High Christology.
A high Christology might lead to an omission for several reasons. First, a
scribe may believe that killing Christ was too heinous to be excusable. Second,
the text may seem to contradict Jesus’ words that the ignorant sinner will
still receive punishment (Luke 12:48; 19:44). Third, a scribe might also see an
inconsistency with 23:29-31 (“For the days are surely coming when they will
say, ‘Blessed are the barren . . . ‘”) if he were to interpret these verses as
Jesus’ prediction of punishment for the crucifixion. Fourth, since Jerusalem
was destroyed, Jesus’ prayer for forgiveness might appear ineffectual or
unanswered.
Unlike the antiJudaic theory, a high
Christology may better account for the omission in the earlier Alexandrian
witnesses. For instance, a high Christology is noticeable among early Alexandrians,
such as the well-known example of St. Alexander who argues that Jesus was homoousios
with the Father in contrast to the rival Alexandrian doctrine of Arianism.
More importantly, Parsons—who considers Luke 23:34a unoriginal—elsewhere argues
that the following variants of p75 may reflect a high christological
tendency: in Luke 16:30-31 εγερθη places πορευθη, which could highlight Jesus’ resurrection
and the religious leaders’ guilt; the omission of αυτους in Luke 9:34 may envision only Jesus
in the cloud at the Transfiguration; in John 6:19, the scribe corrects the prepositional
agreement of θαλασσα
so that Jesus clearly walks on the sea, not beside it; and in
Luke 24:27, τα περι εαυτου precedes GK which may suggest that Jesus is
above the Scriptures, or it may emphasize the extent to which he fulfills them.
Nevertheless, p75 is well-recognized
as a reliable document. Moreover, one might argue that a high Christology
accounts for the longer reading. For instance, Jesus would be practicing
his own teachings (Luke 6:35); his grace would contrast with the cursing of
other Jewish martyrs (e.g., 2 Macc 7:9, 11, 14, 16-17, 1819, 21-23); and
without the prayer, he may appear less gracious than Stephen (Acts 7:60). For
these reasons, a high christological tendency cannot prove the text’s originality.
Nevertheless, the four reasons listed above, as a scribe would more likely add
than omit v. 34a. Once again, the external evidence proves to be ambiguous. (Joshua Marshall Stahan, The Limits of
a Text: Luke 23:34a as a Case Study of Theological Interpretation [Journal of
Theological Interpretation Supplement 5; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2012],
19-20)
