Interesting. Well, we know that the prophecies and Jesus Himself said that He had to die for our sins. I happened to be reading through the Gospel of Mark (natch) and came up with these verses:
1 He also said to them, "Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power." 2 2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, 3 and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no fuller on earth could bleach them. 4 Then Elijah appeared to them along with Moses, and they were conversing with Jesus. 5 3 Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, "Rabbi, it is good that we are here! Let us make three tents: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." 6 He hardly knew what to say, they were so terrified. 7 Then a cloud came, casting a shadow over them; 4 then from the cloud came a voice, "This is my beloved Son. Listen to him." 8 Suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone but Jesus alone with them. 9 5 As they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them not to relate what they had seen to anyone, except when the Son of Man had risen from the dead. 10 So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what rising from the dead meant. 11 Then they asked him, "Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" 12 He told them, "Elijah will indeed come first and restore all things, yet how is it written regarding the Son of Man that he must suffer greatly and be treated with contempt? 13 But I tell you that Elijah has come and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him."
So, He is telling them what must be, comparing His condition with Elijah, even giving the Apostles a sight of Elijah (and Moses).
Mark 9: 30 They left from there and began a journey through Galilee, but he did not wish anyone to know about it. 31 He was teaching his disciples and telling them, "The Son of Man is to be handed over to men and they will kill him, and three days after his death he will rise."
More reinforcement of this idea.
Mark 10: 32 They were on the way, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus went ahead of them. They were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. Taking the Twelve aside again, he began to tell them what was going to happen to him. 33 "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and hand him over to the Gentiles 34 who will mock him, spit upon him, scourge him, and put him to death, but after three days he will rise." 35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him and said to him, "Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you." 36 He replied, "What do you wish (me) to do for you?" 37 They answered him, "Grant that in your glory we may sit one at your right and the other at your left." 38 5 Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?" 39 They said to him, "We can." Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink, you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; 40 but to sit at my right or at my left is not mine to give but is for those for whom it has been prepared." 41 When the ten heard this, they became indignant at James and John. 42 6 Jesus summoned them and said to them, "You know that those who are recognized as rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones make their authority over them felt. 43 But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you will be your servant; 44 whoever wishes to be first among you will be the slave of all. 45 For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many."
And so on. I did a little reading over the weekend to your excellent post's point and came up with what I think I have a little better idea of the development.
Atonement, as given in Scripture, is where Jesus sacrificed Himself to atone for all of our sins. Origen wondered why and came up with the Ransom theory which the Orthodox adhere to, even to this day. Basically, God ransomed the sacrifice of Jesus to satan, who released us from death, bu then Jesus resurrected and satan was still held to his bargain.
Anselm didn't think that satan held any power over God and came up with the Satisfaction Theory which states that the debt was owed to God, rather than a ransom to satan. So the atonement was paid to God rather than to satan. Jesus served as the sacrificial lamb - as they did to pagan gods in ancient times. (I went into the Jewish Encyclopedia for their take on it and had a bit of an education on that. Sacrifice in Jewish customs was not associated with the taking away of sin.) I can see the novelty of this development.
Then came the moral exemplar theory, which serves as an example for Christians to follow, but does not explain the Crucifixion at all.
The Dagonesque bloodthirsty view is the Penal Substitution theory, which came out of the Reformation. This says that Jesus accepted the punishment due to mankind. God was not satisfied with anything that we can do, but He accepted a bloodied, beaten and tortured Jesus who underwent ultimate punishment for mankind (or to some, a limited number of men). This is not the Satisfaction Theory of Anselm whatsoever. This is truly a reversion back to pagan bloodlust. The several Jewish sources I read also recoil in horror from this view because the lambs and other Jewish sacrifices were held as humanely as possible and the sacrifical animals were not beaten, bloodied or treated inhumanely in any way whatsoever.
There are several more theories that have been developed, but they are of no consequence, really.
So gentlemen, there we have it - there really is somewhat of a difference between East and West. The East believes in the atonement to satan to free mankind from his power. The West believes in the atonement to God to free mankind from satan's power. I have never really understood it this well before, but there is a world of different between Anselm's substitionary atonement and the penal substitution of the Reformation.
Comments?
Just out of curiosity, where does is say that Mark?
Origen wondered why and came up with the Ransom theory which the Orthodox adhere to, even to this day.
The ransom is in the NT, Mark. Origen didn't come up with it. It's straight out of the Gospels.
Anselm didn't think that satan held any power over God and came up with the Satisfaction Theory which states that the debt was owed to God, rather than a ransom to satan
Anselm "forgot" that the Incarnation and death on the cross was an act of mercy, out of love, and not an act to satisfy Zeus' anger.
The idea that God was somehow "shortchanged" and that we owe God something is completely pagan. God lacks nothing, or he is no God. God cannot be dissatisfied. God cannot be injured. God cannot lack anything. What Anselm created was something pagan and it found fertile ground in Anglo-saxon and Frankish Europe.
Christ did not offer himself as ransom because God "owed" something to satan, but in order to gain access to him and destroy him. How else could God end up in hell?
The Dagonesque bloodthirsty view is the Penal Substitution theory, which came out of the Reformation...is not the Satisfaction Theory of Anselm whatsoever. This is truly a reversion back to pagan bloodlust
Well, the reformers only took Anslem's pagan idea of an angry Zeus, and made it more pagan, the way they took +Augustine and made him into a "Calvinist." Remember, the correct name is not Reformation, but Deformation.
The East believes in the atonement to satan to free mankind from his power
No, Mark, the east does not believe that. In the east, fasting is atonement (Greek: nesteia). The idea of appeasing an angry Zeus (Greek: hilasterion) is entirely Pauline in origin (Romans 3:25), and those who wrote in Pauline-like style (i.e. Hebrews 9:5, 1 John 2:2, 4:10). In other words it is foreign to the Church which follows the words of Christ in the Gospels, because Christ did not teach that.
Ransom you will find in Mark (10:45) and Matthew (20:28), and 1 Timothy (2:6), the latter probably written long after +Paul to attenuate Pauline theology and bring it closer to the the Gospels.