MagisChristWiki - User contributions [en]

Why Believe in Jesus?

2015-01-08T18:42:22Z

David Persyn: /* Unit II-M Is God Unconditional Love – the Passion? */ Links

Contents for Why Believe in Jesus?

== Unit I - [http://www.magisgodwiki.org Why Believe in God?] ==

== Unit II - Why Believe in Jesus? ==

=== Unit II A. Why Seek [[Revelation]]? ===

This Unit is a transition Unit from the first part of the encyclopedia [http://www.magisgodwiki.org (Why Believe in God?)]. It gives a summary of the evidence for God from Physics and philosophy, shows why reason must be complemented by revelation, and makes the transition from a Creator to Jesus.

==== A brief summary of the four sets of [[Revelation#Does_Reason_Need_Revelation? | evidence for God]]. ====

a. The evidence from physics.

b. The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God.

c. The evidence from philosophy of mathematics.

d. The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentally.

==== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of [[Revelation#Does_Reason_Need_Revelation? | evidence for God]]. ====

==== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of [[Revelation#Does_Reason_Need_Revelation? | evidence for God]]. ====

==== If reason can probe so deeply, [[Revelation#Why_do_we_need_revelation.3F | why do we need God to reveal himself]] (revelation)? There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply. ====

a. The heart of God.

b. How to pray and worship.

c. Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason (e.g. the trinity).

d. God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering.

e. The dynamic of sacred community.

==== Toward a [http://magischristwiki.org/index.php?title=Revelation#A_Definition_of_Love_.28Agap.C4.93.29 | definition of love] (agape).====

==== [[Revelation#Six_Questions_Toward_Emmanuel | Six reflective questions]] manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically. ====

=== Unit II-B Is There [[Historical Evidence]] for Jesus? ===

==== What is the [[Historical Evidence]] for Jesus outside of the New Testament? ====

==== What are the [[Historical_Evidence#A_Brief_Description_of_Criteria_to_Establish_Historicity | rigorous historical methods]] used to verify historical claims in the New Testament? ====

==== Why did the early Church [[Historical_Evidence#The_High_Cost_of_the_Apostolic_Church.E2.80.99s_Proclamation_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Divinity | proclaim Jesus to be divine]] when it was apologetically disadvantageous? ====

==== The [[Historical_Evidence#The_High_Cost_of_the_Apostolic_Church.E2.80.99s_Proclamation_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Divinity | high cost of the proclamation of Jesus’ divinity]]. ====

=== Unit II-C [[Resurrection Accounts | Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?]] Part One. ===

==== [[Resurrection_Accounts#Who_are_the_Witnesses_in_the_1Corinthians_15_Kerygma.3F | Who were the witnesses to the resurrection appearances?]] ====

==== [[Resurrection_Accounts#Paul.E2.80.99s_Experience_of_the_Risen_Jesus_.E2.80.93_Implications_in_his_Writings | What did St. Paul believe about Jesus’ resurrection?]] ====

==== [[Resurrection_Accounts#Common_Features_in_the_Resurrection_Narratives | How do we make sense out of the gospel narratives on the resurrection?]] ====

==== [[Resurrection_Accounts#The_Appearance_to_the_Eleven_and_Others_in_Luke | How did Jesus appear after His resurrection?]] -- transform (spiritual) corporeality. ====

=== [[Historicity of the Resurrection | Unit II- D Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?]] Part Two. ===

==== Is there any way of [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#Introduction | verifying the historical veracity of the resurrection accounts]] from non-gospel material? ====

==== [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#Implications_of_the_Historicity_of_the_Resurrection_from_the_Uniqueness_of_the_Early_Church.E2.80.99s_Development | Why did Christianity grow so rapidly after the public humiliation and persecution of its Messiah?]] How did this differ from all other messianic movements around the same period? ====

==== [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#An_Argument_for_the_Historicity_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Resurrection_from_Mutations_in_the_Notions_of_.E2.80.9CMessiah.E2.80.9D_and_.E2.80.9CKingdom.E2.80.9D | Christian mutations of Second Temple Judaism’s doctrine on the resurrection.]] ====

==== [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#Mutations_in_Two_Interrelated_Beliefs | What could be a necessary and sufficient cause of these mutations?]] ====

==== [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#Combined_Conclusion | Do the explanations of skeptics and minimalists (e.g. the Jesus Seminar) provide an adequate explanation of the mutations in their historical context?]] ====

==== [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#The_Resurrection_and_the_Lordship_of_Jesus | The case for the resurrection as described by Wright, Brown, Fuller, Jeremiahs, and others.]]====

=== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit |Unit II-E What is the Significance of Jesus’ Gift of the Spirit?]] ===

==== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit#Charismatic_Manifestations_of_the_Spirit_in_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles | How could the Christian Church have grown so rapidly without the impelling presence of the Spirit?]] ====

==== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit#Introduction | Why did the Christian Church differ from the Church of John the Baptist and other messianic movements?]] ====

==== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit#Charismatic_Manifestations_of_the_Spirit_in_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles | What were the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit – healing, miracles, prophesy speaking in tongues?]] ====

==== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit#Paul.E2.80.99s_Account_of_Interior_Gifts_of_the_Spirit | What are the interior gifts of the Spirit? – Abba, faith, prayer, hope, love, zeal, joy.]] ====

==== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit#The_Holy_Spirit_and_the_Divinity_of_Christ | Does the Spirit inspire and operate in the same way today?]] ====

=== [[Miracles | Unit II-F What is the Evidence for Jesus’ Miracles?]] ===

==== [[Miracles#A_Suitable_Definition_of_.E2.80.9CMiracles.E2.80.9D_within_Jesus.E2.80.99_Semitic_Context | What did first century Judaism believe about miracles?]] ====

==== [[Miracles#Raymond_Brown.E2.80.99s_Assessment_of_the_Distinctive_Characteristics_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Miracle-Working | What are the unique aspects of Jesus’ miracle working (compared with others of His day)?]] ====

==== [[Miracles#John_P._Meier.E2.80.99s_Analysis_of_the_Historicity_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Miracles | How do Jesus’ miracles in the Canonical Gospels compare with those recounted in the Gnostic Gospels?]] ====

==== [[Miracles#The_Historicity_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Exorcisms | The application of historical criteria through Jesus’ exorcisms.]] ====

==== [[Miracles#The_Historicity_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Healings | The application of historical criteria to Jesus’ healing miracles.]] ====

==== [[Miracles#The_Historicity_of_Jesus_Raising_the_Dead | The application of historical criteria to Jesus’ “raisings from the dead.”]] ====

==== [[Miracles#Can_Jesus.E2.80.99_Miracles_be_given_a_Purely_Naturalistic_Explanation_Today.3F | The significance of Jesus raising from the dead in His own name and by His own power.]] ====

==== [[Miracles#Conclusion | The manifestation of divinity (and Jesus’ knowledge of His divinity) through His miracles.]] ====

=== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Introduction | Unit II-G What Did Jesus Say about Himself?]] ===

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Jesus_Accomplishes_the_Mission_Reserved_for_Yahweh_Alone | Jesus’ claim to defeat evil/Satan, to bring the Kingdom of God in His own person, and to fulfill the mission reserved for Yahweh alone.]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Jesus.E2.80.99_References_to_Himself | How do these three claims relate to Jesus’ specific ministry of miracles?]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#The_Son_of_Man | The significance of the eschatological son of man (Daniel 7).]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Jesus.E2.80.99_Indirect_Reference_to_Being_the_Exclusive_Son_of_the_Father | Jesus’ claim to be exclusive son of the Father – the parable of the wicked vintners, and the stone rejected by the builders.]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#The_Charge_of_Blasphemy_.28Mk_14:61.29 | The unique charge of blasphemy applied to Jesus—why?]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#.E2.80.9CNo_one_knows_the_Son_except_the_Father.E2.80.A6.E2.80.9D_.28Matthew_11:27.2FLuke_10:22.29 | The famous Q logion -- “No one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son…”]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Did_Jesus_Explicitly_Know_that_He_Was_the_Exclusive_Son_of_the_Father.3F | Did Jesus know He was divine? If so, why did He keep His revelation of it so low key?]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Conclusion | Conclusions about Jesus’ self-conception and self-revelation.]] ====

=== Unit II-H Are the [[Trinity_and_Incarnation | Trinity and the Incarnation]] Really Possible? ===

==== Why can there only be [[Trinity_and_Incarnation#One_Divine_Nature | one real infinite power]]? ====

==== How can there be [[Trinity_and_Incarnation#One_Divine_Nature | three persons]] in one God? ====

==== How can Jesus be [[Trinity_and_Incarnation#The_Incarnation_of_the_Son | true God and true man]] without a contradiction? ====

==== What are the [[Trinity_and_Incarnation#Interpersonal_Love_in_the_Trinity | persons of the Trinity]] doing? How can they be understood in relation to each other? ====

==== How does the [[Trinity_and_Incarnation#Summary | logic of love]] reveal the full meaning of the Trinity and the Incarnation? ====

=== Unit II-J Is God [[Unconditional_Love | Unconditional Love]] – Jesus’ Words? ===

==== The meaning of [[Unconditional_Love#Introduction | love as the highest commandment.]] ====

==== The meaning of [[Unconditional_Love#Love:_the_Highest_Commandment_.5B1.5D | “Abba”.]] ====

==== The Father of the [[Unconditional_Love#The_Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son | Prodigal’s Son]] – explained. ====

==== The [[Unconditional_Love#Jesus.E2.80.99_View_of_Love:_The_Good_Samaritan | Good Samaritan.]] ====

==== The [[Unconditional_Love#Jesus.E2.80.99_Definition_of_Love:_The_Beatitudes | Beatitudes.]] ====

==== How is [[Unconditional_Love#The_Heart_of_God_in_Light_of_the_Beatitudes | God’s true nature revealed]] by all of the above? ====

=== Unit II-K Is God Unconditional Love – [[Friends_of_Jesus | Jesus’ Friends?]] ===

==== Jesus’ [[Friends_of_Jesus#Jesus.E2.80.99_Love_of_the_Poor | love of the poor.]] ====

==== Jesus’ [[Friends_of_Jesus#Jesus.E2.80.99_Acceptance_and_Love_of_Sinners | love of sinners and outcasts.]] ====

==== Jesus’ [[Friends_of_Jesus#Jesus.E2.80.99_Love_of_Disciples_and_Friends.5B9.5D | love of His disciples.]] ====

==== Conclusions about [[Friends_of_Jesus#Introduction | “love one another as I have loved you.”]] ====

=== Unit II-L Is God Unconditional Love – the [[Eucharist | Eucharist?]] ===

==== The [[Eucharist#Did_Jesus_Institute_the_Eucharist_at_a_Passover_Meal.3F | historical context of the Eucharist.]] ====

==== Did Jesus go up to [[Eucharist#Did_Jesus_Institute_the_Eucharist_at_a_Passover_Meal.3F | Jerusalem on the Passover Feast?]] ====

==== [[Eucharist#The_Meaning_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Eucharistic_Words_and_Actions | The Eucharistic actions.]] ====

==== The [[Eucharist#Jeremias.E2.80.99_Interpretation_of_the_Original_Tradition | fourth suffering servant song]] – Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12. ====

==== The original [[Eucharist#Jesus_as_the_New_Sacrificial_Paschal_Lamb | Eucharistic words. ====

==== The meaning of [[Eucharist#.E2.80.9CThis_is_My_Body.E2.80.9D_.28S.C5.8Dma.29 | “body.”]] ====

==== The meaning of [[Eucharist#.E2.80.9CThis_Cup_is_the_Covenant_in_My_Blood.E2.80.9D | “blood.”]] ====

==== [[Eucharist#.E2.80.9CPoured_Out_for_Many.E2.80.9D | For many or for all?]] Jeremiah’s exegesis. ====

==== [[Eucharist#.E2.80.9CDo_this_in_Remembrance_of_Me.E2.80.9D | “Do this in memory of me.”]] -- only a memory or a reliving? ====

==== The [[Eucharist#Conclusion | unconditional love of Jesus]] manifest in the Eucharist. ====

=== Unit II-M Is God Unconditional Love – [[Passion | the Passion?]] ===

==== [[Passion#The_Historicity_of_the_Passion | Historical considerations surrounding the Passion.]] ====

==== The [[Passion#The_Passion_of_Jesus_in_Mark_and_in_Pre-Marcan_Tradition_.2814:32-15:37.29 | Marcan Text]] and the tradition underlying it. ====

==== So what is the [[Passion#Application_of_the_Criteria_of_Historicity_to_the_Passion_Narratives | likely series of events?]] ====

==== What were the [[Passion#The_Final_Words_of_Jesus | last words of Jesus?]] ====

==== [[Passion#The_Passion_of_Jesus_in_Mark_and_in_Pre-Marcan_Tradition_.2814:32-15:37.29 | Psalm 22 and its significance]] – what was Jesus thinking? ====

==== The unconditional [[Passion#Contemplation_on_the_Passion | love of Christ manifest in His self-sacrificial death.]] ====

=== Unit II-N Is Jesus Really [[Emmanuel | Emmanuel]] – “God With Us”? ===

==== The love of God and Christ in the [[Emmanuel#The_Unconditional_Love_of_God_in_Paul | writings of St. Paul.]] ====

==== The love of God and Christ in the [[Emmanuel#The_Unconditional_Love_of_God_in_John.5B4.5D | writings of St. John.]] ====

==== [[Emmanuel#Synopsis | Conclusions]] about the unconditional love of God and the divinity of Jesus. ====

=== Unit II-O [[References]] ===

Passion

2015-01-08T18:31:33Z

David Persyn: /* Contemplation on the Passion */ formats

Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith – Jesus

Unit II. M

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Passion

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-M_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Passion.3F | Return to the Table of Contents]]

'''Introduction'''

The Eucharist is not only Jesus’ definitive interpretation of His passion and death; it is also the definitive vehicle through which He communicates His presence and love to all future generations. So, how can our insight into the preciousness of this gift be deepened through the examination of Jesus’ passion? From a contemplative point of view, the possibilities are considerable for deepening the heart’s awareness of the love of Christ. As one considers Jesus’ willing acceptance of each part of the passion as a gift of self (love) for all humankind, one begins to affectively (not just intellectually) appreciate what unconditional Love really is; and when one sees this Love through the eyes, the face, the mind, the heart of the gentle Lamb willingly led to the slaughter, one begins to receive an answer to the questions: “Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this?” and “Is Jesus His Emmanuel?”

Since my intention here is to induce contemplation (that is, prayerful reflection on the texts of the passion), I will discuss only three important propaedeutic points: (1) an overview of the historicity of the passion narratives (Section I)<ref>Any reader interested in a detailed exegesis of the passion narratives should make recourse to Raymond Brown’s comprehensive work The Death of the Messiah [Brown 1994(b)]. </ref>, (2) an analysis of Jesus’ final words on the cross (Section II), and (3) a presentation of the pre-Marcan tradition and Mark’s passion narrative (Section III). The reader may then want to return to the previous Unit on the Eucharist to probe with contemplative insight into the meaning and reality of Jesus’ love.

== The Historicity of the Passion ==

It may be observed from the outset that Jesus’ plan to redeem the world was anything but apologetical or popular, for the idea of a suffering Messiah was thought to be a curse by His Jewish and gentile contemporaries (Dt 21:23, Gal 3:13, I Cor 12:3).<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 350.</ref> Nevertheless, Jesus, knowing what would befall Him,<ref>This is clear from the pre-planning implicit in the institution of the Eucharist, and also from the multiple predictions of His passion (Mt 16:13-23, 17:22-23, 20:17-19; Mk 8:27-33, 9:30-32, 10:32-34; Lk 9:18-22, 9:43-45, and 18:31-34).</ref> proceeded resolutely toward Jerusalem. In light of our discussion of the Eucharist, His plan had but one objective: to join with the Father in an act of unconditional self-gift (love) for the salvation of humankind. Even though Jesus was convinced of His vindication and resurrection (see Unit II-L, Section II), He must have known that the crucifixion would be viewed as a scandal, and used against Him by His critics. Nevertheless, He viewed the passion as being indispensable to His mission. Why? Because He associated the passion with gift of self, which, as is clear from His institution of the Eucharist, He associated with unconditional Love. One can see this kind of love mirrored in parents who willingly endure humiliation, and even place themselves in harm’s way, in order to protect the lives and future of their children. Jesus viewed Himself as responsible (as shepherd and brother) for all of us who were to become, through Him, the Father’s adopted children.

Before beginning a formal analysis of the historicity of the passion narratives, we will want to examine a contention of Dominic Crossan (of the Jesus Seminar) who throws the historicity of these narratives into question by suggesting that they are derivatives of the (Gnostic) gospel of Peter. The gospel of Peter is a narrative of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. It consists of sixty verses and has been dated to Papyri originating in about 200 AD.<ref>See Koester 1990, pp. 216-17.</ref> Crossan ignores the fact that there is no evidence for the gospel of Peter prior to 200 AD, and makes a radical suggestion that it was the only source from which the passion narratives of the four canonical Gospels were derived:

<blockquote>Composed by the fifties C.E., and possibly at Sepphoris in Galilee, it [the Cross Gospel in the Gospel of Peter] is the single source of the intracanonical passion narratives.<ref>See Crossan 1991, p. 429. See also Crossan 1985, pp. 132-34.</ref> <ref>Quarles 2006, p. 119.</ref></blockquote>

Charles Quarles sums up Crossan’s conclusions from his radical contention (which does not enjoy wide acceptance in the scholarly community<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 106.</ref>) as follows:

<blockquote>The GP is more a product of the author’s creative literary imagination than a reflection of eyewitness accounts of actual events. Thus, if the GP is the single source for the canonical narratives of the Passion and resurrection, the canonical Gospels are unreliable revisions of an unreliable tradition. None of the Gospels could then be trusted to provide historically reliable testimony about the final events in the life of the historical Jesus.</blockquote>

Quarles shows this claim to be virtually untenable in the light of textual analysis. First, Crossan contends that the parallels between Matthew and the gospel of Peter regarding the Pharisees gathering before Pilate and expressing concern about a staged resurrection on the third day, the guarding and sealing of the tomb of Jesus, and the description of the Jews as “the people” shows Matthean dependence upon the gospel of Peter. Quarles shows precisely the opposite after studying the redactional tendencies of Matthew and the gospel of Peter. Following Gundry,<ref>Gundry 1994, p. 584.</ref> Quarles shows that these texts are a series of “Mattheanisms,” particularly the use of the words “disciple,” “steal,” and “''mēpote''” – “lest” (except once where the gospel of Peter is clearly following Matthew in a subjunctive construction). He quotes John P. Meier by way of conclusion:

<blockquote>When it comes to who is dependent on whom, all the signs point to Matthew’s priority…. The clause is a tissue of Matthean vocabulary and style, a vocabulary and style almost totally absent from the rest of the Gospel of Peter.<ref>Meier 1991, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

Secondly, there are doctrines and sayings in the gospel of Peter which do not occur in the canonical Gospels or the New Testament. For example, Jesus’ preaching to those who have fallen asleep (to those who have died). Quarles notes in this regard:

<blockquote>If the emerging consensus of interpretation regarding 1Peter is correct, the presence of the reference to preaching to those who sleep in the Gospel of Peter suggests that the document was composed no earlier than the first quarter of the second century.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 112.</ref></blockquote>

The same holds true for other sayings, such as the “Lord’s day,” which is mentioned in the Gospel of Peter 9:35 and 12:50, but only appears in the New Testament in the Book of Revelations (approximately 90 AD). The Gospels used the more primitive expression “the first day of the week.”<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 113.</ref>

Thirdly, the description of the resurrection in the gospel of Peter is “fantastic and quite at odds with the descriptions that appear in the canonical Gospels”:

<blockquote>…as the three men exited the tomb, a cross, apparently floating through the air, followed them. …[T]he cross was capable of speech. A heavenly voice asked, “Did you preach to those who are sleeping?” and the cross replied, “Yes.”<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

We have already seen (with respect to Jesus’ miracles) the tendency of the later Gnostic gospels to move from the balanced and mature perspective of the canonical Gospels to an exaggerated, fantastic, and immature perspective (see Unit II-G, Section II). The gospel of Peter here is no different than the gospels of Thomas and Philip.

Fourthly, the “apologetical case” for Jesus’ resurrection (responding to Jewish objections at the time) is more developed in the gospel of Peter than in the Gospel of Matthew, and

<blockquote>no sensible explanation for Matthew’s elimination of helpful apologetic material available to him from the Cross Gospel exists. This suggests that the author of the gospel of Peter depended on Matthew’s Gospel but revised it in order to present a more compelling case for the resurrection.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 118.</ref></blockquote>

For these and other reasons, Quarles (along with Meier) hold Crossan’s position to be untenable , giving rise to the conclusion:

<blockquote>…[I]f the canonical Gospels are the earliest record of the Passion and resurrection, as this paper suggests, and if these contain the narratives based on eyewitness accounts, as the earliest church testimony affirms and as the internal evidence suggests, the earliest narratives of Jesus’ death and resurrection may be viewed as prophecy fulfilled rather than prophecy historicized, and speculation that Jesus was not even buried, much less raised, is groundless.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 120.</ref></blockquote>

We may now proceed to the question of the historicity of the passion narratives. Though all four Gospels portray the passion through narratives aimed at different audiences, and these narratives have different styles and redactional emphases, it does not mean that they do not possess an extensive historical core.<ref>According to Brown: “I see no need for such a dichotomy between acknowledging the narrative form of the passion and maintaining a respect for historical issues” (Brown 1994(b), p. 14).</ref>

There are remarkable agreements among the four lengthy passion narratives, but this does not automatically constitute multiple attestation because Matthew and Luke saw and made recourse to the Marcan narrative. Nevertheless, as will be explained below, Mark and John did not have knowledge of each other’s narratives, and so the many similarities between these two narratives constitute a very strong form of multiple attestation. Before considering this window into the historicity of the passion narratives, we must consider two more fundamental questions which are elucidated by Raymond Brown in his extensive two-volume analysis of the passion entitled: ''The Death of the Messiah''<ref>Brown 1994(b).</ref> :

(1) Did Jesus’ disciples have access to the data recounted in the various passion narratives? (Section I.A), and

(2) How can the criteria of historicity be applied to the passion narratives? (Section I.B)

=== Did Jesus’ Disciples Have Access to the Data Recounted in the Various Passion Narratives? ===

It is not my intention to respond to the extreme skepticism of Koester,<ref>Koester 1980, p. 127.</ref> Crossan,<ref>Crossan 1988, p. 405.</ref> and other members of the Jesus Seminar. Raymond Brown has done this quite well.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), pp. 13-24. See also the “Analysis” sections of each major part of his work, in which historicity is discussed.</ref> My objective is to briefly use the criteria of historicity<ref>See Chapter 6, Section III. Also Brown 1994(b), pp. 22-24.</ref> to uncover those parts of the narratives which may be reasonably and responsibly shown to have come from an early Palestinian passion tradition,<ref>Raymond Brown accepts the existence of such a tradition which may have been linked to eyewitnesses. He qualifies this scholarly opinion as follows: “I have accepted the likely existence of history and tradition behind the heavily scripturally reflective, kerygmatically oriented, and theologically organized PNs [passion narratives] of the Gospels…” (Brown 1994(b), p. 22).</ref> and which may also be linked to the Jesus of history.

Jesus’ crucifixion is so well attested by both Christian and non-Christian sources that it is as close to certain as any historical datum from the first century can be. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus makes explicit reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Annals (15.44) when speaking about Nero’s blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome:

<blockquote>Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.<ref>Cited in Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the authenticity of this passage, but the majority of mainstream scholars concur with Kirby that:

<blockquote>The most persuasive case is made by those who maintain that Tacitus made use of a first century Roman document concerning the nature and status of the Christian religion. As to the reliability of that source, following normal historical practice, it is prudently assumed to be accurate until demonstrated otherwise. The reference from Tacitus constitutes prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus.<ref>Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus’ crucifixion is also attested by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Recall from Unit II-F, Section I. that Josephus was writing for a Roman audience in about 93 AD, and that there are Christian interpolations in the text of Antiquities in which his testimony to Jesus is contained. As noted in Unit II-F, many mainstream scholars consider the italicized sections in the testimony cited below to be authentic:

<blockquote>''Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.'' He was [the] Christ. ''And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,'' those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. ''And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.''<ref>Josephus 1965, 18:3.3.</ref></blockquote>

Again, this non-Christian testimony to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is explicit and highly probable. There are other non-Christian testimonies to Jesus’ crucifixion, but they are far less significant than those of Tacitus and Josephus.

In addition to non-Christian testimony, Jesus’ crucifixion is attested by almost every New Testament source (e.g., the four Gospels, Acts, most of the Pauline letters, 1Peter, and the Letter to the Hebrews), it is recorded in virtually all of the primitive kerygmas,<ref>Very early proclamations of the faith recorded in Acts and the Pauline letters. For a list see Chapter 3, Section I.A.</ref> and is central to the early Church’s interpretation of Jesus and itself. Finally, one is confronted with the questions: “Why would the early Church have given detailed descriptions of the public humiliation and execution of their Messiah and Lord if it had not been historically true? What would have been the point of recounting a story that undermined its apologetical appeal?” In light of this, the crucifixion of Jesus within its proper setting (i.e., a public execution entailing an arrest, trial, and conviction) must be considered incontestable.

What about the details surrounding Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion? Are the events and details recounted in the passion narratives also historically accurate? Some critics, such as Dominic Crossan, believe that it is impossible to say because (as he gratuitously asserts) there were no eyewitnesses to the event:

<blockquote>It seems to me most likely that those closest to Jesus knew almost nothing about the details of the event. They knew only that Jesus had been crucified, outside Jerusalem, at the time of Passover, and probably through some conjunction of imperial and sacerdotal authority.<ref>Crossan 1988 ,p. 405</ref></blockquote>

Brown demolishes Crossan’s contention by pointing to a seemingly obvious and vexing difficulty:

<blockquote>[Crossan] does not explain why he thinks this “most likely,” granted the well-founded tradition that those closest to Jesus had followed him for a long period of time, day and night. Did they suddenly lose all interest, not even taking the trouble to inquire about what must have been a most traumatic moment of their lives?<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 15-16.</ref></blockquote>

Brown explains the implications of his question through a series of virtually unassailable historical judgments:

<blockquote>Yet as we move back from the Gospel narratives to Jesus himself, ultimately there were eyewitnesses and earwitnesses who were in a potion to know the broad lines of Jesus’ passion. He was accompanied in his ministry by a group of disciples known as the Twelve, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the arrest of Jesus was the occasion of his being separated from them. It is inconceivable that they showed no concern about what happened to Jesus after the arrest. True, there is no Christian claim that they were present during the legal proceedings against him, Jewish or Roman; but it is absurd to think that some information was not available to them about why Jesus has hanged on a cross. The whole purpose of crucifixion, after all, was to publicize that certain crimes would be severely punished. (That is the sense in which I include “earwitness”: hearing what was publicly said about the condemnation of Jesus.) The crucifixion itself was public, and nothing suggests that the burial was secret.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 14.</ref></blockquote>

Attempts to present scenarios contrary to Brown’s in this regard truly verge on the illogical, unreasonable, and inconceivable; and they betray motives other than that of seeking the truth.

Furthermore, there is remarkable correspondence between the passion narrative and the Gospel of John, and recent archeological evidence uncovered by Charlesworth and von Wahlde which strongly suggests that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Von Wahlde summarizes his findings as follows:

<blockquote>The significance of this [archeological evidence] for our appreciation of the historical accuracy of John’s reports is considerable. Not only does John provide several details present in the Synoptics (the name of the place [Golgotha], its location outside the city walls), but he goes on to provide more detail than the other Gospels…details not essential to the narrative. If the presence of such details at first makes verification more difficult, the fact that they are corroborated by archaeological and other means [at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem<ref>Charlesworth reports: “Archaeologists have also found the remains of a city wall to the east of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It was built sometime before Herod the Great. What is surprising is the discovery that the present city wall to the west of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the ‘third wall’ built by Agrippa between 41 and 44. This wall reveals that Golgotha was outside Jerusalem’s walls before the early forties, and Jesus was crucified on Golgotha in 30 (or perhaps 33)” (Charlesworth 2006(b), p. 31; italics mine).</ref>] demonstrates not only that the Johannine account contains remarkably accurate knowledge but also that the Gospel is in fact able to serve as a source of unique knowledge about the crucifixion and burial of Jesus.<ref>von Wahlde 2006, p. 582. See also Charlesworth 2006(b), pp. 31-37.</ref></blockquote>

This archaeological corroboration of John’s passion narrative also suggests the presence of eyewitnesses who were not only aware of the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, but also reported it to the authors of the earliest passion traditions.

Presuming, then, that there were eyewitnesses, and that they would have wanted to see or hear as much as possible about the One who was central to their lives, what could they have witnessed? They could have witnessed Jesus’ betrayal by Judas and His apprehension by the Jewish authorities. They could have also heard about any public declaration of Jesus’ charge, conviction, and sentence. They could have known who was involved in the charging, convicting, and sentencing. They could have had knowledge of public events surrounding the conviction (e.g., the release of Barabbas, or Jewish authorities stirring up the crowd). They could have witnessed the carrying of the cross and any outward signs of persecution or torture that might have preceded His journey to Golgotha (e.g., scourging or crowning with thorns). They could have witnessed the crucifixion itself, the public inscription of Jesus’ offense, the people crucified with Jesus, and they could have heard His final words, seen His death, and witnessed His burial. Evidently, they would have been a party to certain events themselves (e.g., cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant and denials).

Most of the above “witnessable” data was apologetically unappealing and presented obstacles to conversion. What would an early Jewish or gentile prospective convert find attractive about the public humiliation and execution of a messiah/leader? How did all the gory details of this crucifixion better establish Jesus’ role as messiah/leader? How would prospective Jewish converts have reacted to the contempt and rejection of Jesus by Jewish authorities? How would Peter’s denials and the apostles’ flight from Jerusalem have added to the Church’s “good image”? How does Jesus being numbered among criminals (e.g., Barabbas and the criminals crucified with Him) help the Church’s credibility among law-abiding citizens? In almost every case, the presentation of the “witnessable” data seems to undermine the early Christian’s image, credibility, and apologetical appeal. Why would they have presented these data in such detail if they had such potential and real damaging effects? I can think of only one reason. Because they were essentially true.

Can we render the same positive historical judgment about other details in the passion narratives beyond the basic “witnessable” data mentioned above? At this juncture, our pursuit of history becomes far more hazy and complex, because the witnessable data moves from eyewitnesses to catechists and teachers who need to interpret these traumatic (and unappealing) events to converts and potential converts. The natural tendency of such catechists, who were reared within Palestinian Judaism, would have been to use Scripture as a means of interpretation.<ref>The conjecture of some members of the Jesus Seminar that the early narratives of Jesus’ passion were a synthesis of interpreted Scriptures rather than an account of what really happened (Koester 1980, p. 127) is simply backwards. It is far more likely that the earliest traditions recounted what happened, allowing catechists to add sections later to interpret them. As Brown notes, “… [T]here is no evidence in the Pauline formula that scriptural reflection caused the creation of the basic incidents of the passion; far more plausibly it caused the selection and interpretation of certain features in an outline of death, burial, resurrection, and appearance that had been dictated by the early Christian memory of what happened” (Brown 1994(b), p. 16).</ref> Some of these attempts would be easily discernable because they would be introduced by phrases like “this was to fulfill the Scripture….” However, other Scripture passages might be on the lips of Jesus, such as the last words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (citing Psalm 22). The historian must now make the judgment of whether this was placed on the lips of Jesus, or whether Jesus selected these words for Himself (see below, Section II). Obviously, Jesus was accustomed to using Scripture to interpret His life, mission, and even crucifixion as much as, if not more than any later interpreter.

The historian’s task becomes even more complex when these traditions are woven into a single narrative. The editors of such narratives would have to be somewhat creative in synthesizing the various traditions. They might be inclined to embellish sayings or dialogue if that helped with the interpretation of recounted events. They could add thematic and even dramatic emphases to the narrative to further their catechetical or theological objectives. At this juncture, the historian must try to peel back the redactions of editors (especially the Evangelists) in order to get closer to the testimony of eyewitnesses which stand behind the narratives.

Recall from Unit II-B, Section I. that the first task is to get back to the primitive traditions that underlie the Gospel narratives, and then to judge the historicity of these primitive traditions by means of historical criteria and techniques to render judgments within a typical historical range:

<blockquote>…certain, very probable, probable, possible, not impossible. “Certain” has nothing to do with the certitude of mathematics or the physical sciences; it refers to the certitude we have in ordinary experience about the things we encounter or are reported to us in writing or orally.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 22.</ref></blockquote>

The earliest passion narrative is in the Gospel of Mark. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke were both aware of Mark’s narrative and relied on it. As will be seen in the next section, John was not aware of Mark’s narrative, but he made recourse to a primitive tradition(s) very similar to the ones used by Mark. This coincidence is extremely useful to historians because it allows for an application of the criterion of multiple attestation, which, in turn, helps historians make judgments about whether various verses in the narratives can be considered to be part of a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition.

In Section I.B, we will take a brief look at these criteria; in Section II we will consider the historicity of Jesus’ last words in Mark; and in Section III we will attempt to uncover the pre-Marcan tradition in Mark’s narrative, and then render some general historical judgments.

=== Application of the Criteria of Historicity to the Passion Narratives ===

The reader may wish to review the descriptions and examples of the criteria and techniques for determining the historicity of Gospel passages, which are summarized in Unit II-B, Section I. A brief description of three of these criteria will be given with particular examples from the passion narratives: (1) multiple attestation, (2) embarrassment, and (3) coherence with Jewish/Roman customs.

The reader will want to recall two caveats about assessment of historicity mentioned in Unit II-B, Section I. namely:

(a) Criteria for historicity can show the likelihood of a particular Gospel datum being historical, but the absence of criteria for historicity does not show the improbability of a particular Gospel datum being historical; the non-applicability of historical criteria shows only that we have no way of assessing historicity of a Gospel datum either positively or negatively. Thus, far more data in the passion narratives (and in the Gospels, for that matter) is historical than can ever be corroborated through historical criteria.

(b) Too rigorous an application of historical criteria can unnecessarily circumscribe corroboratable data from the Gospels. If one says, “The only data that I will accept as historical are those which are attested to by four out of five independent sources” (say, Mark, Q, special Luke, and John, leaving out only special Matthew), then one will limit oneself to very few Gospel data. If one goes even further, and requires four independent Gospel sources plus an external source (such as Tacitus and Josephus), the Gospel will be reduced to the non-interpolated statements of Tacitus and Josephus. Again, if one claims that multiple attestation is not enough – there must also be corroboration from another historical criterion (say, embarrassment or coherence to Jewish culture, etc.), then the field of acceptable data is correspondingly narrowed. The judicious use of historical criteria by mainstream exegetes such as Raymond Brown, N.T. Wright, and John P. Meier can avert unnecessary proscriptions of Gospel data, and lead to reasonable and responsible corroboration of a large range of Gospel data. We may now proceed to the three historical criteria.

1) Multiple Attestation. Recall that multiple attestation does not occur when there is repetition of passages among the three synoptic Gospels, but rather when there is repetition among the five independent sources (Mark, Q, special Matthew, special Luke, and John). Matthew and Luke relied upon and used the full text of Mark. Q is another source upon which Matthew and Luke both relied. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark in their passion narratives, and so attestation among them is not significant.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 81-82.</ref> However, as will be discussed below, Mark and John were written independently of each other, and it is quite likely that neither one had any knowledge of the other’s narrative. Nevertheless, there are no less than thirty-two similarities between the two narratives. If John is truly not dependent on Mark, then these similarities would auger very strongly for a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) passion tradition(s) upon which both Evangelists relied. This pre-Marcan tradition(s) would bring us closer to eyewitness accounts of the passion and therefore to Jesus’ passion itself.

How can we be so sure that John was not directly reliant on Mark’s narrative? In virtually every part of the Gospel except the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on water, and the passion narratives, John’s material is so distinct from Mark that it is difficult to believe that John relied on Mark unless he wanted to separate himself from, or complement Mark. Most scholars in the latter half of the twentieth century do not believe that there is Johannine dependence on Mark.<ref>Brown details the long list of exegetes who support the Johannine non-dependence theory in 1994(b), p. 76, note 91.</ref>

But what about Johannine dependence on the Marcan passion narrative? As can be seen from the table above, there are so many similarities between Mark and John that the possibility of dependence must be considered. There are two significant factors militating against the dependence conjecture. First, despite the many similarities, there are many more dissimilarities in content and order between the two passion narratives.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 81.</ref> Secondly, many of the differences between Mark and John are inexplicable, if not illogical if John truly depended on Mark.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref> Why would John have put his narrative into a more scattered and strangely ordered state than Mark’s if he depended on Mark? (A love of disorder?) Why would he have omitted details in Mark which would have been of interest to him (e.g., the kiss of Judas; mention of Simon of Cyrene; the sixth and ninth hour when darkness came over the land; the derision by the crowds at the cross; the confusion regarding Elijah – even though this may have been elicited by Jesus’ last words in Mark, which are not mentioned in John; omission of three of Mark’s women witnesses – Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, as well as “other women” in Mark, versus Mary the mother of Jesus, and His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas in John). These omissions and reorderings make little sense if John truly depended on Mark. For this reason, Brown concludes:

<blockquote>Throughout the commentary I shall come again and again to what I regard as a completely illogical result if John knew Mark. For that reason I shall work with the thesis that John wrote his passion narrative independently of Mark’s.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref></blockquote>

So what is the likely scenario for the Marcan and Johannine passion narratives’ development? Brown believes that this occurred in five stages:

a) Eyewitnesses. See the rationale for these eyewitness accounts given above in Section I.A.

b) A basic catechetical outline. A basic sequence of major events was formulated soon after the events of the passion connecting the Last Supper to the arrest, then to the condemnation, then to the crucifixion, then to the burial. This sequence guided the Church’s early proclamations and catechesis as well as Eucharistic memories. This is evident from Pauline and other non-Gospel New Testament writings.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 83.</ref>

c) Pre-Gospel traditions. Widely circulated stories/traditions (probably both oral and written) were formed from eyewitness accounts about particular figures and incidents in the passion narratives (alongside the basic catechetical outline). The stories were not yet connected to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 83-84.</ref>

d) Pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine traditions. The stories and basic outline made their way toward the Marcan and Johannine communities where eventually a pre-Marcan author(s) connected many of the stories to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 84.</ref>

e) The Marcan and Johannine passion narratives. The two Evangelists used two versions of the pre-Marcan tradition along with additional pre-Gospel traditions<ref>As Soards’ table indicates, there were probably several such pre-Gospel traditions along with other narrative traditions. See Soards 1994, pp. 1492-1524.</ref> to formulate the passion narratives we have today.

It is likely that much of the “witnessable” data in the thirty-two common elements in the Marcan and Johannine narratives made their way from eyewitnesses into the pre-Gospel traditions, and then into the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition(s), and then into the Gospel narratives. This would include:

Judas as betrayer bringing soldiers with weapons; Jesus being seized; the high priest’s servant’s ear being cut off; Jesus’ exchange with His apprehenders; Jesus being subjected to a Jewish judicial inquest; Peter’s three denials; the high priest’s maid as first inquirer; Peter warming himself by the fire in the high priest’s courtyard; the bystanders as inquirers in the third denial; the Jewish authorities making accusations against Jesus to Pilate; the crowd asking for the release of Barabbas; Pilate not finding Jesus guilty of a crime; the crowds responding multiple times “Crucify Him”; Pilate having Jesus scourged; Pilate handing Jesus over to be crucified, Jesus being crowned with thorns; Jesus proceeding to Golgotha with a cross, the crucifixion of Jesus; an inscription reading “King of the Jews”; the soldiers dividing Jesus’ garments and casting lots for them; two criminals being crucified with Jesus, one on either side of Him; Mary Magdalene witnessing the crucifixion; the soldiers giving a vinegar-filled sponge to Jesus on the cross; Joseph of Arimathea obtaining permission to bury Jesus; and Joseph of Arimathea wrapping the body of Jesus in a linen cloth, and putting Him in a tomb.<ref>For evidence of the apostles knowing the place of burial and witnessing the empty tomb, see Chapter 4, Section II.B.</ref>

Some of these conclusions (as well as others) are corroborated by three other historical criteria which will be discussed in the forthcoming subsections.

(2) Embarrassment. Recall from Unit II-B, Section I., that if a particular Gospel datum was embarrassing to the Church, or undermined the reputation of the apostles, or cast dispersions upon Jesus, then we can be quite certain that the Evangelists (and the formulators of early traditions) did not invent it. Raymond Brown points to several such data in the passion narratives, for example: Judas (one of the Twelve apostles) betraying Jesus; many of the disciples not remaining with Jesus during the passion; and Peter denying Jesus three times.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> There are other data which are embarrassing, but may have been recounted for other reasons. For example, Jesus praying in the garden, “Remove this cup from me” (Mark 14:36), which looks like Jesus is trying to avoid the cross. Although this could not have been catechetically appealing, someone could conjecture that this passage is meant “to teach Christians that facing death constitutes a trial that may challenge even sincere commitment.”<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> Nevertheless, the datum is still catechetically unappealing, and would have been very risky for the Evangelist or early Church to have invented.

The same holds true for Jesus’ last words in the Gospel of Mark: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” As will be discussed below (Section II), the last words of Jesus do not enjoy multiple attestation because John does not recount them (and places a completely different phrase on the lips of Jesus – “It is finished”). Many scholars believe, however, that this datum is historical because it would have likely been misinterpreted by gentile audiences who might not have known that the phrase (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) refers to the whole of Psalm 22 (a Psalm of God redeeming the sufferings of the just one and bringing salvation through it to all nations and generations). Gentile audiences would have been likely to believe that Jesus was so demoralized that He lost His confidence in God and thought that God was forsaking Him. This misinterpretation would not only have been embarrassing to the Church, but would have led to a theology precisely contrary to what Jesus intended and to what the Church taught. It is difficult to believe that Mark would have invented this phrase as Jesus’ last words, and much more likely that John (like Luke), if he was aware of the phrase from a pre-Johannine tradition, would have dropped it since he was writing for a gentile audience that could have easily misinterpreted it.

(3) Coherence with Jewish/Roman customs. There are three elements which are relevant here: (a) coherence with Jewish customs, (b) Semitisms, and (c) coherence with Roman customs. The last area is somewhat complex<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 19ff.</ref> and not especially germane to the point of this Unit; so I will limit discussion to the first two areas.

