar with both Paul and Mark may have found Luke’s shorter account theologically deficient and inserted 19b-20 to bring Luke into conformity with the atonement theology Luke had apparently removed. The interpolation would thus be a scribal correction of Luke’s theology, not an accident.
5. Scholarly Voices
- Bart Ehrman makes this argument most forcefully, treating it as an example of what he calls “orthodox corruption” — scribal changes motivated by theological concerns.
- Joachim Jeremias defended the longer text as original, arguing the shorter text results from a scribe abbreviating to avoid giving non-initiates access to eucharistic words (the disciplina arcani).
- Joseph Fitzmyer and the majority of modern text critics, including the editors of the UBS Greek New Testament, retain the longer text but with a {C} rating, indicating significant doubt.
- Bruce Metzger in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament acknowledged the difficulty but sided with the longer text on the grounds that scribal omission is harder to explain than scribal addition.
The Bottom Line
The majority of modern scholars and critical editions retain the longer text, but a significant minority — particularly those focused on redaction criticism and the coherence of Lukan theology — argue that 22:19b-20 was inserted by a later scribe to reintroduce the atonement theology that Luke had deliberately excised from his Markan source material. It remains one of the most theologically charged textual disputes in the entire New Testament.
The one verse that has been used to argue that Luke had a doctrine of the atonement.
From a Q&A post at BartEhrman.com is the following. Q: Do you think that Acts 20:28 shines any light on the question of whether Luke has a doctrine of atonement?
28 Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.
Bart’s Response:
It certainly muddies it! It is the one verse (well, the one-fifth of one verse!) that has been used to argue that Luke had a doctrine of the atonement. But I think if read carefully, it is not that. It says that God “obtained” or “acquired” the church through Jesus’ blood.
That’s not “atonement” because it’s not saying that Christ “paid the penalty” or “took the punishment” for others to cover their sins — that is, satisfied a demand of God. It says that God himself purchased the church. He isn’t being paid, he’s paying. Very odd.
It’s a very difficult verse to interpret, but my sense is that it means that the death of Jesus is the price God had to give up to acquire “his own” (it actually doesn’t say “his own son,” just “his own”) – that is, the church.
If it is not a payment of atonement, what then is the relationship of the blood of Jesus and the price God had to pay? In the context of Luke-Acts, it appears that the death of Jesus, the prophet of God who was completely innocent – is what it took for people to recognize their sinfulness before God and turn back to him so he could finally forgive them.
That would be why Luke got rid of all the atonement language he found in Mark and why in the sermons in Acts the apostles never preach that Christ’s death brought an atonement.
