Ehrman points out that:
Luke’s View of Jesus’ Death
17 And he took a cup and gave thanks, and he said: “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you that from now on I will not drink from the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes.” 19 And taking bread he gave thanks and broke it and gave it to them saying, “This is my body that is given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 Likewise after supper (he took) the cup, saying, “This cup is the new coverant in my blood that is shed for you. 21 But see, the hand of the one who turns me over is with me at the table….”
The words that are in bold and underlined are missing from some manuscripts, and it seems more likely that a scribe would have *added* them to a text that did not have them than that he would have *omitted* them for a text that had them.
is likely interpolated/forged. Ehrman goes on to observe:
In fact, nowhere in all of Luke’s Gospel – or in the second volume of his work, the book of Acts – does he ever talk about Jesus’ death as having an atoning sacrifice. This can be seen most clearly, in fact, in the discussion of Jesus’ death in the missionary sermons delivered by the apostles in Acts, a topic I will consider in my next post. Before going there, let me stress one point: the words in bold and underlined in the passage cited above at the Last Supper do indeed seem to be highly acceptable and desirable for early Christian scribes. But they run counter to Luke’s own theological agenda as seen in how he changed his source – Mark – when referring to Jesus’ death. Luke does not portray Jesus’ death as an atonement. But these words, not found in some manuscripts, do. They appear to be words not written by Luke but inserted by scribes.
Christian Bible Scholarship (CBS) has always been in denial about this and it would be a good subject for our own Paul David'son Luke’s Surprising and Oft-Ignored Views on Marriage and Resurrection
Considering how important the theme of Jesus' supposed atoning sacrifice was to Paul, this observation is probably better evidence that the author of orthodox Luke had no connection to Paul than any supposed evidence that they did have a connection. Since the source of original "Luke" was GMark and GMark closely follows Paul's theme, the observation that GLuke appears to have been carefully scrubbed to remove all evidence of atoning sacrifice, as always, suggests that Marcion Luke was indeed original. JosephIs The Palestinian Authority a Terrorist Organization Under International Law?