(a) ''Correspondence with Jewish custom''. One major point bears mentioning, because it shows Mark’s<ref>The historicity of the Marcan narrative will be assessed throughout the rest of the chapter.</ref> fidelity to the Jewish customs which would have been in effect at the time of Jesus’ passion, namely, Mark’s careful recounting of how the Sanhedrin adhered to the Mishna only when it was in conformity to the Sadducee law. Blinzler notes in this regard:

<blockquote>The fact that Mk 14 and 15 juxtapose items which sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the requirements of the Mishnah was hitherto felt puzzling. The explanation is that the Sanhedrin was at that time bound by the Sadducee law, which agreed with the Mishnah only exceptionally. But if Mk 14 and 15 were a legendary construction, it would be hard to explain how the author, supposedly so uninterested in historical fact, managed to be so accurate with regard to the legal custom: to the unlikely extent, that is, that the actions of the Sanhedrin only agreed with the Mishnah when the provisions of the latter coincided with those of the Sadducees, and not otherwise.<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref></blockquote>

(b) ''Semitisms''. There is one truly remarkable Semitism recorded in the Marcan narrative, namely, Jesus’ final words: “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''.” The Marcan version of the final words is to be preferred over the Matthean one, because it is probable that Matthew tried to “clean up” Mark’s Aramaic citation of the divine name (“''Elōi''”)<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref> with the more proper Hebrew version of it (''“’Ēlî”''), which would have been recited in the synagogue.<ref>Recall that Matthew is writing for a well-educated Jewish audience, and was trying to convince them of the Messiahship of Jesus. He knew the appropriate Hebrew form of the Psalm and changed Mark’s Aramaic “Elōi” to the Hebrew “Ēli.” See Brown 1994(b), pp. 1051-1052.</ref> The fact that Matthew records the Aramaic “''sabachthani''” (instead of the more appropriate Hebrew ''ăzabtānî'') convinces most scholars that Matthew retained remnants of an original Aramaic version.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. Mark’s use of “lama” (instead of the Aramaic “lĕmā”) is not problematic because it was common practice at that time to transliterate the shewa (short “e” vowel) by “a” instead of “e.” See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. See also Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58; and Harrington 1990, p. 628.</ref>

Is Mark’s Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words truly Jesus’ words? It seems likely because much of Mark’s mixed gentile-Jewish audience would not have recognized either the Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the Psalm, which evidently compelled Mark to translate it into Greek. Why would Mark have recorded an Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words which most of his audience would not have understood? Why not simply give the Greek translation without the Aramaic? Furthermore, why give an Aramaic translation of the Psalms instead of the more proper and easily recognizable Hebrew version? The fact that Jesus may well have learned the Psalms in Aramaic and recited the Psalms in Aramaic to His Galilean audience may provide a clue to the origin of the Aramaic version of the Psalm – namely, Jesus Himself.<ref>Though Mark cites Aramaic versions of Old Testament texts elsewhere, this may be out of deference to Jesus rather than Mark’s preference.</ref> The application of other historical criteria to this question will further confirm the origin of these words in Jesus. This will be considered in the following section.

== The Final Words of Jesus ==

Given that Mark’s version of Jesus’ final words is more original than Matthew’s version, we may now return to the question of whether Mark’s version is historical. Though the Aramaic rendition of the final words is a clue to their origin in Jesus, it is not definitive because Luke gives a different version of the final words (“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” – Luke 23:46), and so does John (“It is finished” – John 19:30). Why should Mark be preferred to Luke and John?

With respect to Luke’s version of the final words, there are four reasons to suspect that Mark’s version is closer to Jesus’ own. First, Luke was aware of Mark’s version of the final words, and would have had to have intentionally changed them. Secondly, Luke prefers to shift the focus from Jesus’ feelings of desolation to Jesus’ trust. Instead of Psalm 22:2 (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”), Luke portrays Jesus reciting Psalm 31:6 (“Into your hands I commend my spirit”), which effects this shift in focus. Luke’s preference to portray Jesus as confident (and eliminate any hint of spiritual disturbance) is evidenced in his elimination of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ anxiety in the garden of Gethsemane (“My soul is very sorrowful unto death”). It is much easier to believe that Luke has continued his redactional policy of eliminating Marcan references to Jesus’ anxiety than to believe that Luke’s version of Jesus’ words is more original. Thirdly, Luke substitutes “Father” for the Psalmist’s reference to “God,” which is very likely a redaction. Finally, Luke selects a Psalm passage which speaks to Jesus’ Spirit, which is a clear focus of his Gospel and an allusion to the Holy Spirit, which is the focus of the Acts of the Apostles.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1067.</ref> For this reason, most scholars believe that the Lukan version is a redaction of the Marcan original.

What about John’s version of the last words (“It is finished”)? Unlike Luke, John was not aware of the Marcan passion narrative, yet there is significant evidence that Mark and John borrowed from a common pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition (see above, Section I.B.1). Does John’s very different version of Jesus’ final words imply that the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition did not have any version of Jesus’ final words (and that both Mark and John invented their own in the absence of a more original version)? The answer is probably ‘no,’ because of light shed upon the question by the historical criterion of embarrassment.

Recall from Section I.B.2 that John’s predominately gentile audience could have misinterpreted Jesus’ last words as recorded by Mark. Indeed, as we just saw, Luke certainly thought this was a possibility for his gentile audience. The majority of John’s audience would probably not have recognized Psalm 22 in the Aramaic expression, “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani'',” and they would not have known that this first line referred to the entire Psalm. Therefore, they would not have known that Jesus’ last words were a prayer of trust in God which would lead not only to the vindication of His suffering, but to universal salvation for all humankind for all time (see below in this section).<ref>As Brown notes, “Perhaps the most frequently offered argument for softening the dour import of the Mark/Matt death cry is based on the general context of Ps 22. Jesus cites the opening verse of a psalm that continues for thirty more verses. By the end the psalmist will take a positive view: Rejoicing, he will proclaim that he has survived the danger and that after all God did not spurn him or ‘turn His face away’ (Ps 22:25). Accordingly some would invoke a hermeneutic principle that a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context” (Brown 1994(b), pp. 1049-1050).</ref> Thus (as the Johannine author very probably perceived), they would have interpreted these words to mean that Jesus felt abandoned by the Father, which is precisely the opposite of what the Psalm intends, what the early Church believed, and what Jesus intended. Not only would this have been confusing and misleading to gentile members of the early Church; it would have been apologetically unappealing and embarrassing to the Church in gentile regions. Thus, John, like Luke, would have had everything to lose (and nothing to gain) by retaining these words on the lips of the dying Jesus.

Therefore, there is considerable reason to believe prima facie that John, like Luke, would have been inclined to change Jesus’ dying words from those of Psalm 22 to something less misleading and more consistent with Jesus’ intention and the belief of the early Church. He decides upon the simple phrase, “It is finished,” which refers to Jesus’ project of redemption, the completion of which John has been pointing to throughout the “Book of Glory” (chapters 13-21).

This leads to the obvious question of why Mark (who was addressing a mixed gentile-Jewish audience) would have retained Psalm 22 as Jesus’ final words when many of his audience members would have been likely to misinterpret them in the same way as John’s and Luke’s audiences. Before responding, it is worth noting that this question does not apply to Matthew with the same force as Mark because the majority of Matthew’s audience was Jewish. Many in that audience would have been educated enough to see Psalm 22 through Matthew’s Hebraic version of it, and many would have understood that the first line of the Psalm referred to the whole Psalm. Brown points to a well-known hermeneutical principle in this regard:

<blockquote>…a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 1050.</ref></blockquote>

In the case of Psalm 22, the context speaks of trust in God, vindication, and salvation for the world.

However, the above hermeneutical principle would not have applied to the gentile members of Mark’s audience; so why did he retain these words? I think there is only one plausible explanation – namely, that they are in fact the final words of Jesus. It would be inconceivable to suggest that Mark invented these words to place on the lips of Jesus given the probability of their misinterpretation (with significant negative consequences) by a large segment of his audience. Therefore, it seems likely that Mark received these words from either a pre-Marcan tradition or from Peter (for whom Mark was interpreter). In either case, Mark must have believed that these words were truly those of Jesus, and decided to retain them in their Aramaic form precisely for this reason. There does not appear to be any other reasonable motive for his taking the risk of significant misinterpretation and apologetically unappealing embarrassment.

So if we consider “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''” to be the dying words of the historical Jesus, and if we apply Brown’s hermeneutical principle to Jesus Himself (implying that Jesus expected informed listeners to “be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context”), then it seems likely that the dying Jesus was praying the whole of Psalm 22 to His Father while giving His listeners an insight into how He interpreted His sacrificial death through that prayer. Mally notes in this regard:

<blockquote>As a quotation of an OT Ps, it can hardly be taken literally as an expression of real despair or dereliction. Rather, Jesus applies to himself an OT passage that sums up the suffering of the upright individual who turns to his God in the stress of hostile opposition and its ensuing depression. In using the Ps, Jesus does not express the feeling that his life’s work has failed and that God has therefore abandoned him; he identifies himself with a biblical precedent, the persecuted upright man ''who has trusted in Yahweh'', and found in him ''the source of his consolation and ultimate triumph'' [italics mine].<ref>Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58. See also J. Gnilka 1959, pp. 294-97.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, Jesus’ reference to Psalm 22 is an expression of trust and confidence in the Father that His suffering will result in the triumph of His mission. As noted in the previous Unit, that mission is actualized for all future generations through the gift of His presence and unconditional redeeming Love in the Eucharist.

A closer look at the Psalm may give a deep insight into the panoply of Jesus’ thoughts and feelings at the time of His crucifixion. The Psalm may be divided into three parts:

(1) “2-22, the complaint, with repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence (4-6; 10-11),”<ref>Murphy 1968, p. 579.</ref>

(2) “23-32, thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share (23-27),<ref>Murphy 1968, p. 579.</ref>” and

(3) the worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh (28-32).

Each part will be presented in turn.

(1) Complaint, repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence.

''My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?''

''Why are you so far from saving me,''

''so far from the words of my groaning?''

''Oh my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,''

''and by night, but I have no rest.''

Then, the psalmist shifts perspective as he does several times throughout the Psalm, and introduces the theme of God’s holiness and grandeur, worthy of praise and trust:

''Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;''

''you are the praise of Israel.''

''In you our fathers put their trust;''

''they trusted and you delivered them.''

''They cried to you and were saved;''

''in you they trusted and were not disappointed.''

The psalmist then turns back to the deplorable nature of his condition:

''But I am a worm and not a man,''

''scorned by men and despised by the people.''

''All who see me mock me;''

''they hurl insults, shaking their heads:''

''“He trusted in the Lord;''

''let the Lord rescue him.''

''Let Him deliver him''

''since He delights in him."''

The uncanny resemblance between the psalmist’s words and the events taking place around Jesus give one pause. After describing the inauthentic words of the crowd (who believe that the Lord will not fulfill the trust of the psalmist), the psalmist shifts back to his fervent trust in the Lord:

''Yet you brought me out of the womb;''

''you made me trust in you;''

''even at my mother’s breast.''

''From birth I was cast upon you;''

''from my mother’s womb you have been my God.''

Having renewed his trust in the Lord, the psalmist makes an earnest petition for help:

''Do not be far from me,''

''for trouble is near''

''and there is no one to help.''

''Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.''

''Roaring lions tearing their prey''

''open their mouths wide against me.''

Then the psalmist uses the same words seen in the suffering servant song (Is 52:13-53:12) and Jesus’ eucharistic words:

''I am poured out like water,''

''and all my bones are out of joint.''

''My heart has turned to wax;''

''it has melted away within me.''

''My strength is dried up like a potsherd,''

''and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;''

''you lay me in the dust of death.''

In continuing his description of his suffering to Yahweh, the psalmist again describes events uncannily similar to Jesus’ crucifixion:

''Dogs have surrounded me;''

''a band of evil men has encircled me,''

''they have pierced my hands and my feet.''

''I can count all my bones;''

''people stare and gloat over me.''

''They divide my garments among them''

''and cast lots for my clothing.''

The psalmist makes another earnest petition for God’s help and consolation:

''But you, oh Lord, be not far off;''

''oh my Strength, come quickly to help me.''

''Deliver my life from the sword,''

''my precious life from the power of the dogs.''

''Rescue me from the mouth of the lion;''

''save me from the horns of the wild oxen.''

(2) Thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share. The psalmist then reaffirms his trust and confidence in the Lord, as if to say that he will live beyond his current persecution to bring the praise of the Lord’s name to all who fear him:

''I will declare your name to my brothers;''

''in the congregation I will praise you.''

''You who fear the Lord, praise him!''

''All you descendents of Jacob, honor him!''

''Revere him, all you descendents of Israel!''

The psalmist then gives his reason for his confidence in God, and his belief in his future:

''For he has not despised or disdained''

''the suffering of the afflicted one;''

''he has not hidden his face from him''

''but has listened to his cry for help.''

''From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;''

''before those who fear you I will fulfill my vows.''

The psalmist then moves into a prophetic, and even messianic tone, speaking of signs of the new Jerusalem; messianic signs which Jesus says, when quoting the prophet Isaiah, are being fulfilled in Himself:<ref>See Matt. 11:5ff and Lk 4:18ff, referring to Is 61:1ff.</ref>

''The poor will eat and be satisfied;''

''they who seek the Lord will praise Him –''

''may your hearts live forever.''

(3) The worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh. The psalmist then confidently suggests universality of salvation arising out of Yahweh’s mercy:

''All the ends of the earth''

''will remember and turn to the Lord,''

''and all the families of the nations''

''will bow down before Him,''

''for dominion belongs to the Lord''

''and He rules over the nations.''

The psalmist then suggests that Yahweh’s salvation will extend to all those who are raised on high, and those who are in the grave:

''All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;''

''all who go down to the dust will kneel before Him –''

''those who cannot keep themselves alive.''

''Posterity will serve Him;''

''future generations will be told about the Lord.''

''They will proclaim His righteousness''

''to a people yet unborn –''

''for He has done it.''

This Psalm on the dying lips of Jesus is quite remarkable. In the midst of recounting events quite similar to His crucifixion, the Psalm expresses His mind and heart as He cries out for help, as He is overwhelmingly confident in that help, and as He sees the ultimate result of that help in a salvation that will not only reach to the ends of the earth, but to all future generations on the earth, and even to those who are raised on high and those who “go down to the dust.” Thus, the Psalm connects Jesus’ torment with His confidence in the Father as He looks beyond His suffering, beyond Jerusalem, beyond the present age, and beyond earthly existence, to a redemption which will take hold in the life of God Himself. Jesus’ eucharistic words are not only consonant with those of the psalm, they give the psalm’s words ultimate meaning and reality; for they provide the vehicle through which Jesus’ person and love will save universally and eternally.

== The Passion of Jesus in Mark and in Pre-Marcan Tradition (14:32-15:37) ==

Mark gives us the oldest account of the passion. Though it tries to reconcile the passion with Old Testament prophesy, its primary objective is not apologetical.<ref>See Matt. 11:5ff and Lk 4:18ff, referring to Is 61:1ff.</ref> Rather, it intends to give an account of the sufferings freely endured by Jesus and “to show clearly what persons and what authorities were responsible for the death of Jesus and the extent of their guilt.”<ref>“This explains the information given about the members of the Sanhedrin (14:1, 43, 53, 55, 63-65;15:1, 10f., 31 f.; contrast 15:43-46), Judas (14:10f., 18-21, 42, 45), the crowd (14:65; 15:8, 11-15, 29f., 35; cf. 15:40f.; 16:1-8; 15:21), Pilate (15:2-15, 43-45) and the Roman soldiers (15:16-20, 21-27; cf. 15:39)” (Blinzler 1968-70, p. 351.)</ref> Mark believes that this is Jesus’ central salvific act and uses it to frame the rest of his Gospel. As Blinzler notes:

<blockquote>Mark already had before him such a relatively fixed account from oral tradition, as the insertion of 14:3-9 shows, and he enlarged it with further matter, e.g., with “memoirs” of Peter (apart from 14:3-9) such as the account of the denial (14:54, 66-72). …[T]he Gospel of Mark has been called, not unjustly, “a passion-narrative with a long introduction” (M. Kähler).<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 351.</ref></blockquote>

As noted above, there is substantial New Testament and extra-testamental evidence for the historicity of Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion.<ref>See Section I of this Unit.</ref> Many other facts surrounding the crucifixion are also very probably historical. By using the criteria and techniques elucidated above (Sections I.A and B), we can first ascertain what material from Mark’s passion narrative probably came from a pre-Marcan tradition, and the material from that tradition which could have come from eyewitness accounts. Scholars have worked diligently on these tasks for over a century, and it is beyond the scope of this study to report comprehensively on their findings.<ref>See Soards 1994, pp. 1502-1517.</ref> My objective is only to give a report about where the preponderance of scholarly opinion lies with regard to an early pre-Marcan tradition and the historicity of the facts within that tradition.

There is a strong likelihood that Mark made recourse to a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which he redacted and stylized to give coherence and meaning to this exceedingly significant event for the Christian Church.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), pp. 20-22.</ref> There is a wide variety of opinion about which verses originated with this pre-Marcan tradition(s) and which ones originated with Mark. Marion Soards has gathered a tremendous amount of data from 34 scholars representing a wide range of theological and exegetical perspectives.<ref>See Soards 1994, pp. 1492-1524.</ref> I have taken the liberty of presenting the Revised Standard Version of the Marcan passion narrative, and indicating the likelihood that each of its verses originated with a pre-Marcan tradition or with Mark himself according to the following key:<ref>I relied completely on Soards’ chart of scholars in Soards 1994, pp. 1502-1517. The key reflects what the majority of scholars assessed by Soards believe about the Marcan or pre-Marcan origins of particular verses.</ref>

Bold A large majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Italics A small majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Bold Italics The scholarly community is about evenly split on whether this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition, or with Mark himself.

Normal font The majority of the scholarly community believes that this verse originated with Mark (and is therefore a Marcan redaction).

Mark Chapter 14

32 They went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and He said to His disciples, “Sit here, while I pray.” 33 And He took with Him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. 34 ''And He said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch.”'' 35 And going a little farther, He fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. 36 ''And He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt.” And He came and found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour?'' 38 ''' ''Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”'' ''' 39 And again He went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 ''' ''And again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer Him.'' ''' 41 ''And He came the third time, and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.'' 42 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”

43 And immediately, while He was still speaking Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I shall kiss is the man; seize Him and lead Him away safely.” And when he came, he went up to Him at once, and said, “Master!” And he kissed Him. And they laid hands on Him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” And they all forsook Him, and fled.

51 ''And a young man followed Him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.''

53 And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. And Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death; but they found none. 56 ''' ''For many bore false witness against Him, and their witness did not agree.'' ''' 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against Him, saying, “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet not even so did their testimony agree. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you? 61 ''' ''But He was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked Him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”'' ''' 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”<ref>I relied completely on Soards’ chart of scholars in Soards 1994, pp. 1502-1517. The key reflects what the majority of scholars assessed by Soards believe about the Marcan or pre-Marcan origins of particular verses.</ref> 63 ''' ''And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard His blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned Him as deserving death.'' ''' 65 ''And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to strike Him, saying to Him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received Him with blows.''

66 ''' ''And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came;'' ''' 67 ''and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway.'' 69 ''' ''And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.”'' ''' 70 ''But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.” 71 But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.”'' 72 ''' ''And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.'' '''

Mark Chapter 15

1 And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. And Pilate asked Him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And He answered him “You have said so.” And the chief priests accused Him of many things. And Pilate again asked Him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered.

Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they asked. And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. And he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered Him up. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” And they cried out again, “Crucify Him.” And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him.” So, Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

And the soldiers led Him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. And they clothed Him in a purple cloak, and placing a crown of thorns they put it on Him. And they began to salute Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck His head with a reed, and spat upon Him, and they knelt down in homage to Him. And when they had mocked Him, they stripped Him of the purple cloak, and put His own clothes on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him.

And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry His cross. And they brought Him to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). And they offered Him wine mingled with myrrh; but He did not take it. And they crucified Him, and divided His garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour, when they crucified Him. And the inscription of the charge against Him read, “The King of the Jews.” And with Him they crucified two robbers, one on His right and one on His left. And those who passed by derided Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 ''' ''So also the chief priests mocked Him to one another with the scribes, saying, “He saved others; He cannot save Himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with Him also reviled Him.'' '''

And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” Which means, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Behold, He is calling Elijah.” And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to Him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down.” And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.

38 ''' ''And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing Him, saw that He thus breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the son of God!”'' '''

''' ''There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome,'' ''' 41 who, when He was in Galilee, followed Him, and ministered to Him; and also many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

42 ''' ''And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath,'' ''' 43 ''Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.'' 44 And Pilate wondered if He were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether He was already dead. 45 ''' ''And when he learned from the centurion that He was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.'' ''' 46 ''And he bought a linen shroud, and taking Him down, wrapped Him in the linen shroud, and laid Him in a tomb which has been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.'' 47 ''' ''Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where He was laid.'' '''

As can be seen from the above, most scholars consider the vast majority of the passion narrative to have come from a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which would presumably include some accounts from Peter. Notice that the probable Marcan redactions are not concerned with the torment, crucifixion, and death of Jesus. They are meant to explain who is primarily guilty (i.e., Judas, the chief priests, and the council), who is less culpable (i.e., Pilate), and who is ironically the prophetic spokesman of the meaning of the passion (i.e., the centurion). They also center on Mark’s interpretation of why Jesus was accused of blasphemy (i.e., identifying Himself with the eschatological Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14). If these elements are “bracketed,” the passion story retains its poignant central core, which likely represents the traditions which Mark received as he prepared his narrative.

The question of whether the pre-Marcan tradition is faithful to accounts from eyewitnesses and earwitnesses is more difficult to ascertain. One cannot assume that a verse was witnessed simply because it was included in a pre-Marcan tradition. As was made clear in Section I.B, the pre-Marcan tradition relied on pre-Gospel traditions and stories, and had developments and accretions arising out of catechetical and pedagogical concerns. Nevertheless, it is likely that the pre-Marcan tradition(s) contained a considerable amount of “witnessable” and witnessed data for the reasons mentioned in Section I above – particularly as regards the betrayal by Judas, the arrest, a Jewish judicial inquest, Peter’s denials, the involvement of Pontius Pilate, the involvement of Jewish authorities in accusing Jesus, the release of Barabbas, the involvement of Roman soldiers, and facts surrounding the crucifixion (e.g., being scourged, being crowned with thorns, the vinegary wine, being hanged on a cross, the inscription on the cross, and the two other criminals). I would also include Jesus’ final words as recounted in Mark’s Gospel (for the reasons mentioned in the previous section), and the fact of Jesus’ burial (for the reasons mentioned in Chapter 4, Section II.B). A more detailed list of other “witnessable” data which is common to both the Marcan and Johannine traditions may be found above in Section I.B. Additional details about the historicity of particular verses in the pre-Marcan tradition(s) may be found in the “Analysis” sections following each major part of Raymond Brown’s The Death of the Messiah.

An appreciation of the significance of the passion, particularly as regards the central question of this book (i.e., “Is Jesus Emmanuel?”), cannot be attained through exegetical and historical analysis alone. Though this analysis is necessary in order to understand the meaning and reality of the events surrounding Jesus’ death, it almost blocks out the heart’s reasons to give greater clarity to the mind’s reasons. I can’t speak for you, the reader, but when I am applying criteria and techniques of historicity to particular texts, I am not being flooded with inspiration and love; and so I find it necessary to move to the domain of contemplation after I have satisfied myself about the historicity of the essential elements of Jesus’ passion. Contemplation allows one to be moved in the heart<ref>See Josef Pieper’s analysis of the medieval distinction between ratio (reason – the active enterprise of accumulating evidence, assembling it logically, and testing its probative capacity) and intellectus (contemplative understanding which is the more passive enterprise of recognizing and appreciating the depth of Reality manifest in, say, the five transcendentals – Love itself, Goodness itself, Beauty itself, Truth itself, and Being Itself). Pieper 1998.</ref> – to be struck with delight, or wonder, or amazement; to perceive beauty; to exalt; to be moved with gratitude; to feel awe and glory; to be inspired; to be moved by what is just and good and generous, and above all, to be moved by love – unconditional Love. Thus, contemplation is essential to the appreciation of Jesus’ passion, which is above all an act of incredible love.

== Contemplation on the Passion ==

The passion narratives open upon a virtually limitless depth of love, which can best be gleaned through contemplation. As explained in the previous chapter, Jesus views His passion as the culmination of His mission, the concretization of His unconditional Love in history, and His gift of unconditional Love to the world for all eternity (through the Eucharist). The reader’s time will be well spent on considering His loving intention, attitude, and feeling in His gift of self in the events of the passion.<ref>I have written about contemplation in a broader context than the passion in a book entitled, Five Pillars of the Spiritual Life: A Practical Guide to Prayer for Active People (2008). See Chapters 6-8.</ref>

One successful method of entering into contemplation is recommended by Saint Ignatius of Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises.<ref>Ignatius of Loyola 1951.</ref> It entails entering into the scene, considering the personalities and dispositions of people in the scene, and focusing on the heart of Jesus manifest through the people and events in the scene.

In light of the above, one may want to use the following structure to contemplate on the passion. After reading a particular passage at least twice, first consider various physical aspects of the scene, then:

• the persons in the scene along with Jesus, then

• Jesus’ attitude toward the people in the scene (recalling that Jesus’ attitudes are reflected in the beatitudes – humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, merciful, peacemaking, etc.), then

• Jesus’ relationship to the Father (applying Psalm 22, the Suffering Servant song – Isaiah 52:13-53:12, and Jesus’ prayer in the Garden), then

• Jesus’ universal salvific intent (applying the simile of the paschal lamb and the words “This is my body,” “the blood of the covenant,” “for all,” and “Do this in remembrance of me” – see Chapter 9, Section II.B), then

• Jesus’ love for the people in the scene (including His persecutors), His love of the Father, and His love of humankind.

You might then look at Jesus’ acceptance of anguish for the sake of love. In light of this, you might consider Jesus’ love for you and others; His hopes and aspirations for you and for others. Accept that love, accept His wanting to be your paschal lamb, sin-offering (scapegoat), and blood of the covenant (to guarantee eternal life with Him and the Father); and then, express to God what you desire.

After you have completed your contemplation, you might want to ask the recurrent questions in this book: Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this for my sake and the sake of all? Is Jesus Christ His Emmanuel? If so, then the unconditional Love of God is real and has been fully actualized in the world. That unconditional Love is unconditional light in the darkness, unconditional hope amidst dejection, unconditional resurrection amidst the cross, and unconditional redemption amidst our sin. It is unconditional life unto unconditional joy in the unconditional love of the triune God.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Passion

2015-01-08T18:30:36Z

David Persyn: /* Contemplation on the Passion */ footnotes

Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith – Jesus

Unit II. M

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Passion

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-M_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Passion.3F | Return to the Table of Contents]]

'''Introduction'''

The Eucharist is not only Jesus’ definitive interpretation of His passion and death; it is also the definitive vehicle through which He communicates His presence and love to all future generations. So, how can our insight into the preciousness of this gift be deepened through the examination of Jesus’ passion? From a contemplative point of view, the possibilities are considerable for deepening the heart’s awareness of the love of Christ. As one considers Jesus’ willing acceptance of each part of the passion as a gift of self (love) for all humankind, one begins to affectively (not just intellectually) appreciate what unconditional Love really is; and when one sees this Love through the eyes, the face, the mind, the heart of the gentle Lamb willingly led to the slaughter, one begins to receive an answer to the questions: “Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this?” and “Is Jesus His Emmanuel?”

Since my intention here is to induce contemplation (that is, prayerful reflection on the texts of the passion), I will discuss only three important propaedeutic points: (1) an overview of the historicity of the passion narratives (Section I)<ref>Any reader interested in a detailed exegesis of the passion narratives should make recourse to Raymond Brown’s comprehensive work The Death of the Messiah [Brown 1994(b)]. </ref>, (2) an analysis of Jesus’ final words on the cross (Section II), and (3) a presentation of the pre-Marcan tradition and Mark’s passion narrative (Section III). The reader may then want to return to the previous Unit on the Eucharist to probe with contemplative insight into the meaning and reality of Jesus’ love.

== The Historicity of the Passion ==

It may be observed from the outset that Jesus’ plan to redeem the world was anything but apologetical or popular, for the idea of a suffering Messiah was thought to be a curse by His Jewish and gentile contemporaries (Dt 21:23, Gal 3:13, I Cor 12:3).<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 350.</ref> Nevertheless, Jesus, knowing what would befall Him,<ref>This is clear from the pre-planning implicit in the institution of the Eucharist, and also from the multiple predictions of His passion (Mt 16:13-23, 17:22-23, 20:17-19; Mk 8:27-33, 9:30-32, 10:32-34; Lk 9:18-22, 9:43-45, and 18:31-34).</ref> proceeded resolutely toward Jerusalem. In light of our discussion of the Eucharist, His plan had but one objective: to join with the Father in an act of unconditional self-gift (love) for the salvation of humankind. Even though Jesus was convinced of His vindication and resurrection (see Unit II-L, Section II), He must have known that the crucifixion would be viewed as a scandal, and used against Him by His critics. Nevertheless, He viewed the passion as being indispensable to His mission. Why? Because He associated the passion with gift of self, which, as is clear from His institution of the Eucharist, He associated with unconditional Love. One can see this kind of love mirrored in parents who willingly endure humiliation, and even place themselves in harm’s way, in order to protect the lives and future of their children. Jesus viewed Himself as responsible (as shepherd and brother) for all of us who were to become, through Him, the Father’s adopted children.

Before beginning a formal analysis of the historicity of the passion narratives, we will want to examine a contention of Dominic Crossan (of the Jesus Seminar) who throws the historicity of these narratives into question by suggesting that they are derivatives of the (Gnostic) gospel of Peter. The gospel of Peter is a narrative of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. It consists of sixty verses and has been dated to Papyri originating in about 200 AD.<ref>See Koester 1990, pp. 216-17.</ref> Crossan ignores the fact that there is no evidence for the gospel of Peter prior to 200 AD, and makes a radical suggestion that it was the only source from which the passion narratives of the four canonical Gospels were derived:

<blockquote>Composed by the fifties C.E., and possibly at Sepphoris in Galilee, it [the Cross Gospel in the Gospel of Peter] is the single source of the intracanonical passion narratives.<ref>See Crossan 1991, p. 429. See also Crossan 1985, pp. 132-34.</ref> <ref>Quarles 2006, p. 119.</ref></blockquote>

Charles Quarles sums up Crossan’s conclusions from his radical contention (which does not enjoy wide acceptance in the scholarly community<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 106.</ref>) as follows:

<blockquote>The GP is more a product of the author’s creative literary imagination than a reflection of eyewitness accounts of actual events. Thus, if the GP is the single source for the canonical narratives of the Passion and resurrection, the canonical Gospels are unreliable revisions of an unreliable tradition. None of the Gospels could then be trusted to provide historically reliable testimony about the final events in the life of the historical Jesus.</blockquote>

Quarles shows this claim to be virtually untenable in the light of textual analysis. First, Crossan contends that the parallels between Matthew and the gospel of Peter regarding the Pharisees gathering before Pilate and expressing concern about a staged resurrection on the third day, the guarding and sealing of the tomb of Jesus, and the description of the Jews as “the people” shows Matthean dependence upon the gospel of Peter. Quarles shows precisely the opposite after studying the redactional tendencies of Matthew and the gospel of Peter. Following Gundry,<ref>Gundry 1994, p. 584.</ref> Quarles shows that these texts are a series of “Mattheanisms,” particularly the use of the words “disciple,” “steal,” and “''mēpote''” – “lest” (except once where the gospel of Peter is clearly following Matthew in a subjunctive construction). He quotes John P. Meier by way of conclusion:

<blockquote>When it comes to who is dependent on whom, all the signs point to Matthew’s priority…. The clause is a tissue of Matthean vocabulary and style, a vocabulary and style almost totally absent from the rest of the Gospel of Peter.<ref>Meier 1991, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

Secondly, there are doctrines and sayings in the gospel of Peter which do not occur in the canonical Gospels or the New Testament. For example, Jesus’ preaching to those who have fallen asleep (to those who have died). Quarles notes in this regard:

<blockquote>If the emerging consensus of interpretation regarding 1Peter is correct, the presence of the reference to preaching to those who sleep in the Gospel of Peter suggests that the document was composed no earlier than the first quarter of the second century.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 112.</ref></blockquote>

The same holds true for other sayings, such as the “Lord’s day,” which is mentioned in the Gospel of Peter 9:35 and 12:50, but only appears in the New Testament in the Book of Revelations (approximately 90 AD). The Gospels used the more primitive expression “the first day of the week.”<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 113.</ref>

Thirdly, the description of the resurrection in the gospel of Peter is “fantastic and quite at odds with the descriptions that appear in the canonical Gospels”:

<blockquote>…as the three men exited the tomb, a cross, apparently floating through the air, followed them. …[T]he cross was capable of speech. A heavenly voice asked, “Did you preach to those who are sleeping?” and the cross replied, “Yes.”<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

We have already seen (with respect to Jesus’ miracles) the tendency of the later Gnostic gospels to move from the balanced and mature perspective of the canonical Gospels to an exaggerated, fantastic, and immature perspective (see Unit II-G, Section II). The gospel of Peter here is no different than the gospels of Thomas and Philip.

Fourthly, the “apologetical case” for Jesus’ resurrection (responding to Jewish objections at the time) is more developed in the gospel of Peter than in the Gospel of Matthew, and

<blockquote>no sensible explanation for Matthew’s elimination of helpful apologetic material available to him from the Cross Gospel exists. This suggests that the author of the gospel of Peter depended on Matthew’s Gospel but revised it in order to present a more compelling case for the resurrection.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 118.</ref></blockquote>

For these and other reasons, Quarles (along with Meier) hold Crossan’s position to be untenable , giving rise to the conclusion:

<blockquote>…[I]f the canonical Gospels are the earliest record of the Passion and resurrection, as this paper suggests, and if these contain the narratives based on eyewitness accounts, as the earliest church testimony affirms and as the internal evidence suggests, the earliest narratives of Jesus’ death and resurrection may be viewed as prophecy fulfilled rather than prophecy historicized, and speculation that Jesus was not even buried, much less raised, is groundless.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 120.</ref></blockquote>

We may now proceed to the question of the historicity of the passion narratives. Though all four Gospels portray the passion through narratives aimed at different audiences, and these narratives have different styles and redactional emphases, it does not mean that they do not possess an extensive historical core.<ref>According to Brown: “I see no need for such a dichotomy between acknowledging the narrative form of the passion and maintaining a respect for historical issues” (Brown 1994(b), p. 14).</ref>

There are remarkable agreements among the four lengthy passion narratives, but this does not automatically constitute multiple attestation because Matthew and Luke saw and made recourse to the Marcan narrative. Nevertheless, as will be explained below, Mark and John did not have knowledge of each other’s narratives, and so the many similarities between these two narratives constitute a very strong form of multiple attestation. Before considering this window into the historicity of the passion narratives, we must consider two more fundamental questions which are elucidated by Raymond Brown in his extensive two-volume analysis of the passion entitled: ''The Death of the Messiah''<ref>Brown 1994(b).</ref> :

(1) Did Jesus’ disciples have access to the data recounted in the various passion narratives? (Section I.A), and

(2) How can the criteria of historicity be applied to the passion narratives? (Section I.B)

=== Did Jesus’ Disciples Have Access to the Data Recounted in the Various Passion Narratives? ===

It is not my intention to respond to the extreme skepticism of Koester,<ref>Koester 1980, p. 127.</ref> Crossan,<ref>Crossan 1988, p. 405.</ref> and other members of the Jesus Seminar. Raymond Brown has done this quite well.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), pp. 13-24. See also the “Analysis” sections of each major part of his work, in which historicity is discussed.</ref> My objective is to briefly use the criteria of historicity<ref>See Chapter 6, Section III. Also Brown 1994(b), pp. 22-24.</ref> to uncover those parts of the narratives which may be reasonably and responsibly shown to have come from an early Palestinian passion tradition,<ref>Raymond Brown accepts the existence of such a tradition which may have been linked to eyewitnesses. He qualifies this scholarly opinion as follows: “I have accepted the likely existence of history and tradition behind the heavily scripturally reflective, kerygmatically oriented, and theologically organized PNs [passion narratives] of the Gospels…” (Brown 1994(b), p. 22).</ref> and which may also be linked to the Jesus of history.

Jesus’ crucifixion is so well attested by both Christian and non-Christian sources that it is as close to certain as any historical datum from the first century can be. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus makes explicit reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Annals (15.44) when speaking about Nero’s blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome:

<blockquote>Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.<ref>Cited in Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the authenticity of this passage, but the majority of mainstream scholars concur with Kirby that:

<blockquote>The most persuasive case is made by those who maintain that Tacitus made use of a first century Roman document concerning the nature and status of the Christian religion. As to the reliability of that source, following normal historical practice, it is prudently assumed to be accurate until demonstrated otherwise. The reference from Tacitus constitutes prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus.<ref>Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus’ crucifixion is also attested by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Recall from Unit II-F, Section I. that Josephus was writing for a Roman audience in about 93 AD, and that there are Christian interpolations in the text of Antiquities in which his testimony to Jesus is contained. As noted in Unit II-F, many mainstream scholars consider the italicized sections in the testimony cited below to be authentic:

<blockquote>''Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.'' He was [the] Christ. ''And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,'' those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. ''And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.''<ref>Josephus 1965, 18:3.3.</ref></blockquote>

Again, this non-Christian testimony to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is explicit and highly probable. There are other non-Christian testimonies to Jesus’ crucifixion, but they are far less significant than those of Tacitus and Josephus.

In addition to non-Christian testimony, Jesus’ crucifixion is attested by almost every New Testament source (e.g., the four Gospels, Acts, most of the Pauline letters, 1Peter, and the Letter to the Hebrews), it is recorded in virtually all of the primitive kerygmas,<ref>Very early proclamations of the faith recorded in Acts and the Pauline letters. For a list see Chapter 3, Section I.A.</ref> and is central to the early Church’s interpretation of Jesus and itself. Finally, one is confronted with the questions: “Why would the early Church have given detailed descriptions of the public humiliation and execution of their Messiah and Lord if it had not been historically true? What would have been the point of recounting a story that undermined its apologetical appeal?” In light of this, the crucifixion of Jesus within its proper setting (i.e., a public execution entailing an arrest, trial, and conviction) must be considered incontestable.

What about the details surrounding Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion? Are the events and details recounted in the passion narratives also historically accurate? Some critics, such as Dominic Crossan, believe that it is impossible to say because (as he gratuitously asserts) there were no eyewitnesses to the event:

<blockquote>It seems to me most likely that those closest to Jesus knew almost nothing about the details of the event. They knew only that Jesus had been crucified, outside Jerusalem, at the time of Passover, and probably through some conjunction of imperial and sacerdotal authority.<ref>Crossan 1988 ,p. 405</ref></blockquote>

Brown demolishes Crossan’s contention by pointing to a seemingly obvious and vexing difficulty:

<blockquote>[Crossan] does not explain why he thinks this “most likely,” granted the well-founded tradition that those closest to Jesus had followed him for a long period of time, day and night. Did they suddenly lose all interest, not even taking the trouble to inquire about what must have been a most traumatic moment of their lives?<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 15-16.</ref></blockquote>

Brown explains the implications of his question through a series of virtually unassailable historical judgments:

<blockquote>Yet as we move back from the Gospel narratives to Jesus himself, ultimately there were eyewitnesses and earwitnesses who were in a potion to know the broad lines of Jesus’ passion. He was accompanied in his ministry by a group of disciples known as the Twelve, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the arrest of Jesus was the occasion of his being separated from them. It is inconceivable that they showed no concern about what happened to Jesus after the arrest. True, there is no Christian claim that they were present during the legal proceedings against him, Jewish or Roman; but it is absurd to think that some information was not available to them about why Jesus has hanged on a cross. The whole purpose of crucifixion, after all, was to publicize that certain crimes would be severely punished. (That is the sense in which I include “earwitness”: hearing what was publicly said about the condemnation of Jesus.) The crucifixion itself was public, and nothing suggests that the burial was secret.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 14.</ref></blockquote>

Attempts to present scenarios contrary to Brown’s in this regard truly verge on the illogical, unreasonable, and inconceivable; and they betray motives other than that of seeking the truth.

Furthermore, there is remarkable correspondence between the passion narrative and the Gospel of John, and recent archeological evidence uncovered by Charlesworth and von Wahlde which strongly suggests that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Von Wahlde summarizes his findings as follows:

<blockquote>The significance of this [archeological evidence] for our appreciation of the historical accuracy of John’s reports is considerable. Not only does John provide several details present in the Synoptics (the name of the place [Golgotha], its location outside the city walls), but he goes on to provide more detail than the other Gospels…details not essential to the narrative. If the presence of such details at first makes verification more difficult, the fact that they are corroborated by archaeological and other means [at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem<ref>Charlesworth reports: “Archaeologists have also found the remains of a city wall to the east of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It was built sometime before Herod the Great. What is surprising is the discovery that the present city wall to the west of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the ‘third wall’ built by Agrippa between 41 and 44. This wall reveals that Golgotha was outside Jerusalem’s walls before the early forties, and Jesus was crucified on Golgotha in 30 (or perhaps 33)” (Charlesworth 2006(b), p. 31; italics mine).</ref>] demonstrates not only that the Johannine account contains remarkably accurate knowledge but also that the Gospel is in fact able to serve as a source of unique knowledge about the crucifixion and burial of Jesus.<ref>von Wahlde 2006, p. 582. See also Charlesworth 2006(b), pp. 31-37.</ref></blockquote>

This archaeological corroboration of John’s passion narrative also suggests the presence of eyewitnesses who were not only aware of the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, but also reported it to the authors of the earliest passion traditions.

Presuming, then, that there were eyewitnesses, and that they would have wanted to see or hear as much as possible about the One who was central to their lives, what could they have witnessed? They could have witnessed Jesus’ betrayal by Judas and His apprehension by the Jewish authorities. They could have also heard about any public declaration of Jesus’ charge, conviction, and sentence. They could have known who was involved in the charging, convicting, and sentencing. They could have had knowledge of public events surrounding the conviction (e.g., the release of Barabbas, or Jewish authorities stirring up the crowd). They could have witnessed the carrying of the cross and any outward signs of persecution or torture that might have preceded His journey to Golgotha (e.g., scourging or crowning with thorns). They could have witnessed the crucifixion itself, the public inscription of Jesus’ offense, the people crucified with Jesus, and they could have heard His final words, seen His death, and witnessed His burial. Evidently, they would have been a party to certain events themselves (e.g., cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant and denials).

Most of the above “witnessable” data was apologetically unappealing and presented obstacles to conversion. What would an early Jewish or gentile prospective convert find attractive about the public humiliation and execution of a messiah/leader? How did all the gory details of this crucifixion better establish Jesus’ role as messiah/leader? How would prospective Jewish converts have reacted to the contempt and rejection of Jesus by Jewish authorities? How would Peter’s denials and the apostles’ flight from Jerusalem have added to the Church’s “good image”? How does Jesus being numbered among criminals (e.g., Barabbas and the criminals crucified with Him) help the Church’s credibility among law-abiding citizens? In almost every case, the presentation of the “witnessable” data seems to undermine the early Christian’s image, credibility, and apologetical appeal. Why would they have presented these data in such detail if they had such potential and real damaging effects? I can think of only one reason. Because they were essentially true.

Can we render the same positive historical judgment about other details in the passion narratives beyond the basic “witnessable” data mentioned above? At this juncture, our pursuit of history becomes far more hazy and complex, because the witnessable data moves from eyewitnesses to catechists and teachers who need to interpret these traumatic (and unappealing) events to converts and potential converts. The natural tendency of such catechists, who were reared within Palestinian Judaism, would have been to use Scripture as a means of interpretation.<ref>The conjecture of some members of the Jesus Seminar that the early narratives of Jesus’ passion were a synthesis of interpreted Scriptures rather than an account of what really happened (Koester 1980, p. 127) is simply backwards. It is far more likely that the earliest traditions recounted what happened, allowing catechists to add sections later to interpret them. As Brown notes, “… [T]here is no evidence in the Pauline formula that scriptural reflection caused the creation of the basic incidents of the passion; far more plausibly it caused the selection and interpretation of certain features in an outline of death, burial, resurrection, and appearance that had been dictated by the early Christian memory of what happened” (Brown 1994(b), p. 16).</ref> Some of these attempts would be easily discernable because they would be introduced by phrases like “this was to fulfill the Scripture….” However, other Scripture passages might be on the lips of Jesus, such as the last words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (citing Psalm 22). The historian must now make the judgment of whether this was placed on the lips of Jesus, or whether Jesus selected these words for Himself (see below, Section II). Obviously, Jesus was accustomed to using Scripture to interpret His life, mission, and even crucifixion as much as, if not more than any later interpreter.

