Reflections on Luke 24:42-43
Archive of Comments and Discussions - Questions and Answers From All-Creatures.org

By A. J. Fecko

The question of whether Jesus was a vegetarian is not the all important question that some make of it. After all, just because our Lord was circumcised and attended synagogue doesn't mean modern Christians are called to do the same. The mission of Christ in becoming one of us included, to some extent, to be part of the culture into which He was born. If He did consume flesh, it may have been miniscule. That is, every morsel of flesh consumed doesn't always result in extra slaughter and suffering, and with divine foreknowledge He would, unlike us, know the ultimate results of His actions. Yet, the only passage in the New Testament that seems to specifically say that He ate any kind of flesh is Luke 24:42-43. Here is the text from English translations in 3 different forms:

1.They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them. Lk 24:42-43 RSV

Number 1 is the wording favored by NIV and most modern versions which have followed the text of Westcott and Hort. It is the one that drops any reference to the honeycomb.

2. And they gave him a pece of a broyled fisshe and of an hony combe. And he toke it and ate it before them. Lk 24:42-43 Tyndale

And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. Lk 24:42-43 King James Version

Number 2 is the wording in the so- called "Byzantine text" or Majority text, and was the one used by the translators of KJV as well as Young's Literal Translation.

3. And they offered him a piece of a broiled fish, and a honeycomb. And when he had eaten before them, taking the remains, he gave to them. Lk 24:42-43 Douay-Rheims

And they proffered to him a part of a fish roasted, and an honeycomb. And when he had eaten before them, he took that that (was) left, and gave to them; Lk 24:42-43 Wycliffe

Number 3 is the wording associated with the so-called "Caesarean" Greek text, as well as the Latin Vulgate. The Church Father St. Athanasius quotes the verse in this form.

Since Westcott and Hort, most Bible scholars have taken the view that the reference to the honeycomb was interpolated to justify the use of honey along side ceremonies in some parts of the early Church. Yet, the Church has always had multiple practices that aren't specifically mentioned in Scripture. It seems odd someone would fabricate this, not to mention it becoming the predominate reading.

The view that "shorter readings are generally preferred" is a foundational rule of textual criticism known as Lectio Brevior Potior (the shorter reading is the more likely original). This is one of the main reasons Bible translators have chosen to omit reference to the honeycomb in this passage. However, there are many modern textual critics that now argue that this rule is frequently inaccurate. My own personal view is that with the exception of explanatory glosses, attempts to improve grammar, (or as with the Johannine comma) to supply a verse to defend important doctrine; additions are rarer than omissions. Also, modern discoveries of early Egyptian papyri have allowed scholars to test this rule empirically. Studies by textual critics (such as James Royse in Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri) analyzed the earliest manuscripts we possess. The data revealed that the earliest scribes were far more likely to omit text than to add to it. Consequently, in the earliest centuries of copying, the longer reading is actually more likely to be the original.

The other reason translators have chosen to omit reference to the honeycomb is that there are a good number of important manuscripts dating to about the 4th century that lack reference to the honeycomb. Though I don't contest the importance of these manuscripts, not all variants favored by major uncials are believed to be original.

The uniform scribal training overseen by the 4th century Egyptian church created a distinct, controlled text-type. Alexandrian scribes were exceptionally conservative; they preferred short, austere readings over the longer readings favored by other regions. The hierarchy ensured these specific variants became the dominant luxury texts of the 4th century. This top-down pressure effectively choked out rival textual traditions, leaving the highly managed textual standard of the the 4th century Alexandrian Church as the primary survivor in Egyptian manuscript history. In the early centuries of the Faith, Egypt had more Christians than most other parts of the Roman empire, but also far more diversity of sects. Consequently, the Orthodox Christian Church of Egypt would be hypersensitive to passages, though orthodox, that could be used by rival sects. When I look at many omitted passages it's easy for me to see why some scribes may have preferred some shorter readings.

If the original form of Luke 24:42-43 was read by some in the early Church as implying that Christ ate the honeycomb, but not a part of a fish; this would have been an unwelcome passage for some, as it could have been used by Encratites to support their position, which is different from Ethical Vegetarianism. While Ethical Vegetarianism is focused on how eating choices affect the treatment of animals, the Encratic view is that one shouldn't consume flesh because the body is evil. Historically, almost everywhere there have been vegetarians there have been pescatarians. That is, those who felt they couldn't quite bring themselves to give up flesh completely. To many, fish seemed less emotionally complex and intelligent than land vertebrates. In Jewish law, fish are treated differently from land animals and birds. They are classified as neutral (pareve), and require no ritual slaughter. In Church tradition there have been degrees of abstinence ranging from pescatarian to vegan. To turn down what was just a part of a fish on the 1st Easter morn (the most high festive day), could have seemed to some problematic. It could well explain why some scribes would prefer a variant that has Christ consuming fish.