The historian’s task becomes even more complex when these traditions are woven into a single narrative. The editors of such narratives would have to be somewhat creative in synthesizing the various traditions. They might be inclined to embellish sayings or dialogue if that helped with the interpretation of recounted events. They could add thematic and even dramatic emphases to the narrative to further their catechetical or theological objectives. At this juncture, the historian must try to peel back the redactions of editors (especially the Evangelists) in order to get closer to the testimony of eyewitnesses which stand behind the narratives.

Recall from Unit II-B, Section I. that the first task is to get back to the primitive traditions that underlie the Gospel narratives, and then to judge the historicity of these primitive traditions by means of historical criteria and techniques to render judgments within a typical historical range:

<blockquote>…certain, very probable, probable, possible, not impossible. “Certain” has nothing to do with the certitude of mathematics or the physical sciences; it refers to the certitude we have in ordinary experience about the things we encounter or are reported to us in writing or orally.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 22.</ref></blockquote>

The earliest passion narrative is in the Gospel of Mark. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke were both aware of Mark’s narrative and relied on it. As will be seen in the next section, John was not aware of Mark’s narrative, but he made recourse to a primitive tradition(s) very similar to the ones used by Mark. This coincidence is extremely useful to historians because it allows for an application of the criterion of multiple attestation, which, in turn, helps historians make judgments about whether various verses in the narratives can be considered to be part of a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition.

In Section I.B, we will take a brief look at these criteria; in Section II we will consider the historicity of Jesus’ last words in Mark; and in Section III we will attempt to uncover the pre-Marcan tradition in Mark’s narrative, and then render some general historical judgments.

=== Application of the Criteria of Historicity to the Passion Narratives ===

The reader may wish to review the descriptions and examples of the criteria and techniques for determining the historicity of Gospel passages, which are summarized in Unit II-B, Section I. A brief description of three of these criteria will be given with particular examples from the passion narratives: (1) multiple attestation, (2) embarrassment, and (3) coherence with Jewish/Roman customs.

The reader will want to recall two caveats about assessment of historicity mentioned in Unit II-B, Section I. namely:

(a) Criteria for historicity can show the likelihood of a particular Gospel datum being historical, but the absence of criteria for historicity does not show the improbability of a particular Gospel datum being historical; the non-applicability of historical criteria shows only that we have no way of assessing historicity of a Gospel datum either positively or negatively. Thus, far more data in the passion narratives (and in the Gospels, for that matter) is historical than can ever be corroborated through historical criteria.

(b) Too rigorous an application of historical criteria can unnecessarily circumscribe corroboratable data from the Gospels. If one says, “The only data that I will accept as historical are those which are attested to by four out of five independent sources” (say, Mark, Q, special Luke, and John, leaving out only special Matthew), then one will limit oneself to very few Gospel data. If one goes even further, and requires four independent Gospel sources plus an external source (such as Tacitus and Josephus), the Gospel will be reduced to the non-interpolated statements of Tacitus and Josephus. Again, if one claims that multiple attestation is not enough – there must also be corroboration from another historical criterion (say, embarrassment or coherence to Jewish culture, etc.), then the field of acceptable data is correspondingly narrowed. The judicious use of historical criteria by mainstream exegetes such as Raymond Brown, N.T. Wright, and John P. Meier can avert unnecessary proscriptions of Gospel data, and lead to reasonable and responsible corroboration of a large range of Gospel data. We may now proceed to the three historical criteria.

1) Multiple Attestation. Recall that multiple attestation does not occur when there is repetition of passages among the three synoptic Gospels, but rather when there is repetition among the five independent sources (Mark, Q, special Matthew, special Luke, and John). Matthew and Luke relied upon and used the full text of Mark. Q is another source upon which Matthew and Luke both relied. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark in their passion narratives, and so attestation among them is not significant.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 81-82.</ref> However, as will be discussed below, Mark and John were written independently of each other, and it is quite likely that neither one had any knowledge of the other’s narrative. Nevertheless, there are no less than thirty-two similarities between the two narratives. If John is truly not dependent on Mark, then these similarities would auger very strongly for a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) passion tradition(s) upon which both Evangelists relied. This pre-Marcan tradition(s) would bring us closer to eyewitness accounts of the passion and therefore to Jesus’ passion itself.

How can we be so sure that John was not directly reliant on Mark’s narrative? In virtually every part of the Gospel except the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on water, and the passion narratives, John’s material is so distinct from Mark that it is difficult to believe that John relied on Mark unless he wanted to separate himself from, or complement Mark. Most scholars in the latter half of the twentieth century do not believe that there is Johannine dependence on Mark.<ref>Brown details the long list of exegetes who support the Johannine non-dependence theory in 1994(b), p. 76, note 91.</ref>

But what about Johannine dependence on the Marcan passion narrative? As can be seen from the table above, there are so many similarities between Mark and John that the possibility of dependence must be considered. There are two significant factors militating against the dependence conjecture. First, despite the many similarities, there are many more dissimilarities in content and order between the two passion narratives.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 81.</ref> Secondly, many of the differences between Mark and John are inexplicable, if not illogical if John truly depended on Mark.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref> Why would John have put his narrative into a more scattered and strangely ordered state than Mark’s if he depended on Mark? (A love of disorder?) Why would he have omitted details in Mark which would have been of interest to him (e.g., the kiss of Judas; mention of Simon of Cyrene; the sixth and ninth hour when darkness came over the land; the derision by the crowds at the cross; the confusion regarding Elijah – even though this may have been elicited by Jesus’ last words in Mark, which are not mentioned in John; omission of three of Mark’s women witnesses – Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, as well as “other women” in Mark, versus Mary the mother of Jesus, and His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas in John). These omissions and reorderings make little sense if John truly depended on Mark. For this reason, Brown concludes:

<blockquote>Throughout the commentary I shall come again and again to what I regard as a completely illogical result if John knew Mark. For that reason I shall work with the thesis that John wrote his passion narrative independently of Mark’s.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref></blockquote>

So what is the likely scenario for the Marcan and Johannine passion narratives’ development? Brown believes that this occurred in five stages:

a) Eyewitnesses. See the rationale for these eyewitness accounts given above in Section I.A.

b) A basic catechetical outline. A basic sequence of major events was formulated soon after the events of the passion connecting the Last Supper to the arrest, then to the condemnation, then to the crucifixion, then to the burial. This sequence guided the Church’s early proclamations and catechesis as well as Eucharistic memories. This is evident from Pauline and other non-Gospel New Testament writings.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 83.</ref>

c) Pre-Gospel traditions. Widely circulated stories/traditions (probably both oral and written) were formed from eyewitness accounts about particular figures and incidents in the passion narratives (alongside the basic catechetical outline). The stories were not yet connected to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 83-84.</ref>

d) Pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine traditions. The stories and basic outline made their way toward the Marcan and Johannine communities where eventually a pre-Marcan author(s) connected many of the stories to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 84.</ref>

e) The Marcan and Johannine passion narratives. The two Evangelists used two versions of the pre-Marcan tradition along with additional pre-Gospel traditions<ref>As Soards’ table indicates, there were probably several such pre-Gospel traditions along with other narrative traditions. See Soards 1994, pp. 1492-1524.</ref> to formulate the passion narratives we have today.

It is likely that much of the “witnessable” data in the thirty-two common elements in the Marcan and Johannine narratives made their way from eyewitnesses into the pre-Gospel traditions, and then into the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition(s), and then into the Gospel narratives. This would include:

Judas as betrayer bringing soldiers with weapons; Jesus being seized; the high priest’s servant’s ear being cut off; Jesus’ exchange with His apprehenders; Jesus being subjected to a Jewish judicial inquest; Peter’s three denials; the high priest’s maid as first inquirer; Peter warming himself by the fire in the high priest’s courtyard; the bystanders as inquirers in the third denial; the Jewish authorities making accusations against Jesus to Pilate; the crowd asking for the release of Barabbas; Pilate not finding Jesus guilty of a crime; the crowds responding multiple times “Crucify Him”; Pilate having Jesus scourged; Pilate handing Jesus over to be crucified, Jesus being crowned with thorns; Jesus proceeding to Golgotha with a cross, the crucifixion of Jesus; an inscription reading “King of the Jews”; the soldiers dividing Jesus’ garments and casting lots for them; two criminals being crucified with Jesus, one on either side of Him; Mary Magdalene witnessing the crucifixion; the soldiers giving a vinegar-filled sponge to Jesus on the cross; Joseph of Arimathea obtaining permission to bury Jesus; and Joseph of Arimathea wrapping the body of Jesus in a linen cloth, and putting Him in a tomb.<ref>For evidence of the apostles knowing the place of burial and witnessing the empty tomb, see Chapter 4, Section II.B.</ref>

Some of these conclusions (as well as others) are corroborated by three other historical criteria which will be discussed in the forthcoming subsections.

(2) Embarrassment. Recall from Unit II-B, Section I., that if a particular Gospel datum was embarrassing to the Church, or undermined the reputation of the apostles, or cast dispersions upon Jesus, then we can be quite certain that the Evangelists (and the formulators of early traditions) did not invent it. Raymond Brown points to several such data in the passion narratives, for example: Judas (one of the Twelve apostles) betraying Jesus; many of the disciples not remaining with Jesus during the passion; and Peter denying Jesus three times.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> There are other data which are embarrassing, but may have been recounted for other reasons. For example, Jesus praying in the garden, “Remove this cup from me” (Mark 14:36), which looks like Jesus is trying to avoid the cross. Although this could not have been catechetically appealing, someone could conjecture that this passage is meant “to teach Christians that facing death constitutes a trial that may challenge even sincere commitment.”<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> Nevertheless, the datum is still catechetically unappealing, and would have been very risky for the Evangelist or early Church to have invented.

The same holds true for Jesus’ last words in the Gospel of Mark: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” As will be discussed below (Section II), the last words of Jesus do not enjoy multiple attestation because John does not recount them (and places a completely different phrase on the lips of Jesus – “It is finished”). Many scholars believe, however, that this datum is historical because it would have likely been misinterpreted by gentile audiences who might not have known that the phrase (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) refers to the whole of Psalm 22 (a Psalm of God redeeming the sufferings of the just one and bringing salvation through it to all nations and generations). Gentile audiences would have been likely to believe that Jesus was so demoralized that He lost His confidence in God and thought that God was forsaking Him. This misinterpretation would not only have been embarrassing to the Church, but would have led to a theology precisely contrary to what Jesus intended and to what the Church taught. It is difficult to believe that Mark would have invented this phrase as Jesus’ last words, and much more likely that John (like Luke), if he was aware of the phrase from a pre-Johannine tradition, would have dropped it since he was writing for a gentile audience that could have easily misinterpreted it.

(3) Coherence with Jewish/Roman customs. There are three elements which are relevant here: (a) coherence with Jewish customs, (b) Semitisms, and (c) coherence with Roman customs. The last area is somewhat complex<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 19ff.</ref> and not especially germane to the point of this Unit; so I will limit discussion to the first two areas.

(a) ''Correspondence with Jewish custom''. One major point bears mentioning, because it shows Mark’s<ref>The historicity of the Marcan narrative will be assessed throughout the rest of the chapter.</ref> fidelity to the Jewish customs which would have been in effect at the time of Jesus’ passion, namely, Mark’s careful recounting of how the Sanhedrin adhered to the Mishna only when it was in conformity to the Sadducee law. Blinzler notes in this regard:

<blockquote>The fact that Mk 14 and 15 juxtapose items which sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the requirements of the Mishnah was hitherto felt puzzling. The explanation is that the Sanhedrin was at that time bound by the Sadducee law, which agreed with the Mishnah only exceptionally. But if Mk 14 and 15 were a legendary construction, it would be hard to explain how the author, supposedly so uninterested in historical fact, managed to be so accurate with regard to the legal custom: to the unlikely extent, that is, that the actions of the Sanhedrin only agreed with the Mishnah when the provisions of the latter coincided with those of the Sadducees, and not otherwise.<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref></blockquote>

(b) ''Semitisms''. There is one truly remarkable Semitism recorded in the Marcan narrative, namely, Jesus’ final words: “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''.” The Marcan version of the final words is to be preferred over the Matthean one, because it is probable that Matthew tried to “clean up” Mark’s Aramaic citation of the divine name (“''Elōi''”)<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref> with the more proper Hebrew version of it (''“’Ēlî”''), which would have been recited in the synagogue.<ref>Recall that Matthew is writing for a well-educated Jewish audience, and was trying to convince them of the Messiahship of Jesus. He knew the appropriate Hebrew form of the Psalm and changed Mark’s Aramaic “Elōi” to the Hebrew “Ēli.” See Brown 1994(b), pp. 1051-1052.</ref> The fact that Matthew records the Aramaic “''sabachthani''” (instead of the more appropriate Hebrew ''ăzabtānî'') convinces most scholars that Matthew retained remnants of an original Aramaic version.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. Mark’s use of “lama” (instead of the Aramaic “lĕmā”) is not problematic because it was common practice at that time to transliterate the shewa (short “e” vowel) by “a” instead of “e.” See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. See also Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58; and Harrington 1990, p. 628.</ref>

Is Mark’s Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words truly Jesus’ words? It seems likely because much of Mark’s mixed gentile-Jewish audience would not have recognized either the Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the Psalm, which evidently compelled Mark to translate it into Greek. Why would Mark have recorded an Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words which most of his audience would not have understood? Why not simply give the Greek translation without the Aramaic? Furthermore, why give an Aramaic translation of the Psalms instead of the more proper and easily recognizable Hebrew version? The fact that Jesus may well have learned the Psalms in Aramaic and recited the Psalms in Aramaic to His Galilean audience may provide a clue to the origin of the Aramaic version of the Psalm – namely, Jesus Himself.<ref>Though Mark cites Aramaic versions of Old Testament texts elsewhere, this may be out of deference to Jesus rather than Mark’s preference.</ref> The application of other historical criteria to this question will further confirm the origin of these words in Jesus. This will be considered in the following section.

== The Final Words of Jesus ==

Given that Mark’s version of Jesus’ final words is more original than Matthew’s version, we may now return to the question of whether Mark’s version is historical. Though the Aramaic rendition of the final words is a clue to their origin in Jesus, it is not definitive because Luke gives a different version of the final words (“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” – Luke 23:46), and so does John (“It is finished” – John 19:30). Why should Mark be preferred to Luke and John?

With respect to Luke’s version of the final words, there are four reasons to suspect that Mark’s version is closer to Jesus’ own. First, Luke was aware of Mark’s version of the final words, and would have had to have intentionally changed them. Secondly, Luke prefers to shift the focus from Jesus’ feelings of desolation to Jesus’ trust. Instead of Psalm 22:2 (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”), Luke portrays Jesus reciting Psalm 31:6 (“Into your hands I commend my spirit”), which effects this shift in focus. Luke’s preference to portray Jesus as confident (and eliminate any hint of spiritual disturbance) is evidenced in his elimination of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ anxiety in the garden of Gethsemane (“My soul is very sorrowful unto death”). It is much easier to believe that Luke has continued his redactional policy of eliminating Marcan references to Jesus’ anxiety than to believe that Luke’s version of Jesus’ words is more original. Thirdly, Luke substitutes “Father” for the Psalmist’s reference to “God,” which is very likely a redaction. Finally, Luke selects a Psalm passage which speaks to Jesus’ Spirit, which is a clear focus of his Gospel and an allusion to the Holy Spirit, which is the focus of the Acts of the Apostles.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1067.</ref> For this reason, most scholars believe that the Lukan version is a redaction of the Marcan original.

What about John’s version of the last words (“It is finished”)? Unlike Luke, John was not aware of the Marcan passion narrative, yet there is significant evidence that Mark and John borrowed from a common pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition (see above, Section I.B.1). Does John’s very different version of Jesus’ final words imply that the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition did not have any version of Jesus’ final words (and that both Mark and John invented their own in the absence of a more original version)? The answer is probably ‘no,’ because of light shed upon the question by the historical criterion of embarrassment.

Recall from Section I.B.2 that John’s predominately gentile audience could have misinterpreted Jesus’ last words as recorded by Mark. Indeed, as we just saw, Luke certainly thought this was a possibility for his gentile audience. The majority of John’s audience would probably not have recognized Psalm 22 in the Aramaic expression, “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani'',” and they would not have known that this first line referred to the entire Psalm. Therefore, they would not have known that Jesus’ last words were a prayer of trust in God which would lead not only to the vindication of His suffering, but to universal salvation for all humankind for all time (see below in this section).<ref>As Brown notes, “Perhaps the most frequently offered argument for softening the dour import of the Mark/Matt death cry is based on the general context of Ps 22. Jesus cites the opening verse of a psalm that continues for thirty more verses. By the end the psalmist will take a positive view: Rejoicing, he will proclaim that he has survived the danger and that after all God did not spurn him or ‘turn His face away’ (Ps 22:25). Accordingly some would invoke a hermeneutic principle that a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context” (Brown 1994(b), pp. 1049-1050).</ref> Thus (as the Johannine author very probably perceived), they would have interpreted these words to mean that Jesus felt abandoned by the Father, which is precisely the opposite of what the Psalm intends, what the early Church believed, and what Jesus intended. Not only would this have been confusing and misleading to gentile members of the early Church; it would have been apologetically unappealing and embarrassing to the Church in gentile regions. Thus, John, like Luke, would have had everything to lose (and nothing to gain) by retaining these words on the lips of the dying Jesus.

Therefore, there is considerable reason to believe prima facie that John, like Luke, would have been inclined to change Jesus’ dying words from those of Psalm 22 to something less misleading and more consistent with Jesus’ intention and the belief of the early Church. He decides upon the simple phrase, “It is finished,” which refers to Jesus’ project of redemption, the completion of which John has been pointing to throughout the “Book of Glory” (chapters 13-21).

This leads to the obvious question of why Mark (who was addressing a mixed gentile-Jewish audience) would have retained Psalm 22 as Jesus’ final words when many of his audience members would have been likely to misinterpret them in the same way as John’s and Luke’s audiences. Before responding, it is worth noting that this question does not apply to Matthew with the same force as Mark because the majority of Matthew’s audience was Jewish. Many in that audience would have been educated enough to see Psalm 22 through Matthew’s Hebraic version of it, and many would have understood that the first line of the Psalm referred to the whole Psalm. Brown points to a well-known hermeneutical principle in this regard:

<blockquote>…a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 1050.</ref></blockquote>

In the case of Psalm 22, the context speaks of trust in God, vindication, and salvation for the world.

However, the above hermeneutical principle would not have applied to the gentile members of Mark’s audience; so why did he retain these words? I think there is only one plausible explanation – namely, that they are in fact the final words of Jesus. It would be inconceivable to suggest that Mark invented these words to place on the lips of Jesus given the probability of their misinterpretation (with significant negative consequences) by a large segment of his audience. Therefore, it seems likely that Mark received these words from either a pre-Marcan tradition or from Peter (for whom Mark was interpreter). In either case, Mark must have believed that these words were truly those of Jesus, and decided to retain them in their Aramaic form precisely for this reason. There does not appear to be any other reasonable motive for his taking the risk of significant misinterpretation and apologetically unappealing embarrassment.

So if we consider “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''” to be the dying words of the historical Jesus, and if we apply Brown’s hermeneutical principle to Jesus Himself (implying that Jesus expected informed listeners to “be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context”), then it seems likely that the dying Jesus was praying the whole of Psalm 22 to His Father while giving His listeners an insight into how He interpreted His sacrificial death through that prayer. Mally notes in this regard:

<blockquote>As a quotation of an OT Ps, it can hardly be taken literally as an expression of real despair or dereliction. Rather, Jesus applies to himself an OT passage that sums up the suffering of the upright individual who turns to his God in the stress of hostile opposition and its ensuing depression. In using the Ps, Jesus does not express the feeling that his life’s work has failed and that God has therefore abandoned him; he identifies himself with a biblical precedent, the persecuted upright man ''who has trusted in Yahweh'', and found in him ''the source of his consolation and ultimate triumph'' [italics mine].<ref>Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58. See also J. Gnilka 1959, pp. 294-97.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, Jesus’ reference to Psalm 22 is an expression of trust and confidence in the Father that His suffering will result in the triumph of His mission. As noted in the previous Unit, that mission is actualized for all future generations through the gift of His presence and unconditional redeeming Love in the Eucharist.

A closer look at the Psalm may give a deep insight into the panoply of Jesus’ thoughts and feelings at the time of His crucifixion. The Psalm may be divided into three parts:

(1) “2-22, the complaint, with repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence (4-6; 10-11),”<ref>Murphy 1968, p. 579.</ref>

(2) “23-32, thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share (23-27),<ref>Murphy 1968, p. 579.</ref>” and

(3) the worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh (28-32).

Each part will be presented in turn.

(1) Complaint, repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence.

''My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?''

''Why are you so far from saving me,''

''so far from the words of my groaning?''

''Oh my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,''

''and by night, but I have no rest.''

Then, the psalmist shifts perspective as he does several times throughout the Psalm, and introduces the theme of God’s holiness and grandeur, worthy of praise and trust:

''Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;''

''you are the praise of Israel.''

''In you our fathers put their trust;''

''they trusted and you delivered them.''

''They cried to you and were saved;''

''in you they trusted and were not disappointed.''

The psalmist then turns back to the deplorable nature of his condition:

''But I am a worm and not a man,''

''scorned by men and despised by the people.''

''All who see me mock me;''

''they hurl insults, shaking their heads:''

''“He trusted in the Lord;''

''let the Lord rescue him.''

''Let Him deliver him''

''since He delights in him."''

The uncanny resemblance between the psalmist’s words and the events taking place around Jesus give one pause. After describing the inauthentic words of the crowd (who believe that the Lord will not fulfill the trust of the psalmist), the psalmist shifts back to his fervent trust in the Lord:

''Yet you brought me out of the womb;''

''you made me trust in you;''

''even at my mother’s breast.''

''From birth I was cast upon you;''

''from my mother’s womb you have been my God.''

Having renewed his trust in the Lord, the psalmist makes an earnest petition for help:

''Do not be far from me,''

''for trouble is near''

''and there is no one to help.''

''Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.''

''Roaring lions tearing their prey''

''open their mouths wide against me.''

Then the psalmist uses the same words seen in the suffering servant song (Is 52:13-53:12) and Jesus’ eucharistic words:

''I am poured out like water,''

''and all my bones are out of joint.''

''My heart has turned to wax;''

''it has melted away within me.''

''My strength is dried up like a potsherd,''

''and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;''

''you lay me in the dust of death.''

In continuing his description of his suffering to Yahweh, the psalmist again describes events uncannily similar to Jesus’ crucifixion:

''Dogs have surrounded me;''

''a band of evil men has encircled me,''

''they have pierced my hands and my feet.''

''I can count all my bones;''

''people stare and gloat over me.''

''They divide my garments among them''

''and cast lots for my clothing.''

The psalmist makes another earnest petition for God’s help and consolation:

''But you, oh Lord, be not far off;''

''oh my Strength, come quickly to help me.''

''Deliver my life from the sword,''

''my precious life from the power of the dogs.''

''Rescue me from the mouth of the lion;''

''save me from the horns of the wild oxen.''

(2) Thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share. The psalmist then reaffirms his trust and confidence in the Lord, as if to say that he will live beyond his current persecution to bring the praise of the Lord’s name to all who fear him:

''I will declare your name to my brothers;''

''in the congregation I will praise you.''

''You who fear the Lord, praise him!''

''All you descendents of Jacob, honor him!''

''Revere him, all you descendents of Israel!''

The psalmist then gives his reason for his confidence in God, and his belief in his future:

''For he has not despised or disdained''

''the suffering of the afflicted one;''

''he has not hidden his face from him''

''but has listened to his cry for help.''

''From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;''

''before those who fear you I will fulfill my vows.''

The psalmist then moves into a prophetic, and even messianic tone, speaking of signs of the new Jerusalem; messianic signs which Jesus says, when quoting the prophet Isaiah, are being fulfilled in Himself:<ref>See Matt. 11:5ff and Lk 4:18ff, referring to Is 61:1ff.</ref>

''The poor will eat and be satisfied;''

''they who seek the Lord will praise Him –''

''may your hearts live forever.''

(3) The worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh. The psalmist then confidently suggests universality of salvation arising out of Yahweh’s mercy:

''All the ends of the earth''

''will remember and turn to the Lord,''

''and all the families of the nations''

''will bow down before Him,''

''for dominion belongs to the Lord''

''and He rules over the nations.''

The psalmist then suggests that Yahweh’s salvation will extend to all those who are raised on high, and those who are in the grave:

''All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;''

''all who go down to the dust will kneel before Him –''

''those who cannot keep themselves alive.''

''Posterity will serve Him;''

''future generations will be told about the Lord.''

''They will proclaim His righteousness''

''to a people yet unborn –''

''for He has done it.''

This Psalm on the dying lips of Jesus is quite remarkable. In the midst of recounting events quite similar to His crucifixion, the Psalm expresses His mind and heart as He cries out for help, as He is overwhelmingly confident in that help, and as He sees the ultimate result of that help in a salvation that will not only reach to the ends of the earth, but to all future generations on the earth, and even to those who are raised on high and those who “go down to the dust.” Thus, the Psalm connects Jesus’ torment with His confidence in the Father as He looks beyond His suffering, beyond Jerusalem, beyond the present age, and beyond earthly existence, to a redemption which will take hold in the life of God Himself. Jesus’ eucharistic words are not only consonant with those of the psalm, they give the psalm’s words ultimate meaning and reality; for they provide the vehicle through which Jesus’ person and love will save universally and eternally.

== The Passion of Jesus in Mark and in Pre-Marcan Tradition (14:32-15:37) ==

Mark gives us the oldest account of the passion. Though it tries to reconcile the passion with Old Testament prophesy, its primary objective is not apologetical.<ref>See Matt. 11:5ff and Lk 4:18ff, referring to Is 61:1ff.</ref> Rather, it intends to give an account of the sufferings freely endured by Jesus and “to show clearly what persons and what authorities were responsible for the death of Jesus and the extent of their guilt.”<ref>“This explains the information given about the members of the Sanhedrin (14:1, 43, 53, 55, 63-65;15:1, 10f., 31 f.; contrast 15:43-46), Judas (14:10f., 18-21, 42, 45), the crowd (14:65; 15:8, 11-15, 29f., 35; cf. 15:40f.; 16:1-8; 15:21), Pilate (15:2-15, 43-45) and the Roman soldiers (15:16-20, 21-27; cf. 15:39)” (Blinzler 1968-70, p. 351.)</ref> Mark believes that this is Jesus’ central salvific act and uses it to frame the rest of his Gospel. As Blinzler notes:

<blockquote>Mark already had before him such a relatively fixed account from oral tradition, as the insertion of 14:3-9 shows, and he enlarged it with further matter, e.g., with “memoirs” of Peter (apart from 14:3-9) such as the account of the denial (14:54, 66-72). …[T]he Gospel of Mark has been called, not unjustly, “a passion-narrative with a long introduction” (M. Kähler).<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 351.</ref></blockquote>

As noted above, there is substantial New Testament and extra-testamental evidence for the historicity of Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion.<ref>See Section I of this Unit.</ref> Many other facts surrounding the crucifixion are also very probably historical. By using the criteria and techniques elucidated above (Sections I.A and B), we can first ascertain what material from Mark’s passion narrative probably came from a pre-Marcan tradition, and the material from that tradition which could have come from eyewitness accounts. Scholars have worked diligently on these tasks for over a century, and it is beyond the scope of this study to report comprehensively on their findings.<ref>See Soards 1994, pp. 1502-1517.</ref> My objective is only to give a report about where the preponderance of scholarly opinion lies with regard to an early pre-Marcan tradition and the historicity of the facts within that tradition.

There is a strong likelihood that Mark made recourse to a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which he redacted and stylized to give coherence and meaning to this exceedingly significant event for the Christian Church.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), pp. 20-22.</ref> There is a wide variety of opinion about which verses originated with this pre-Marcan tradition(s) and which ones originated with Mark. Marion Soards has gathered a tremendous amount of data from 34 scholars representing a wide range of theological and exegetical perspectives.<ref>See Soards 1994, pp. 1492-1524.</ref> I have taken the liberty of presenting the Revised Standard Version of the Marcan passion narrative, and indicating the likelihood that each of its verses originated with a pre-Marcan tradition or with Mark himself according to the following key:<ref>I relied completely on Soards’ chart of scholars in Soards 1994, pp. 1502-1517. The key reflects what the majority of scholars assessed by Soards believe about the Marcan or pre-Marcan origins of particular verses.</ref>

Bold A large majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Italics A small majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Bold Italics The scholarly community is about evenly split on whether this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition, or with Mark himself.

Normal font The majority of the scholarly community believes that this verse originated with Mark (and is therefore a Marcan redaction).

Mark Chapter 14

32 They went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and He said to His disciples, “Sit here, while I pray.” 33 And He took with Him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. 34 ''And He said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch.”'' 35 And going a little farther, He fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. 36 ''And He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt.” And He came and found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour?'' 38 ''' ''Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”'' ''' 39 And again He went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 ''' ''And again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer Him.'' ''' 41 ''And He came the third time, and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.'' 42 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”

43 And immediately, while He was still speaking Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I shall kiss is the man; seize Him and lead Him away safely.” And when he came, he went up to Him at once, and said, “Master!” And he kissed Him. And they laid hands on Him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” And they all forsook Him, and fled.

51 ''And a young man followed Him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.''

53 And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. And Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death; but they found none. 56 ''' ''For many bore false witness against Him, and their witness did not agree.'' ''' 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against Him, saying, “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet not even so did their testimony agree. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you? 61 ''' ''But He was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked Him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”'' ''' 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”<ref>I relied completely on Soards’ chart of scholars in Soards 1994, pp. 1502-1517. The key reflects what the majority of scholars assessed by Soards believe about the Marcan or pre-Marcan origins of particular verses.</ref> 63 ''' ''And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard His blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned Him as deserving death.'' ''' 65 ''And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to strike Him, saying to Him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received Him with blows.''

66 ''' ''And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came;'' ''' 67 ''and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway.'' 69 ''' ''And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.”'' ''' 70 ''But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.” 71 But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.”'' 72 ''' ''And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.'' '''

Mark Chapter 15

1 And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. And Pilate asked Him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And He answered him “You have said so.” And the chief priests accused Him of many things. And Pilate again asked Him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered.

Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they asked. And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. And he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered Him up. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” And they cried out again, “Crucify Him.” And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him.” So, Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

And the soldiers led Him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. And they clothed Him in a purple cloak, and placing a crown of thorns they put it on Him. And they began to salute Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck His head with a reed, and spat upon Him, and they knelt down in homage to Him. And when they had mocked Him, they stripped Him of the purple cloak, and put His own clothes on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him.

And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry His cross. And they brought Him to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). And they offered Him wine mingled with myrrh; but He did not take it. And they crucified Him, and divided His garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour, when they crucified Him. And the inscription of the charge against Him read, “The King of the Jews.” And with Him they crucified two robbers, one on His right and one on His left. And those who passed by derided Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 ''' ''So also the chief priests mocked Him to one another with the scribes, saying, “He saved others; He cannot save Himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with Him also reviled Him.'' '''

And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” Which means, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Behold, He is calling Elijah.” And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to Him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down.” And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.

38 ''' ''And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing Him, saw that He thus breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the son of God!”'' '''

''' ''There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome,'' ''' 41 who, when He was in Galilee, followed Him, and ministered to Him; and also many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

42 ''' ''And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath,'' ''' 43 ''Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.'' 44 And Pilate wondered if He were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether He was already dead. 45 ''' ''And when he learned from the centurion that He was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.'' ''' 46 ''And he bought a linen shroud, and taking Him down, wrapped Him in the linen shroud, and laid Him in a tomb which has been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.'' 47 ''' ''Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where He was laid.'' '''

As can be seen from the above, most scholars consider the vast majority of the passion narrative to have come from a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which would presumably include some accounts from Peter. Notice that the probable Marcan redactions are not concerned with the torment, crucifixion, and death of Jesus. They are meant to explain who is primarily guilty (i.e., Judas, the chief priests, and the council), who is less culpable (i.e., Pilate), and who is ironically the prophetic spokesman of the meaning of the passion (i.e., the centurion). They also center on Mark’s interpretation of why Jesus was accused of blasphemy (i.e., identifying Himself with the eschatological Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14). If these elements are “bracketed,” the passion story retains its poignant central core, which likely represents the traditions which Mark received as he prepared his narrative.

The question of whether the pre-Marcan tradition is faithful to accounts from eyewitnesses and earwitnesses is more difficult to ascertain. One cannot assume that a verse was witnessed simply because it was included in a pre-Marcan tradition. As was made clear in Section I.B, the pre-Marcan tradition relied on pre-Gospel traditions and stories, and had developments and accretions arising out of catechetical and pedagogical concerns. Nevertheless, it is likely that the pre-Marcan tradition(s) contained a considerable amount of “witnessable” and witnessed data for the reasons mentioned in Section I above – particularly as regards the betrayal by Judas, the arrest, a Jewish judicial inquest, Peter’s denials, the involvement of Pontius Pilate, the involvement of Jewish authorities in accusing Jesus, the release of Barabbas, the involvement of Roman soldiers, and facts surrounding the crucifixion (e.g., being scourged, being crowned with thorns, the vinegary wine, being hanged on a cross, the inscription on the cross, and the two other criminals). I would also include Jesus’ final words as recounted in Mark’s Gospel (for the reasons mentioned in the previous section), and the fact of Jesus’ burial (for the reasons mentioned in Chapter 4, Section II.B). A more detailed list of other “witnessable” data which is common to both the Marcan and Johannine traditions may be found above in Section I.B. Additional details about the historicity of particular verses in the pre-Marcan tradition(s) may be found in the “Analysis” sections following each major part of Raymond Brown’s The Death of the Messiah.

An appreciation of the significance of the passion, particularly as regards the central question of this book (i.e., “Is Jesus Emmanuel?”), cannot be attained through exegetical and historical analysis alone. Though this analysis is necessary in order to understand the meaning and reality of the events surrounding Jesus’ death, it almost blocks out the heart’s reasons to give greater clarity to the mind’s reasons. I can’t speak for you, the reader, but when I am applying criteria and techniques of historicity to particular texts, I am not being flooded with inspiration and love; and so I find it necessary to move to the domain of contemplation after I have satisfied myself about the historicity of the essential elements of Jesus’ passion. Contemplation allows one to be moved in the heart<ref>See Josef Pieper’s analysis of the medieval distinction between ratio (reason – the active enterprise of accumulating evidence, assembling it logically, and testing its probative capacity) and intellectus (contemplative understanding which is the more passive enterprise of recognizing and appreciating the depth of Reality manifest in, say, the five transcendentals – Love itself, Goodness itself, Beauty itself, Truth itself, and Being Itself). Pieper 1998.</ref> – to be struck with delight, or wonder, or amazement; to perceive beauty; to exalt; to be moved with gratitude; to feel awe and glory; to be inspired; to be moved by what is just and good and generous, and above all, to be moved by love – unconditional Love. Thus, contemplation is essential to the appreciation of Jesus’ passion, which is above all an act of incredible love.

== Contemplation on the Passion ==

The passion narratives open upon a virtually limitless depth of love, which can best be gleaned through contemplation. As explained in the previous chapter, Jesus views His passion as the culmination of His mission, the concretization of His unconditional Love in history, and His gift of unconditional Love to the world for all eternity (through the Eucharist). The reader’s time will be well spent on considering His loving intention, attitude, and feeling in His gift of self in the events of the passion.<ref>I have written about contemplation in a broader context than the passion in a book entitled, Five Pillars of the Spiritual Life: A Practical Guide to Prayer for Active People (2008). See Chapters 6-8.</ref>

One successful method of entering into contemplation is recommended by Saint Ignatius of Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises.<ref>Ignatius of Loyola 1951.</ref> It entails entering into the scene, considering the personalities and dispositions of people in the scene, and focusing on the heart of Jesus manifest through the people and events in the scene.

In light of the above, one may want to use the following structure to contemplate on the passion. After reading a particular passage at least twice, first consider various physical aspects of the scene, then:

• the persons in the scene along with Jesus, then
• Jesus’ attitude toward the people in the scene (recalling that Jesus’ attitudes are reflected in the beatitudes – humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, merciful, peacemaking, etc.), then
• Jesus’ relationship to the Father (applying Psalm 22, the Suffering Servant song – Isaiah 52:13-53:12, and Jesus’ prayer in the Garden), then
• Jesus’ universal salvific intent (applying the simile of the paschal lamb and the words “This is my body,” “the blood of the covenant,” “for all,” and “Do this in remembrance of me” – see Chapter 9, Section II.B), then
• Jesus’ love for the people in the scene (including His persecutors), His love of the Father, and His love of humankind.

You might then look at Jesus’ acceptance of anguish for the sake of love. In light of this, you might consider Jesus’ love for you and others; His hopes and aspirations for you and for others. Accept that love, accept His wanting to be your paschal lamb, sin-offering (scapegoat), and blood of the covenant (to guarantee eternal life with Him and the Father); and then, express to God what you desire.

After you have completed your contemplation, you might want to ask the recurrent questions in this book: Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this for my sake and the sake of all? Is Jesus Christ His Emmanuel? If so, then the unconditional Love of God is real and has been fully actualized in the world. That unconditional Love is unconditional light in the darkness, unconditional hope amidst dejection, unconditional resurrection amidst the cross, and unconditional redemption amidst our sin. It is unconditional life unto unconditional joy in the unconditional love of the triune God.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Passion

2015-01-08T18:28:05Z

David Persyn: /* The Passion of Jesus in Mark and in Pre-Marcan Tradition (14:32-15:37) */ footnotes

Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith – Jesus

Unit II. M

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Passion

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-M_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Passion.3F | Return to the Table of Contents]]

'''Introduction'''

The Eucharist is not only Jesus’ definitive interpretation of His passion and death; it is also the definitive vehicle through which He communicates His presence and love to all future generations. So, how can our insight into the preciousness of this gift be deepened through the examination of Jesus’ passion? From a contemplative point of view, the possibilities are considerable for deepening the heart’s awareness of the love of Christ. As one considers Jesus’ willing acceptance of each part of the passion as a gift of self (love) for all humankind, one begins to affectively (not just intellectually) appreciate what unconditional Love really is; and when one sees this Love through the eyes, the face, the mind, the heart of the gentle Lamb willingly led to the slaughter, one begins to receive an answer to the questions: “Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this?” and “Is Jesus His Emmanuel?”

Since my intention here is to induce contemplation (that is, prayerful reflection on the texts of the passion), I will discuss only three important propaedeutic points: (1) an overview of the historicity of the passion narratives (Section I)<ref>Any reader interested in a detailed exegesis of the passion narratives should make recourse to Raymond Brown’s comprehensive work The Death of the Messiah [Brown 1994(b)]. </ref>, (2) an analysis of Jesus’ final words on the cross (Section II), and (3) a presentation of the pre-Marcan tradition and Mark’s passion narrative (Section III). The reader may then want to return to the previous Unit on the Eucharist to probe with contemplative insight into the meaning and reality of Jesus’ love.

== The Historicity of the Passion ==

It may be observed from the outset that Jesus’ plan to redeem the world was anything but apologetical or popular, for the idea of a suffering Messiah was thought to be a curse by His Jewish and gentile contemporaries (Dt 21:23, Gal 3:13, I Cor 12:3).<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 350.</ref> Nevertheless, Jesus, knowing what would befall Him,<ref>This is clear from the pre-planning implicit in the institution of the Eucharist, and also from the multiple predictions of His passion (Mt 16:13-23, 17:22-23, 20:17-19; Mk 8:27-33, 9:30-32, 10:32-34; Lk 9:18-22, 9:43-45, and 18:31-34).</ref> proceeded resolutely toward Jerusalem. In light of our discussion of the Eucharist, His plan had but one objective: to join with the Father in an act of unconditional self-gift (love) for the salvation of humankind. Even though Jesus was convinced of His vindication and resurrection (see Unit II-L, Section II), He must have known that the crucifixion would be viewed as a scandal, and used against Him by His critics. Nevertheless, He viewed the passion as being indispensable to His mission. Why? Because He associated the passion with gift of self, which, as is clear from His institution of the Eucharist, He associated with unconditional Love. One can see this kind of love mirrored in parents who willingly endure humiliation, and even place themselves in harm’s way, in order to protect the lives and future of their children. Jesus viewed Himself as responsible (as shepherd and brother) for all of us who were to become, through Him, the Father’s adopted children.

Before beginning a formal analysis of the historicity of the passion narratives, we will want to examine a contention of Dominic Crossan (of the Jesus Seminar) who throws the historicity of these narratives into question by suggesting that they are derivatives of the (Gnostic) gospel of Peter. The gospel of Peter is a narrative of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. It consists of sixty verses and has been dated to Papyri originating in about 200 AD.<ref>See Koester 1990, pp. 216-17.</ref> Crossan ignores the fact that there is no evidence for the gospel of Peter prior to 200 AD, and makes a radical suggestion that it was the only source from which the passion narratives of the four canonical Gospels were derived:

<blockquote>Composed by the fifties C.E., and possibly at Sepphoris in Galilee, it [the Cross Gospel in the Gospel of Peter] is the single source of the intracanonical passion narratives.<ref>See Crossan 1991, p. 429. See also Crossan 1985, pp. 132-34.</ref> <ref>Quarles 2006, p. 119.</ref></blockquote>

Charles Quarles sums up Crossan’s conclusions from his radical contention (which does not enjoy wide acceptance in the scholarly community<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 106.</ref>) as follows:

<blockquote>The GP is more a product of the author’s creative literary imagination than a reflection of eyewitness accounts of actual events. Thus, if the GP is the single source for the canonical narratives of the Passion and resurrection, the canonical Gospels are unreliable revisions of an unreliable tradition. None of the Gospels could then be trusted to provide historically reliable testimony about the final events in the life of the historical Jesus.</blockquote>

Quarles shows this claim to be virtually untenable in the light of textual analysis. First, Crossan contends that the parallels between Matthew and the gospel of Peter regarding the Pharisees gathering before Pilate and expressing concern about a staged resurrection on the third day, the guarding and sealing of the tomb of Jesus, and the description of the Jews as “the people” shows Matthean dependence upon the gospel of Peter. Quarles shows precisely the opposite after studying the redactional tendencies of Matthew and the gospel of Peter. Following Gundry,<ref>Gundry 1994, p. 584.</ref> Quarles shows that these texts are a series of “Mattheanisms,” particularly the use of the words “disciple,” “steal,” and “''mēpote''” – “lest” (except once where the gospel of Peter is clearly following Matthew in a subjunctive construction). He quotes John P. Meier by way of conclusion:

<blockquote>When it comes to who is dependent on whom, all the signs point to Matthew’s priority…. The clause is a tissue of Matthean vocabulary and style, a vocabulary and style almost totally absent from the rest of the Gospel of Peter.<ref>Meier 1991, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

Secondly, there are doctrines and sayings in the gospel of Peter which do not occur in the canonical Gospels or the New Testament. For example, Jesus’ preaching to those who have fallen asleep (to those who have died). Quarles notes in this regard:

<blockquote>If the emerging consensus of interpretation regarding 1Peter is correct, the presence of the reference to preaching to those who sleep in the Gospel of Peter suggests that the document was composed no earlier than the first quarter of the second century.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 112.</ref></blockquote>

The same holds true for other sayings, such as the “Lord’s day,” which is mentioned in the Gospel of Peter 9:35 and 12:50, but only appears in the New Testament in the Book of Revelations (approximately 90 AD). The Gospels used the more primitive expression “the first day of the week.”<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 113.</ref>

Thirdly, the description of the resurrection in the gospel of Peter is “fantastic and quite at odds with the descriptions that appear in the canonical Gospels”:

<blockquote>…as the three men exited the tomb, a cross, apparently floating through the air, followed them. …[T]he cross was capable of speech. A heavenly voice asked, “Did you preach to those who are sleeping?” and the cross replied, “Yes.”<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

We have already seen (with respect to Jesus’ miracles) the tendency of the later Gnostic gospels to move from the balanced and mature perspective of the canonical Gospels to an exaggerated, fantastic, and immature perspective (see Unit II-G, Section II). The gospel of Peter here is no different than the gospels of Thomas and Philip.

Fourthly, the “apologetical case” for Jesus’ resurrection (responding to Jewish objections at the time) is more developed in the gospel of Peter than in the Gospel of Matthew, and

<blockquote>no sensible explanation for Matthew’s elimination of helpful apologetic material available to him from the Cross Gospel exists. This suggests that the author of the gospel of Peter depended on Matthew’s Gospel but revised it in order to present a more compelling case for the resurrection.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 118.</ref></blockquote>

For these and other reasons, Quarles (along with Meier) hold Crossan’s position to be untenable , giving rise to the conclusion:

<blockquote>…[I]f the canonical Gospels are the earliest record of the Passion and resurrection, as this paper suggests, and if these contain the narratives based on eyewitness accounts, as the earliest church testimony affirms and as the internal evidence suggests, the earliest narratives of Jesus’ death and resurrection may be viewed as prophecy fulfilled rather than prophecy historicized, and speculation that Jesus was not even buried, much less raised, is groundless.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 120.</ref></blockquote>

We may now proceed to the question of the historicity of the passion narratives. Though all four Gospels portray the passion through narratives aimed at different audiences, and these narratives have different styles and redactional emphases, it does not mean that they do not possess an extensive historical core.<ref>According to Brown: “I see no need for such a dichotomy between acknowledging the narrative form of the passion and maintaining a respect for historical issues” (Brown 1994(b), p. 14).</ref>

There are remarkable agreements among the four lengthy passion narratives, but this does not automatically constitute multiple attestation because Matthew and Luke saw and made recourse to the Marcan narrative. Nevertheless, as will be explained below, Mark and John did not have knowledge of each other’s narratives, and so the many similarities between these two narratives constitute a very strong form of multiple attestation. Before considering this window into the historicity of the passion narratives, we must consider two more fundamental questions which are elucidated by Raymond Brown in his extensive two-volume analysis of the passion entitled: ''The Death of the Messiah''<ref>Brown 1994(b).</ref> :

(1) Did Jesus’ disciples have access to the data recounted in the various passion narratives? (Section I.A), and

(2) How can the criteria of historicity be applied to the passion narratives? (Section I.B)

=== Did Jesus’ Disciples Have Access to the Data Recounted in the Various Passion Narratives? ===

It is not my intention to respond to the extreme skepticism of Koester,<ref>Koester 1980, p. 127.</ref> Crossan,<ref>Crossan 1988, p. 405.</ref> and other members of the Jesus Seminar. Raymond Brown has done this quite well.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), pp. 13-24. See also the “Analysis” sections of each major part of his work, in which historicity is discussed.</ref> My objective is to briefly use the criteria of historicity<ref>See Chapter 6, Section III. Also Brown 1994(b), pp. 22-24.</ref> to uncover those parts of the narratives which may be reasonably and responsibly shown to have come from an early Palestinian passion tradition,<ref>Raymond Brown accepts the existence of such a tradition which may have been linked to eyewitnesses. He qualifies this scholarly opinion as follows: “I have accepted the likely existence of history and tradition behind the heavily scripturally reflective, kerygmatically oriented, and theologically organized PNs [passion narratives] of the Gospels…” (Brown 1994(b), p. 22).</ref> and which may also be linked to the Jesus of history.

Jesus’ crucifixion is so well attested by both Christian and non-Christian sources that it is as close to certain as any historical datum from the first century can be. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus makes explicit reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Annals (15.44) when speaking about Nero’s blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome:

<blockquote>Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.<ref>Cited in Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the authenticity of this passage, but the majority of mainstream scholars concur with Kirby that:

<blockquote>The most persuasive case is made by those who maintain that Tacitus made use of a first century Roman document concerning the nature and status of the Christian religion. As to the reliability of that source, following normal historical practice, it is prudently assumed to be accurate until demonstrated otherwise. The reference from Tacitus constitutes prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus.<ref>Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus’ crucifixion is also attested by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Recall from Unit II-F, Section I. that Josephus was writing for a Roman audience in about 93 AD, and that there are Christian interpolations in the text of Antiquities in which his testimony to Jesus is contained. As noted in Unit II-F, many mainstream scholars consider the italicized sections in the testimony cited below to be authentic:

<blockquote>''Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.'' He was [the] Christ. ''And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,'' those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. ''And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.''<ref>Josephus 1965, 18:3.3.</ref></blockquote>

Again, this non-Christian testimony to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is explicit and highly probable. There are other non-Christian testimonies to Jesus’ crucifixion, but they are far less significant than those of Tacitus and Josephus.

In addition to non-Christian testimony, Jesus’ crucifixion is attested by almost every New Testament source (e.g., the four Gospels, Acts, most of the Pauline letters, 1Peter, and the Letter to the Hebrews), it is recorded in virtually all of the primitive kerygmas,<ref>Very early proclamations of the faith recorded in Acts and the Pauline letters. For a list see Chapter 3, Section I.A.</ref> and is central to the early Church’s interpretation of Jesus and itself. Finally, one is confronted with the questions: “Why would the early Church have given detailed descriptions of the public humiliation and execution of their Messiah and Lord if it had not been historically true? What would have been the point of recounting a story that undermined its apologetical appeal?” In light of this, the crucifixion of Jesus within its proper setting (i.e., a public execution entailing an arrest, trial, and conviction) must be considered incontestable.

What about the details surrounding Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion? Are the events and details recounted in the passion narratives also historically accurate? Some critics, such as Dominic Crossan, believe that it is impossible to say because (as he gratuitously asserts) there were no eyewitnesses to the event:

<blockquote>It seems to me most likely that those closest to Jesus knew almost nothing about the details of the event. They knew only that Jesus had been crucified, outside Jerusalem, at the time of Passover, and probably through some conjunction of imperial and sacerdotal authority.<ref>Crossan 1988 ,p. 405</ref></blockquote>

Brown demolishes Crossan’s contention by pointing to a seemingly obvious and vexing difficulty:

<blockquote>[Crossan] does not explain why he thinks this “most likely,” granted the well-founded tradition that those closest to Jesus had followed him for a long period of time, day and night. Did they suddenly lose all interest, not even taking the trouble to inquire about what must have been a most traumatic moment of their lives?<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 15-16.</ref></blockquote>

Brown explains the implications of his question through a series of virtually unassailable historical judgments:

<blockquote>Yet as we move back from the Gospel narratives to Jesus himself, ultimately there were eyewitnesses and earwitnesses who were in a potion to know the broad lines of Jesus’ passion. He was accompanied in his ministry by a group of disciples known as the Twelve, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the arrest of Jesus was the occasion of his being separated from them. It is inconceivable that they showed no concern about what happened to Jesus after the arrest. True, there is no Christian claim that they were present during the legal proceedings against him, Jewish or Roman; but it is absurd to think that some information was not available to them about why Jesus has hanged on a cross. The whole purpose of crucifixion, after all, was to publicize that certain crimes would be severely punished. (That is the sense in which I include “earwitness”: hearing what was publicly said about the condemnation of Jesus.) The crucifixion itself was public, and nothing suggests that the burial was secret.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 14.</ref></blockquote>

Attempts to present scenarios contrary to Brown’s in this regard truly verge on the illogical, unreasonable, and inconceivable; and they betray motives other than that of seeking the truth.

Furthermore, there is remarkable correspondence between the passion narrative and the Gospel of John, and recent archeological evidence uncovered by Charlesworth and von Wahlde which strongly suggests that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Von Wahlde summarizes his findings as follows:

<blockquote>The significance of this [archeological evidence] for our appreciation of the historical accuracy of John’s reports is considerable. Not only does John provide several details present in the Synoptics (the name of the place [Golgotha], its location outside the city walls), but he goes on to provide more detail than the other Gospels…details not essential to the narrative. If the presence of such details at first makes verification more difficult, the fact that they are corroborated by archaeological and other means [at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem<ref>Charlesworth reports: “Archaeologists have also found the remains of a city wall to the east of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It was built sometime before Herod the Great. What is surprising is the discovery that the present city wall to the west of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the ‘third wall’ built by Agrippa between 41 and 44. This wall reveals that Golgotha was outside Jerusalem’s walls before the early forties, and Jesus was crucified on Golgotha in 30 (or perhaps 33)” (Charlesworth 2006(b), p. 31; italics mine).</ref>] demonstrates not only that the Johannine account contains remarkably accurate knowledge but also that the Gospel is in fact able to serve as a source of unique knowledge about the crucifixion and burial of Jesus.<ref>von Wahlde 2006, p. 582. See also Charlesworth 2006(b), pp. 31-37.</ref></blockquote>

This archaeological corroboration of John’s passion narrative also suggests the presence of eyewitnesses who were not only aware of the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, but also reported it to the authors of the earliest passion traditions.

Presuming, then, that there were eyewitnesses, and that they would have wanted to see or hear as much as possible about the One who was central to their lives, what could they have witnessed? They could have witnessed Jesus’ betrayal by Judas and His apprehension by the Jewish authorities. They could have also heard about any public declaration of Jesus’ charge, conviction, and sentence. They could have known who was involved in the charging, convicting, and sentencing. They could have had knowledge of public events surrounding the conviction (e.g., the release of Barabbas, or Jewish authorities stirring up the crowd). They could have witnessed the carrying of the cross and any outward signs of persecution or torture that might have preceded His journey to Golgotha (e.g., scourging or crowning with thorns). They could have witnessed the crucifixion itself, the public inscription of Jesus’ offense, the people crucified with Jesus, and they could have heard His final words, seen His death, and witnessed His burial. Evidently, they would have been a party to certain events themselves (e.g., cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant and denials).

Most of the above “witnessable” data was apologetically unappealing and presented obstacles to conversion. What would an early Jewish or gentile prospective convert find attractive about the public humiliation and execution of a messiah/leader? How did all the gory details of this crucifixion better establish Jesus’ role as messiah/leader? How would prospective Jewish converts have reacted to the contempt and rejection of Jesus by Jewish authorities? How would Peter’s denials and the apostles’ flight from Jerusalem have added to the Church’s “good image”? How does Jesus being numbered among criminals (e.g., Barabbas and the criminals crucified with Him) help the Church’s credibility among law-abiding citizens? In almost every case, the presentation of the “witnessable” data seems to undermine the early Christian’s image, credibility, and apologetical appeal. Why would they have presented these data in such detail if they had such potential and real damaging effects? I can think of only one reason. Because they were essentially true.

Can we render the same positive historical judgment about other details in the passion narratives beyond the basic “witnessable” data mentioned above? At this juncture, our pursuit of history becomes far more hazy and complex, because the witnessable data moves from eyewitnesses to catechists and teachers who need to interpret these traumatic (and unappealing) events to converts and potential converts. The natural tendency of such catechists, who were reared within Palestinian Judaism, would have been to use Scripture as a means of interpretation.<ref>The conjecture of some members of the Jesus Seminar that the early narratives of Jesus’ passion were a synthesis of interpreted Scriptures rather than an account of what really happened (Koester 1980, p. 127) is simply backwards. It is far more likely that the earliest traditions recounted what happened, allowing catechists to add sections later to interpret them. As Brown notes, “… [T]here is no evidence in the Pauline formula that scriptural reflection caused the creation of the basic incidents of the passion; far more plausibly it caused the selection and interpretation of certain features in an outline of death, burial, resurrection, and appearance that had been dictated by the early Christian memory of what happened” (Brown 1994(b), p. 16).</ref> Some of these attempts would be easily discernable because they would be introduced by phrases like “this was to fulfill the Scripture….” However, other Scripture passages might be on the lips of Jesus, such as the last words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (citing Psalm 22). The historian must now make the judgment of whether this was placed on the lips of Jesus, or whether Jesus selected these words for Himself (see below, Section II). Obviously, Jesus was accustomed to using Scripture to interpret His life, mission, and even crucifixion as much as, if not more than any later interpreter.

The historian’s task becomes even more complex when these traditions are woven into a single narrative. The editors of such narratives would have to be somewhat creative in synthesizing the various traditions. They might be inclined to embellish sayings or dialogue if that helped with the interpretation of recounted events. They could add thematic and even dramatic emphases to the narrative to further their catechetical or theological objectives. At this juncture, the historian must try to peel back the redactions of editors (especially the Evangelists) in order to get closer to the testimony of eyewitnesses which stand behind the narratives.

Recall from Unit II-B, Section I. that the first task is to get back to the primitive traditions that underlie the Gospel narratives, and then to judge the historicity of these primitive traditions by means of historical criteria and techniques to render judgments within a typical historical range:

<blockquote>…certain, very probable, probable, possible, not impossible. “Certain” has nothing to do with the certitude of mathematics or the physical sciences; it refers to the certitude we have in ordinary experience about the things we encounter or are reported to us in writing or orally.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 22.</ref></blockquote>

The earliest passion narrative is in the Gospel of Mark. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke were both aware of Mark’s narrative and relied on it. As will be seen in the next section, John was not aware of Mark’s narrative, but he made recourse to a primitive tradition(s) very similar to the ones used by Mark. This coincidence is extremely useful to historians because it allows for an application of the criterion of multiple attestation, which, in turn, helps historians make judgments about whether various verses in the narratives can be considered to be part of a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition.

In Section I.B, we will take a brief look at these criteria; in Section II we will consider the historicity of Jesus’ last words in Mark; and in Section III we will attempt to uncover the pre-Marcan tradition in Mark’s narrative, and then render some general historical judgments.

=== Application of the Criteria of Historicity to the Passion Narratives ===

The reader may wish to review the descriptions and examples of the criteria and techniques for determining the historicity of Gospel passages, which are summarized in Unit II-B, Section I. A brief description of three of these criteria will be given with particular examples from the passion narratives: (1) multiple attestation, (2) embarrassment, and (3) coherence with Jewish/Roman customs.

The reader will want to recall two caveats about assessment of historicity mentioned in Unit II-B, Section I. namely:

(a) Criteria for historicity can show the likelihood of a particular Gospel datum being historical, but the absence of criteria for historicity does not show the improbability of a particular Gospel datum being historical; the non-applicability of historical criteria shows only that we have no way of assessing historicity of a Gospel datum either positively or negatively. Thus, far more data in the passion narratives (and in the Gospels, for that matter) is historical than can ever be corroborated through historical criteria.

(b) Too rigorous an application of historical criteria can unnecessarily circumscribe corroboratable data from the Gospels. If one says, “The only data that I will accept as historical are those which are attested to by four out of five independent sources” (say, Mark, Q, special Luke, and John, leaving out only special Matthew), then one will limit oneself to very few Gospel data. If one goes even further, and requires four independent Gospel sources plus an external source (such as Tacitus and Josephus), the Gospel will be reduced to the non-interpolated statements of Tacitus and Josephus. Again, if one claims that multiple attestation is not enough – there must also be corroboration from another historical criterion (say, embarrassment or coherence to Jewish culture, etc.), then the field of acceptable data is correspondingly narrowed. The judicious use of historical criteria by mainstream exegetes such as Raymond Brown, N.T. Wright, and John P. Meier can avert unnecessary proscriptions of Gospel data, and lead to reasonable and responsible corroboration of a large range of Gospel data. We may now proceed to the three historical criteria.

1) Multiple Attestation. Recall that multiple attestation does not occur when there is repetition of passages among the three synoptic Gospels, but rather when there is repetition among the five independent sources (Mark, Q, special Matthew, special Luke, and John). Matthew and Luke relied upon and used the full text of Mark. Q is another source upon which Matthew and Luke both relied. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark in their passion narratives, and so attestation among them is not significant.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 81-82.</ref> However, as will be discussed below, Mark and John were written independently of each other, and it is quite likely that neither one had any knowledge of the other’s narrative. Nevertheless, there are no less than thirty-two similarities between the two narratives. If John is truly not dependent on Mark, then these similarities would auger very strongly for a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) passion tradition(s) upon which both Evangelists relied. This pre-Marcan tradition(s) would bring us closer to eyewitness accounts of the passion and therefore to Jesus’ passion itself.

How can we be so sure that John was not directly reliant on Mark’s narrative? In virtually every part of the Gospel except the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on water, and the passion narratives, John’s material is so distinct from Mark that it is difficult to believe that John relied on Mark unless he wanted to separate himself from, or complement Mark. Most scholars in the latter half of the twentieth century do not believe that there is Johannine dependence on Mark.<ref>Brown details the long list of exegetes who support the Johannine non-dependence theory in 1994(b), p. 76, note 91.</ref>

But what about Johannine dependence on the Marcan passion narrative? As can be seen from the table above, there are so many similarities between Mark and John that the possibility of dependence must be considered. There are two significant factors militating against the dependence conjecture. First, despite the many similarities, there are many more dissimilarities in content and order between the two passion narratives.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 81.</ref> Secondly, many of the differences between Mark and John are inexplicable, if not illogical if John truly depended on Mark.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref> Why would John have put his narrative into a more scattered and strangely ordered state than Mark’s if he depended on Mark? (A love of disorder?) Why would he have omitted details in Mark which would have been of interest to him (e.g., the kiss of Judas; mention of Simon of Cyrene; the sixth and ninth hour when darkness came over the land; the derision by the crowds at the cross; the confusion regarding Elijah – even though this may have been elicited by Jesus’ last words in Mark, which are not mentioned in John; omission of three of Mark’s women witnesses – Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, as well as “other women” in Mark, versus Mary the mother of Jesus, and His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas in John). These omissions and reorderings make little sense if John truly depended on Mark. For this reason, Brown concludes:

<blockquote>Throughout the commentary I shall come again and again to what I regard as a completely illogical result if John knew Mark. For that reason I shall work with the thesis that John wrote his passion narrative independently of Mark’s.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref></blockquote>

So what is the likely scenario for the Marcan and Johannine passion narratives’ development? Brown believes that this occurred in five stages:

a) Eyewitnesses. See the rationale for these eyewitness accounts given above in Section I.A.

b) A basic catechetical outline. A basic sequence of major events was formulated soon after the events of the passion connecting the Last Supper to the arrest, then to the condemnation, then to the crucifixion, then to the burial. This sequence guided the Church’s early proclamations and catechesis as well as Eucharistic memories. This is evident from Pauline and other non-Gospel New Testament writings.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 83.</ref>

c) Pre-Gospel traditions. Widely circulated stories/traditions (probably both oral and written) were formed from eyewitness accounts about particular figures and incidents in the passion narratives (alongside the basic catechetical outline). The stories were not yet connected to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 83-84.</ref>

d) Pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine traditions. The stories and basic outline made their way toward the Marcan and Johannine communities where eventually a pre-Marcan author(s) connected many of the stories to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 84.</ref>

e) The Marcan and Johannine passion narratives. The two Evangelists used two versions of the pre-Marcan tradition along with additional pre-Gospel traditions<ref>As Soards’ table indicates, there were probably several such pre-Gospel traditions along with other narrative traditions. See Soards 1994, pp. 1492-1524.</ref> to formulate the passion narratives we have today.

It is likely that much of the “witnessable” data in the thirty-two common elements in the Marcan and Johannine narratives made their way from eyewitnesses into the pre-Gospel traditions, and then into the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition(s), and then into the Gospel narratives. This would include:

Judas as betrayer bringing soldiers with weapons; Jesus being seized; the high priest’s servant’s ear being cut off; Jesus’ exchange with His apprehenders; Jesus being subjected to a Jewish judicial inquest; Peter’s three denials; the high priest’s maid as first inquirer; Peter warming himself by the fire in the high priest’s courtyard; the bystanders as inquirers in the third denial; the Jewish authorities making accusations against Jesus to Pilate; the crowd asking for the release of Barabbas; Pilate not finding Jesus guilty of a crime; the crowds responding multiple times “Crucify Him”; Pilate having Jesus scourged; Pilate handing Jesus over to be crucified, Jesus being crowned with thorns; Jesus proceeding to Golgotha with a cross, the crucifixion of Jesus; an inscription reading “King of the Jews”; the soldiers dividing Jesus’ garments and casting lots for them; two criminals being crucified with Jesus, one on either side of Him; Mary Magdalene witnessing the crucifixion; the soldiers giving a vinegar-filled sponge to Jesus on the cross; Joseph of Arimathea obtaining permission to bury Jesus; and Joseph of Arimathea wrapping the body of Jesus in a linen cloth, and putting Him in a tomb.<ref>For evidence of the apostles knowing the place of burial and witnessing the empty tomb, see Chapter 4, Section II.B.</ref>

Some of these conclusions (as well as others) are corroborated by three other historical criteria which will be discussed in the forthcoming subsections.

(2) Embarrassment. Recall from Unit II-B, Section I., that if a particular Gospel datum was embarrassing to the Church, or undermined the reputation of the apostles, or cast dispersions upon Jesus, then we can be quite certain that the Evangelists (and the formulators of early traditions) did not invent it. Raymond Brown points to several such data in the passion narratives, for example: Judas (one of the Twelve apostles) betraying Jesus; many of the disciples not remaining with Jesus during the passion; and Peter denying Jesus three times.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> There are other data which are embarrassing, but may have been recounted for other reasons. For example, Jesus praying in the garden, “Remove this cup from me” (Mark 14:36), which looks like Jesus is trying to avoid the cross. Although this could not have been catechetically appealing, someone could conjecture that this passage is meant “to teach Christians that facing death constitutes a trial that may challenge even sincere commitment.”<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> Nevertheless, the datum is still catechetically unappealing, and would have been very risky for the Evangelist or early Church to have invented.

The same holds true for Jesus’ last words in the Gospel of Mark: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” As will be discussed below (Section II), the last words of Jesus do not enjoy multiple attestation because John does not recount them (and places a completely different phrase on the lips of Jesus – “It is finished”). Many scholars believe, however, that this datum is historical because it would have likely been misinterpreted by gentile audiences who might not have known that the phrase (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) refers to the whole of Psalm 22 (a Psalm of God redeeming the sufferings of the just one and bringing salvation through it to all nations and generations). Gentile audiences would have been likely to believe that Jesus was so demoralized that He lost His confidence in God and thought that God was forsaking Him. This misinterpretation would not only have been embarrassing to the Church, but would have led to a theology precisely contrary to what Jesus intended and to what the Church taught. It is difficult to believe that Mark would have invented this phrase as Jesus’ last words, and much more likely that John (like Luke), if he was aware of the phrase from a pre-Johannine tradition, would have dropped it since he was writing for a gentile audience that could have easily misinterpreted it.

(3) Coherence with Jewish/Roman customs. There are three elements which are relevant here: (a) coherence with Jewish customs, (b) Semitisms, and (c) coherence with Roman customs. The last area is somewhat complex<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 19ff.</ref> and not especially germane to the point of this Unit; so I will limit discussion to the first two areas.

(a) ''Correspondence with Jewish custom''. One major point bears mentioning, because it shows Mark’s<ref>The historicity of the Marcan narrative will be assessed throughout the rest of the chapter.</ref> fidelity to the Jewish customs which would have been in effect at the time of Jesus’ passion, namely, Mark’s careful recounting of how the Sanhedrin adhered to the Mishna only when it was in conformity to the Sadducee law. Blinzler notes in this regard:

<blockquote>The fact that Mk 14 and 15 juxtapose items which sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the requirements of the Mishnah was hitherto felt puzzling. The explanation is that the Sanhedrin was at that time bound by the Sadducee law, which agreed with the Mishnah only exceptionally. But if Mk 14 and 15 were a legendary construction, it would be hard to explain how the author, supposedly so uninterested in historical fact, managed to be so accurate with regard to the legal custom: to the unlikely extent, that is, that the actions of the Sanhedrin only agreed with the Mishnah when the provisions of the latter coincided with those of the Sadducees, and not otherwise.<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref></blockquote>

(b) ''Semitisms''. There is one truly remarkable Semitism recorded in the Marcan narrative, namely, Jesus’ final words: “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''.” The Marcan version of the final words is to be preferred over the Matthean one, because it is probable that Matthew tried to “clean up” Mark’s Aramaic citation of the divine name (“''Elōi''”)<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref> with the more proper Hebrew version of it (''“’Ēlî”''), which would have been recited in the synagogue.<ref>Recall that Matthew is writing for a well-educated Jewish audience, and was trying to convince them of the Messiahship of Jesus. He knew the appropriate Hebrew form of the Psalm and changed Mark’s Aramaic “Elōi” to the Hebrew “Ēli.” See Brown 1994(b), pp. 1051-1052.</ref> The fact that Matthew records the Aramaic “''sabachthani''” (instead of the more appropriate Hebrew ''ăzabtānî'') convinces most scholars that Matthew retained remnants of an original Aramaic version.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. Mark’s use of “lama” (instead of the Aramaic “lĕmā”) is not problematic because it was common practice at that time to transliterate the shewa (short “e” vowel) by “a” instead of “e.” See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. See also Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58; and Harrington 1990, p. 628.</ref>

Is Mark’s Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words truly Jesus’ words? It seems likely because much of Mark’s mixed gentile-Jewish audience would not have recognized either the Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the Psalm, which evidently compelled Mark to translate it into Greek. Why would Mark have recorded an Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words which most of his audience would not have understood? Why not simply give the Greek translation without the Aramaic? Furthermore, why give an Aramaic translation of the Psalms instead of the more proper and easily recognizable Hebrew version? The fact that Jesus may well have learned the Psalms in Aramaic and recited the Psalms in Aramaic to His Galilean audience may provide a clue to the origin of the Aramaic version of the Psalm – namely, Jesus Himself.<ref>Though Mark cites Aramaic versions of Old Testament texts elsewhere, this may be out of deference to Jesus rather than Mark’s preference.</ref> The application of other historical criteria to this question will further confirm the origin of these words in Jesus. This will be considered in the following section.

== The Final Words of Jesus ==

Given that Mark’s version of Jesus’ final words is more original than Matthew’s version, we may now return to the question of whether Mark’s version is historical. Though the Aramaic rendition of the final words is a clue to their origin in Jesus, it is not definitive because Luke gives a different version of the final words (“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” – Luke 23:46), and so does John (“It is finished” – John 19:30). Why should Mark be preferred to Luke and John?

With respect to Luke’s version of the final words, there are four reasons to suspect that Mark’s version is closer to Jesus’ own. First, Luke was aware of Mark’s version of the final words, and would have had to have intentionally changed them. Secondly, Luke prefers to shift the focus from Jesus’ feelings of desolation to Jesus’ trust. Instead of Psalm 22:2 (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”), Luke portrays Jesus reciting Psalm 31:6 (“Into your hands I commend my spirit”), which effects this shift in focus. Luke’s preference to portray Jesus as confident (and eliminate any hint of spiritual disturbance) is evidenced in his elimination of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ anxiety in the garden of Gethsemane (“My soul is very sorrowful unto death”). It is much easier to believe that Luke has continued his redactional policy of eliminating Marcan references to Jesus’ anxiety than to believe that Luke’s version of Jesus’ words is more original. Thirdly, Luke substitutes “Father” for the Psalmist’s reference to “God,” which is very likely a redaction. Finally, Luke selects a Psalm passage which speaks to Jesus’ Spirit, which is a clear focus of his Gospel and an allusion to the Holy Spirit, which is the focus of the Acts of the Apostles.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1067.</ref> For this reason, most scholars believe that the Lukan version is a redaction of the Marcan original.

What about John’s version of the last words (“It is finished”)? Unlike Luke, John was not aware of the Marcan passion narrative, yet there is significant evidence that Mark and John borrowed from a common pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition (see above, Section I.B.1). Does John’s very different version of Jesus’ final words imply that the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition did not have any version of Jesus’ final words (and that both Mark and John invented their own in the absence of a more original version)? The answer is probably ‘no,’ because of light shed upon the question by the historical criterion of embarrassment.

Recall from Section I.B.2 that John’s predominately gentile audience could have misinterpreted Jesus’ last words as recorded by Mark. Indeed, as we just saw, Luke certainly thought this was a possibility for his gentile audience. The majority of John’s audience would probably not have recognized Psalm 22 in the Aramaic expression, “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani'',” and they would not have known that this first line referred to the entire Psalm. Therefore, they would not have known that Jesus’ last words were a prayer of trust in God which would lead not only to the vindication of His suffering, but to universal salvation for all humankind for all time (see below in this section).<ref>As Brown notes, “Perhaps the most frequently offered argument for softening the dour import of the Mark/Matt death cry is based on the general context of Ps 22. Jesus cites the opening verse of a psalm that continues for thirty more verses. By the end the psalmist will take a positive view: Rejoicing, he will proclaim that he has survived the danger and that after all God did not spurn him or ‘turn His face away’ (Ps 22:25). Accordingly some would invoke a hermeneutic principle that a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context” (Brown 1994(b), pp. 1049-1050).</ref> Thus (as the Johannine author very probably perceived), they would have interpreted these words to mean that Jesus felt abandoned by the Father, which is precisely the opposite of what the Psalm intends, what the early Church believed, and what Jesus intended. Not only would this have been confusing and misleading to gentile members of the early Church; it would have been apologetically unappealing and embarrassing to the Church in gentile regions. Thus, John, like Luke, would have had everything to lose (and nothing to gain) by retaining these words on the lips of the dying Jesus.

Therefore, there is considerable reason to believe prima facie that John, like Luke, would have been inclined to change Jesus’ dying words from those of Psalm 22 to something less misleading and more consistent with Jesus’ intention and the belief of the early Church. He decides upon the simple phrase, “It is finished,” which refers to Jesus’ project of redemption, the completion of which John has been pointing to throughout the “Book of Glory” (chapters 13-21).

This leads to the obvious question of why Mark (who was addressing a mixed gentile-Jewish audience) would have retained Psalm 22 as Jesus’ final words when many of his audience members would have been likely to misinterpret them in the same way as John’s and Luke’s audiences. Before responding, it is worth noting that this question does not apply to Matthew with the same force as Mark because the majority of Matthew’s audience was Jewish. Many in that audience would have been educated enough to see Psalm 22 through Matthew’s Hebraic version of it, and many would have understood that the first line of the Psalm referred to the whole Psalm. Brown points to a well-known hermeneutical principle in this regard:

<blockquote>…a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 1050.</ref></blockquote>

In the case of Psalm 22, the context speaks of trust in God, vindication, and salvation for the world.

However, the above hermeneutical principle would not have applied to the gentile members of Mark’s audience; so why did he retain these words? I think there is only one plausible explanation – namely, that they are in fact the final words of Jesus. It would be inconceivable to suggest that Mark invented these words to place on the lips of Jesus given the probability of their misinterpretation (with significant negative consequences) by a large segment of his audience. Therefore, it seems likely that Mark received these words from either a pre-Marcan tradition or from Peter (for whom Mark was interpreter). In either case, Mark must have believed that these words were truly those of Jesus, and decided to retain them in their Aramaic form precisely for this reason. There does not appear to be any other reasonable motive for his taking the risk of significant misinterpretation and apologetically unappealing embarrassment.

So if we consider “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''” to be the dying words of the historical Jesus, and if we apply Brown’s hermeneutical principle to Jesus Himself (implying that Jesus expected informed listeners to “be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context”), then it seems likely that the dying Jesus was praying the whole of Psalm 22 to His Father while giving His listeners an insight into how He interpreted His sacrificial death through that prayer. Mally notes in this regard:

<blockquote>As a quotation of an OT Ps, it can hardly be taken literally as an expression of real despair or dereliction. Rather, Jesus applies to himself an OT passage that sums up the suffering of the upright individual who turns to his God in the stress of hostile opposition and its ensuing depression. In using the Ps, Jesus does not express the feeling that his life’s work has failed and that God has therefore abandoned him; he identifies himself with a biblical precedent, the persecuted upright man ''who has trusted in Yahweh'', and found in him ''the source of his consolation and ultimate triumph'' [italics mine].<ref>Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58. See also J. Gnilka 1959, pp. 294-97.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, Jesus’ reference to Psalm 22 is an expression of trust and confidence in the Father that His suffering will result in the triumph of His mission. As noted in the previous Unit, that mission is actualized for all future generations through the gift of His presence and unconditional redeeming Love in the Eucharist.

A closer look at the Psalm may give a deep insight into the panoply of Jesus’ thoughts and feelings at the time of His crucifixion. The Psalm may be divided into three parts:

(1) “2-22, the complaint, with repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence (4-6; 10-11),”<ref>Murphy 1968, p. 579.</ref>

(2) “23-32, thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share (23-27),<ref>Murphy 1968, p. 579.</ref>” and

(3) the worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh (28-32).

Each part will be presented in turn.

(1) Complaint, repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence.

''My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?''

''Why are you so far from saving me,''

''so far from the words of my groaning?''

''Oh my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,''

''and by night, but I have no rest.''

Then, the psalmist shifts perspective as he does several times throughout the Psalm, and introduces the theme of God’s holiness and grandeur, worthy of praise and trust:

''Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;''

''you are the praise of Israel.''

''In you our fathers put their trust;''

''they trusted and you delivered them.''

''They cried to you and were saved;''

''in you they trusted and were not disappointed.''

The psalmist then turns back to the deplorable nature of his condition:

''But I am a worm and not a man,''

''scorned by men and despised by the people.''

''All who see me mock me;''

''they hurl insults, shaking their heads:''

''“He trusted in the Lord;''

''let the Lord rescue him.''

''Let Him deliver him''

''since He delights in him."''

The uncanny resemblance between the psalmist’s words and the events taking place around Jesus give one pause. After describing the inauthentic words of the crowd (who believe that the Lord will not fulfill the trust of the psalmist), the psalmist shifts back to his fervent trust in the Lord:

''Yet you brought me out of the womb;''

''you made me trust in you;''

''even at my mother’s breast.''

''From birth I was cast upon you;''

''from my mother’s womb you have been my God.''

Having renewed his trust in the Lord, the psalmist makes an earnest petition for help:

''Do not be far from me,''

''for trouble is near''

''and there is no one to help.''

''Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.''

''Roaring lions tearing their prey''

''open their mouths wide against me.''

Then the psalmist uses the same words seen in the suffering servant song (Is 52:13-53:12) and Jesus’ eucharistic words:

''I am poured out like water,''

''and all my bones are out of joint.''

''My heart has turned to wax;''

''it has melted away within me.''

''My strength is dried up like a potsherd,''

''and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;''

''you lay me in the dust of death.''

In continuing his description of his suffering to Yahweh, the psalmist again describes events uncannily similar to Jesus’ crucifixion:

''Dogs have surrounded me;''

''a band of evil men has encircled me,''

''they have pierced my hands and my feet.''

''I can count all my bones;''

''people stare and gloat over me.''

''They divide my garments among them''

''and cast lots for my clothing.''

The psalmist makes another earnest petition for God’s help and consolation:

''But you, oh Lord, be not far off;''

''oh my Strength, come quickly to help me.''

''Deliver my life from the sword,''

''my precious life from the power of the dogs.''

''Rescue me from the mouth of the lion;''

''save me from the horns of the wild oxen.''

(2) Thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share. The psalmist then reaffirms his trust and confidence in the Lord, as if to say that he will live beyond his current persecution to bring the praise of the Lord’s name to all who fear him:

''I will declare your name to my brothers;''

''in the congregation I will praise you.''

''You who fear the Lord, praise him!''

''All you descendents of Jacob, honor him!''

''Revere him, all you descendents of Israel!''

The psalmist then gives his reason for his confidence in God, and his belief in his future:

''For he has not despised or disdained''

''the suffering of the afflicted one;''

''he has not hidden his face from him''

''but has listened to his cry for help.''

''From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;''

''before those who fear you I will fulfill my vows.''

The psalmist then moves into a prophetic, and even messianic tone, speaking of signs of the new Jerusalem; messianic signs which Jesus says, when quoting the prophet Isaiah, are being fulfilled in Himself:<ref>See Matt. 11:5ff and Lk 4:18ff, referring to Is 61:1ff.</ref>

''The poor will eat and be satisfied;''

''they who seek the Lord will praise Him –''

''may your hearts live forever.''

(3) The worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh. The psalmist then confidently suggests universality of salvation arising out of Yahweh’s mercy:

''All the ends of the earth''

''will remember and turn to the Lord,''

''and all the families of the nations''

''will bow down before Him,''

''for dominion belongs to the Lord''

''and He rules over the nations.''

The psalmist then suggests that Yahweh’s salvation will extend to all those who are raised on high, and those who are in the grave:

''All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;''

''all who go down to the dust will kneel before Him –''

''those who cannot keep themselves alive.''

''Posterity will serve Him;''

''future generations will be told about the Lord.''

''They will proclaim His righteousness''

''to a people yet unborn –''

''for He has done it.''

This Psalm on the dying lips of Jesus is quite remarkable. In the midst of recounting events quite similar to His crucifixion, the Psalm expresses His mind and heart as He cries out for help, as He is overwhelmingly confident in that help, and as He sees the ultimate result of that help in a salvation that will not only reach to the ends of the earth, but to all future generations on the earth, and even to those who are raised on high and those who “go down to the dust.” Thus, the Psalm connects Jesus’ torment with His confidence in the Father as He looks beyond His suffering, beyond Jerusalem, beyond the present age, and beyond earthly existence, to a redemption which will take hold in the life of God Himself. Jesus’ eucharistic words are not only consonant with those of the psalm, they give the psalm’s words ultimate meaning and reality; for they provide the vehicle through which Jesus’ person and love will save universally and eternally.

== The Passion of Jesus in Mark and in Pre-Marcan Tradition (14:32-15:37) ==

Mark gives us the oldest account of the passion. Though it tries to reconcile the passion with Old Testament prophesy, its primary objective is not apologetical.<ref>See Matt. 11:5ff and Lk 4:18ff, referring to Is 61:1ff.</ref> Rather, it intends to give an account of the sufferings freely endured by Jesus and “to show clearly what persons and what authorities were responsible for the death of Jesus and the extent of their guilt.”<ref>“This explains the information given about the members of the Sanhedrin (14:1, 43, 53, 55, 63-65;15:1, 10f., 31 f.; contrast 15:43-46), Judas (14:10f., 18-21, 42, 45), the crowd (14:65; 15:8, 11-15, 29f., 35; cf. 15:40f.; 16:1-8; 15:21), Pilate (15:2-15, 43-45) and the Roman soldiers (15:16-20, 21-27; cf. 15:39)” (Blinzler 1968-70, p. 351.)</ref> Mark believes that this is Jesus’ central salvific act and uses it to frame the rest of his Gospel. As Blinzler notes:

<blockquote>Mark already had before him such a relatively fixed account from oral tradition, as the insertion of 14:3-9 shows, and he enlarged it with further matter, e.g., with “memoirs” of Peter (apart from 14:3-9) such as the account of the denial (14:54, 66-72). …[T]he Gospel of Mark has been called, not unjustly, “a passion-narrative with a long introduction” (M. Kähler).<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 351.</ref></blockquote>

As noted above, there is substantial New Testament and extra-testamental evidence for the historicity of Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion.<ref>See Section I of this Unit.</ref> Many other facts surrounding the crucifixion are also very probably historical. By using the criteria and techniques elucidated above (Sections I.A and B), we can first ascertain what material from Mark’s passion narrative probably came from a pre-Marcan tradition, and the material from that tradition which could have come from eyewitness accounts. Scholars have worked diligently on these tasks for over a century, and it is beyond the scope of this study to report comprehensively on their findings.<ref>See Soards 1994, pp. 1502-1517.</ref> My objective is only to give a report about where the preponderance of scholarly opinion lies with regard to an early pre-Marcan tradition and the historicity of the facts within that tradition.

There is a strong likelihood that Mark made recourse to a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which he redacted and stylized to give coherence and meaning to this exceedingly significant event for the Christian Church.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), pp. 20-22.</ref> There is a wide variety of opinion about which verses originated with this pre-Marcan tradition(s) and which ones originated with Mark. Marion Soards has gathered a tremendous amount of data from 34 scholars representing a wide range of theological and exegetical perspectives.<ref>See Soards 1994, pp. 1492-1524.</ref> I have taken the liberty of presenting the Revised Standard Version of the Marcan passion narrative, and indicating the likelihood that each of its verses originated with a pre-Marcan tradition or with Mark himself according to the following key:<ref>I relied completely on Soards’ chart of scholars in Soards 1994, pp. 1502-1517. The key reflects what the majority of scholars assessed by Soards believe about the Marcan or pre-Marcan origins of particular verses.</ref>

Bold A large majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Italics A small majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Bold Italics The scholarly community is about evenly split on whether this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition, or with Mark himself.

Normal font The majority of the scholarly community believes that this verse originated with Mark (and is therefore a Marcan redaction).

Mark Chapter 14

32 They went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and He said to His disciples, “Sit here, while I pray.” 33 And He took with Him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. 34 ''And He said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch.”'' 35 And going a little farther, He fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. 36 ''And He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt.” And He came and found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour?'' 38 ''' ''Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”'' ''' 39 And again He went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 ''' ''And again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer Him.'' ''' 41 ''And He came the third time, and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.'' 42 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”

43 And immediately, while He was still speaking Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I shall kiss is the man; seize Him and lead Him away safely.” And when he came, he went up to Him at once, and said, “Master!” And he kissed Him. And they laid hands on Him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” And they all forsook Him, and fled.

51 ''And a young man followed Him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.''

53 And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. And Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death; but they found none. 56 ''' ''For many bore false witness against Him, and their witness did not agree.'' ''' 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against Him, saying, “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet not even so did their testimony agree. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you? 61 ''' ''But He was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked Him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”'' ''' 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”<ref>I relied completely on Soards’ chart of scholars in Soards 1994, pp. 1502-1517. The key reflects what the majority of scholars assessed by Soards believe about the Marcan or pre-Marcan origins of particular verses.</ref> 63 ''' ''And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard His blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned Him as deserving death.'' ''' 65 ''And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to strike Him, saying to Him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received Him with blows.''

66 ''' ''And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came;'' ''' 67 ''and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway.'' 69 ''' ''And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.”'' ''' 70 ''But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.” 71 But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.”'' 72 ''' ''And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.'' '''

Mark Chapter 15

1 And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. And Pilate asked Him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And He answered him “You have said so.” And the chief priests accused Him of many things. And Pilate again asked Him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered.

Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they asked. And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. And he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered Him up. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” And they cried out again, “Crucify Him.” And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him.” So, Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

And the soldiers led Him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. And they clothed Him in a purple cloak, and placing a crown of thorns they put it on Him. And they began to salute Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck His head with a reed, and spat upon Him, and they knelt down in homage to Him. And when they had mocked Him, they stripped Him of the purple cloak, and put His own clothes on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him.

And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry His cross. And they brought Him to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). And they offered Him wine mingled with myrrh; but He did not take it. And they crucified Him, and divided His garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour, when they crucified Him. And the inscription of the charge against Him read, “The King of the Jews.” And with Him they crucified two robbers, one on His right and one on His left. And those who passed by derided Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 ''' ''So also the chief priests mocked Him to one another with the scribes, saying, “He saved others; He cannot save Himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with Him also reviled Him.'' '''

And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” Which means, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Behold, He is calling Elijah.” And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to Him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down.” And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.