That's not to say that vegetarian practice was foreign to the Church. St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom, writing in the 4th century, viewed the diet of Paradise not as a primitive limitation, but as the pinnacle of human freedom, health, and spiritual power.

In his famous homily On Fasting, St. Basil argues that fasting is the oldest of all spiritual traditions, born in the Garden of Eden alongside humanity itself. Basil wrote that because Adam and Eve ate a pure, plant-based diet in Eden, they did not experience the physical sluggishness or bodily decay we know today. He noted that heavy, flesh-filled diets cause the body to burn out faster, whereas the Edenic diet preserved human vitality. Basil made a striking cosmological claim: in Eden, because humans did not eat animals, animals did not fear or attack humans. He wrote, "No animal bewailed its death, for none was slain to furnish food for man... The beasts of the forest were tame, and the lions ate straw." He taught that by returning to this diet during a fast, we tame the wild beast within our own souls.

St. John Chrysostom approached the Edenic state by contrasting the simple peace of Paradise with the heavy, anxiety-ridden luxury of the fallen world. Chrysostom argued that the post-Fall shift to flesh-eating turned humanity into slaves of the kitchen and the belly. In Eden, people were like angels—free from the constant labor of slaughtering, preserving, and heavily cooking food. A return to the Edenic diet during Lent is a return to that simple, angelic freedom. Chrysostom emphasized that flesh-eating was not God’s original design, but a temporary concession (economia) granted to Noah because man had grown spiritually weak. He taught that just as a doctor gives a weaker patient a less demanding regimen, God allowed meat to keep humanity from falling into worse despair after the Flood.

Both Fathers agreed that fasting is not a rejection of God's creation as "evil," but a reclamation of its true purpose. They taught that when a Christian fasts, they are physically prophesying the future Kingdom of God, showing that human life does not depend on the death of other creatures, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God. Actually, it's amazing how much vegetarian practices continue to have a place in the Eastern Churches considering how much the Imperial family loved their hunting and flesh centered feasts.

The philosophical school known as Neoplatonism was founded by Christians and was strongly influenced by 2nd century Christian mysticism. I personally find the theory that there were two men named Ammonius Saccas and two Origens (One the Christian and one a Neoplatonic) highly unlikely. It comes from a low view of Christianity as intellectually bankrupt. Considering the influence of Christianity on Neoplatonism may be one reason Non-Christian Neoplatonic philosophers connected Pythagoras with honeycombs. Regarding Pythagoras (says Porphyry): "As for his own diet, 'he was satisfied 'with honey or the honeycomb, or with bread only, and he did not taste wine from morning to night; or his principal dish was often kitchen herbs, cooked or uncooked. Fish he ate rarely.' Iamblichus wrote: "He (Pythagoras) sacrificed to the gods millet and honeycomb, but not animals." If some early Christians saw the reference to the honeycomb in Luke 24:42-43 as an inference that Jesus was a vegetarian, this well could have led to Pythagoras being associated with honeycombs.

Now how could the original text of Luke 24:42-43 have implied that Christ ate the honeycomb and not the fish? Codex Θ (Codex Theta, also called Codex Koridethi) has Lk 24:42-43 as: οἱ δὲ ἐπέδωκαν αὐτῷ ἰχθύος ὀπτοῦ μέρος καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίον λαβὼν ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν ἔφαγεν καὶ τὰ ἐπίλοιπα ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς.

Because κηρίον (honeycomb) is in the accusative case and sits right next to λαβὼν, while ἰχθύος (fish) remains further back in the genitive case, the missing καὶ isolates the actions:

Here is a rough translation of Θ: "They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and from a honeycomb. Taking the honeycomb, he ate before them and the remains handed over to them."

Without the καὶ to reset the sentence and imply He took all the items previously mentioned, the tight syntax strongly suggests that the immediate object of Jesus's physical grasp was the honeycomb itself.

Though dated to the 9th century, it clearly comes from a much more ancient text. Justin Martyr, St. Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian make reference to the honeycomb when writing on the Resurrection. And the same wording as Codex Θ can be found in some of the Old Latin, and some versions of the Vulgate. Not to mention some Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Georgian manuscripts. Even some Coptic manuscripts (which were the most likely to be based on the Alexandrian text type) include the honeycomb and lack the conjunction before the word for "taking".

If this was the original of Lk 24:42-43, and I know that's a big if, since there's little certainty as to what was the original version of this passage; could this be similar to John 21:15? When after making fish preserves "ὀψάριον" materialize for His disciples, Christ asks Peter: "Simon of John, are you loving Me more than these?" Could Lk 24:42-43, like John 21:15, be an invitation by our risen Lord to return to the diet of Eden? It's at least something to consider.

Return to: Discussion Table of Contents