38 ''' ''And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing Him, saw that He thus breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the son of God!”'' '''

''' ''There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome,'' ''' 41 who, when He was in Galilee, followed Him, and ministered to Him; and also many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

42 ''' ''And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath,'' ''' 43 ''Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.'' 44 And Pilate wondered if He were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether He was already dead. 45 ''' ''And when he learned from the centurion that He was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.'' ''' 46 ''And he bought a linen shroud, and taking Him down, wrapped Him in the linen shroud, and laid Him in a tomb which has been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.'' 47 ''' ''Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where He was laid.'' '''

As can be seen from the above, most scholars consider the vast majority of the passion narrative to have come from a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which would presumably include some accounts from Peter. Notice that the probable Marcan redactions are not concerned with the torment, crucifixion, and death of Jesus. They are meant to explain who is primarily guilty (i.e., Judas, the chief priests, and the council), who is less culpable (i.e., Pilate), and who is ironically the prophetic spokesman of the meaning of the passion (i.e., the centurion). They also center on Mark’s interpretation of why Jesus was accused of blasphemy (i.e., identifying Himself with the eschatological Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14). If these elements are “bracketed,” the passion story retains its poignant central core, which likely represents the traditions which Mark received as he prepared his narrative.

The question of whether the pre-Marcan tradition is faithful to accounts from eyewitnesses and earwitnesses is more difficult to ascertain. One cannot assume that a verse was witnessed simply because it was included in a pre-Marcan tradition. As was made clear in Section I.B, the pre-Marcan tradition relied on pre-Gospel traditions and stories, and had developments and accretions arising out of catechetical and pedagogical concerns. Nevertheless, it is likely that the pre-Marcan tradition(s) contained a considerable amount of “witnessable” and witnessed data for the reasons mentioned in Section I above – particularly as regards the betrayal by Judas, the arrest, a Jewish judicial inquest, Peter’s denials, the involvement of Pontius Pilate, the involvement of Jewish authorities in accusing Jesus, the release of Barabbas, the involvement of Roman soldiers, and facts surrounding the crucifixion (e.g., being scourged, being crowned with thorns, the vinegary wine, being hanged on a cross, the inscription on the cross, and the two other criminals). I would also include Jesus’ final words as recounted in Mark’s Gospel (for the reasons mentioned in the previous section), and the fact of Jesus’ burial (for the reasons mentioned in Chapter 4, Section II.B). A more detailed list of other “witnessable” data which is common to both the Marcan and Johannine traditions may be found above in Section I.B. Additional details about the historicity of particular verses in the pre-Marcan tradition(s) may be found in the “Analysis” sections following each major part of Raymond Brown’s The Death of the Messiah.

An appreciation of the significance of the passion, particularly as regards the central question of this book (i.e., “Is Jesus Emmanuel?”), cannot be attained through exegetical and historical analysis alone. Though this analysis is necessary in order to understand the meaning and reality of the events surrounding Jesus’ death, it almost blocks out the heart’s reasons to give greater clarity to the mind’s reasons. I can’t speak for you, the reader, but when I am applying criteria and techniques of historicity to particular texts, I am not being flooded with inspiration and love; and so I find it necessary to move to the domain of contemplation after I have satisfied myself about the historicity of the essential elements of Jesus’ passion. Contemplation allows one to be moved in the heart<ref>See Josef Pieper’s analysis of the medieval distinction between ratio (reason – the active enterprise of accumulating evidence, assembling it logically, and testing its probative capacity) and intellectus (contemplative understanding which is the more passive enterprise of recognizing and appreciating the depth of Reality manifest in, say, the five transcendentals – Love itself, Goodness itself, Beauty itself, Truth itself, and Being Itself). Pieper 1998.</ref> – to be struck with delight, or wonder, or amazement; to perceive beauty; to exalt; to be moved with gratitude; to feel awe and glory; to be inspired; to be moved by what is just and good and generous, and above all, to be moved by love – unconditional Love. Thus, contemplation is essential to the appreciation of Jesus’ passion, which is above all an act of incredible love.

== Contemplation on the Passion ==

The passion narratives open upon a virtually limitless depth of love, which can best be gleaned through contemplation. As explained in the previous chapter, Jesus views His passion as the culmination of His mission, the concretization of His unconditional Love in history, and His gift of unconditional Love to the world for all eternity (through the Eucharist). The reader’s time will be well spent on considering His loving intention, attitude, and feeling in His gift of self in the events of the passion.

One successful method of entering into contemplation is recommended by Saint Ignatius of Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises. It entails entering into the scene, considering the personalities and dispositions of people in the scene, and focusing on the heart of Jesus manifest through the people and events in the scene.

In light of the above, one may want to use the following structure to contemplate on the passion. After reading a particular passage at least twice, first consider various physical aspects of the scene, then:

• the persons in the scene along with Jesus, then
• Jesus’ attitude toward the people in the scene (recalling that Jesus’ attitudes are reflected in the beatitudes – humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, merciful, peacemaking, etc.), then
• Jesus’ relationship to the Father (applying Psalm 22, the Suffering Servant song – Isaiah 52:13-53:12, and Jesus’ prayer in the Garden), then
• Jesus’ universal salvific intent (applying the simile of the paschal lamb and the words “This is my body,” “the blood of the covenant,” “for all,” and “Do this in remembrance of me” – see Chapter 9, Section II.B), then
• Jesus’ love for the people in the scene (including His persecutors), His love of the Father, and His love of humankind.

You might then look at Jesus’ acceptance of anguish for the sake of love. In light of this, you might consider Jesus’ love for you and others; His hopes and aspirations for you and for others. Accept that love, accept His wanting to be your paschal lamb, sin-offering (scapegoat), and blood of the covenant (to guarantee eternal life with Him and the Father); and then, express to God what you desire.

After you have completed your contemplation, you might want to ask the recurrent questions in this book: Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this for my sake and the sake of all? Is Jesus Christ His Emmanuel? If so, then the unconditional Love of God is real and has been fully actualized in the world. That unconditional Love is unconditional light in the darkness, unconditional hope amidst dejection, unconditional resurrection amidst the cross, and unconditional redemption amidst our sin. It is unconditional life unto unconditional joy in the unconditional love of the triune God.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Passion

2015-01-08T18:25:10Z

David Persyn: /* The Passion of Jesus in Mark and in Pre-Marcan Tradition (14:32-15:37) */ more formats

Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith – Jesus

Unit II. M

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Passion

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-M_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Passion.3F | Return to the Table of Contents]]

'''Introduction'''

The Eucharist is not only Jesus’ definitive interpretation of His passion and death; it is also the definitive vehicle through which He communicates His presence and love to all future generations. So, how can our insight into the preciousness of this gift be deepened through the examination of Jesus’ passion? From a contemplative point of view, the possibilities are considerable for deepening the heart’s awareness of the love of Christ. As one considers Jesus’ willing acceptance of each part of the passion as a gift of self (love) for all humankind, one begins to affectively (not just intellectually) appreciate what unconditional Love really is; and when one sees this Love through the eyes, the face, the mind, the heart of the gentle Lamb willingly led to the slaughter, one begins to receive an answer to the questions: “Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this?” and “Is Jesus His Emmanuel?”

Since my intention here is to induce contemplation (that is, prayerful reflection on the texts of the passion), I will discuss only three important propaedeutic points: (1) an overview of the historicity of the passion narratives (Section I)<ref>Any reader interested in a detailed exegesis of the passion narratives should make recourse to Raymond Brown’s comprehensive work The Death of the Messiah [Brown 1994(b)]. </ref>, (2) an analysis of Jesus’ final words on the cross (Section II), and (3) a presentation of the pre-Marcan tradition and Mark’s passion narrative (Section III). The reader may then want to return to the previous Unit on the Eucharist to probe with contemplative insight into the meaning and reality of Jesus’ love.

== The Historicity of the Passion ==

It may be observed from the outset that Jesus’ plan to redeem the world was anything but apologetical or popular, for the idea of a suffering Messiah was thought to be a curse by His Jewish and gentile contemporaries (Dt 21:23, Gal 3:13, I Cor 12:3).<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 350.</ref> Nevertheless, Jesus, knowing what would befall Him,<ref>This is clear from the pre-planning implicit in the institution of the Eucharist, and also from the multiple predictions of His passion (Mt 16:13-23, 17:22-23, 20:17-19; Mk 8:27-33, 9:30-32, 10:32-34; Lk 9:18-22, 9:43-45, and 18:31-34).</ref> proceeded resolutely toward Jerusalem. In light of our discussion of the Eucharist, His plan had but one objective: to join with the Father in an act of unconditional self-gift (love) for the salvation of humankind. Even though Jesus was convinced of His vindication and resurrection (see Unit II-L, Section II), He must have known that the crucifixion would be viewed as a scandal, and used against Him by His critics. Nevertheless, He viewed the passion as being indispensable to His mission. Why? Because He associated the passion with gift of self, which, as is clear from His institution of the Eucharist, He associated with unconditional Love. One can see this kind of love mirrored in parents who willingly endure humiliation, and even place themselves in harm’s way, in order to protect the lives and future of their children. Jesus viewed Himself as responsible (as shepherd and brother) for all of us who were to become, through Him, the Father’s adopted children.

Before beginning a formal analysis of the historicity of the passion narratives, we will want to examine a contention of Dominic Crossan (of the Jesus Seminar) who throws the historicity of these narratives into question by suggesting that they are derivatives of the (Gnostic) gospel of Peter. The gospel of Peter is a narrative of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. It consists of sixty verses and has been dated to Papyri originating in about 200 AD.<ref>See Koester 1990, pp. 216-17.</ref> Crossan ignores the fact that there is no evidence for the gospel of Peter prior to 200 AD, and makes a radical suggestion that it was the only source from which the passion narratives of the four canonical Gospels were derived:

<blockquote>Composed by the fifties C.E., and possibly at Sepphoris in Galilee, it [the Cross Gospel in the Gospel of Peter] is the single source of the intracanonical passion narratives.<ref>See Crossan 1991, p. 429. See also Crossan 1985, pp. 132-34.</ref> <ref>Quarles 2006, p. 119.</ref></blockquote>

Charles Quarles sums up Crossan’s conclusions from his radical contention (which does not enjoy wide acceptance in the scholarly community<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 106.</ref>) as follows:

<blockquote>The GP is more a product of the author’s creative literary imagination than a reflection of eyewitness accounts of actual events. Thus, if the GP is the single source for the canonical narratives of the Passion and resurrection, the canonical Gospels are unreliable revisions of an unreliable tradition. None of the Gospels could then be trusted to provide historically reliable testimony about the final events in the life of the historical Jesus.</blockquote>

Quarles shows this claim to be virtually untenable in the light of textual analysis. First, Crossan contends that the parallels between Matthew and the gospel of Peter regarding the Pharisees gathering before Pilate and expressing concern about a staged resurrection on the third day, the guarding and sealing of the tomb of Jesus, and the description of the Jews as “the people” shows Matthean dependence upon the gospel of Peter. Quarles shows precisely the opposite after studying the redactional tendencies of Matthew and the gospel of Peter. Following Gundry,<ref>Gundry 1994, p. 584.</ref> Quarles shows that these texts are a series of “Mattheanisms,” particularly the use of the words “disciple,” “steal,” and “''mēpote''” – “lest” (except once where the gospel of Peter is clearly following Matthew in a subjunctive construction). He quotes John P. Meier by way of conclusion:

<blockquote>When it comes to who is dependent on whom, all the signs point to Matthew’s priority…. The clause is a tissue of Matthean vocabulary and style, a vocabulary and style almost totally absent from the rest of the Gospel of Peter.<ref>Meier 1991, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

Secondly, there are doctrines and sayings in the gospel of Peter which do not occur in the canonical Gospels or the New Testament. For example, Jesus’ preaching to those who have fallen asleep (to those who have died). Quarles notes in this regard:

<blockquote>If the emerging consensus of interpretation regarding 1Peter is correct, the presence of the reference to preaching to those who sleep in the Gospel of Peter suggests that the document was composed no earlier than the first quarter of the second century.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 112.</ref></blockquote>

The same holds true for other sayings, such as the “Lord’s day,” which is mentioned in the Gospel of Peter 9:35 and 12:50, but only appears in the New Testament in the Book of Revelations (approximately 90 AD). The Gospels used the more primitive expression “the first day of the week.”<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 113.</ref>

Thirdly, the description of the resurrection in the gospel of Peter is “fantastic and quite at odds with the descriptions that appear in the canonical Gospels”:

<blockquote>…as the three men exited the tomb, a cross, apparently floating through the air, followed them. …[T]he cross was capable of speech. A heavenly voice asked, “Did you preach to those who are sleeping?” and the cross replied, “Yes.”<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

We have already seen (with respect to Jesus’ miracles) the tendency of the later Gnostic gospels to move from the balanced and mature perspective of the canonical Gospels to an exaggerated, fantastic, and immature perspective (see Unit II-G, Section II). The gospel of Peter here is no different than the gospels of Thomas and Philip.

Fourthly, the “apologetical case” for Jesus’ resurrection (responding to Jewish objections at the time) is more developed in the gospel of Peter than in the Gospel of Matthew, and

<blockquote>no sensible explanation for Matthew’s elimination of helpful apologetic material available to him from the Cross Gospel exists. This suggests that the author of the gospel of Peter depended on Matthew’s Gospel but revised it in order to present a more compelling case for the resurrection.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 118.</ref></blockquote>

For these and other reasons, Quarles (along with Meier) hold Crossan’s position to be untenable , giving rise to the conclusion:

<blockquote>…[I]f the canonical Gospels are the earliest record of the Passion and resurrection, as this paper suggests, and if these contain the narratives based on eyewitness accounts, as the earliest church testimony affirms and as the internal evidence suggests, the earliest narratives of Jesus’ death and resurrection may be viewed as prophecy fulfilled rather than prophecy historicized, and speculation that Jesus was not even buried, much less raised, is groundless.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 120.</ref></blockquote>

We may now proceed to the question of the historicity of the passion narratives. Though all four Gospels portray the passion through narratives aimed at different audiences, and these narratives have different styles and redactional emphases, it does not mean that they do not possess an extensive historical core.<ref>According to Brown: “I see no need for such a dichotomy between acknowledging the narrative form of the passion and maintaining a respect for historical issues” (Brown 1994(b), p. 14).</ref>

There are remarkable agreements among the four lengthy passion narratives, but this does not automatically constitute multiple attestation because Matthew and Luke saw and made recourse to the Marcan narrative. Nevertheless, as will be explained below, Mark and John did not have knowledge of each other’s narratives, and so the many similarities between these two narratives constitute a very strong form of multiple attestation. Before considering this window into the historicity of the passion narratives, we must consider two more fundamental questions which are elucidated by Raymond Brown in his extensive two-volume analysis of the passion entitled: ''The Death of the Messiah''<ref>Brown 1994(b).</ref> :

(1) Did Jesus’ disciples have access to the data recounted in the various passion narratives? (Section I.A), and

(2) How can the criteria of historicity be applied to the passion narratives? (Section I.B)

=== Did Jesus’ Disciples Have Access to the Data Recounted in the Various Passion Narratives? ===

It is not my intention to respond to the extreme skepticism of Koester,<ref>Koester 1980, p. 127.</ref> Crossan,<ref>Crossan 1988, p. 405.</ref> and other members of the Jesus Seminar. Raymond Brown has done this quite well.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), pp. 13-24. See also the “Analysis” sections of each major part of his work, in which historicity is discussed.</ref> My objective is to briefly use the criteria of historicity<ref>See Chapter 6, Section III. Also Brown 1994(b), pp. 22-24.</ref> to uncover those parts of the narratives which may be reasonably and responsibly shown to have come from an early Palestinian passion tradition,<ref>Raymond Brown accepts the existence of such a tradition which may have been linked to eyewitnesses. He qualifies this scholarly opinion as follows: “I have accepted the likely existence of history and tradition behind the heavily scripturally reflective, kerygmatically oriented, and theologically organized PNs [passion narratives] of the Gospels…” (Brown 1994(b), p. 22).</ref> and which may also be linked to the Jesus of history.

Jesus’ crucifixion is so well attested by both Christian and non-Christian sources that it is as close to certain as any historical datum from the first century can be. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus makes explicit reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Annals (15.44) when speaking about Nero’s blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome:

<blockquote>Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.<ref>Cited in Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the authenticity of this passage, but the majority of mainstream scholars concur with Kirby that:

<blockquote>The most persuasive case is made by those who maintain that Tacitus made use of a first century Roman document concerning the nature and status of the Christian religion. As to the reliability of that source, following normal historical practice, it is prudently assumed to be accurate until demonstrated otherwise. The reference from Tacitus constitutes prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus.<ref>Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus’ crucifixion is also attested by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Recall from Unit II-F, Section I. that Josephus was writing for a Roman audience in about 93 AD, and that there are Christian interpolations in the text of Antiquities in which his testimony to Jesus is contained. As noted in Unit II-F, many mainstream scholars consider the italicized sections in the testimony cited below to be authentic:

<blockquote>''Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.'' He was [the] Christ. ''And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,'' those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. ''And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.''<ref>Josephus 1965, 18:3.3.</ref></blockquote>

Again, this non-Christian testimony to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is explicit and highly probable. There are other non-Christian testimonies to Jesus’ crucifixion, but they are far less significant than those of Tacitus and Josephus.

In addition to non-Christian testimony, Jesus’ crucifixion is attested by almost every New Testament source (e.g., the four Gospels, Acts, most of the Pauline letters, 1Peter, and the Letter to the Hebrews), it is recorded in virtually all of the primitive kerygmas,<ref>Very early proclamations of the faith recorded in Acts and the Pauline letters. For a list see Chapter 3, Section I.A.</ref> and is central to the early Church’s interpretation of Jesus and itself. Finally, one is confronted with the questions: “Why would the early Church have given detailed descriptions of the public humiliation and execution of their Messiah and Lord if it had not been historically true? What would have been the point of recounting a story that undermined its apologetical appeal?” In light of this, the crucifixion of Jesus within its proper setting (i.e., a public execution entailing an arrest, trial, and conviction) must be considered incontestable.

What about the details surrounding Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion? Are the events and details recounted in the passion narratives also historically accurate? Some critics, such as Dominic Crossan, believe that it is impossible to say because (as he gratuitously asserts) there were no eyewitnesses to the event:

<blockquote>It seems to me most likely that those closest to Jesus knew almost nothing about the details of the event. They knew only that Jesus had been crucified, outside Jerusalem, at the time of Passover, and probably through some conjunction of imperial and sacerdotal authority.<ref>Crossan 1988 ,p. 405</ref></blockquote>

Brown demolishes Crossan’s contention by pointing to a seemingly obvious and vexing difficulty:

<blockquote>[Crossan] does not explain why he thinks this “most likely,” granted the well-founded tradition that those closest to Jesus had followed him for a long period of time, day and night. Did they suddenly lose all interest, not even taking the trouble to inquire about what must have been a most traumatic moment of their lives?<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 15-16.</ref></blockquote>

Brown explains the implications of his question through a series of virtually unassailable historical judgments:

<blockquote>Yet as we move back from the Gospel narratives to Jesus himself, ultimately there were eyewitnesses and earwitnesses who were in a potion to know the broad lines of Jesus’ passion. He was accompanied in his ministry by a group of disciples known as the Twelve, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the arrest of Jesus was the occasion of his being separated from them. It is inconceivable that they showed no concern about what happened to Jesus after the arrest. True, there is no Christian claim that they were present during the legal proceedings against him, Jewish or Roman; but it is absurd to think that some information was not available to them about why Jesus has hanged on a cross. The whole purpose of crucifixion, after all, was to publicize that certain crimes would be severely punished. (That is the sense in which I include “earwitness”: hearing what was publicly said about the condemnation of Jesus.) The crucifixion itself was public, and nothing suggests that the burial was secret.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 14.</ref></blockquote>

Attempts to present scenarios contrary to Brown’s in this regard truly verge on the illogical, unreasonable, and inconceivable; and they betray motives other than that of seeking the truth.

Furthermore, there is remarkable correspondence between the passion narrative and the Gospel of John, and recent archeological evidence uncovered by Charlesworth and von Wahlde which strongly suggests that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Von Wahlde summarizes his findings as follows:

<blockquote>The significance of this [archeological evidence] for our appreciation of the historical accuracy of John’s reports is considerable. Not only does John provide several details present in the Synoptics (the name of the place [Golgotha], its location outside the city walls), but he goes on to provide more detail than the other Gospels…details not essential to the narrative. If the presence of such details at first makes verification more difficult, the fact that they are corroborated by archaeological and other means [at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem<ref>Charlesworth reports: “Archaeologists have also found the remains of a city wall to the east of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It was built sometime before Herod the Great. What is surprising is the discovery that the present city wall to the west of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the ‘third wall’ built by Agrippa between 41 and 44. This wall reveals that Golgotha was outside Jerusalem’s walls before the early forties, and Jesus was crucified on Golgotha in 30 (or perhaps 33)” (Charlesworth 2006(b), p. 31; italics mine).</ref>] demonstrates not only that the Johannine account contains remarkably accurate knowledge but also that the Gospel is in fact able to serve as a source of unique knowledge about the crucifixion and burial of Jesus.<ref>von Wahlde 2006, p. 582. See also Charlesworth 2006(b), pp. 31-37.</ref></blockquote>

This archaeological corroboration of John’s passion narrative also suggests the presence of eyewitnesses who were not only aware of the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, but also reported it to the authors of the earliest passion traditions.

Presuming, then, that there were eyewitnesses, and that they would have wanted to see or hear as much as possible about the One who was central to their lives, what could they have witnessed? They could have witnessed Jesus’ betrayal by Judas and His apprehension by the Jewish authorities. They could have also heard about any public declaration of Jesus’ charge, conviction, and sentence. They could have known who was involved in the charging, convicting, and sentencing. They could have had knowledge of public events surrounding the conviction (e.g., the release of Barabbas, or Jewish authorities stirring up the crowd). They could have witnessed the carrying of the cross and any outward signs of persecution or torture that might have preceded His journey to Golgotha (e.g., scourging or crowning with thorns). They could have witnessed the crucifixion itself, the public inscription of Jesus’ offense, the people crucified with Jesus, and they could have heard His final words, seen His death, and witnessed His burial. Evidently, they would have been a party to certain events themselves (e.g., cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant and denials).

Most of the above “witnessable” data was apologetically unappealing and presented obstacles to conversion. What would an early Jewish or gentile prospective convert find attractive about the public humiliation and execution of a messiah/leader? How did all the gory details of this crucifixion better establish Jesus’ role as messiah/leader? How would prospective Jewish converts have reacted to the contempt and rejection of Jesus by Jewish authorities? How would Peter’s denials and the apostles’ flight from Jerusalem have added to the Church’s “good image”? How does Jesus being numbered among criminals (e.g., Barabbas and the criminals crucified with Him) help the Church’s credibility among law-abiding citizens? In almost every case, the presentation of the “witnessable” data seems to undermine the early Christian’s image, credibility, and apologetical appeal. Why would they have presented these data in such detail if they had such potential and real damaging effects? I can think of only one reason. Because they were essentially true.

Can we render the same positive historical judgment about other details in the passion narratives beyond the basic “witnessable” data mentioned above? At this juncture, our pursuit of history becomes far more hazy and complex, because the witnessable data moves from eyewitnesses to catechists and teachers who need to interpret these traumatic (and unappealing) events to converts and potential converts. The natural tendency of such catechists, who were reared within Palestinian Judaism, would have been to use Scripture as a means of interpretation.<ref>The conjecture of some members of the Jesus Seminar that the early narratives of Jesus’ passion were a synthesis of interpreted Scriptures rather than an account of what really happened (Koester 1980, p. 127) is simply backwards. It is far more likely that the earliest traditions recounted what happened, allowing catechists to add sections later to interpret them. As Brown notes, “… [T]here is no evidence in the Pauline formula that scriptural reflection caused the creation of the basic incidents of the passion; far more plausibly it caused the selection and interpretation of certain features in an outline of death, burial, resurrection, and appearance that had been dictated by the early Christian memory of what happened” (Brown 1994(b), p. 16).</ref> Some of these attempts would be easily discernable because they would be introduced by phrases like “this was to fulfill the Scripture….” However, other Scripture passages might be on the lips of Jesus, such as the last words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (citing Psalm 22). The historian must now make the judgment of whether this was placed on the lips of Jesus, or whether Jesus selected these words for Himself (see below, Section II). Obviously, Jesus was accustomed to using Scripture to interpret His life, mission, and even crucifixion as much as, if not more than any later interpreter.

The historian’s task becomes even more complex when these traditions are woven into a single narrative. The editors of such narratives would have to be somewhat creative in synthesizing the various traditions. They might be inclined to embellish sayings or dialogue if that helped with the interpretation of recounted events. They could add thematic and even dramatic emphases to the narrative to further their catechetical or theological objectives. At this juncture, the historian must try to peel back the redactions of editors (especially the Evangelists) in order to get closer to the testimony of eyewitnesses which stand behind the narratives.

Recall from Unit II-B, Section I. that the first task is to get back to the primitive traditions that underlie the Gospel narratives, and then to judge the historicity of these primitive traditions by means of historical criteria and techniques to render judgments within a typical historical range:

<blockquote>…certain, very probable, probable, possible, not impossible. “Certain” has nothing to do with the certitude of mathematics or the physical sciences; it refers to the certitude we have in ordinary experience about the things we encounter or are reported to us in writing or orally.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 22.</ref></blockquote>

The earliest passion narrative is in the Gospel of Mark. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke were both aware of Mark’s narrative and relied on it. As will be seen in the next section, John was not aware of Mark’s narrative, but he made recourse to a primitive tradition(s) very similar to the ones used by Mark. This coincidence is extremely useful to historians because it allows for an application of the criterion of multiple attestation, which, in turn, helps historians make judgments about whether various verses in the narratives can be considered to be part of a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition.

In Section I.B, we will take a brief look at these criteria; in Section II we will consider the historicity of Jesus’ last words in Mark; and in Section III we will attempt to uncover the pre-Marcan tradition in Mark’s narrative, and then render some general historical judgments.

=== Application of the Criteria of Historicity to the Passion Narratives ===

The reader may wish to review the descriptions and examples of the criteria and techniques for determining the historicity of Gospel passages, which are summarized in Unit II-B, Section I. A brief description of three of these criteria will be given with particular examples from the passion narratives: (1) multiple attestation, (2) embarrassment, and (3) coherence with Jewish/Roman customs.

The reader will want to recall two caveats about assessment of historicity mentioned in Unit II-B, Section I. namely:

(a) Criteria for historicity can show the likelihood of a particular Gospel datum being historical, but the absence of criteria for historicity does not show the improbability of a particular Gospel datum being historical; the non-applicability of historical criteria shows only that we have no way of assessing historicity of a Gospel datum either positively or negatively. Thus, far more data in the passion narratives (and in the Gospels, for that matter) is historical than can ever be corroborated through historical criteria.

(b) Too rigorous an application of historical criteria can unnecessarily circumscribe corroboratable data from the Gospels. If one says, “The only data that I will accept as historical are those which are attested to by four out of five independent sources” (say, Mark, Q, special Luke, and John, leaving out only special Matthew), then one will limit oneself to very few Gospel data. If one goes even further, and requires four independent Gospel sources plus an external source (such as Tacitus and Josephus), the Gospel will be reduced to the non-interpolated statements of Tacitus and Josephus. Again, if one claims that multiple attestation is not enough – there must also be corroboration from another historical criterion (say, embarrassment or coherence to Jewish culture, etc.), then the field of acceptable data is correspondingly narrowed. The judicious use of historical criteria by mainstream exegetes such as Raymond Brown, N.T. Wright, and John P. Meier can avert unnecessary proscriptions of Gospel data, and lead to reasonable and responsible corroboration of a large range of Gospel data. We may now proceed to the three historical criteria.

1) Multiple Attestation. Recall that multiple attestation does not occur when there is repetition of passages among the three synoptic Gospels, but rather when there is repetition among the five independent sources (Mark, Q, special Matthew, special Luke, and John). Matthew and Luke relied upon and used the full text of Mark. Q is another source upon which Matthew and Luke both relied. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark in their passion narratives, and so attestation among them is not significant.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 81-82.</ref> However, as will be discussed below, Mark and John were written independently of each other, and it is quite likely that neither one had any knowledge of the other’s narrative. Nevertheless, there are no less than thirty-two similarities between the two narratives. If John is truly not dependent on Mark, then these similarities would auger very strongly for a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) passion tradition(s) upon which both Evangelists relied. This pre-Marcan tradition(s) would bring us closer to eyewitness accounts of the passion and therefore to Jesus’ passion itself.

How can we be so sure that John was not directly reliant on Mark’s narrative? In virtually every part of the Gospel except the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on water, and the passion narratives, John’s material is so distinct from Mark that it is difficult to believe that John relied on Mark unless he wanted to separate himself from, or complement Mark. Most scholars in the latter half of the twentieth century do not believe that there is Johannine dependence on Mark.<ref>Brown details the long list of exegetes who support the Johannine non-dependence theory in 1994(b), p. 76, note 91.</ref>

But what about Johannine dependence on the Marcan passion narrative? As can be seen from the table above, there are so many similarities between Mark and John that the possibility of dependence must be considered. There are two significant factors militating against the dependence conjecture. First, despite the many similarities, there are many more dissimilarities in content and order between the two passion narratives.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 81.</ref> Secondly, many of the differences between Mark and John are inexplicable, if not illogical if John truly depended on Mark.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref> Why would John have put his narrative into a more scattered and strangely ordered state than Mark’s if he depended on Mark? (A love of disorder?) Why would he have omitted details in Mark which would have been of interest to him (e.g., the kiss of Judas; mention of Simon of Cyrene; the sixth and ninth hour when darkness came over the land; the derision by the crowds at the cross; the confusion regarding Elijah – even though this may have been elicited by Jesus’ last words in Mark, which are not mentioned in John; omission of three of Mark’s women witnesses – Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, as well as “other women” in Mark, versus Mary the mother of Jesus, and His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas in John). These omissions and reorderings make little sense if John truly depended on Mark. For this reason, Brown concludes:

<blockquote>Throughout the commentary I shall come again and again to what I regard as a completely illogical result if John knew Mark. For that reason I shall work with the thesis that John wrote his passion narrative independently of Mark’s.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref></blockquote>

So what is the likely scenario for the Marcan and Johannine passion narratives’ development? Brown believes that this occurred in five stages:

a) Eyewitnesses. See the rationale for these eyewitness accounts given above in Section I.A.

b) A basic catechetical outline. A basic sequence of major events was formulated soon after the events of the passion connecting the Last Supper to the arrest, then to the condemnation, then to the crucifixion, then to the burial. This sequence guided the Church’s early proclamations and catechesis as well as Eucharistic memories. This is evident from Pauline and other non-Gospel New Testament writings.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 83.</ref>

c) Pre-Gospel traditions. Widely circulated stories/traditions (probably both oral and written) were formed from eyewitness accounts about particular figures and incidents in the passion narratives (alongside the basic catechetical outline). The stories were not yet connected to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 83-84.</ref>

d) Pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine traditions. The stories and basic outline made their way toward the Marcan and Johannine communities where eventually a pre-Marcan author(s) connected many of the stories to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 84.</ref>

e) The Marcan and Johannine passion narratives. The two Evangelists used two versions of the pre-Marcan tradition along with additional pre-Gospel traditions<ref>As Soards’ table indicates, there were probably several such pre-Gospel traditions along with other narrative traditions. See Soards 1994, pp. 1492-1524.</ref> to formulate the passion narratives we have today.

It is likely that much of the “witnessable” data in the thirty-two common elements in the Marcan and Johannine narratives made their way from eyewitnesses into the pre-Gospel traditions, and then into the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition(s), and then into the Gospel narratives. This would include:

Judas as betrayer bringing soldiers with weapons; Jesus being seized; the high priest’s servant’s ear being cut off; Jesus’ exchange with His apprehenders; Jesus being subjected to a Jewish judicial inquest; Peter’s three denials; the high priest’s maid as first inquirer; Peter warming himself by the fire in the high priest’s courtyard; the bystanders as inquirers in the third denial; the Jewish authorities making accusations against Jesus to Pilate; the crowd asking for the release of Barabbas; Pilate not finding Jesus guilty of a crime; the crowds responding multiple times “Crucify Him”; Pilate having Jesus scourged; Pilate handing Jesus over to be crucified, Jesus being crowned with thorns; Jesus proceeding to Golgotha with a cross, the crucifixion of Jesus; an inscription reading “King of the Jews”; the soldiers dividing Jesus’ garments and casting lots for them; two criminals being crucified with Jesus, one on either side of Him; Mary Magdalene witnessing the crucifixion; the soldiers giving a vinegar-filled sponge to Jesus on the cross; Joseph of Arimathea obtaining permission to bury Jesus; and Joseph of Arimathea wrapping the body of Jesus in a linen cloth, and putting Him in a tomb.<ref>For evidence of the apostles knowing the place of burial and witnessing the empty tomb, see Chapter 4, Section II.B.</ref>

Some of these conclusions (as well as others) are corroborated by three other historical criteria which will be discussed in the forthcoming subsections.

(2) Embarrassment. Recall from Unit II-B, Section I., that if a particular Gospel datum was embarrassing to the Church, or undermined the reputation of the apostles, or cast dispersions upon Jesus, then we can be quite certain that the Evangelists (and the formulators of early traditions) did not invent it. Raymond Brown points to several such data in the passion narratives, for example: Judas (one of the Twelve apostles) betraying Jesus; many of the disciples not remaining with Jesus during the passion; and Peter denying Jesus three times.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> There are other data which are embarrassing, but may have been recounted for other reasons. For example, Jesus praying in the garden, “Remove this cup from me” (Mark 14:36), which looks like Jesus is trying to avoid the cross. Although this could not have been catechetically appealing, someone could conjecture that this passage is meant “to teach Christians that facing death constitutes a trial that may challenge even sincere commitment.”<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> Nevertheless, the datum is still catechetically unappealing, and would have been very risky for the Evangelist or early Church to have invented.

The same holds true for Jesus’ last words in the Gospel of Mark: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” As will be discussed below (Section II), the last words of Jesus do not enjoy multiple attestation because John does not recount them (and places a completely different phrase on the lips of Jesus – “It is finished”). Many scholars believe, however, that this datum is historical because it would have likely been misinterpreted by gentile audiences who might not have known that the phrase (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) refers to the whole of Psalm 22 (a Psalm of God redeeming the sufferings of the just one and bringing salvation through it to all nations and generations). Gentile audiences would have been likely to believe that Jesus was so demoralized that He lost His confidence in God and thought that God was forsaking Him. This misinterpretation would not only have been embarrassing to the Church, but would have led to a theology precisely contrary to what Jesus intended and to what the Church taught. It is difficult to believe that Mark would have invented this phrase as Jesus’ last words, and much more likely that John (like Luke), if he was aware of the phrase from a pre-Johannine tradition, would have dropped it since he was writing for a gentile audience that could have easily misinterpreted it.

(3) Coherence with Jewish/Roman customs. There are three elements which are relevant here: (a) coherence with Jewish customs, (b) Semitisms, and (c) coherence with Roman customs. The last area is somewhat complex<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 19ff.</ref> and not especially germane to the point of this Unit; so I will limit discussion to the first two areas.

(a) ''Correspondence with Jewish custom''. One major point bears mentioning, because it shows Mark’s<ref>The historicity of the Marcan narrative will be assessed throughout the rest of the chapter.</ref> fidelity to the Jewish customs which would have been in effect at the time of Jesus’ passion, namely, Mark’s careful recounting of how the Sanhedrin adhered to the Mishna only when it was in conformity to the Sadducee law. Blinzler notes in this regard:

<blockquote>The fact that Mk 14 and 15 juxtapose items which sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the requirements of the Mishnah was hitherto felt puzzling. The explanation is that the Sanhedrin was at that time bound by the Sadducee law, which agreed with the Mishnah only exceptionally. But if Mk 14 and 15 were a legendary construction, it would be hard to explain how the author, supposedly so uninterested in historical fact, managed to be so accurate with regard to the legal custom: to the unlikely extent, that is, that the actions of the Sanhedrin only agreed with the Mishnah when the provisions of the latter coincided with those of the Sadducees, and not otherwise.<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref></blockquote>

(b) ''Semitisms''. There is one truly remarkable Semitism recorded in the Marcan narrative, namely, Jesus’ final words: “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''.” The Marcan version of the final words is to be preferred over the Matthean one, because it is probable that Matthew tried to “clean up” Mark’s Aramaic citation of the divine name (“''Elōi''”)<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref> with the more proper Hebrew version of it (''“’Ēlî”''), which would have been recited in the synagogue.<ref>Recall that Matthew is writing for a well-educated Jewish audience, and was trying to convince them of the Messiahship of Jesus. He knew the appropriate Hebrew form of the Psalm and changed Mark’s Aramaic “Elōi” to the Hebrew “Ēli.” See Brown 1994(b), pp. 1051-1052.</ref> The fact that Matthew records the Aramaic “''sabachthani''” (instead of the more appropriate Hebrew ''ăzabtānî'') convinces most scholars that Matthew retained remnants of an original Aramaic version.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. Mark’s use of “lama” (instead of the Aramaic “lĕmā”) is not problematic because it was common practice at that time to transliterate the shewa (short “e” vowel) by “a” instead of “e.” See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. See also Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58; and Harrington 1990, p. 628.</ref>

Is Mark’s Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words truly Jesus’ words? It seems likely because much of Mark’s mixed gentile-Jewish audience would not have recognized either the Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the Psalm, which evidently compelled Mark to translate it into Greek. Why would Mark have recorded an Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words which most of his audience would not have understood? Why not simply give the Greek translation without the Aramaic? Furthermore, why give an Aramaic translation of the Psalms instead of the more proper and easily recognizable Hebrew version? The fact that Jesus may well have learned the Psalms in Aramaic and recited the Psalms in Aramaic to His Galilean audience may provide a clue to the origin of the Aramaic version of the Psalm – namely, Jesus Himself.<ref>Though Mark cites Aramaic versions of Old Testament texts elsewhere, this may be out of deference to Jesus rather than Mark’s preference.</ref> The application of other historical criteria to this question will further confirm the origin of these words in Jesus. This will be considered in the following section.

== The Final Words of Jesus ==

Given that Mark’s version of Jesus’ final words is more original than Matthew’s version, we may now return to the question of whether Mark’s version is historical. Though the Aramaic rendition of the final words is a clue to their origin in Jesus, it is not definitive because Luke gives a different version of the final words (“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” – Luke 23:46), and so does John (“It is finished” – John 19:30). Why should Mark be preferred to Luke and John?

With respect to Luke’s version of the final words, there are four reasons to suspect that Mark’s version is closer to Jesus’ own. First, Luke was aware of Mark’s version of the final words, and would have had to have intentionally changed them. Secondly, Luke prefers to shift the focus from Jesus’ feelings of desolation to Jesus’ trust. Instead of Psalm 22:2 (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”), Luke portrays Jesus reciting Psalm 31:6 (“Into your hands I commend my spirit”), which effects this shift in focus. Luke’s preference to portray Jesus as confident (and eliminate any hint of spiritual disturbance) is evidenced in his elimination of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ anxiety in the garden of Gethsemane (“My soul is very sorrowful unto death”). It is much easier to believe that Luke has continued his redactional policy of eliminating Marcan references to Jesus’ anxiety than to believe that Luke’s version of Jesus’ words is more original. Thirdly, Luke substitutes “Father” for the Psalmist’s reference to “God,” which is very likely a redaction. Finally, Luke selects a Psalm passage which speaks to Jesus’ Spirit, which is a clear focus of his Gospel and an allusion to the Holy Spirit, which is the focus of the Acts of the Apostles.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1067.</ref> For this reason, most scholars believe that the Lukan version is a redaction of the Marcan original.

What about John’s version of the last words (“It is finished”)? Unlike Luke, John was not aware of the Marcan passion narrative, yet there is significant evidence that Mark and John borrowed from a common pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition (see above, Section I.B.1). Does John’s very different version of Jesus’ final words imply that the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition did not have any version of Jesus’ final words (and that both Mark and John invented their own in the absence of a more original version)? The answer is probably ‘no,’ because of light shed upon the question by the historical criterion of embarrassment.

Recall from Section I.B.2 that John’s predominately gentile audience could have misinterpreted Jesus’ last words as recorded by Mark. Indeed, as we just saw, Luke certainly thought this was a possibility for his gentile audience. The majority of John’s audience would probably not have recognized Psalm 22 in the Aramaic expression, “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani'',” and they would not have known that this first line referred to the entire Psalm. Therefore, they would not have known that Jesus’ last words were a prayer of trust in God which would lead not only to the vindication of His suffering, but to universal salvation for all humankind for all time (see below in this section).<ref>As Brown notes, “Perhaps the most frequently offered argument for softening the dour import of the Mark/Matt death cry is based on the general context of Ps 22. Jesus cites the opening verse of a psalm that continues for thirty more verses. By the end the psalmist will take a positive view: Rejoicing, he will proclaim that he has survived the danger and that after all God did not spurn him or ‘turn His face away’ (Ps 22:25). Accordingly some would invoke a hermeneutic principle that a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context” (Brown 1994(b), pp. 1049-1050).</ref> Thus (as the Johannine author very probably perceived), they would have interpreted these words to mean that Jesus felt abandoned by the Father, which is precisely the opposite of what the Psalm intends, what the early Church believed, and what Jesus intended. Not only would this have been confusing and misleading to gentile members of the early Church; it would have been apologetically unappealing and embarrassing to the Church in gentile regions. Thus, John, like Luke, would have had everything to lose (and nothing to gain) by retaining these words on the lips of the dying Jesus.

Therefore, there is considerable reason to believe prima facie that John, like Luke, would have been inclined to change Jesus’ dying words from those of Psalm 22 to something less misleading and more consistent with Jesus’ intention and the belief of the early Church. He decides upon the simple phrase, “It is finished,” which refers to Jesus’ project of redemption, the completion of which John has been pointing to throughout the “Book of Glory” (chapters 13-21).

This leads to the obvious question of why Mark (who was addressing a mixed gentile-Jewish audience) would have retained Psalm 22 as Jesus’ final words when many of his audience members would have been likely to misinterpret them in the same way as John’s and Luke’s audiences. Before responding, it is worth noting that this question does not apply to Matthew with the same force as Mark because the majority of Matthew’s audience was Jewish. Many in that audience would have been educated enough to see Psalm 22 through Matthew’s Hebraic version of it, and many would have understood that the first line of the Psalm referred to the whole Psalm. Brown points to a well-known hermeneutical principle in this regard:

<blockquote>…a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 1050.</ref></blockquote>

In the case of Psalm 22, the context speaks of trust in God, vindication, and salvation for the world.

However, the above hermeneutical principle would not have applied to the gentile members of Mark’s audience; so why did he retain these words? I think there is only one plausible explanation – namely, that they are in fact the final words of Jesus. It would be inconceivable to suggest that Mark invented these words to place on the lips of Jesus given the probability of their misinterpretation (with significant negative consequences) by a large segment of his audience. Therefore, it seems likely that Mark received these words from either a pre-Marcan tradition or from Peter (for whom Mark was interpreter). In either case, Mark must have believed that these words were truly those of Jesus, and decided to retain them in their Aramaic form precisely for this reason. There does not appear to be any other reasonable motive for his taking the risk of significant misinterpretation and apologetically unappealing embarrassment.

So if we consider “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''” to be the dying words of the historical Jesus, and if we apply Brown’s hermeneutical principle to Jesus Himself (implying that Jesus expected informed listeners to “be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context”), then it seems likely that the dying Jesus was praying the whole of Psalm 22 to His Father while giving His listeners an insight into how He interpreted His sacrificial death through that prayer. Mally notes in this regard:

<blockquote>As a quotation of an OT Ps, it can hardly be taken literally as an expression of real despair or dereliction. Rather, Jesus applies to himself an OT passage that sums up the suffering of the upright individual who turns to his God in the stress of hostile opposition and its ensuing depression. In using the Ps, Jesus does not express the feeling that his life’s work has failed and that God has therefore abandoned him; he identifies himself with a biblical precedent, the persecuted upright man ''who has trusted in Yahweh'', and found in him ''the source of his consolation and ultimate triumph'' [italics mine].<ref>Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58. See also J. Gnilka 1959, pp. 294-97.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, Jesus’ reference to Psalm 22 is an expression of trust and confidence in the Father that His suffering will result in the triumph of His mission. As noted in the previous Unit, that mission is actualized for all future generations through the gift of His presence and unconditional redeeming Love in the Eucharist.

A closer look at the Psalm may give a deep insight into the panoply of Jesus’ thoughts and feelings at the time of His crucifixion. The Psalm may be divided into three parts:

(1) “2-22, the complaint, with repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence (4-6; 10-11),”<ref>Murphy 1968, p. 579.</ref>

(2) “23-32, thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share (23-27),<ref>Murphy 1968, p. 579.</ref>” and

(3) the worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh (28-32).

Each part will be presented in turn.

(1) Complaint, repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence.

''My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?''

''Why are you so far from saving me,''

''so far from the words of my groaning?''

''Oh my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,''

''and by night, but I have no rest.''

Then, the psalmist shifts perspective as he does several times throughout the Psalm, and introduces the theme of God’s holiness and grandeur, worthy of praise and trust:

''Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;''

''you are the praise of Israel.''

''In you our fathers put their trust;''

''they trusted and you delivered them.''

''They cried to you and were saved;''

''in you they trusted and were not disappointed.''

The psalmist then turns back to the deplorable nature of his condition:

''But I am a worm and not a man,''

''scorned by men and despised by the people.''

''All who see me mock me;''

''they hurl insults, shaking their heads:''

''“He trusted in the Lord;''

''let the Lord rescue him.''

''Let Him deliver him''

''since He delights in him."''

The uncanny resemblance between the psalmist’s words and the events taking place around Jesus give one pause. After describing the inauthentic words of the crowd (who believe that the Lord will not fulfill the trust of the psalmist), the psalmist shifts back to his fervent trust in the Lord:

''Yet you brought me out of the womb;''

''you made me trust in you;''

''even at my mother’s breast.''

''From birth I was cast upon you;''

''from my mother’s womb you have been my God.''

Having renewed his trust in the Lord, the psalmist makes an earnest petition for help:

''Do not be far from me,''

''for trouble is near''

''and there is no one to help.''

''Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.''

''Roaring lions tearing their prey''

''open their mouths wide against me.''

Then the psalmist uses the same words seen in the suffering servant song (Is 52:13-53:12) and Jesus’ eucharistic words:

''I am poured out like water,''

''and all my bones are out of joint.''

''My heart has turned to wax;''

''it has melted away within me.''

''My strength is dried up like a potsherd,''

''and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;''

''you lay me in the dust of death.''

In continuing his description of his suffering to Yahweh, the psalmist again describes events uncannily similar to Jesus’ crucifixion:

''Dogs have surrounded me;''

''a band of evil men has encircled me,''

''they have pierced my hands and my feet.''

''I can count all my bones;''

''people stare and gloat over me.''

''They divide my garments among them''

''and cast lots for my clothing.''

The psalmist makes another earnest petition for God’s help and consolation:

''But you, oh Lord, be not far off;''

''oh my Strength, come quickly to help me.''

''Deliver my life from the sword,''

''my precious life from the power of the dogs.''

''Rescue me from the mouth of the lion;''

''save me from the horns of the wild oxen.''

(2) Thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share. The psalmist then reaffirms his trust and confidence in the Lord, as if to say that he will live beyond his current persecution to bring the praise of the Lord’s name to all who fear him:

''I will declare your name to my brothers;''

''in the congregation I will praise you.''

''You who fear the Lord, praise him!''

''All you descendents of Jacob, honor him!''

''Revere him, all you descendents of Israel!''

The psalmist then gives his reason for his confidence in God, and his belief in his future:

''For he has not despised or disdained''

''the suffering of the afflicted one;''

''he has not hidden his face from him''

''but has listened to his cry for help.''

''From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;''

''before those who fear you I will fulfill my vows.''

The psalmist then moves into a prophetic, and even messianic tone, speaking of signs of the new Jerusalem; messianic signs which Jesus says, when quoting the prophet Isaiah, are being fulfilled in Himself:<ref>See Matt. 11:5ff and Lk 4:18ff, referring to Is 61:1ff.</ref>

''The poor will eat and be satisfied;''

''they who seek the Lord will praise Him –''

''may your hearts live forever.''

(3) The worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh. The psalmist then confidently suggests universality of salvation arising out of Yahweh’s mercy:

''All the ends of the earth''

''will remember and turn to the Lord,''

''and all the families of the nations''

''will bow down before Him,''

''for dominion belongs to the Lord''

''and He rules over the nations.''

The psalmist then suggests that Yahweh’s salvation will extend to all those who are raised on high, and those who are in the grave:

''All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;''

''all who go down to the dust will kneel before Him –''

''those who cannot keep themselves alive.''

''Posterity will serve Him;''

''future generations will be told about the Lord.''

''They will proclaim His righteousness''

''to a people yet unborn –''

''for He has done it.''

This Psalm on the dying lips of Jesus is quite remarkable. In the midst of recounting events quite similar to His crucifixion, the Psalm expresses His mind and heart as He cries out for help, as He is overwhelmingly confident in that help, and as He sees the ultimate result of that help in a salvation that will not only reach to the ends of the earth, but to all future generations on the earth, and even to those who are raised on high and those who “go down to the dust.” Thus, the Psalm connects Jesus’ torment with His confidence in the Father as He looks beyond His suffering, beyond Jerusalem, beyond the present age, and beyond earthly existence, to a redemption which will take hold in the life of God Himself. Jesus’ eucharistic words are not only consonant with those of the psalm, they give the psalm’s words ultimate meaning and reality; for they provide the vehicle through which Jesus’ person and love will save universally and eternally.

== The Passion of Jesus in Mark and in Pre-Marcan Tradition (14:32-15:37) ==

Mark gives us the oldest account of the passion. Though it tries to reconcile the passion with Old Testament prophesy, its primary objective is not apologetical.<ref>See Matt. 11:5ff and Lk 4:18ff, referring to Is 61:1ff.</ref> Rather, it intends to give an account of the sufferings freely endured by Jesus and “to show clearly what persons and what authorities were responsible for the death of Jesus and the extent of their guilt.”<ref>“This explains the information given about the members of the Sanhedrin (14:1, 43, 53, 55, 63-65;15:1, 10f., 31 f.; contrast 15:43-46), Judas (14:10f., 18-21, 42, 45), the crowd (14:65; 15:8, 11-15, 29f., 35; cf. 15:40f.; 16:1-8; 15:21), Pilate (15:2-15, 43-45) and the Roman soldiers (15:16-20, 21-27; cf. 15:39)” (Blinzler 1968-70, p. 351.)</ref> Mark believes that this is Jesus’ central salvific act and uses it to frame the rest of his Gospel. As Blinzler notes:

<blockquote>Mark already had before him such a relatively fixed account from oral tradition, as the insertion of 14:3-9 shows, and he enlarged it with further matter, e.g., with “memoirs” of Peter (apart from 14:3-9) such as the account of the denial (14:54, 66-72). …[T]he Gospel of Mark has been called, not unjustly, “a passion-narrative with a long introduction” (M. Kähler).<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 351.</ref></blockquote>

As noted above, there is substantial New Testament and extra-testamental evidence for the historicity of Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion.<ref>See Section I of this Unit.</ref> Many other facts surrounding the crucifixion are also very probably historical. By using the criteria and techniques elucidated above (Sections I.A and B), we can first ascertain what material from Mark’s passion narrative probably came from a pre-Marcan tradition, and the material from that tradition which could have come from eyewitness accounts. Scholars have worked diligently on these tasks for over a century, and it is beyond the scope of this study to report comprehensively on their findings.<ref>See Soards 1994, pp. 1502-1517.</ref> My objective is only to give a report about where the preponderance of scholarly opinion lies with regard to an early pre-Marcan tradition and the historicity of the facts within that tradition.

There is a strong likelihood that Mark made recourse to a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which he redacted and stylized to give coherence and meaning to this exceedingly significant event for the Christian Church.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), pp. 20-22.</ref> There is a wide variety of opinion about which verses originated with this pre-Marcan tradition(s) and which ones originated with Mark. Marion Soards has gathered a tremendous amount of data from 34 scholars representing a wide range of theological and exegetical perspectives.<ref>See Soards 1994, pp. 1492-1524.</ref> I have taken the liberty of presenting the Revised Standard Version of the Marcan passion narrative, and indicating the likelihood that each of its verses originated with a pre-Marcan tradition or with Mark himself according to the following key:<ref>I relied completely on Soards’ chart of scholars in Soards 1994, pp. 1502-1517. The key reflects what the majority of scholars assessed by Soards believe about the Marcan or pre-Marcan origins of particular verses.</ref>

Bold A large majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Italics A small majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Bold Italics The scholarly community is about evenly split on whether this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition, or with Mark himself.

Normal font The majority of the scholarly community believes that this verse originated with Mark (and is therefore a Marcan redaction).

Mark Chapter 14

32 They went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and He said to His disciples, “Sit here, while I pray.” 33 And He took with Him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. 34 ''And He said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch.”'' 35 And going a little farther, He fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. 36 ''And He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt.” And He came and found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour?'' 38 ''' ''Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”'' ''' 39 And again He went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 ''' ''And again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer Him.'' ''' 41 ''And He came the third time, and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.'' 42 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”

43 And immediately, while He was still speaking Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I shall kiss is the man; seize Him and lead Him away safely.” And when he came, he went up to Him at once, and said, “Master!” And he kissed Him. And they laid hands on Him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” And they all forsook Him, and fled.

51 ''And a young man followed Him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.''

53 And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. And Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death; but they found none. 56 ''' ''For many bore false witness against Him, and their witness did not agree.'' ''' 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against Him, saying, “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet not even so did their testimony agree. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you? 61 ''' ''But He was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked Him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”'' ''' 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”<ref>I relied completely on Soards’ chart of scholars in Soards 1994, pp. 1502-1517. The key reflects what the majority of scholars assessed by Soards believe about the Marcan or pre-Marcan origins of particular verses.</ref> 63 ''' ''And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard His blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned Him as deserving death.'' ''' 65 ''And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to strike Him, saying to Him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received Him with blows.''

66 ''' ''And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came;'' ''' 67 ''and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway.'' 69 ''' ''And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.”'' ''' 70 ''But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.” 71 But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.”'' 72 ''' ''And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.'' '''

Mark Chapter 15

1 And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. And Pilate asked Him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And He answered him “You have said so.” And the chief priests accused Him of many things. And Pilate again asked Him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered.

Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they asked. And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. And he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered Him up. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” And they cried out again, “Crucify Him.” And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him.” So, Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

And the soldiers led Him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. And they clothed Him in a purple cloak, and placing a crown of thorns they put it on Him. And they began to salute Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck His head with a reed, and spat upon Him, and they knelt down in homage to Him. And when they had mocked Him, they stripped Him of the purple cloak, and put His own clothes on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him.

And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry His cross. And they brought Him to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). And they offered Him wine mingled with myrrh; but He did not take it. And they crucified Him, and divided His garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour, when they crucified Him. And the inscription of the charge against Him read, “The King of the Jews.” And with Him they crucified two robbers, one on His right and one on His left. And those who passed by derided Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 ''' ''So also the chief priests mocked Him to one another with the scribes, saying, “He saved others; He cannot save Himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with Him also reviled Him.'' '''

And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” Which means, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Behold, He is calling Elijah.” And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to Him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down.” And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.

38 ''' ''And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing Him, saw that He thus breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the son of God!”'' '''

''' ''There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome,'' ''' 41 who, when He was in Galilee, followed Him, and ministered to Him; and also many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

42 ''' ''And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath,'' ''' 43 ''Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.'' 44 And Pilate wondered if He were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether He was already dead. 45 ''' ''And when he learned from the centurion that He was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.'' ''' 46 ''And he bought a linen shroud, and taking Him down, wrapped Him in the linen shroud, and laid Him in a tomb which has been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.'' 47 ''' ''Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where He was laid.'' '''

*****

As can be seen from the above, most scholars consider the vast majority of the passion narrative to have come from a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which would presumably include some accounts from Peter. Notice that the probable Marcan redactions are not concerned with the torment, crucifixion, and death of Jesus. They are meant to explain who is primarily guilty (i.e., Judas, the chief priests, and the council), who is less culpable (i.e., Pilate), and who is ironically the prophetic spokesman of the meaning of the passion (i.e., the centurion). They also center on Mark’s interpretation of why Jesus was accused of blasphemy (i.e., identifying Himself with the eschatological Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14). If these elements are “bracketed,” the passion story retains its poignant central core, which likely represents the traditions which Mark received as he prepared his narrative.

The question of whether the pre-Marcan tradition is faithful to accounts from eyewitnesses and earwitnesses is more difficult to ascertain. One cannot assume that a verse was witnessed simply because it was included in a pre-Marcan tradition. As was made clear in Section I.B, the pre-Marcan tradition relied on pre-Gospel traditions and stories, and had developments and accretions arising out of catechetical and pedagogical concerns. Nevertheless, it is likely that the pre-Marcan tradition(s) contained a considerable amount of “witnessable” and witnessed data for the reasons mentioned in Section I above – particularly as regards the betrayal by Judas, the arrest, a Jewish judicial inquest, Peter’s denials, the involvement of Pontius Pilate, the involvement of Jewish authorities in accusing Jesus, the release of Barabbas, the involvement of Roman soldiers, and facts surrounding the crucifixion (e.g., being scourged, being crowned with thorns, the vinegary wine, being hanged on a cross, the inscription on the cross, and the two other criminals). I would also include Jesus’ final words as recounted in Mark’s Gospel (for the reasons mentioned in the previous section), and the fact of Jesus’ burial (for the reasons mentioned in Chapter 4, Section II.B). A more detailed list of other “witnessable” data which is common to both the Marcan and Johannine traditions may be found above in Section I.B. Additional details about the historicity of particular verses in the pre-Marcan tradition(s) may be found in the “Analysis” sections following each major part of Raymond Brown’s The Death of the Messiah.

An appreciation of the significance of the passion, particularly as regards the central question of this book (i.e., “Is Jesus Emmanuel?”), cannot be attained through exegetical and historical analysis alone. Though this analysis is necessary in order to understand the meaning and reality of the events surrounding Jesus’ death, it almost blocks out the heart’s reasons to give greater clarity to the mind’s reasons. I can’t speak for you, the reader, but when I am applying criteria and techniques of historicity to particular texts, I am not being flooded with inspiration and love; and so I find it necessary to move to the domain of contemplation after I have satisfied myself about the historicity of the essential elements of Jesus’ passion. Contemplation allows one to be moved in the heart – to be struck with delight, or wonder, or amazement; to perceive beauty; to exalt; to be moved with gratitude; to feel awe and glory; to be inspired; to be moved by what is just and good and generous, and above all, to be moved by love – unconditional Love. Thus, contemplation is essential to the appreciation of Jesus’ passion, which is above all an act of incredible love.

== Contemplation on the Passion ==

The passion narratives open upon a virtually limitless depth of love, which can best be gleaned through contemplation. As explained in the previous chapter, Jesus views His passion as the culmination of His mission, the concretization of His unconditional Love in history, and His gift of unconditional Love to the world for all eternity (through the Eucharist). The reader’s time will be well spent on considering His loving intention, attitude, and feeling in His gift of self in the events of the passion.

One successful method of entering into contemplation is recommended by Saint Ignatius of Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises. It entails entering into the scene, considering the personalities and dispositions of people in the scene, and focusing on the heart of Jesus manifest through the people and events in the scene.

In light of the above, one may want to use the following structure to contemplate on the passion. After reading a particular passage at least twice, first consider various physical aspects of the scene, then:

• the persons in the scene along with Jesus, then
• Jesus’ attitude toward the people in the scene (recalling that Jesus’ attitudes are reflected in the beatitudes – humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, merciful, peacemaking, etc.), then
• Jesus’ relationship to the Father (applying Psalm 22, the Suffering Servant song – Isaiah 52:13-53:12, and Jesus’ prayer in the Garden), then
• Jesus’ universal salvific intent (applying the simile of the paschal lamb and the words “This is my body,” “the blood of the covenant,” “for all,” and “Do this in remembrance of me” – see Chapter 9, Section II.B), then
• Jesus’ love for the people in the scene (including His persecutors), His love of the Father, and His love of humankind.

You might then look at Jesus’ acceptance of anguish for the sake of love. In light of this, you might consider Jesus’ love for you and others; His hopes and aspirations for you and for others. Accept that love, accept His wanting to be your paschal lamb, sin-offering (scapegoat), and blood of the covenant (to guarantee eternal life with Him and the Father); and then, express to God what you desire.

After you have completed your contemplation, you might want to ask the recurrent questions in this book: Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this for my sake and the sake of all? Is Jesus Christ His Emmanuel? If so, then the unconditional Love of God is real and has been fully actualized in the world. That unconditional Love is unconditional light in the darkness, unconditional hope amidst dejection, unconditional resurrection amidst the cross, and unconditional redemption amidst our sin. It is unconditional life unto unconditional joy in the unconditional love of the triune God.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Passion

2015-01-08T18:20:17Z

David Persyn: /* The Passion of Jesus in Mark and in Pre-Marcan Tradition (14:32-15:37) */

Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith – Jesus

Unit II. M

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Passion

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-M_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Passion.3F | Return to the Table of Contents]]

'''Introduction'''

The Eucharist is not only Jesus’ definitive interpretation of His passion and death; it is also the definitive vehicle through which He communicates His presence and love to all future generations. So, how can our insight into the preciousness of this gift be deepened through the examination of Jesus’ passion? From a contemplative point of view, the possibilities are considerable for deepening the heart’s awareness of the love of Christ. As one considers Jesus’ willing acceptance of each part of the passion as a gift of self (love) for all humankind, one begins to affectively (not just intellectually) appreciate what unconditional Love really is; and when one sees this Love through the eyes, the face, the mind, the heart of the gentle Lamb willingly led to the slaughter, one begins to receive an answer to the questions: “Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this?” and “Is Jesus His Emmanuel?”

Since my intention here is to induce contemplation (that is, prayerful reflection on the texts of the passion), I will discuss only three important propaedeutic points: (1) an overview of the historicity of the passion narratives (Section I)<ref>Any reader interested in a detailed exegesis of the passion narratives should make recourse to Raymond Brown’s comprehensive work The Death of the Messiah [Brown 1994(b)]. </ref>, (2) an analysis of Jesus’ final words on the cross (Section II), and (3) a presentation of the pre-Marcan tradition and Mark’s passion narrative (Section III). The reader may then want to return to the previous Unit on the Eucharist to probe with contemplative insight into the meaning and reality of Jesus’ love.

== The Historicity of the Passion ==

It may be observed from the outset that Jesus’ plan to redeem the world was anything but apologetical or popular, for the idea of a suffering Messiah was thought to be a curse by His Jewish and gentile contemporaries (Dt 21:23, Gal 3:13, I Cor 12:3).<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 350.</ref> Nevertheless, Jesus, knowing what would befall Him,<ref>This is clear from the pre-planning implicit in the institution of the Eucharist, and also from the multiple predictions of His passion (Mt 16:13-23, 17:22-23, 20:17-19; Mk 8:27-33, 9:30-32, 10:32-34; Lk 9:18-22, 9:43-45, and 18:31-34).</ref> proceeded resolutely toward Jerusalem. In light of our discussion of the Eucharist, His plan had but one objective: to join with the Father in an act of unconditional self-gift (love) for the salvation of humankind. Even though Jesus was convinced of His vindication and resurrection (see Unit II-L, Section II), He must have known that the crucifixion would be viewed as a scandal, and used against Him by His critics. Nevertheless, He viewed the passion as being indispensable to His mission. Why? Because He associated the passion with gift of self, which, as is clear from His institution of the Eucharist, He associated with unconditional Love. One can see this kind of love mirrored in parents who willingly endure humiliation, and even place themselves in harm’s way, in order to protect the lives and future of their children. Jesus viewed Himself as responsible (as shepherd and brother) for all of us who were to become, through Him, the Father’s adopted children.

Before beginning a formal analysis of the historicity of the passion narratives, we will want to examine a contention of Dominic Crossan (of the Jesus Seminar) who throws the historicity of these narratives into question by suggesting that they are derivatives of the (Gnostic) gospel of Peter. The gospel of Peter is a narrative of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. It consists of sixty verses and has been dated to Papyri originating in about 200 AD.<ref>See Koester 1990, pp. 216-17.</ref> Crossan ignores the fact that there is no evidence for the gospel of Peter prior to 200 AD, and makes a radical suggestion that it was the only source from which the passion narratives of the four canonical Gospels were derived:

<blockquote>Composed by the fifties C.E., and possibly at Sepphoris in Galilee, it [the Cross Gospel in the Gospel of Peter] is the single source of the intracanonical passion narratives.<ref>See Crossan 1991, p. 429. See also Crossan 1985, pp. 132-34.</ref> <ref>Quarles 2006, p. 119.</ref></blockquote>

Charles Quarles sums up Crossan’s conclusions from his radical contention (which does not enjoy wide acceptance in the scholarly community<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 106.</ref>) as follows:

<blockquote>The GP is more a product of the author’s creative literary imagination than a reflection of eyewitness accounts of actual events. Thus, if the GP is the single source for the canonical narratives of the Passion and resurrection, the canonical Gospels are unreliable revisions of an unreliable tradition. None of the Gospels could then be trusted to provide historically reliable testimony about the final events in the life of the historical Jesus.</blockquote>

Quarles shows this claim to be virtually untenable in the light of textual analysis. First, Crossan contends that the parallels between Matthew and the gospel of Peter regarding the Pharisees gathering before Pilate and expressing concern about a staged resurrection on the third day, the guarding and sealing of the tomb of Jesus, and the description of the Jews as “the people” shows Matthean dependence upon the gospel of Peter. Quarles shows precisely the opposite after studying the redactional tendencies of Matthew and the gospel of Peter. Following Gundry,<ref>Gundry 1994, p. 584.</ref> Quarles shows that these texts are a series of “Mattheanisms,” particularly the use of the words “disciple,” “steal,” and “''mēpote''” – “lest” (except once where the gospel of Peter is clearly following Matthew in a subjunctive construction). He quotes John P. Meier by way of conclusion:

<blockquote>When it comes to who is dependent on whom, all the signs point to Matthew’s priority…. The clause is a tissue of Matthean vocabulary and style, a vocabulary and style almost totally absent from the rest of the Gospel of Peter.<ref>Meier 1991, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

Secondly, there are doctrines and sayings in the gospel of Peter which do not occur in the canonical Gospels or the New Testament. For example, Jesus’ preaching to those who have fallen asleep (to those who have died). Quarles notes in this regard:

<blockquote>If the emerging consensus of interpretation regarding 1Peter is correct, the presence of the reference to preaching to those who sleep in the Gospel of Peter suggests that the document was composed no earlier than the first quarter of the second century.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 112.</ref></blockquote>

The same holds true for other sayings, such as the “Lord’s day,” which is mentioned in the Gospel of Peter 9:35 and 12:50, but only appears in the New Testament in the Book of Revelations (approximately 90 AD). The Gospels used the more primitive expression “the first day of the week.”<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 113.</ref>

Thirdly, the description of the resurrection in the gospel of Peter is “fantastic and quite at odds with the descriptions that appear in the canonical Gospels”:

<blockquote>…as the three men exited the tomb, a cross, apparently floating through the air, followed them. …[T]he cross was capable of speech. A heavenly voice asked, “Did you preach to those who are sleeping?” and the cross replied, “Yes.”<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

We have already seen (with respect to Jesus’ miracles) the tendency of the later Gnostic gospels to move from the balanced and mature perspective of the canonical Gospels to an exaggerated, fantastic, and immature perspective (see Unit II-G, Section II). The gospel of Peter here is no different than the gospels of Thomas and Philip.

Fourthly, the “apologetical case” for Jesus’ resurrection (responding to Jewish objections at the time) is more developed in the gospel of Peter than in the Gospel of Matthew, and

<blockquote>no sensible explanation for Matthew’s elimination of helpful apologetic material available to him from the Cross Gospel exists. This suggests that the author of the gospel of Peter depended on Matthew’s Gospel but revised it in order to present a more compelling case for the resurrection.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 118.</ref></blockquote>

For these and other reasons, Quarles (along with Meier) hold Crossan’s position to be untenable , giving rise to the conclusion:

<blockquote>…[I]f the canonical Gospels are the earliest record of the Passion and resurrection, as this paper suggests, and if these contain the narratives based on eyewitness accounts, as the earliest church testimony affirms and as the internal evidence suggests, the earliest narratives of Jesus’ death and resurrection may be viewed as prophecy fulfilled rather than prophecy historicized, and speculation that Jesus was not even buried, much less raised, is groundless.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 120.</ref></blockquote>

We may now proceed to the question of the historicity of the passion narratives. Though all four Gospels portray the passion through narratives aimed at different audiences, and these narratives have different styles and redactional emphases, it does not mean that they do not possess an extensive historical core.<ref>According to Brown: “I see no need for such a dichotomy between acknowledging the narrative form of the passion and maintaining a respect for historical issues” (Brown 1994(b), p. 14).</ref>

There are remarkable agreements among the four lengthy passion narratives, but this does not automatically constitute multiple attestation because Matthew and Luke saw and made recourse to the Marcan narrative. Nevertheless, as will be explained below, Mark and John did not have knowledge of each other’s narratives, and so the many similarities between these two narratives constitute a very strong form of multiple attestation. Before considering this window into the historicity of the passion narratives, we must consider two more fundamental questions which are elucidated by Raymond Brown in his extensive two-volume analysis of the passion entitled: ''The Death of the Messiah''<ref>Brown 1994(b).</ref> :

(1) Did Jesus’ disciples have access to the data recounted in the various passion narratives? (Section I.A), and

(2) How can the criteria of historicity be applied to the passion narratives? (Section I.B)

=== Did Jesus’ Disciples Have Access to the Data Recounted in the Various Passion Narratives? ===

It is not my intention to respond to the extreme skepticism of Koester,<ref>Koester 1980, p. 127.</ref> Crossan,<ref>Crossan 1988, p. 405.</ref> and other members of the Jesus Seminar. Raymond Brown has done this quite well.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), pp. 13-24. See also the “Analysis” sections of each major part of his work, in which historicity is discussed.</ref> My objective is to briefly use the criteria of historicity<ref>See Chapter 6, Section III. Also Brown 1994(b), pp. 22-24.</ref> to uncover those parts of the narratives which may be reasonably and responsibly shown to have come from an early Palestinian passion tradition,<ref>Raymond Brown accepts the existence of such a tradition which may have been linked to eyewitnesses. He qualifies this scholarly opinion as follows: “I have accepted the likely existence of history and tradition behind the heavily scripturally reflective, kerygmatically oriented, and theologically organized PNs [passion narratives] of the Gospels…” (Brown 1994(b), p. 22).</ref> and which may also be linked to the Jesus of history.

Jesus’ crucifixion is so well attested by both Christian and non-Christian sources that it is as close to certain as any historical datum from the first century can be. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus makes explicit reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Annals (15.44) when speaking about Nero’s blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome:

<blockquote>Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.<ref>Cited in Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the authenticity of this passage, but the majority of mainstream scholars concur with Kirby that:

<blockquote>The most persuasive case is made by those who maintain that Tacitus made use of a first century Roman document concerning the nature and status of the Christian religion. As to the reliability of that source, following normal historical practice, it is prudently assumed to be accurate until demonstrated otherwise. The reference from Tacitus constitutes prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus.<ref>Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus’ crucifixion is also attested by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Recall from Unit II-F, Section I. that Josephus was writing for a Roman audience in about 93 AD, and that there are Christian interpolations in the text of Antiquities in which his testimony to Jesus is contained. As noted in Unit II-F, many mainstream scholars consider the italicized sections in the testimony cited below to be authentic:

<blockquote>''Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.'' He was [the] Christ. ''And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,'' those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. ''And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.''<ref>Josephus 1965, 18:3.3.</ref></blockquote>

Again, this non-Christian testimony to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is explicit and highly probable. There are other non-Christian testimonies to Jesus’ crucifixion, but they are far less significant than those of Tacitus and Josephus.

In addition to non-Christian testimony, Jesus’ crucifixion is attested by almost every New Testament source (e.g., the four Gospels, Acts, most of the Pauline letters, 1Peter, and the Letter to the Hebrews), it is recorded in virtually all of the primitive kerygmas,<ref>Very early proclamations of the faith recorded in Acts and the Pauline letters. For a list see Chapter 3, Section I.A.</ref> and is central to the early Church’s interpretation of Jesus and itself. Finally, one is confronted with the questions: “Why would the early Church have given detailed descriptions of the public humiliation and execution of their Messiah and Lord if it had not been historically true? What would have been the point of recounting a story that undermined its apologetical appeal?” In light of this, the crucifixion of Jesus within its proper setting (i.e., a public execution entailing an arrest, trial, and conviction) must be considered incontestable.

What about the details surrounding Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion? Are the events and details recounted in the passion narratives also historically accurate? Some critics, such as Dominic Crossan, believe that it is impossible to say because (as he gratuitously asserts) there were no eyewitnesses to the event:

<blockquote>It seems to me most likely that those closest to Jesus knew almost nothing about the details of the event. They knew only that Jesus had been crucified, outside Jerusalem, at the time of Passover, and probably through some conjunction of imperial and sacerdotal authority.<ref>Crossan 1988 ,p. 405</ref></blockquote>

Brown demolishes Crossan’s contention by pointing to a seemingly obvious and vexing difficulty:

<blockquote>[Crossan] does not explain why he thinks this “most likely,” granted the well-founded tradition that those closest to Jesus had followed him for a long period of time, day and night. Did they suddenly lose all interest, not even taking the trouble to inquire about what must have been a most traumatic moment of their lives?<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 15-16.</ref></blockquote>

Brown explains the implications of his question through a series of virtually unassailable historical judgments:

<blockquote>Yet as we move back from the Gospel narratives to Jesus himself, ultimately there were eyewitnesses and earwitnesses who were in a potion to know the broad lines of Jesus’ passion. He was accompanied in his ministry by a group of disciples known as the Twelve, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the arrest of Jesus was the occasion of his being separated from them. It is inconceivable that they showed no concern about what happened to Jesus after the arrest. True, there is no Christian claim that they were present during the legal proceedings against him, Jewish or Roman; but it is absurd to think that some information was not available to them about why Jesus has hanged on a cross. The whole purpose of crucifixion, after all, was to publicize that certain crimes would be severely punished. (That is the sense in which I include “earwitness”: hearing what was publicly said about the condemnation of Jesus.) The crucifixion itself was public, and nothing suggests that the burial was secret.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 14.</ref></blockquote>

Attempts to present scenarios contrary to Brown’s in this regard truly verge on the illogical, unreasonable, and inconceivable; and they betray motives other than that of seeking the truth.

Furthermore, there is remarkable correspondence between the passion narrative and the Gospel of John, and recent archeological evidence uncovered by Charlesworth and von Wahlde which strongly suggests that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Von Wahlde summarizes his findings as follows:

<blockquote>The significance of this [archeological evidence] for our appreciation of the historical accuracy of John’s reports is considerable. Not only does John provide several details present in the Synoptics (the name of the place [Golgotha], its location outside the city walls), but he goes on to provide more detail than the other Gospels…details not essential to the narrative. If the presence of such details at first makes verification more difficult, the fact that they are corroborated by archaeological and other means [at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem<ref>Charlesworth reports: “Archaeologists have also found the remains of a city wall to the east of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It was built sometime before Herod the Great. What is surprising is the discovery that the present city wall to the west of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the ‘third wall’ built by Agrippa between 41 and 44. This wall reveals that Golgotha was outside Jerusalem’s walls before the early forties, and Jesus was crucified on Golgotha in 30 (or perhaps 33)” (Charlesworth 2006(b), p. 31; italics mine).</ref>] demonstrates not only that the Johannine account contains remarkably accurate knowledge but also that the Gospel is in fact able to serve as a source of unique knowledge about the crucifixion and burial of Jesus.<ref>von Wahlde 2006, p. 582. See also Charlesworth 2006(b), pp. 31-37.</ref></blockquote>

This archaeological corroboration of John’s passion narrative also suggests the presence of eyewitnesses who were not only aware of the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, but also reported it to the authors of the earliest passion traditions.

Presuming, then, that there were eyewitnesses, and that they would have wanted to see or hear as much as possible about the One who was central to their lives, what could they have witnessed? They could have witnessed Jesus’ betrayal by Judas and His apprehension by the Jewish authorities. They could have also heard about any public declaration of Jesus’ charge, conviction, and sentence. They could have known who was involved in the charging, convicting, and sentencing. They could have had knowledge of public events surrounding the conviction (e.g., the release of Barabbas, or Jewish authorities stirring up the crowd). They could have witnessed the carrying of the cross and any outward signs of persecution or torture that might have preceded His journey to Golgotha (e.g., scourging or crowning with thorns). They could have witnessed the crucifixion itself, the public inscription of Jesus’ offense, the people crucified with Jesus, and they could have heard His final words, seen His death, and witnessed His burial. Evidently, they would have been a party to certain events themselves (e.g., cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant and denials).

Most of the above “witnessable” data was apologetically unappealing and presented obstacles to conversion. What would an early Jewish or gentile prospective convert find attractive about the public humiliation and execution of a messiah/leader? How did all the gory details of this crucifixion better establish Jesus’ role as messiah/leader? How would prospective Jewish converts have reacted to the contempt and rejection of Jesus by Jewish authorities? How would Peter’s denials and the apostles’ flight from Jerusalem have added to the Church’s “good image”? How does Jesus being numbered among criminals (e.g., Barabbas and the criminals crucified with Him) help the Church’s credibility among law-abiding citizens? In almost every case, the presentation of the “witnessable” data seems to undermine the early Christian’s image, credibility, and apologetical appeal. Why would they have presented these data in such detail if they had such potential and real damaging effects? I can think of only one reason. Because they were essentially true.

Can we render the same positive historical judgment about other details in the passion narratives beyond the basic “witnessable” data mentioned above? At this juncture, our pursuit of history becomes far more hazy and complex, because the witnessable data moves from eyewitnesses to catechists and teachers who need to interpret these traumatic (and unappealing) events to converts and potential converts. The natural tendency of such catechists, who were reared within Palestinian Judaism, would have been to use Scripture as a means of interpretation.<ref>The conjecture of some members of the Jesus Seminar that the early narratives of Jesus’ passion were a synthesis of interpreted Scriptures rather than an account of what really happened (Koester 1980, p. 127) is simply backwards. It is far more likely that the earliest traditions recounted what happened, allowing catechists to add sections later to interpret them. As Brown notes, “… [T]here is no evidence in the Pauline formula that scriptural reflection caused the creation of the basic incidents of the passion; far more plausibly it caused the selection and interpretation of certain features in an outline of death, burial, resurrection, and appearance that had been dictated by the early Christian memory of what happened” (Brown 1994(b), p. 16).</ref> Some of these attempts would be easily discernable because they would be introduced by phrases like “this was to fulfill the Scripture….” However, other Scripture passages might be on the lips of Jesus, such as the last words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (citing Psalm 22). The historian must now make the judgment of whether this was placed on the lips of Jesus, or whether Jesus selected these words for Himself (see below, Section II). Obviously, Jesus was accustomed to using Scripture to interpret His life, mission, and even crucifixion as much as, if not more than any later interpreter.

The historian’s task becomes even more complex when these traditions are woven into a single narrative. The editors of such narratives would have to be somewhat creative in synthesizing the various traditions. They might be inclined to embellish sayings or dialogue if that helped with the interpretation of recounted events. They could add thematic and even dramatic emphases to the narrative to further their catechetical or theological objectives. At this juncture, the historian must try to peel back the redactions of editors (especially the Evangelists) in order to get closer to the testimony of eyewitnesses which stand behind the narratives.

Recall from Unit II-B, Section I. that the first task is to get back to the primitive traditions that underlie the Gospel narratives, and then to judge the historicity of these primitive traditions by means of historical criteria and techniques to render judgments within a typical historical range:

<blockquote>…certain, very probable, probable, possible, not impossible. “Certain” has nothing to do with the certitude of mathematics or the physical sciences; it refers to the certitude we have in ordinary experience about the things we encounter or are reported to us in writing or orally.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 22.</ref></blockquote>

The earliest passion narrative is in the Gospel of Mark. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke were both aware of Mark’s narrative and relied on it. As will be seen in the next section, John was not aware of Mark’s narrative, but he made recourse to a primitive tradition(s) very similar to the ones used by Mark. This coincidence is extremely useful to historians because it allows for an application of the criterion of multiple attestation, which, in turn, helps historians make judgments about whether various verses in the narratives can be considered to be part of a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition.

In Section I.B, we will take a brief look at these criteria; in Section II we will consider the historicity of Jesus’ last words in Mark; and in Section III we will attempt to uncover the pre-Marcan tradition in Mark’s narrative, and then render some general historical judgments.

=== Application of the Criteria of Historicity to the Passion Narratives ===

The reader may wish to review the descriptions and examples of the criteria and techniques for determining the historicity of Gospel passages, which are summarized in Unit II-B, Section I. A brief description of three of these criteria will be given with particular examples from the passion narratives: (1) multiple attestation, (2) embarrassment, and (3) coherence with Jewish/Roman customs.

The reader will want to recall two caveats about assessment of historicity mentioned in Unit II-B, Section I. namely:

(a) Criteria for historicity can show the likelihood of a particular Gospel datum being historical, but the absence of criteria for historicity does not show the improbability of a particular Gospel datum being historical; the non-applicability of historical criteria shows only that we have no way of assessing historicity of a Gospel datum either positively or negatively. Thus, far more data in the passion narratives (and in the Gospels, for that matter) is historical than can ever be corroborated through historical criteria.

(b) Too rigorous an application of historical criteria can unnecessarily circumscribe corroboratable data from the Gospels. If one says, “The only data that I will accept as historical are those which are attested to by four out of five independent sources” (say, Mark, Q, special Luke, and John, leaving out only special Matthew), then one will limit oneself to very few Gospel data. If one goes even further, and requires four independent Gospel sources plus an external source (such as Tacitus and Josephus), the Gospel will be reduced to the non-interpolated statements of Tacitus and Josephus. Again, if one claims that multiple attestation is not enough – there must also be corroboration from another historical criterion (say, embarrassment or coherence to Jewish culture, etc.), then the field of acceptable data is correspondingly narrowed. The judicious use of historical criteria by mainstream exegetes such as Raymond Brown, N.T. Wright, and John P. Meier can avert unnecessary proscriptions of Gospel data, and lead to reasonable and responsible corroboration of a large range of Gospel data. We may now proceed to the three historical criteria.

1) Multiple Attestation. Recall that multiple attestation does not occur when there is repetition of passages among the three synoptic Gospels, but rather when there is repetition among the five independent sources (Mark, Q, special Matthew, special Luke, and John). Matthew and Luke relied upon and used the full text of Mark. Q is another source upon which Matthew and Luke both relied. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark in their passion narratives, and so attestation among them is not significant.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 81-82.</ref> However, as will be discussed below, Mark and John were written independently of each other, and it is quite likely that neither one had any knowledge of the other’s narrative. Nevertheless, there are no less than thirty-two similarities between the two narratives. If John is truly not dependent on Mark, then these similarities would auger very strongly for a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) passion tradition(s) upon which both Evangelists relied. This pre-Marcan tradition(s) would bring us closer to eyewitness accounts of the passion and therefore to Jesus’ passion itself.

How can we be so sure that John was not directly reliant on Mark’s narrative? In virtually every part of the Gospel except the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on water, and the passion narratives, John’s material is so distinct from Mark that it is difficult to believe that John relied on Mark unless he wanted to separate himself from, or complement Mark. Most scholars in the latter half of the twentieth century do not believe that there is Johannine dependence on Mark.<ref>Brown details the long list of exegetes who support the Johannine non-dependence theory in 1994(b), p. 76, note 91.</ref>

But what about Johannine dependence on the Marcan passion narrative? As can be seen from the table above, there are so many similarities between Mark and John that the possibility of dependence must be considered. There are two significant factors militating against the dependence conjecture. First, despite the many similarities, there are many more dissimilarities in content and order between the two passion narratives.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 81.</ref> Secondly, many of the differences between Mark and John are inexplicable, if not illogical if John truly depended on Mark.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref> Why would John have put his narrative into a more scattered and strangely ordered state than Mark’s if he depended on Mark? (A love of disorder?) Why would he have omitted details in Mark which would have been of interest to him (e.g., the kiss of Judas; mention of Simon of Cyrene; the sixth and ninth hour when darkness came over the land; the derision by the crowds at the cross; the confusion regarding Elijah – even though this may have been elicited by Jesus’ last words in Mark, which are not mentioned in John; omission of three of Mark’s women witnesses – Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, as well as “other women” in Mark, versus Mary the mother of Jesus, and His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas in John). These omissions and reorderings make little sense if John truly depended on Mark. For this reason, Brown concludes:

<blockquote>Throughout the commentary I shall come again and again to what I regard as a completely illogical result if John knew Mark. For that reason I shall work with the thesis that John wrote his passion narrative independently of Mark’s.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref></blockquote>

So what is the likely scenario for the Marcan and Johannine passion narratives’ development? Brown believes that this occurred in five stages:

a) Eyewitnesses. See the rationale for these eyewitness accounts given above in Section I.A.

b) A basic catechetical outline. A basic sequence of major events was formulated soon after the events of the passion connecting the Last Supper to the arrest, then to the condemnation, then to the crucifixion, then to the burial. This sequence guided the Church’s early proclamations and catechesis as well as Eucharistic memories. This is evident from Pauline and other non-Gospel New Testament writings.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 83.</ref>

c) Pre-Gospel traditions. Widely circulated stories/traditions (probably both oral and written) were formed from eyewitness accounts about particular figures and incidents in the passion narratives (alongside the basic catechetical outline). The stories were not yet connected to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 83-84.</ref>

d) Pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine traditions. The stories and basic outline made their way toward the Marcan and Johannine communities where eventually a pre-Marcan author(s) connected many of the stories to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 84.</ref>

e) The Marcan and Johannine passion narratives. The two Evangelists used two versions of the pre-Marcan tradition along with additional pre-Gospel traditions<ref>As Soards’ table indicates, there were probably several such pre-Gospel traditions along with other narrative traditions. See Soards 1994, pp. 1492-1524.</ref> to formulate the passion narratives we have today.

It is likely that much of the “witnessable” data in the thirty-two common elements in the Marcan and Johannine narratives made their way from eyewitnesses into the pre-Gospel traditions, and then into the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition(s), and then into the Gospel narratives. This would include:

Judas as betrayer bringing soldiers with weapons; Jesus being seized; the high priest’s servant’s ear being cut off; Jesus’ exchange with His apprehenders; Jesus being subjected to a Jewish judicial inquest; Peter’s three denials; the high priest’s maid as first inquirer; Peter warming himself by the fire in the high priest’s courtyard; the bystanders as inquirers in the third denial; the Jewish authorities making accusations against Jesus to Pilate; the crowd asking for the release of Barabbas; Pilate not finding Jesus guilty of a crime; the crowds responding multiple times “Crucify Him”; Pilate having Jesus scourged; Pilate handing Jesus over to be crucified, Jesus being crowned with thorns; Jesus proceeding to Golgotha with a cross, the crucifixion of Jesus; an inscription reading “King of the Jews”; the soldiers dividing Jesus’ garments and casting lots for them; two criminals being crucified with Jesus, one on either side of Him; Mary Magdalene witnessing the crucifixion; the soldiers giving a vinegar-filled sponge to Jesus on the cross; Joseph of Arimathea obtaining permission to bury Jesus; and Joseph of Arimathea wrapping the body of Jesus in a linen cloth, and putting Him in a tomb.<ref>For evidence of the apostles knowing the place of burial and witnessing the empty tomb, see Chapter 4, Section II.B.</ref>

Some of these conclusions (as well as others) are corroborated by three other historical criteria which will be discussed in the forthcoming subsections.

(2) Embarrassment. Recall from Unit II-B, Section I., that if a particular Gospel datum was embarrassing to the Church, or undermined the reputation of the apostles, or cast dispersions upon Jesus, then we can be quite certain that the Evangelists (and the formulators of early traditions) did not invent it. Raymond Brown points to several such data in the passion narratives, for example: Judas (one of the Twelve apostles) betraying Jesus; many of the disciples not remaining with Jesus during the passion; and Peter denying Jesus three times.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> There are other data which are embarrassing, but may have been recounted for other reasons. For example, Jesus praying in the garden, “Remove this cup from me” (Mark 14:36), which looks like Jesus is trying to avoid the cross. Although this could not have been catechetically appealing, someone could conjecture that this passage is meant “to teach Christians that facing death constitutes a trial that may challenge even sincere commitment.”<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> Nevertheless, the datum is still catechetically unappealing, and would have been very risky for the Evangelist or early Church to have invented.

The same holds true for Jesus’ last words in the Gospel of Mark: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” As will be discussed below (Section II), the last words of Jesus do not enjoy multiple attestation because John does not recount them (and places a completely different phrase on the lips of Jesus – “It is finished”). Many scholars believe, however, that this datum is historical because it would have likely been misinterpreted by gentile audiences who might not have known that the phrase (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) refers to the whole of Psalm 22 (a Psalm of God redeeming the sufferings of the just one and bringing salvation through it to all nations and generations). Gentile audiences would have been likely to believe that Jesus was so demoralized that He lost His confidence in God and thought that God was forsaking Him. This misinterpretation would not only have been embarrassing to the Church, but would have led to a theology precisely contrary to what Jesus intended and to what the Church taught. It is difficult to believe that Mark would have invented this phrase as Jesus’ last words, and much more likely that John (like Luke), if he was aware of the phrase from a pre-Johannine tradition, would have dropped it since he was writing for a gentile audience that could have easily misinterpreted it.

(3) Coherence with Jewish/Roman customs. There are three elements which are relevant here: (a) coherence with Jewish customs, (b) Semitisms, and (c) coherence with Roman customs. The last area is somewhat complex<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 19ff.</ref> and not especially germane to the point of this Unit; so I will limit discussion to the first two areas.

(a) ''Correspondence with Jewish custom''. One major point bears mentioning, because it shows Mark’s<ref>The historicity of the Marcan narrative will be assessed throughout the rest of the chapter.</ref> fidelity to the Jewish customs which would have been in effect at the time of Jesus’ passion, namely, Mark’s careful recounting of how the Sanhedrin adhered to the Mishna only when it was in conformity to the Sadducee law. Blinzler notes in this regard:

<blockquote>The fact that Mk 14 and 15 juxtapose items which sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the requirements of the Mishnah was hitherto felt puzzling. The explanation is that the Sanhedrin was at that time bound by the Sadducee law, which agreed with the Mishnah only exceptionally. But if Mk 14 and 15 were a legendary construction, it would be hard to explain how the author, supposedly so uninterested in historical fact, managed to be so accurate with regard to the legal custom: to the unlikely extent, that is, that the actions of the Sanhedrin only agreed with the Mishnah when the provisions of the latter coincided with those of the Sadducees, and not otherwise.<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref></blockquote>

(b) ''Semitisms''. There is one truly remarkable Semitism recorded in the Marcan narrative, namely, Jesus’ final words: “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''.” The Marcan version of the final words is to be preferred over the Matthean one, because it is probable that Matthew tried to “clean up” Mark’s Aramaic citation of the divine name (“''Elōi''”)<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref> with the more proper Hebrew version of it (''“’Ēlî”''), which would have been recited in the synagogue.<ref>Recall that Matthew is writing for a well-educated Jewish audience, and was trying to convince them of the Messiahship of Jesus. He knew the appropriate Hebrew form of the Psalm and changed Mark’s Aramaic “Elōi” to the Hebrew “Ēli.” See Brown 1994(b), pp. 1051-1052.</ref> The fact that Matthew records the Aramaic “''sabachthani''” (instead of the more appropriate Hebrew ''ăzabtānî'') convinces most scholars that Matthew retained remnants of an original Aramaic version.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. Mark’s use of “lama” (instead of the Aramaic “lĕmā”) is not problematic because it was common practice at that time to transliterate the shewa (short “e” vowel) by “a” instead of “e.” See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. See also Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58; and Harrington 1990, p. 628.</ref>

Is Mark’s Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words truly Jesus’ words? It seems likely because much of Mark’s mixed gentile-Jewish audience would not have recognized either the Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the Psalm, which evidently compelled Mark to translate it into Greek. Why would Mark have recorded an Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words which most of his audience would not have understood? Why not simply give the Greek translation without the Aramaic? Furthermore, why give an Aramaic translation of the Psalms instead of the more proper and easily recognizable Hebrew version? The fact that Jesus may well have learned the Psalms in Aramaic and recited the Psalms in Aramaic to His Galilean audience may provide a clue to the origin of the Aramaic version of the Psalm – namely, Jesus Himself.<ref>Though Mark cites Aramaic versions of Old Testament texts elsewhere, this may be out of deference to Jesus rather than Mark’s preference.</ref> The application of other historical criteria to this question will further confirm the origin of these words in Jesus. This will be considered in the following section.

== The Final Words of Jesus ==

Given that Mark’s version of Jesus’ final words is more original than Matthew’s version, we may now return to the question of whether Mark’s version is historical. Though the Aramaic rendition of the final words is a clue to their origin in Jesus, it is not definitive because Luke gives a different version of the final words (“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” – Luke 23:46), and so does John (“It is finished” – John 19:30). Why should Mark be preferred to Luke and John?

With respect to Luke’s version of the final words, there are four reasons to suspect that Mark’s version is closer to Jesus’ own. First, Luke was aware of Mark’s version of the final words, and would have had to have intentionally changed them. Secondly, Luke prefers to shift the focus from Jesus’ feelings of desolation to Jesus’ trust. Instead of Psalm 22:2 (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”), Luke portrays Jesus reciting Psalm 31:6 (“Into your hands I commend my spirit”), which effects this shift in focus. Luke’s preference to portray Jesus as confident (and eliminate any hint of spiritual disturbance) is evidenced in his elimination of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ anxiety in the garden of Gethsemane (“My soul is very sorrowful unto death”). It is much easier to believe that Luke has continued his redactional policy of eliminating Marcan references to Jesus’ anxiety than to believe that Luke’s version of Jesus’ words is more original. Thirdly, Luke substitutes “Father” for the Psalmist’s reference to “God,” which is very likely a redaction. Finally, Luke selects a Psalm passage which speaks to Jesus’ Spirit, which is a clear focus of his Gospel and an allusion to the Holy Spirit, which is the focus of the Acts of the Apostles.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1067.</ref> For this reason, most scholars believe that the Lukan version is a redaction of the Marcan original.

What about John’s version of the last words (“It is finished”)? Unlike Luke, John was not aware of the Marcan passion narrative, yet there is significant evidence that Mark and John borrowed from a common pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition (see above, Section I.B.1). Does John’s very different version of Jesus’ final words imply that the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition did not have any version of Jesus’ final words (and that both Mark and John invented their own in the absence of a more original version)? The answer is probably ‘no,’ because of light shed upon the question by the historical criterion of embarrassment.

Recall from Section I.B.2 that John’s predominately gentile audience could have misinterpreted Jesus’ last words as recorded by Mark. Indeed, as we just saw, Luke certainly thought this was a possibility for his gentile audience. The majority of John’s audience would probably not have recognized Psalm 22 in the Aramaic expression, “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani'',” and they would not have known that this first line referred to the entire Psalm. Therefore, they would not have known that Jesus’ last words were a prayer of trust in God which would lead not only to the vindication of His suffering, but to universal salvation for all humankind for all time (see below in this section).<ref>As Brown notes, “Perhaps the most frequently offered argument for softening the dour import of the Mark/Matt death cry is based on the general context of Ps 22. Jesus cites the opening verse of a psalm that continues for thirty more verses. By the end the psalmist will take a positive view: Rejoicing, he will proclaim that he has survived the danger and that after all God did not spurn him or ‘turn His face away’ (Ps 22:25). Accordingly some would invoke a hermeneutic principle that a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context” (Brown 1994(b), pp. 1049-1050).</ref> Thus (as the Johannine author very probably perceived), they would have interpreted these words to mean that Jesus felt abandoned by the Father, which is precisely the opposite of what the Psalm intends, what the early Church believed, and what Jesus intended. Not only would this have been confusing and misleading to gentile members of the early Church; it would have been apologetically unappealing and embarrassing to the Church in gentile regions. Thus, John, like Luke, would have had everything to lose (and nothing to gain) by retaining these words on the lips of the dying Jesus.

Therefore, there is considerable reason to believe prima facie that John, like Luke, would have been inclined to change Jesus’ dying words from those of Psalm 22 to something less misleading and more consistent with Jesus’ intention and the belief of the early Church. He decides upon the simple phrase, “It is finished,” which refers to Jesus’ project of redemption, the completion of which John has been pointing to throughout the “Book of Glory” (chapters 13-21).

This leads to the obvious question of why Mark (who was addressing a mixed gentile-Jewish audience) would have retained Psalm 22 as Jesus’ final words when many of his audience members would have been likely to misinterpret them in the same way as John’s and Luke’s audiences. Before responding, it is worth noting that this question does not apply to Matthew with the same force as Mark because the majority of Matthew’s audience was Jewish. Many in that audience would have been educated enough to see Psalm 22 through Matthew’s Hebraic version of it, and many would have understood that the first line of the Psalm referred to the whole Psalm. Brown points to a well-known hermeneutical principle in this regard:

<blockquote>…a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 1050.</ref></blockquote>

In the case of Psalm 22, the context speaks of trust in God, vindication, and salvation for the world.

However, the above hermeneutical principle would not have applied to the gentile members of Mark’s audience; so why did he retain these words? I think there is only one plausible explanation – namely, that they are in fact the final words of Jesus. It would be inconceivable to suggest that Mark invented these words to place on the lips of Jesus given the probability of their misinterpretation (with significant negative consequences) by a large segment of his audience. Therefore, it seems likely that Mark received these words from either a pre-Marcan tradition or from Peter (for whom Mark was interpreter). In either case, Mark must have believed that these words were truly those of Jesus, and decided to retain them in their Aramaic form precisely for this reason. There does not appear to be any other reasonable motive for his taking the risk of significant misinterpretation and apologetically unappealing embarrassment.

So if we consider “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''” to be the dying words of the historical Jesus, and if we apply Brown’s hermeneutical principle to Jesus Himself (implying that Jesus expected informed listeners to “be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context”), then it seems likely that the dying Jesus was praying the whole of Psalm 22 to His Father while giving His listeners an insight into how He interpreted His sacrificial death through that prayer. Mally notes in this regard:

<blockquote>As a quotation of an OT Ps, it can hardly be taken literally as an expression of real despair or dereliction. Rather, Jesus applies to himself an OT passage that sums up the suffering of the upright individual who turns to his God in the stress of hostile opposition and its ensuing depression. In using the Ps, Jesus does not express the feeling that his life’s work has failed and that God has therefore abandoned him; he identifies himself with a biblical precedent, the persecuted upright man ''who has trusted in Yahweh'', and found in him ''the source of his consolation and ultimate triumph'' [italics mine].<ref>Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58. See also J. Gnilka 1959, pp. 294-97.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, Jesus’ reference to Psalm 22 is an expression of trust and confidence in the Father that His suffering will result in the triumph of His mission. As noted in the previous Unit, that mission is actualized for all future generations through the gift of His presence and unconditional redeeming Love in the Eucharist.

A closer look at the Psalm may give a deep insight into the panoply of Jesus’ thoughts and feelings at the time of His crucifixion. The Psalm may be divided into three parts:

(1) “2-22, the complaint, with repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence (4-6; 10-11),”<ref>Murphy 1968, p. 579.</ref>

(2) “23-32, thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share (23-27),<ref>Murphy 1968, p. 579.</ref>” and

(3) the worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh (28-32).

Each part will be presented in turn.

(1) Complaint, repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence.

''My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?''

''Why are you so far from saving me,''

''so far from the words of my groaning?''

''Oh my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,''

''and by night, but I have no rest.''

Then, the psalmist shifts perspective as he does several times throughout the Psalm, and introduces the theme of God’s holiness and grandeur, worthy of praise and trust:

''Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;''

''you are the praise of Israel.''

''In you our fathers put their trust;''

''they trusted and you delivered them.''

''They cried to you and were saved;''

''in you they trusted and were not disappointed.''

The psalmist then turns back to the deplorable nature of his condition:

''But I am a worm and not a man,''

''scorned by men and despised by the people.''

''All who see me mock me;''

''they hurl insults, shaking their heads:''

''“He trusted in the Lord;''

''let the Lord rescue him.''

''Let Him deliver him''

''since He delights in him."''

The uncanny resemblance between the psalmist’s words and the events taking place around Jesus give one pause. After describing the inauthentic words of the crowd (who believe that the Lord will not fulfill the trust of the psalmist), the psalmist shifts back to his fervent trust in the Lord:

''Yet you brought me out of the womb;''

''you made me trust in you;''

''even at my mother’s breast.''

''From birth I was cast upon you;''

''from my mother’s womb you have been my God.''

Having renewed his trust in the Lord, the psalmist makes an earnest petition for help:

''Do not be far from me,''

''for trouble is near''

''and there is no one to help.''

''Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.''

''Roaring lions tearing their prey''

''open their mouths wide against me.''

Then the psalmist uses the same words seen in the suffering servant song (Is 52:13-53:12) and Jesus’ eucharistic words:

''I am poured out like water,''

''and all my bones are out of joint.''

''My heart has turned to wax;''

''it has melted away within me.''

''My strength is dried up like a potsherd,''

''and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;''

''you lay me in the dust of death.''

In continuing his description of his suffering to Yahweh, the psalmist again describes events uncannily similar to Jesus’ crucifixion:

''Dogs have surrounded me;''

''a band of evil men has encircled me,''

''they have pierced my hands and my feet.''

''I can count all my bones;''

''people stare and gloat over me.''

''They divide my garments among them''

''and cast lots for my clothing.''

The psalmist makes another earnest petition for God’s help and consolation:

''But you, oh Lord, be not far off;''

''oh my Strength, come quickly to help me.''

''Deliver my life from the sword,''

''my precious life from the power of the dogs.''

''Rescue me from the mouth of the lion;''

''save me from the horns of the wild oxen.''

(2) Thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share. The psalmist then reaffirms his trust and confidence in the Lord, as if to say that he will live beyond his current persecution to bring the praise of the Lord’s name to all who fear him:

''I will declare your name to my brothers;''

''in the congregation I will praise you.''

''You who fear the Lord, praise him!''

''All you descendents of Jacob, honor him!''

''Revere him, all you descendents of Israel!''

The psalmist then gives his reason for his confidence in God, and his belief in his future:

''For he has not despised or disdained''

''the suffering of the afflicted one;''

''he has not hidden his face from him''

''but has listened to his cry for help.''

''From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;''

''before those who fear you I will fulfill my vows.''

The psalmist then moves into a prophetic, and even messianic tone, speaking of signs of the new Jerusalem; messianic signs which Jesus says, when quoting the prophet Isaiah, are being fulfilled in Himself:<ref>See Matt. 11:5ff and Lk 4:18ff, referring to Is 61:1ff.</ref>

''The poor will eat and be satisfied;''

''they who seek the Lord will praise Him –''

''may your hearts live forever.''

(3) The worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh. The psalmist then confidently suggests universality of salvation arising out of Yahweh’s mercy:

''All the ends of the earth''

''will remember and turn to the Lord,''

''and all the families of the nations''

''will bow down before Him,''

''for dominion belongs to the Lord''

''and He rules over the nations.''

The psalmist then suggests that Yahweh’s salvation will extend to all those who are raised on high, and those who are in the grave:

''All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;''

''all who go down to the dust will kneel before Him –''

''those who cannot keep themselves alive.''

''Posterity will serve Him;''

''future generations will be told about the Lord.''

''They will proclaim His righteousness''

''to a people yet unborn –''

''for He has done it.''

This Psalm on the dying lips of Jesus is quite remarkable. In the midst of recounting events quite similar to His crucifixion, the Psalm expresses His mind and heart as He cries out for help, as He is overwhelmingly confident in that help, and as He sees the ultimate result of that help in a salvation that will not only reach to the ends of the earth, but to all future generations on the earth, and even to those who are raised on high and those who “go down to the dust.” Thus, the Psalm connects Jesus’ torment with His confidence in the Father as He looks beyond His suffering, beyond Jerusalem, beyond the present age, and beyond earthly existence, to a redemption which will take hold in the life of God Himself. Jesus’ eucharistic words are not only consonant with those of the psalm, they give the psalm’s words ultimate meaning and reality; for they provide the vehicle through which Jesus’ person and love will save universally and eternally.

== The Passion of Jesus in Mark and in Pre-Marcan Tradition (14:32-15:37) ==

Mark gives us the oldest account of the passion. Though it tries to reconcile the passion with Old Testament prophesy, its primary objective is not apologetical.<ref>See Matt. 11:5ff and Lk 4:18ff, referring to Is 61:1ff.</ref> Rather, it intends to give an account of the sufferings freely endured by Jesus and “to show clearly what persons and what authorities were responsible for the death of Jesus and the extent of their guilt.”<ref>“This explains the information given about the members of the Sanhedrin (14:1, 43, 53, 55, 63-65;15:1, 10f., 31 f.; contrast 15:43-46), Judas (14:10f., 18-21, 42, 45), the crowd (14:65; 15:8, 11-15, 29f., 35; cf. 15:40f.; 16:1-8; 15:21), Pilate (15:2-15, 43-45) and the Roman soldiers (15:16-20, 21-27; cf. 15:39)” (Blinzler 1968-70, p. 351.)</ref> Mark believes that this is Jesus’ central salvific act and uses it to frame the rest of his Gospel. As Blinzler notes:

<blockquote>Mark already had before him such a relatively fixed account from oral tradition, as the insertion of 14:3-9 shows, and he enlarged it with further matter, e.g., with “memoirs” of Peter (apart from 14:3-9) such as the account of the denial (14:54, 66-72). …[T]he Gospel of Mark has been called, not unjustly, “a passion-narrative with a long introduction” (M. Kähler).<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 351.</ref></blockquote>

As noted above, there is substantial New Testament and extra-testamental evidence for the historicity of Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion.<ref>See Section I of this Unit.</ref> Many other facts surrounding the crucifixion are also very probably historical. By using the criteria and techniques elucidated above (Sections I.A and B), we can first ascertain what material from Mark’s passion narrative probably came from a pre-Marcan tradition, and the material from that tradition which could have come from eyewitness accounts. Scholars have worked diligently on these tasks for over a century, and it is beyond the scope of this study to report comprehensively on their findings.<ref>See Soards 1994, pp. 1502-1517.</ref> My objective is only to give a report about where the preponderance of scholarly opinion lies with regard to an early pre-Marcan tradition and the historicity of the facts within that tradition.

There is a strong likelihood that Mark made recourse to a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which he redacted and stylized to give coherence and meaning to this exceedingly significant event for the Christian Church.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), pp. 20-22.</ref> There is a wide variety of opinion about which verses originated with this pre-Marcan tradition(s) and which ones originated with Mark. Marion Soards has gathered a tremendous amount of data from 34 scholars representing a wide range of theological and exegetical perspectives.<ref>See Soards 1994, pp. 1492-1524.</ref> I have taken the liberty of presenting the Revised Standard Version of the Marcan passion narrative, and indicating the likelihood that each of its verses originated with a pre-Marcan tradition or with Mark himself according to the following key:<ref>I relied completely on Soards’ chart of scholars in Soards 1994, pp. 1502-1517. The key reflects what the majority of scholars assessed by Soards believe about the Marcan or pre-Marcan origins of particular verses.</ref>

Bold A large majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Italics A small majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Bold Italics The scholarly community is about evenly split on whether this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition, or with Mark himself.

Normal font The majority of the scholarly community believes that this verse originated with Mark (and is therefore a Marcan redaction).

Mark Chapter 14

32 They went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and He said to His disciples, “Sit here, while I pray.” 33 And He took with Him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. 34 ''And He said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch.”'' 35 And going a little farther, He fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. 36 ''And He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt.” And He came and found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour?'' 38 ''' ''Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”'' ''' 39 And again He went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 ''' ''And again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer Him.'' ''' 41 ''And He came the third time, and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.'' 42 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”

43 And immediately, while He was still speaking Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I shall kiss is the man; seize Him and lead Him away safely.” And when he came, he went up to Him at once, and said, “Master!” And he kissed Him. And they laid hands on Him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” And they all forsook Him, and fled.

51 ''And a young man followed Him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.''

53 And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. And Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death; but they found none. 56 ''' ''For many bore false witness against Him, and their witness did not agree.'' ''' 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against Him, saying, “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet not even so did their testimony agree. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you? 61 ''' ''But He was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked Him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”'' ''' 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”<ref>I relied completely on Soards’ chart of scholars in Soards 1994, pp. 1502-1517. The key reflects what the majority of scholars assessed by Soards believe about the Marcan or pre-Marcan origins of particular verses.</ref> 63 ''' ''And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard His blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned Him as deserving death.'' ''' 65 ''And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to strike Him, saying to Him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received Him with blows.''

66 ''And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came; 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway. 69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” 70 But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.” 71 But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.” 72 And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.''

Mark Chapter 15

1 And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. And Pilate asked Him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And He answered him “You have said so.” And the chief priests accused Him of many things. And Pilate again asked Him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered.

Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they asked. And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. And he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered Him up. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” And they cried out again, “Crucify Him.” And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him.” So, Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

And the soldiers led Him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. And they clothed Him in a purple cloak, and placing a crown of thorns they put it on Him. And they began to salute Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck His head with a reed, and spat upon Him, and they knelt down in homage to Him. And when they had mocked Him, they stripped Him of the purple cloak, and put His own clothes on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him.

And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry His cross. And they brought Him to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). And they offered Him wine mingled with myrrh; but He did not take it. And they crucified Him, and divided His garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour, when they crucified Him. And the inscription of the charge against Him read, “The King of the Jews.” And with Him they crucified two robbers, one on His right and one on His left. And those who passed by derided Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 ''' ''So also the chief priests mocked Him to one another with the scribes, saying, “He saved others; He cannot save Himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with Him also reviled Him.'' '''

And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” Which means, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Behold, He is calling Elijah.” And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to Him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down.” And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.

38 ''' ''And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing Him, saw that He thus breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the son of God!”'' '''

''' ''There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome,'' ''' 41 who, when He was in Galilee, followed Him, and ministered to Him; and also many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

42 ''' ''And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath,'' ''' 43 ''Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.'' 44 And Pilate wondered if He were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether He was already dead. 45 ''' ''And when he learned from the centurion that He was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.'' ''' 46 ''And he bought a linen shroud, and taking Him down, wrapped Him in the linen shroud, and laid Him in a tomb which has been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.'' 47 ''' ''Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where He was laid.'' '''

*****

As can be seen from the above, most scholars consider the vast majority of the passion narrative to have come from a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which would presumably include some accounts from Peter. Notice that the probable Marcan redactions are not concerned with the torment, crucifixion, and death of Jesus. They are meant to explain who is primarily guilty (i.e., Judas, the chief priests, and the council), who is less culpable (i.e., Pilate), and who is ironically the prophetic spokesman of the meaning of the passion (i.e., the centurion). They also center on Mark’s interpretation of why Jesus was accused of blasphemy (i.e., identifying Himself with the eschatological Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14). If these elements are “bracketed,” the passion story retains its poignant central core, which likely represents the traditions which Mark received as he prepared his narrative.

The question of whether the pre-Marcan tradition is faithful to accounts from eyewitnesses and earwitnesses is more difficult to ascertain. One cannot assume that a verse was witnessed simply because it was included in a pre-Marcan tradition. As was made clear in Section I.B, the pre-Marcan tradition relied on pre-Gospel traditions and stories, and had developments and accretions arising out of catechetical and pedagogical concerns. Nevertheless, it is likely that the pre-Marcan tradition(s) contained a considerable amount of “witnessable” and witnessed data for the reasons mentioned in Section I above – particularly as regards the betrayal by Judas, the arrest, a Jewish judicial inquest, Peter’s denials, the involvement of Pontius Pilate, the involvement of Jewish authorities in accusing Jesus, the release of Barabbas, the involvement of Roman soldiers, and facts surrounding the crucifixion (e.g., being scourged, being crowned with thorns, the vinegary wine, being hanged on a cross, the inscription on the cross, and the two other criminals). I would also include Jesus’ final words as recounted in Mark’s Gospel (for the reasons mentioned in the previous section), and the fact of Jesus’ burial (for the reasons mentioned in Chapter 4, Section II.B). A more detailed list of other “witnessable” data which is common to both the Marcan and Johannine traditions may be found above in Section I.B. Additional details about the historicity of particular verses in the pre-Marcan tradition(s) may be found in the “Analysis” sections following each major part of Raymond Brown’s The Death of the Messiah.

An appreciation of the significance of the passion, particularly as regards the central question of this book (i.e., “Is Jesus Emmanuel?”), cannot be attained through exegetical and historical analysis alone. Though this analysis is necessary in order to understand the meaning and reality of the events surrounding Jesus’ death, it almost blocks out the heart’s reasons to give greater clarity to the mind’s reasons. I can’t speak for you, the reader, but when I am applying criteria and techniques of historicity to particular texts, I am not being flooded with inspiration and love; and so I find it necessary to move to the domain of contemplation after I have satisfied myself about the historicity of the essential elements of Jesus’ passion. Contemplation allows one to be moved in the heart – to be struck with delight, or wonder, or amazement; to perceive beauty; to exalt; to be moved with gratitude; to feel awe and glory; to be inspired; to be moved by what is just and good and generous, and above all, to be moved by love – unconditional Love. Thus, contemplation is essential to the appreciation of Jesus’ passion, which is above all an act of incredible love.

== Contemplation on the Passion ==

The passion narratives open upon a virtually limitless depth of love, which can best be gleaned through contemplation. As explained in the previous chapter, Jesus views His passion as the culmination of His mission, the concretization of His unconditional Love in history, and His gift of unconditional Love to the world for all eternity (through the Eucharist). The reader’s time will be well spent on considering His loving intention, attitude, and feeling in His gift of self in the events of the passion.

One successful method of entering into contemplation is recommended by Saint Ignatius of Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises. It entails entering into the scene, considering the personalities and dispositions of people in the scene, and focusing on the heart of Jesus manifest through the people and events in the scene.

In light of the above, one may want to use the following structure to contemplate on the passion. After reading a particular passage at least twice, first consider various physical aspects of the scene, then:

• the persons in the scene along with Jesus, then
• Jesus’ attitude toward the people in the scene (recalling that Jesus’ attitudes are reflected in the beatitudes – humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, merciful, peacemaking, etc.), then
• Jesus’ relationship to the Father (applying Psalm 22, the Suffering Servant song – Isaiah 52:13-53:12, and Jesus’ prayer in the Garden), then
• Jesus’ universal salvific intent (applying the simile of the paschal lamb and the words “This is my body,” “the blood of the covenant,” “for all,” and “Do this in remembrance of me” – see Chapter 9, Section II.B), then
• Jesus’ love for the people in the scene (including His persecutors), His love of the Father, and His love of humankind.

You might then look at Jesus’ acceptance of anguish for the sake of love. In light of this, you might consider Jesus’ love for you and others; His hopes and aspirations for you and for others. Accept that love, accept His wanting to be your paschal lamb, sin-offering (scapegoat), and blood of the covenant (to guarantee eternal life with Him and the Father); and then, express to God what you desire.

After you have completed your contemplation, you might want to ask the recurrent questions in this book: Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this for my sake and the sake of all? Is Jesus Christ His Emmanuel? If so, then the unconditional Love of God is real and has been fully actualized in the world. That unconditional Love is unconditional light in the darkness, unconditional hope amidst dejection, unconditional resurrection amidst the cross, and unconditional redemption amidst our sin. It is unconditional life unto unconditional joy in the unconditional love of the triune God.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Passion

2015-01-08T17:57:28Z

David Persyn: /* The Final Words of Jesus */ fix format error

Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith – Jesus

Unit II. M

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Passion

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-M_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Passion.3F | Return to the Table of Contents]]

'''Introduction'''

The Eucharist is not only Jesus’ definitive interpretation of His passion and death; it is also the definitive vehicle through which He communicates His presence and love to all future generations. So, how can our insight into the preciousness of this gift be deepened through the examination of Jesus’ passion? From a contemplative point of view, the possibilities are considerable for deepening the heart’s awareness of the love of Christ. As one considers Jesus’ willing acceptance of each part of the passion as a gift of self (love) for all humankind, one begins to affectively (not just intellectually) appreciate what unconditional Love really is; and when one sees this Love through the eyes, the face, the mind, the heart of the gentle Lamb willingly led to the slaughter, one begins to receive an answer to the questions: “Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this?” and “Is Jesus His Emmanuel?”

Since my intention here is to induce contemplation (that is, prayerful reflection on the texts of the passion), I will discuss only three important propaedeutic points: (1) an overview of the historicity of the passion narratives (Section I)<ref>Any reader interested in a detailed exegesis of the passion narratives should make recourse to Raymond Brown’s comprehensive work The Death of the Messiah [Brown 1994(b)]. </ref>, (2) an analysis of Jesus’ final words on the cross (Section II), and (3) a presentation of the pre-Marcan tradition and Mark’s passion narrative (Section III). The reader may then want to return to the previous Unit on the Eucharist to probe with contemplative insight into the meaning and reality of Jesus’ love.

== The Historicity of the Passion ==

It may be observed from the outset that Jesus’ plan to redeem the world was anything but apologetical or popular, for the idea of a suffering Messiah was thought to be a curse by His Jewish and gentile contemporaries (Dt 21:23, Gal 3:13, I Cor 12:3).<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 350.</ref> Nevertheless, Jesus, knowing what would befall Him,<ref>This is clear from the pre-planning implicit in the institution of the Eucharist, and also from the multiple predictions of His passion (Mt 16:13-23, 17:22-23, 20:17-19; Mk 8:27-33, 9:30-32, 10:32-34; Lk 9:18-22, 9:43-45, and 18:31-34).</ref> proceeded resolutely toward Jerusalem. In light of our discussion of the Eucharist, His plan had but one objective: to join with the Father in an act of unconditional self-gift (love) for the salvation of humankind. Even though Jesus was convinced of His vindication and resurrection (see Unit II-L, Section II), He must have known that the crucifixion would be viewed as a scandal, and used against Him by His critics. Nevertheless, He viewed the passion as being indispensable to His mission. Why? Because He associated the passion with gift of self, which, as is clear from His institution of the Eucharist, He associated with unconditional Love. One can see this kind of love mirrored in parents who willingly endure humiliation, and even place themselves in harm’s way, in order to protect the lives and future of their children. Jesus viewed Himself as responsible (as shepherd and brother) for all of us who were to become, through Him, the Father’s adopted children.

Before beginning a formal analysis of the historicity of the passion narratives, we will want to examine a contention of Dominic Crossan (of the Jesus Seminar) who throws the historicity of these narratives into question by suggesting that they are derivatives of the (Gnostic) gospel of Peter. The gospel of Peter is a narrative of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. It consists of sixty verses and has been dated to Papyri originating in about 200 AD.<ref>See Koester 1990, pp. 216-17.</ref> Crossan ignores the fact that there is no evidence for the gospel of Peter prior to 200 AD, and makes a radical suggestion that it was the only source from which the passion narratives of the four canonical Gospels were derived:

<blockquote>Composed by the fifties C.E., and possibly at Sepphoris in Galilee, it [the Cross Gospel in the Gospel of Peter] is the single source of the intracanonical passion narratives.<ref>See Crossan 1991, p. 429. See also Crossan 1985, pp. 132-34.</ref> <ref>Quarles 2006, p. 119.</ref></blockquote>

Charles Quarles sums up Crossan’s conclusions from his radical contention (which does not enjoy wide acceptance in the scholarly community<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 106.</ref>) as follows:

<blockquote>The GP is more a product of the author’s creative literary imagination than a reflection of eyewitness accounts of actual events. Thus, if the GP is the single source for the canonical narratives of the Passion and resurrection, the canonical Gospels are unreliable revisions of an unreliable tradition. None of the Gospels could then be trusted to provide historically reliable testimony about the final events in the life of the historical Jesus.</blockquote>

Quarles shows this claim to be virtually untenable in the light of textual analysis. First, Crossan contends that the parallels between Matthew and the gospel of Peter regarding the Pharisees gathering before Pilate and expressing concern about a staged resurrection on the third day, the guarding and sealing of the tomb of Jesus, and the description of the Jews as “the people” shows Matthean dependence upon the gospel of Peter. Quarles shows precisely the opposite after studying the redactional tendencies of Matthew and the gospel of Peter. Following Gundry,<ref>Gundry 1994, p. 584.</ref> Quarles shows that these texts are a series of “Mattheanisms,” particularly the use of the words “disciple,” “steal,” and “''mēpote''” – “lest” (except once where the gospel of Peter is clearly following Matthew in a subjunctive construction). He quotes John P. Meier by way of conclusion:

<blockquote>When it comes to who is dependent on whom, all the signs point to Matthew’s priority…. The clause is a tissue of Matthean vocabulary and style, a vocabulary and style almost totally absent from the rest of the Gospel of Peter.<ref>Meier 1991, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

Secondly, there are doctrines and sayings in the gospel of Peter which do not occur in the canonical Gospels or the New Testament. For example, Jesus’ preaching to those who have fallen asleep (to those who have died). Quarles notes in this regard:

<blockquote>If the emerging consensus of interpretation regarding 1Peter is correct, the presence of the reference to preaching to those who sleep in the Gospel of Peter suggests that the document was composed no earlier than the first quarter of the second century.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 112.</ref></blockquote>

The same holds true for other sayings, such as the “Lord’s day,” which is mentioned in the Gospel of Peter 9:35 and 12:50, but only appears in the New Testament in the Book of Revelations (approximately 90 AD). The Gospels used the more primitive expression “the first day of the week.”<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 113.</ref>

Thirdly, the description of the resurrection in the gospel of Peter is “fantastic and quite at odds with the descriptions that appear in the canonical Gospels”:

<blockquote>…as the three men exited the tomb, a cross, apparently floating through the air, followed them. …[T]he cross was capable of speech. A heavenly voice asked, “Did you preach to those who are sleeping?” and the cross replied, “Yes.”<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

We have already seen (with respect to Jesus’ miracles) the tendency of the later Gnostic gospels to move from the balanced and mature perspective of the canonical Gospels to an exaggerated, fantastic, and immature perspective (see Unit II-G, Section II). The gospel of Peter here is no different than the gospels of Thomas and Philip.

Fourthly, the “apologetical case” for Jesus’ resurrection (responding to Jewish objections at the time) is more developed in the gospel of Peter than in the Gospel of Matthew, and

<blockquote>no sensible explanation for Matthew’s elimination of helpful apologetic material available to him from the Cross Gospel exists. This suggests that the author of the gospel of Peter depended on Matthew’s Gospel but revised it in order to present a more compelling case for the resurrection.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 118.</ref></blockquote>

For these and other reasons, Quarles (along with Meier) hold Crossan’s position to be untenable , giving rise to the conclusion:

<blockquote>…[I]f the canonical Gospels are the earliest record of the Passion and resurrection, as this paper suggests, and if these contain the narratives based on eyewitness accounts, as the earliest church testimony affirms and as the internal evidence suggests, the earliest narratives of Jesus’ death and resurrection may be viewed as prophecy fulfilled rather than prophecy historicized, and speculation that Jesus was not even buried, much less raised, is groundless.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 120.</ref></blockquote>

We may now proceed to the question of the historicity of the passion narratives. Though all four Gospels portray the passion through narratives aimed at different audiences, and these narratives have different styles and redactional emphases, it does not mean that they do not possess an extensive historical core.<ref>According to Brown: “I see no need for such a dichotomy between acknowledging the narrative form of the passion and maintaining a respect for historical issues” (Brown 1994(b), p. 14).</ref>

There are remarkable agreements among the four lengthy passion narratives, but this does not automatically constitute multiple attestation because Matthew and Luke saw and made recourse to the Marcan narrative. Nevertheless, as will be explained below, Mark and John did not have knowledge of each other’s narratives, and so the many similarities between these two narratives constitute a very strong form of multiple attestation. Before considering this window into the historicity of the passion narratives, we must consider two more fundamental questions which are elucidated by Raymond Brown in his extensive two-volume analysis of the passion entitled: ''The Death of the Messiah''<ref>Brown 1994(b).</ref> :

(1) Did Jesus’ disciples have access to the data recounted in the various passion narratives? (Section I.A), and

(2) How can the criteria of historicity be applied to the passion narratives? (Section I.B)

=== Did Jesus’ Disciples Have Access to the Data Recounted in the Various Passion Narratives? ===

It is not my intention to respond to the extreme skepticism of Koester,<ref>Koester 1980, p. 127.</ref> Crossan,<ref>Crossan 1988, p. 405.</ref> and other members of the Jesus Seminar. Raymond Brown has done this quite well.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), pp. 13-24. See also the “Analysis” sections of each major part of his work, in which historicity is discussed.</ref> My objective is to briefly use the criteria of historicity<ref>See Chapter 6, Section III. Also Brown 1994(b), pp. 22-24.</ref> to uncover those parts of the narratives which may be reasonably and responsibly shown to have come from an early Palestinian passion tradition,<ref>Raymond Brown accepts the existence of such a tradition which may have been linked to eyewitnesses. He qualifies this scholarly opinion as follows: “I have accepted the likely existence of history and tradition behind the heavily scripturally reflective, kerygmatically oriented, and theologically organized PNs [passion narratives] of the Gospels…” (Brown 1994(b), p. 22).</ref> and which may also be linked to the Jesus of history.

Jesus’ crucifixion is so well attested by both Christian and non-Christian sources that it is as close to certain as any historical datum from the first century can be. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus makes explicit reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Annals (15.44) when speaking about Nero’s blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome:

<blockquote>Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.<ref>Cited in Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the authenticity of this passage, but the majority of mainstream scholars concur with Kirby that:

<blockquote>The most persuasive case is made by those who maintain that Tacitus made use of a first century Roman document concerning the nature and status of the Christian religion. As to the reliability of that source, following normal historical practice, it is prudently assumed to be accurate until demonstrated otherwise. The reference from Tacitus constitutes prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus.<ref>Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus’ crucifixion is also attested by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Recall from Unit II-F, Section I. that Josephus was writing for a Roman audience in about 93 AD, and that there are Christian interpolations in the text of Antiquities in which his testimony to Jesus is contained. As noted in Unit II-F, many mainstream scholars consider the italicized sections in the testimony cited below to be authentic:

<blockquote>''Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.'' He was [the] Christ. ''And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,'' those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. ''And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.''<ref>Josephus 1965, 18:3.3.</ref></blockquote>

Again, this non-Christian testimony to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is explicit and highly probable. There are other non-Christian testimonies to Jesus’ crucifixion, but they are far less significant than those of Tacitus and Josephus.

In addition to non-Christian testimony, Jesus’ crucifixion is attested by almost every New Testament source (e.g., the four Gospels, Acts, most of the Pauline letters, 1Peter, and the Letter to the Hebrews), it is recorded in virtually all of the primitive kerygmas,<ref>Very early proclamations of the faith recorded in Acts and the Pauline letters. For a list see Chapter 3, Section I.A.</ref> and is central to the early Church’s interpretation of Jesus and itself. Finally, one is confronted with the questions: “Why would the early Church have given detailed descriptions of the public humiliation and execution of their Messiah and Lord if it had not been historically true? What would have been the point of recounting a story that undermined its apologetical appeal?” In light of this, the crucifixion of Jesus within its proper setting (i.e., a public execution entailing an arrest, trial, and conviction) must be considered incontestable.

What about the details surrounding Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion? Are the events and details recounted in the passion narratives also historically accurate? Some critics, such as Dominic Crossan, believe that it is impossible to say because (as he gratuitously asserts) there were no eyewitnesses to the event:

<blockquote>It seems to me most likely that those closest to Jesus knew almost nothing about the details of the event. They knew only that Jesus had been crucified, outside Jerusalem, at the time of Passover, and probably through some conjunction of imperial and sacerdotal authority.<ref>Crossan 1988 ,p. 405</ref></blockquote>

Brown demolishes Crossan’s contention by pointing to a seemingly obvious and vexing difficulty:

<blockquote>[Crossan] does not explain why he thinks this “most likely,” granted the well-founded tradition that those closest to Jesus had followed him for a long period of time, day and night. Did they suddenly lose all interest, not even taking the trouble to inquire about what must have been a most traumatic moment of their lives?<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 15-16.</ref></blockquote>

Brown explains the implications of his question through a series of virtually unassailable historical judgments:

<blockquote>Yet as we move back from the Gospel narratives to Jesus himself, ultimately there were eyewitnesses and earwitnesses who were in a potion to know the broad lines of Jesus’ passion. He was accompanied in his ministry by a group of disciples known as the Twelve, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the arrest of Jesus was the occasion of his being separated from them. It is inconceivable that they showed no concern about what happened to Jesus after the arrest. True, there is no Christian claim that they were present during the legal proceedings against him, Jewish or Roman; but it is absurd to think that some information was not available to them about why Jesus has hanged on a cross. The whole purpose of crucifixion, after all, was to publicize that certain crimes would be severely punished. (That is the sense in which I include “earwitness”: hearing what was publicly said about the condemnation of Jesus.) The crucifixion itself was public, and nothing suggests that the burial was secret.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 14.</ref></blockquote>

Attempts to present scenarios contrary to Brown’s in this regard truly verge on the illogical, unreasonable, and inconceivable; and they betray motives other than that of seeking the truth.

Furthermore, there is remarkable correspondence between the passion narrative and the Gospel of John, and recent archeological evidence uncovered by Charlesworth and von Wahlde which strongly suggests that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Von Wahlde summarizes his findings as follows:

<blockquote>The significance of this [archeological evidence] for our appreciation of the historical accuracy of John’s reports is considerable. Not only does John provide several details present in the Synoptics (the name of the place [Golgotha], its location outside the city walls), but he goes on to provide more detail than the other Gospels…details not essential to the narrative. If the presence of such details at first makes verification more difficult, the fact that they are corroborated by archaeological and other means [at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem<ref>Charlesworth reports: “Archaeologists have also found the remains of a city wall to the east of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It was built sometime before Herod the Great. What is surprising is the discovery that the present city wall to the west of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the ‘third wall’ built by Agrippa between 41 and 44. This wall reveals that Golgotha was outside Jerusalem’s walls before the early forties, and Jesus was crucified on Golgotha in 30 (or perhaps 33)” (Charlesworth 2006(b), p. 31; italics mine).</ref>] demonstrates not only that the Johannine account contains remarkably accurate knowledge but also that the Gospel is in fact able to serve as a source of unique knowledge about the crucifixion and burial of Jesus.<ref>von Wahlde 2006, p. 582. See also Charlesworth 2006(b), pp. 31-37.</ref></blockquote>

This archaeological corroboration of John’s passion narrative also suggests the presence of eyewitnesses who were not only aware of the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, but also reported it to the authors of the earliest passion traditions.

Presuming, then, that there were eyewitnesses, and that they would have wanted to see or hear as much as possible about the One who was central to their lives, what could they have witnessed? They could have witnessed Jesus’ betrayal by Judas and His apprehension by the Jewish authorities. They could have also heard about any public declaration of Jesus’ charge, conviction, and sentence. They could have known who was involved in the charging, convicting, and sentencing. They could have had knowledge of public events surrounding the conviction (e.g., the release of Barabbas, or Jewish authorities stirring up the crowd). They could have witnessed the carrying of the cross and any outward signs of persecution or torture that might have preceded His journey to Golgotha (e.g., scourging or crowning with thorns). They could have witnessed the crucifixion itself, the public inscription of Jesus’ offense, the people crucified with Jesus, and they could have heard His final words, seen His death, and witnessed His burial. Evidently, they would have been a party to certain events themselves (e.g., cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant and denials).

Most of the above “witnessable” data was apologetically unappealing and presented obstacles to conversion. What would an early Jewish or gentile prospective convert find attractive about the public humiliation and execution of a messiah/leader? How did all the gory details of this crucifixion better establish Jesus’ role as messiah/leader? How would prospective Jewish converts have reacted to the contempt and rejection of Jesus by Jewish authorities? How would Peter’s denials and the apostles’ flight from Jerusalem have added to the Church’s “good image”? How does Jesus being numbered among criminals (e.g., Barabbas and the criminals crucified with Him) help the Church’s credibility among law-abiding citizens? In almost every case, the presentation of the “witnessable” data seems to undermine the early Christian’s image, credibility, and apologetical appeal. Why would they have presented these data in such detail if they had such potential and real damaging effects? I can think of only one reason. Because they were essentially true.

Can we render the same positive historical judgment about other details in the passion narratives beyond the basic “witnessable” data mentioned above? At this juncture, our pursuit of history becomes far more hazy and complex, because the witnessable data moves from eyewitnesses to catechists and teachers who need to interpret these traumatic (and unappealing) events to converts and potential converts. The natural tendency of such catechists, who were reared within Palestinian Judaism, would have been to use Scripture as a means of interpretation.<ref>The conjecture of some members of the Jesus Seminar that the early narratives of Jesus’ passion were a synthesis of interpreted Scriptures rather than an account of what really happened (Koester 1980, p. 127) is simply backwards. It is far more likely that the earliest traditions recounted what happened, allowing catechists to add sections later to interpret them. As Brown notes, “… [T]here is no evidence in the Pauline formula that scriptural reflection caused the creation of the basic incidents of the passion; far more plausibly it caused the selection and interpretation of certain features in an outline of death, burial, resurrection, and appearance that had been dictated by the early Christian memory of what happened” (Brown 1994(b), p. 16).</ref> Some of these attempts would be easily discernable because they would be introduced by phrases like “this was to fulfill the Scripture….” However, other Scripture passages might be on the lips of Jesus, such as the last words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (citing Psalm 22). The historian must now make the judgment of whether this was placed on the lips of Jesus, or whether Jesus selected these words for Himself (see below, Section II). Obviously, Jesus was accustomed to using Scripture to interpret His life, mission, and even crucifixion as much as, if not more than any later interpreter.

The historian’s task becomes even more complex when these traditions are woven into a single narrative. The editors of such narratives would have to be somewhat creative in synthesizing the various traditions. They might be inclined to embellish sayings or dialogue if that helped with the interpretation of recounted events. They could add thematic and even dramatic emphases to the narrative to further their catechetical or theological objectives. At this juncture, the historian must try to peel back the redactions of editors (especially the Evangelists) in order to get closer to the testimony of eyewitnesses which stand behind the narratives.

Recall from Unit II-B, Section I. that the first task is to get back to the primitive traditions that underlie the Gospel narratives, and then to judge the historicity of these primitive traditions by means of historical criteria and techniques to render judgments within a typical historical range:

<blockquote>…certain, very probable, probable, possible, not impossible. “Certain” has nothing to do with the certitude of mathematics or the physical sciences; it refers to the certitude we have in ordinary experience about the things we encounter or are reported to us in writing or orally.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 22.</ref></blockquote>

The earliest passion narrative is in the Gospel of Mark. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke were both aware of Mark’s narrative and relied on it. As will be seen in the next section, John was not aware of Mark’s narrative, but he made recourse to a primitive tradition(s) very similar to the ones used by Mark. This coincidence is extremely useful to historians because it allows for an application of the criterion of multiple attestation, which, in turn, helps historians make judgments about whether various verses in the narratives can be considered to be part of a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition.

In Section I.B, we will take a brief look at these criteria; in Section II we will consider the historicity of Jesus’ last words in Mark; and in Section III we will attempt to uncover the pre-Marcan tradition in Mark’s narrative, and then render some general historical judgments.

=== Application of the Criteria of Historicity to the Passion Narratives ===

The reader may wish to review the descriptions and examples of the criteria and techniques for determining the historicity of Gospel passages, which are summarized in Unit II-B, Section I. A brief description of three of these criteria will be given with particular examples from the passion narratives: (1) multiple attestation, (2) embarrassment, and (3) coherence with Jewish/Roman customs.

The reader will want to recall two caveats about assessment of historicity mentioned in Unit II-B, Section I. namely:

(a) Criteria for historicity can show the likelihood of a particular Gospel datum being historical, but the absence of criteria for historicity does not show the improbability of a particular Gospel datum being historical; the non-applicability of historical criteria shows only that we have no way of assessing historicity of a Gospel datum either positively or negatively. Thus, far more data in the passion narratives (and in the Gospels, for that matter) is historical than can ever be corroborated through historical criteria.

(b) Too rigorous an application of historical criteria can unnecessarily circumscribe corroboratable data from the Gospels. If one says, “The only data that I will accept as historical are those which are attested to by four out of five independent sources” (say, Mark, Q, special Luke, and John, leaving out only special Matthew), then one will limit oneself to very few Gospel data. If one goes even further, and requires four independent Gospel sources plus an external source (such as Tacitus and Josephus), the Gospel will be reduced to the non-interpolated statements of Tacitus and Josephus. Again, if one claims that multiple attestation is not enough – there must also be corroboration from another historical criterion (say, embarrassment or coherence to Jewish culture, etc.), then the field of acceptable data is correspondingly narrowed. The judicious use of historical criteria by mainstream exegetes such as Raymond Brown, N.T. Wright, and John P. Meier can avert unnecessary proscriptions of Gospel data, and lead to reasonable and responsible corroboration of a large range of Gospel data. We may now proceed to the three historical criteria.

1) Multiple Attestation. Recall that multiple attestation does not occur when there is repetition of passages among the three synoptic Gospels, but rather when there is repetition among the five independent sources (Mark, Q, special Matthew, special Luke, and John). Matthew and Luke relied upon and used the full text of Mark. Q is another source upon which Matthew and Luke both relied. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark in their passion narratives, and so attestation among them is not significant.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 81-82.</ref> However, as will be discussed below, Mark and John were written independently of each other, and it is quite likely that neither one had any knowledge of the other’s narrative. Nevertheless, there are no less than thirty-two similarities between the two narratives. If John is truly not dependent on Mark, then these similarities would auger very strongly for a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) passion tradition(s) upon which both Evangelists relied. This pre-Marcan tradition(s) would bring us closer to eyewitness accounts of the passion and therefore to Jesus’ passion itself.

How can we be so sure that John was not directly reliant on Mark’s narrative? In virtually every part of the Gospel except the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on water, and the passion narratives, John’s material is so distinct from Mark that it is difficult to believe that John relied on Mark unless he wanted to separate himself from, or complement Mark. Most scholars in the latter half of the twentieth century do not believe that there is Johannine dependence on Mark.<ref>Brown details the long list of exegetes who support the Johannine non-dependence theory in 1994(b), p. 76, note 91.</ref>

But what about Johannine dependence on the Marcan passion narrative? As can be seen from the table above, there are so many similarities between Mark and John that the possibility of dependence must be considered. There are two significant factors militating against the dependence conjecture. First, despite the many similarities, there are many more dissimilarities in content and order between the two passion narratives.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 81.</ref> Secondly, many of the differences between Mark and John are inexplicable, if not illogical if John truly depended on Mark.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref> Why would John have put his narrative into a more scattered and strangely ordered state than Mark’s if he depended on Mark? (A love of disorder?) Why would he have omitted details in Mark which would have been of interest to him (e.g., the kiss of Judas; mention of Simon of Cyrene; the sixth and ninth hour when darkness came over the land; the derision by the crowds at the cross; the confusion regarding Elijah – even though this may have been elicited by Jesus’ last words in Mark, which are not mentioned in John; omission of three of Mark’s women witnesses – Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, as well as “other women” in Mark, versus Mary the mother of Jesus, and His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas in John). These omissions and reorderings make little sense if John truly depended on Mark. For this reason, Brown concludes:

<blockquote>Throughout the commentary I shall come again and again to what I regard as a completely illogical result if John knew Mark. For that reason I shall work with the thesis that John wrote his passion narrative independently of Mark’s.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref></blockquote>

So what is the likely scenario for the Marcan and Johannine passion narratives’ development? Brown believes that this occurred in five stages:

a) Eyewitnesses. See the rationale for these eyewitness accounts given above in Section I.A.

b) A basic catechetical outline. A basic sequence of major events was formulated soon after the events of the passion connecting the Last Supper to the arrest, then to the condemnation, then to the crucifixion, then to the burial. This sequence guided the Church’s early proclamations and catechesis as well as Eucharistic memories. This is evident from Pauline and other non-Gospel New Testament writings.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 83.</ref>

c) Pre-Gospel traditions. Widely circulated stories/traditions (probably both oral and written) were formed from eyewitness accounts about particular figures and incidents in the passion narratives (alongside the basic catechetical outline). The stories were not yet connected to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 83-84.</ref>

d) Pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine traditions. The stories and basic outline made their way toward the Marcan and Johannine communities where eventually a pre-Marcan author(s) connected many of the stories to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 84.</ref>

e) The Marcan and Johannine passion narratives. The two Evangelists used two versions of the pre-Marcan tradition along with additional pre-Gospel traditions<ref>As Soards’ table indicates, there were probably several such pre-Gospel traditions along with other narrative traditions. See Soards 1994, pp. 1492-1524.</ref> to formulate the passion narratives we have today.

It is likely that much of the “witnessable” data in the thirty-two common elements in the Marcan and Johannine narratives made their way from eyewitnesses into the pre-Gospel traditions, and then into the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition(s), and then into the Gospel narratives. This would include:

Judas as betrayer bringing soldiers with weapons; Jesus being seized; the high priest’s servant’s ear being cut off; Jesus’ exchange with His apprehenders; Jesus being subjected to a Jewish judicial inquest; Peter’s three denials; the high priest’s maid as first inquirer; Peter warming himself by the fire in the high priest’s courtyard; the bystanders as inquirers in the third denial; the Jewish authorities making accusations against Jesus to Pilate; the crowd asking for the release of Barabbas; Pilate not finding Jesus guilty of a crime; the crowds responding multiple times “Crucify Him”; Pilate having Jesus scourged; Pilate handing Jesus over to be crucified, Jesus being crowned with thorns; Jesus proceeding to Golgotha with a cross, the crucifixion of Jesus; an inscription reading “King of the Jews”; the soldiers dividing Jesus’ garments and casting lots for them; two criminals being crucified with Jesus, one on either side of Him; Mary Magdalene witnessing the crucifixion; the soldiers giving a vinegar-filled sponge to Jesus on the cross; Joseph of Arimathea obtaining permission to bury Jesus; and Joseph of Arimathea wrapping the body of Jesus in a linen cloth, and putting Him in a tomb.<ref>For evidence of the apostles knowing the place of burial and witnessing the empty tomb, see Chapter 4, Section II.B.</ref>

Some of these conclusions (as well as others) are corroborated by three other historical criteria which will be discussed in the forthcoming subsections.

(2) Embarrassment. Recall from Unit II-B, Section I., that if a particular Gospel datum was embarrassing to the Church, or undermined the reputation of the apostles, or cast dispersions upon Jesus, then we can be quite certain that the Evangelists (and the formulators of early traditions) did not invent it. Raymond Brown points to several such data in the passion narratives, for example: Judas (one of the Twelve apostles) betraying Jesus; many of the disciples not remaining with Jesus during the passion; and Peter denying Jesus three times.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> There are other data which are embarrassing, but may have been recounted for other reasons. For example, Jesus praying in the garden, “Remove this cup from me” (Mark 14:36), which looks like Jesus is trying to avoid the cross. Although this could not have been catechetically appealing, someone could conjecture that this passage is meant “to teach Christians that facing death constitutes a trial that may challenge even sincere commitment.”<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> Nevertheless, the datum is still catechetically unappealing, and would have been very risky for the Evangelist or early Church to have invented.

The same holds true for Jesus’ last words in the Gospel of Mark: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” As will be discussed below (Section II), the last words of Jesus do not enjoy multiple attestation because John does not recount them (and places a completely different phrase on the lips of Jesus – “It is finished”). Many scholars believe, however, that this datum is historical because it would have likely been misinterpreted by gentile audiences who might not have known that the phrase (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) refers to the whole of Psalm 22 (a Psalm of God redeeming the sufferings of the just one and bringing salvation through it to all nations and generations). Gentile audiences would have been likely to believe that Jesus was so demoralized that He lost His confidence in God and thought that God was forsaking Him. This misinterpretation would not only have been embarrassing to the Church, but would have led to a theology precisely contrary to what Jesus intended and to what the Church taught. It is difficult to believe that Mark would have invented this phrase as Jesus’ last words, and much more likely that John (like Luke), if he was aware of the phrase from a pre-Johannine tradition, would have dropped it since he was writing for a gentile audience that could have easily misinterpreted it.

(3) Coherence with Jewish/Roman customs. There are three elements which are relevant here: (a) coherence with Jewish customs, (b) Semitisms, and (c) coherence with Roman customs. The last area is somewhat complex<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 19ff.</ref> and not especially germane to the point of this Unit; so I will limit discussion to the first two areas.

(a) ''Correspondence with Jewish custom''. One major point bears mentioning, because it shows Mark’s<ref>The historicity of the Marcan narrative will be assessed throughout the rest of the chapter.</ref> fidelity to the Jewish customs which would have been in effect at the time of Jesus’ passion, namely, Mark’s careful recounting of how the Sanhedrin adhered to the Mishna only when it was in conformity to the Sadducee law. Blinzler notes in this regard:

<blockquote>The fact that Mk 14 and 15 juxtapose items which sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the requirements of the Mishnah was hitherto felt puzzling. The explanation is that the Sanhedrin was at that time bound by the Sadducee law, which agreed with the Mishnah only exceptionally. But if Mk 14 and 15 were a legendary construction, it would be hard to explain how the author, supposedly so uninterested in historical fact, managed to be so accurate with regard to the legal custom: to the unlikely extent, that is, that the actions of the Sanhedrin only agreed with the Mishnah when the provisions of the latter coincided with those of the Sadducees, and not otherwise.<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref></blockquote>

(b) ''Semitisms''. There is one truly remarkable Semitism recorded in the Marcan narrative, namely, Jesus’ final words: “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''.” The Marcan version of the final words is to be preferred over the Matthean one, because it is probable that Matthew tried to “clean up” Mark’s Aramaic citation of the divine name (“''Elōi''”)<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref> with the more proper Hebrew version of it (''“’Ēlî”''), which would have been recited in the synagogue.<ref>Recall that Matthew is writing for a well-educated Jewish audience, and was trying to convince them of the Messiahship of Jesus. He knew the appropriate Hebrew form of the Psalm and changed Mark’s Aramaic “Elōi” to the Hebrew “Ēli.” See Brown 1994(b), pp. 1051-1052.</ref> The fact that Matthew records the Aramaic “''sabachthani''” (instead of the more appropriate Hebrew ''ăzabtānî'') convinces most scholars that Matthew retained remnants of an original Aramaic version.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. Mark’s use of “lama” (instead of the Aramaic “lĕmā”) is not problematic because it was common practice at that time to transliterate the shewa (short “e” vowel) by “a” instead of “e.” See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. See also Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58; and Harrington 1990, p. 628.</ref>

Is Mark’s Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words truly Jesus’ words? It seems likely because much of Mark’s mixed gentile-Jewish audience would not have recognized either the Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the Psalm, which evidently compelled Mark to translate it into Greek. Why would Mark have recorded an Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words which most of his audience would not have understood? Why not simply give the Greek translation without the Aramaic? Furthermore, why give an Aramaic translation of the Psalms instead of the more proper and easily recognizable Hebrew version? The fact that Jesus may well have learned the Psalms in Aramaic and recited the Psalms in Aramaic to His Galilean audience may provide a clue to the origin of the Aramaic version of the Psalm – namely, Jesus Himself.<ref>Though Mark cites Aramaic versions of Old Testament texts elsewhere, this may be out of deference to Jesus rather than Mark’s preference.</ref> The application of other historical criteria to this question will further confirm the origin of these words in Jesus. This will be considered in the following section.

== The Final Words of Jesus ==

Given that Mark’s version of Jesus’ final words is more original than Matthew’s version, we may now return to the question of whether Mark’s version is historical. Though the Aramaic rendition of the final words is a clue to their origin in Jesus, it is not definitive because Luke gives a different version of the final words (“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” – Luke 23:46), and so does John (“It is finished” – John 19:30). Why should Mark be preferred to Luke and John?

With respect to Luke’s version of the final words, there are four reasons to suspect that Mark’s version is closer to Jesus’ own. First, Luke was aware of Mark’s version of the final words, and would have had to have intentionally changed them. Secondly, Luke prefers to shift the focus from Jesus’ feelings of desolation to Jesus’ trust. Instead of Psalm 22:2 (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”), Luke portrays Jesus reciting Psalm 31:6 (“Into your hands I commend my spirit”), which effects this shift in focus. Luke’s preference to portray Jesus as confident (and eliminate any hint of spiritual disturbance) is evidenced in his elimination of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ anxiety in the garden of Gethsemane (“My soul is very sorrowful unto death”). It is much easier to believe that Luke has continued his redactional policy of eliminating Marcan references to Jesus’ anxiety than to believe that Luke’s version of Jesus’ words is more original. Thirdly, Luke substitutes “Father” for the Psalmist’s reference to “God,” which is very likely a redaction. Finally, Luke selects a Psalm passage which speaks to Jesus’ Spirit, which is a clear focus of his Gospel and an allusion to the Holy Spirit, which is the focus of the Acts of the Apostles.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1067.</ref> For this reason, most scholars believe that the Lukan version is a redaction of the Marcan original.

What about John’s version of the last words (“It is finished”)? Unlike Luke, John was not aware of the Marcan passion narrative, yet there is significant evidence that Mark and John borrowed from a common pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition (see above, Section I.B.1). Does John’s very different version of Jesus’ final words imply that the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition did not have any version of Jesus’ final words (and that both Mark and John invented their own in the absence of a more original version)? The answer is probably ‘no,’ because of light shed upon the question by the historical criterion of embarrassment.

Recall from Section I.B.2 that John’s predominately gentile audience could have misinterpreted Jesus’ last words as recorded by Mark. Indeed, as we just saw, Luke certainly thought this was a possibility for his gentile audience. The majority of John’s audience would probably not have recognized Psalm 22 in the Aramaic expression, “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani'',” and they would not have known that this first line referred to the entire Psalm. Therefore, they would not have known that Jesus’ last words were a prayer of trust in God which would lead not only to the vindication of His suffering, but to universal salvation for all humankind for all time (see below in this section).<ref>As Brown notes, “Perhaps the most frequently offered argument for softening the dour import of the Mark/Matt death cry is based on the general context of Ps 22. Jesus cites the opening verse of a psalm that continues for thirty more verses. By the end the psalmist will take a positive view: Rejoicing, he will proclaim that he has survived the danger and that after all God did not spurn him or ‘turn His face away’ (Ps 22:25). Accordingly some would invoke a hermeneutic principle that a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context” (Brown 1994(b), pp. 1049-1050).</ref> Thus (as the Johannine author very probably perceived), they would have interpreted these words to mean that Jesus felt abandoned by the Father, which is precisely the opposite of what the Psalm intends, what the early Church believed, and what Jesus intended. Not only would this have been confusing and misleading to gentile members of the early Church; it would have been apologetically unappealing and embarrassing to the Church in gentile regions. Thus, John, like Luke, would have had everything to lose (and nothing to gain) by retaining these words on the lips of the dying Jesus.

Therefore, there is considerable reason to believe prima facie that John, like Luke, would have been inclined to change Jesus’ dying words from those of Psalm 22 to something less misleading and more consistent with Jesus’ intention and the belief of the early Church. He decides upon the simple phrase, “It is finished,” which refers to Jesus’ project of redemption, the completion of which John has been pointing to throughout the “Book of Glory” (chapters 13-21).

This leads to the obvious question of why Mark (who was addressing a mixed gentile-Jewish audience) would have retained Psalm 22 as Jesus’ final words when many of his audience members would have been likely to misinterpret them in the same way as John’s and Luke’s audiences. Before responding, it is worth noting that this question does not apply to Matthew with the same force as Mark because the majority of Matthew’s audience was Jewish. Many in that audience would have been educated enough to see Psalm 22 through Matthew’s Hebraic version of it, and many would have understood that the first line of the Psalm referred to the whole Psalm. Brown points to a well-known hermeneutical principle in this regard:

<blockquote>…a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 1050.</ref></blockquote>

In the case of Psalm 22, the context speaks of trust in God, vindication, and salvation for the world.

However, the above hermeneutical principle would not have applied to the gentile members of Mark’s audience; so why did he retain these words? I think there is only one plausible explanation – namely, that they are in fact the final words of Jesus. It would be inconceivable to suggest that Mark invented these words to place on the lips of Jesus given the probability of their misinterpretation (with significant negative consequences) by a large segment of his audience. Therefore, it seems likely that Mark received these words from either a pre-Marcan tradition or from Peter (for whom Mark was interpreter). In either case, Mark must have believed that these words were truly those of Jesus, and decided to retain them in their Aramaic form precisely for this reason. There does not appear to be any other reasonable motive for his taking the risk of significant misinterpretation and apologetically unappealing embarrassment.

So if we consider “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''” to be the dying words of the historical Jesus, and if we apply Brown’s hermeneutical principle to Jesus Himself (implying that Jesus expected informed listeners to “be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context”), then it seems likely that the dying Jesus was praying the whole of Psalm 22 to His Father while giving His listeners an insight into how He interpreted His sacrificial death through that prayer. Mally notes in this regard:

<blockquote>As a quotation of an OT Ps, it can hardly be taken literally as an expression of real despair or dereliction. Rather, Jesus applies to himself an OT passage that sums up the suffering of the upright individual who turns to his God in the stress of hostile opposition and its ensuing depression. In using the Ps, Jesus does not express the feeling that his life’s work has failed and that God has therefore abandoned him; he identifies himself with a biblical precedent, the persecuted upright man ''who has trusted in Yahweh'', and found in him ''the source of his consolation and ultimate triumph'' [italics mine].<ref>Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58. See also J. Gnilka 1959, pp. 294-97.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, Jesus’ reference to Psalm 22 is an expression of trust and confidence in the Father that His suffering will result in the triumph of His mission. As noted in the previous Unit, that mission is actualized for all future generations through the gift of His presence and unconditional redeeming Love in the Eucharist.

A closer look at the Psalm may give a deep insight into the panoply of Jesus’ thoughts and feelings at the time of His crucifixion. The Psalm may be divided into three parts:

(1) “2-22, the complaint, with repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence (4-6; 10-11),”<ref>Murphy 1968, p. 579.</ref>

(2) “23-32, thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share (23-27),<ref>Murphy 1968, p. 579.</ref>” and

(3) the worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh (28-32).

Each part will be presented in turn.

(1) Complaint, repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence.

''My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?''

''Why are you so far from saving me,''

''so far from the words of my groaning?''

''Oh my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,''

''and by night, but I have no rest.''

Then, the psalmist shifts perspective as he does several times throughout the Psalm, and introduces the theme of God’s holiness and grandeur, worthy of praise and trust:

''Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;''

''you are the praise of Israel.''

''In you our fathers put their trust;''

''they trusted and you delivered them.''

''They cried to you and were saved;''

''in you they trusted and were not disappointed.''

The psalmist then turns back to the deplorable nature of his condition:

''But I am a worm and not a man,''

''scorned by men and despised by the people.''

''All who see me mock me;''

''they hurl insults, shaking their heads:''

''“He trusted in the Lord;''

''let the Lord rescue him.''

''Let Him deliver him''

''since He delights in him."''

The uncanny resemblance between the psalmist’s words and the events taking place around Jesus give one pause. After describing the inauthentic words of the crowd (who believe that the Lord will not fulfill the trust of the psalmist), the psalmist shifts back to his fervent trust in the Lord:

''Yet you brought me out of the womb;''

''you made me trust in you;''

''even at my mother’s breast.''

''From birth I was cast upon you;''

''from my mother’s womb you have been my God.''

Having renewed his trust in the Lord, the psalmist makes an earnest petition for help:

''Do not be far from me,''

''for trouble is near''

''and there is no one to help.''

''Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.''

''Roaring lions tearing their prey''

''open their mouths wide against me.''

Then the psalmist uses the same words seen in the suffering servant song (Is 52:13-53:12) and Jesus’ eucharistic words:

''I am poured out like water,''

''and all my bones are out of joint.''

''My heart has turned to wax;''

''it has melted away within me.''

''My strength is dried up like a potsherd,''

''and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;''

''you lay me in the dust of death.''

In continuing his description of his suffering to Yahweh, the psalmist again describes events uncannily similar to Jesus’ crucifixion:

''Dogs have surrounded me;''

''a band of evil men has encircled me,''

''they have pierced my hands and my feet.''

''I can count all my bones;''

''people stare and gloat over me.''

''They divide my garments among them''

''and cast lots for my clothing.''

The psalmist makes another earnest petition for God’s help and consolation:

''But you, oh Lord, be not far off;''

''oh my Strength, come quickly to help me.''

''Deliver my life from the sword,''

''my precious life from the power of the dogs.''

''Rescue me from the mouth of the lion;''

''save me from the horns of the wild oxen.''

(2) Thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share. The psalmist then reaffirms his trust and confidence in the Lord, as if to say that he will live beyond his current persecution to bring the praise of the Lord’s name to all who fear him:

''I will declare your name to my brothers;''

''in the congregation I will praise you.''

''You who fear the Lord, praise him!''

''All you descendents of Jacob, honor him!''

''Revere him, all you descendents of Israel!''

The psalmist then gives his reason for his confidence in God, and his belief in his future:

''For he has not despised or disdained''

''the suffering of the afflicted one;''

''he has not hidden his face from him''

''but has listened to his cry for help.''

''From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;''

''before those who fear you I will fulfill my vows.''

The psalmist then moves into a prophetic, and even messianic tone, speaking of signs of the new Jerusalem; messianic signs which Jesus says, when quoting the prophet Isaiah, are being fulfilled in Himself:<ref>See Matt. 11:5ff and Lk 4:18ff, referring to Is 61:1ff.</ref>

''The poor will eat and be satisfied;''

''they who seek the Lord will praise Him –''

''may your hearts live forever.''

(3) The worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh. The psalmist then confidently suggests universality of salvation arising out of Yahweh’s mercy:

''All the ends of the earth''

''will remember and turn to the Lord,''

''and all the families of the nations''

''will bow down before Him,''

''for dominion belongs to the Lord''

''and He rules over the nations.''

The psalmist then suggests that Yahweh’s salvation will extend to all those who are raised on high, and those who are in the grave:

''All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;''

''all who go down to the dust will kneel before Him –''

''those who cannot keep themselves alive.''

''Posterity will serve Him;''

''future generations will be told about the Lord.''

''They will proclaim His righteousness''

''to a people yet unborn –''

''for He has done it.''

This Psalm on the dying lips of Jesus is quite remarkable. In the midst of recounting events quite similar to His crucifixion, the Psalm expresses His mind and heart as He cries out for help, as He is overwhelmingly confident in that help, and as He sees the ultimate result of that help in a salvation that will not only reach to the ends of the earth, but to all future generations on the earth, and even to those who are raised on high and those who “go down to the dust.” Thus, the Psalm connects Jesus’ torment with His confidence in the Father as He looks beyond His suffering, beyond Jerusalem, beyond the present age, and beyond earthly existence, to a redemption which will take hold in the life of God Himself. Jesus’ eucharistic words are not only consonant with those of the psalm, they give the psalm’s words ultimate meaning and reality; for they provide the vehicle through which Jesus’ person and love will save universally and eternally.

== The Passion of Jesus in Mark and in Pre-Marcan Tradition (14:32-15:37) ==

Mark gives us the oldest account of the passion. Though it tries to reconcile the passion with Old Testament prophesy, its primary objective is not apologetical. Rather, it intends to give an account of the sufferings freely endured by Jesus and “to show clearly what persons and what authorities were responsible for the death of Jesus and the extent of their guilt.” Mark believes that this is Jesus’ central salvific act and uses it to frame the rest of his Gospel. As Blinzler notes:

Mark already had before him such a relatively fixed account from oral tradition, as the insertion of 14:3-9 shows, and he enlarged it with further matter, e.g., with “memoirs” of Peter (apart from 14:3-9) such as the account of the denial (14:54, 66-72). …[T]he Gospel of Mark has been called, not unjustly, “a passion-narrative with a long introduction” (M. Kähler).

As noted above, there is substantial New Testament and extra-testamental evidence for the historicity of Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion. Many other facts surrounding the crucifixion are also very probably historical. By using the criteria and techniques elucidated above (Sections I.A and B), we can first ascertain what material from Mark’s passion narrative probably came from a pre-Marcan tradition, and the material from that tradition which could have come from eyewitness accounts. Scholars have worked diligently on these tasks for over a century, and it is beyond the scope of this study to report comprehensively on their findings. My objective is only to give a report about where the preponderance of scholarly opinion lies with regard to an early pre-Marcan tradition and the historicity of the facts within that tradition.

There is a strong likelihood that Mark made recourse to a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which he redacted and stylized to give coherence and meaning to this exceedingly significant event for the Christian Church. There is a wide variety of opinion about which verses originated with this pre-Marcan tradition(s) and which ones originated with Mark. Marion Soards has gathered a tremendous amount of data from 34 scholars representing a wide range of theological and exegetical perspectives. I have taken the liberty of presenting the Revised Standard Version of the Marcan passion narrative, and indicating the likelihood that each of its verses originated with a pre-Marcan tradition or with Mark himself according to the following key:

Bold A large majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Italics A small majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Underline The scholarly community is about evenly split on whether this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition, or with Mark himself.

Normal font The majority of the scholarly community believes that this verse originated with Mark (and is therefore a Marcan redaction).

Mark Chapter 14

32 They went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and He said to His disciples, “Sit here, while I pray.” 33 And He took with Him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. 34 And He said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch.” 35 And going a little farther, He fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. 36 And He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt.” And He came and found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? 38 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 39 And again He went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 And again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer Him. 41 And He came the third time, and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”

43 And immediately, while He was still speaking Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I shall kiss is the man; seize Him and lead Him away safely.” And when he came, he went up to Him at once, and said, “Master!” And he kissed Him. And they laid hands on Him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” And they all forsook Him, and fled.

51 And a young man followed Him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

53 And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. And Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death; but they found none. 56 For many bore false witness against Him, and their witness did not agree. 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against Him, saying, “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet not even so did their testimony agree. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you? 61 But He was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked Him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”Note 63 And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard His blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned Him as deserving death. 65 And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to strike Him, saying to Him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received Him with blows.

66 And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came; 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway. 69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” 70 But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.” 71 But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.” 72 And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

Mark Chapter 15

1 And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. And Pilate asked Him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And He answered him “You have said so.” And the chief priests accused Him of many things. And Pilate again asked Him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered.

Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they asked. And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. And he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered Him up. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” And they cried out again, “Crucify Him.” And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him.” So, Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

And the soldiers led Him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. And they clothed Him in a purple cloak, and placing a crown of thorns they put it on Him. And they began to salute Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck His head with a reed, and spat upon Him, and they knelt down in homage to Him. And when they had mocked Him, they stripped Him of the purple cloak, and put His own clothes on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him.

And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry His cross. And they brought Him to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). And they offered Him wine mingled with myrrh; but He did not take it. And they crucified Him, and divided His garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour, when they crucified Him. And the inscription of the charge against Him read, “The King of the Jews.” And with Him they crucified two robbers, one on His right and one on His left. And those who passed by derided Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 So also the chief priests mocked Him to one another with the scribes, saying, “He saved others; He cannot save Himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with Him also reviled Him.

And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” Which means, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Behold, He is calling Elijah.” And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to Him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down.” And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.

38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing Him, saw that He thus breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the son of God!”

There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, 41 who, when He was in Galilee, followed Him, and ministered to Him; and also many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 And Pilate wondered if He were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether He was already dead. 45 And when he learned from the centurion that He was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 And he bought a linen shroud, and taking Him down, wrapped Him in the linen shroud, and laid Him in a tomb which has been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where He was laid.

*****

As can be seen from the above, most scholars consider the vast majority of the passion narrative to have come from a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which would presumably include some accounts from Peter. Notice that the probable Marcan redactions are not concerned with the torment, crucifixion, and death of Jesus. They are meant to explain who is primarily guilty (i.e., Judas, the chief priests, and the council), who is less culpable (i.e., Pilate), and who is ironically the prophetic spokesman of the meaning of the passion (i.e., the centurion). They also center on Mark’s interpretation of why Jesus was accused of blasphemy (i.e., identifying Himself with the eschatological Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14). If these elements are “bracketed,” the passion story retains its poignant central core, which likely represents the traditions which Mark received as he prepared his narrative.

The question of whether the pre-Marcan tradition is faithful to accounts from eyewitnesses and earwitnesses is more difficult to ascertain. One cannot assume that a verse was witnessed simply because it was included in a pre-Marcan tradition. As was made clear in Section I.B, the pre-Marcan tradition relied on pre-Gospel traditions and stories, and had developments and accretions arising out of catechetical and pedagogical concerns. Nevertheless, it is likely that the pre-Marcan tradition(s) contained a considerable amount of “witnessable” and witnessed data for the reasons mentioned in Section I above – particularly as regards the betrayal by Judas, the arrest, a Jewish judicial inquest, Peter’s denials, the involvement of Pontius Pilate, the involvement of Jewish authorities in accusing Jesus, the release of Barabbas, the involvement of Roman soldiers, and facts surrounding the crucifixion (e.g., being scourged, being crowned with thorns, the vinegary wine, being hanged on a cross, the inscription on the cross, and the two other criminals). I would also include Jesus’ final words as recounted in Mark’s Gospel (for the reasons mentioned in the previous section), and the fact of Jesus’ burial (for the reasons mentioned in Chapter 4, Section II.B). A more detailed list of other “witnessable” data which is common to both the Marcan and Johannine traditions may be found above in Section I.B. Additional details about the historicity of particular verses in the pre-Marcan tradition(s) may be found in the “Analysis” sections following each major part of Raymond Brown’s The Death of the Messiah.

An appreciation of the significance of the passion, particularly as regards the central question of this book (i.e., “Is Jesus Emmanuel?”), cannot be attained through exegetical and historical analysis alone. Though this analysis is necessary in order to understand the meaning and reality of the events surrounding Jesus’ death, it almost blocks out the heart’s reasons to give greater clarity to the mind’s reasons. I can’t speak for you, the reader, but when I am applying criteria and techniques of historicity to particular texts, I am not being flooded with inspiration and love; and so I find it necessary to move to the domain of contemplation after I have satisfied myself about the historicity of the essential elements of Jesus’ passion. Contemplation allows one to be moved in the heart – to be struck with delight, or wonder, or amazement; to perceive beauty; to exalt; to be moved with gratitude; to feel awe and glory; to be inspired; to be moved by what is just and good and generous, and above all, to be moved by love – unconditional Love. Thus, contemplation is essential to the appreciation of Jesus’ passion, which is above all an act of incredible love.

== Contemplation on the Passion ==

The passion narratives open upon a virtually limitless depth of love, which can best be gleaned through contemplation. As explained in the previous chapter, Jesus views His passion as the culmination of His mission, the concretization of His unconditional Love in history, and His gift of unconditional Love to the world for all eternity (through the Eucharist). The reader’s time will be well spent on considering His loving intention, attitude, and feeling in His gift of self in the events of the passion.

One successful method of entering into contemplation is recommended by Saint Ignatius of Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises. It entails entering into the scene, considering the personalities and dispositions of people in the scene, and focusing on the heart of Jesus manifest through the people and events in the scene.

In light of the above, one may want to use the following structure to contemplate on the passion. After reading a particular passage at least twice, first consider various physical aspects of the scene, then:

• the persons in the scene along with Jesus, then
• Jesus’ attitude toward the people in the scene (recalling that Jesus’ attitudes are reflected in the beatitudes – humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, merciful, peacemaking, etc.), then
• Jesus’ relationship to the Father (applying Psalm 22, the Suffering Servant song – Isaiah 52:13-53:12, and Jesus’ prayer in the Garden), then
• Jesus’ universal salvific intent (applying the simile of the paschal lamb and the words “This is my body,” “the blood of the covenant,” “for all,” and “Do this in remembrance of me” – see Chapter 9, Section II.B), then
• Jesus’ love for the people in the scene (including His persecutors), His love of the Father, and His love of humankind.

You might then look at Jesus’ acceptance of anguish for the sake of love. In light of this, you might consider Jesus’ love for you and others; His hopes and aspirations for you and for others. Accept that love, accept His wanting to be your paschal lamb, sin-offering (scapegoat), and blood of the covenant (to guarantee eternal life with Him and the Father); and then, express to God what you desire.

After you have completed your contemplation, you might want to ask the recurrent questions in this book: Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this for my sake and the sake of all? Is Jesus Christ His Emmanuel? If so, then the unconditional Love of God is real and has been fully actualized in the world. That unconditional Love is unconditional light in the darkness, unconditional hope amidst dejection, unconditional resurrection amidst the cross, and unconditional redemption amidst our sin. It is unconditional life unto unconditional joy in the unconditional love of the triune God.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Passion

2015-01-08T17:44:14Z

David Persyn: /* The Final Words of Jesus */ fix format error

Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith – Jesus

Unit II. M

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Passion

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-M_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Passion.3F | Return to the Table of Contents]]

'''Introduction'''

The Eucharist is not only Jesus’ definitive interpretation of His passion and death; it is also the definitive vehicle through which He communicates His presence and love to all future generations. So, how can our insight into the preciousness of this gift be deepened through the examination of Jesus’ passion? From a contemplative point of view, the possibilities are considerable for deepening the heart’s awareness of the love of Christ. As one considers Jesus’ willing acceptance of each part of the passion as a gift of self (love) for all humankind, one begins to affectively (not just intellectually) appreciate what unconditional Love really is; and when one sees this Love through the eyes, the face, the mind, the heart of the gentle Lamb willingly led to the slaughter, one begins to receive an answer to the questions: “Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this?” and “Is Jesus His Emmanuel?”

Since my intention here is to induce contemplation (that is, prayerful reflection on the texts of the passion), I will discuss only three important propaedeutic points: (1) an overview of the historicity of the passion narratives (Section I)<ref>Any reader interested in a detailed exegesis of the passion narratives should make recourse to Raymond Brown’s comprehensive work The Death of the Messiah [Brown 1994(b)]. </ref>, (2) an analysis of Jesus’ final words on the cross (Section II), and (3) a presentation of the pre-Marcan tradition and Mark’s passion narrative (Section III). The reader may then want to return to the previous Unit on the Eucharist to probe with contemplative insight into the meaning and reality of Jesus’ love.

== The Historicity of the Passion ==

It may be observed from the outset that Jesus’ plan to redeem the world was anything but apologetical or popular, for the idea of a suffering Messiah was thought to be a curse by His Jewish and gentile contemporaries (Dt 21:23, Gal 3:13, I Cor 12:3).<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 350.</ref> Nevertheless, Jesus, knowing what would befall Him,<ref>This is clear from the pre-planning implicit in the institution of the Eucharist, and also from the multiple predictions of His passion (Mt 16:13-23, 17:22-23, 20:17-19; Mk 8:27-33, 9:30-32, 10:32-34; Lk 9:18-22, 9:43-45, and 18:31-34).</ref> proceeded resolutely toward Jerusalem. In light of our discussion of the Eucharist, His plan had but one objective: to join with the Father in an act of unconditional self-gift (love) for the salvation of humankind. Even though Jesus was convinced of His vindication and resurrection (see Unit II-L, Section II), He must have known that the crucifixion would be viewed as a scandal, and used against Him by His critics. Nevertheless, He viewed the passion as being indispensable to His mission. Why? Because He associated the passion with gift of self, which, as is clear from His institution of the Eucharist, He associated with unconditional Love. One can see this kind of love mirrored in parents who willingly endure humiliation, and even place themselves in harm’s way, in order to protect the lives and future of their children. Jesus viewed Himself as responsible (as shepherd and brother) for all of us who were to become, through Him, the Father’s adopted children.

Before beginning a formal analysis of the historicity of the passion narratives, we will want to examine a contention of Dominic Crossan (of the Jesus Seminar) who throws the historicity of these narratives into question by suggesting that they are derivatives of the (Gnostic) gospel of Peter. The gospel of Peter is a narrative of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. It consists of sixty verses and has been dated to Papyri originating in about 200 AD.<ref>See Koester 1990, pp. 216-17.</ref> Crossan ignores the fact that there is no evidence for the gospel of Peter prior to 200 AD, and makes a radical suggestion that it was the only source from which the passion narratives of the four canonical Gospels were derived:

<blockquote>Composed by the fifties C.E., and possibly at Sepphoris in Galilee, it [the Cross Gospel in the Gospel of Peter] is the single source of the intracanonical passion narratives.<ref>See Crossan 1991, p. 429. See also Crossan 1985, pp. 132-34.</ref> <ref>Quarles 2006, p. 119.</ref></blockquote>

Charles Quarles sums up Crossan’s conclusions from his radical contention (which does not enjoy wide acceptance in the scholarly community<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 106.</ref>) as follows:

<blockquote>The GP is more a product of the author’s creative literary imagination than a reflection of eyewitness accounts of actual events. Thus, if the GP is the single source for the canonical narratives of the Passion and resurrection, the canonical Gospels are unreliable revisions of an unreliable tradition. None of the Gospels could then be trusted to provide historically reliable testimony about the final events in the life of the historical Jesus.</blockquote>

Quarles shows this claim to be virtually untenable in the light of textual analysis. First, Crossan contends that the parallels between Matthew and the gospel of Peter regarding the Pharisees gathering before Pilate and expressing concern about a staged resurrection on the third day, the guarding and sealing of the tomb of Jesus, and the description of the Jews as “the people” shows Matthean dependence upon the gospel of Peter. Quarles shows precisely the opposite after studying the redactional tendencies of Matthew and the gospel of Peter. Following Gundry,<ref>Gundry 1994, p. 584.</ref> Quarles shows that these texts are a series of “Mattheanisms,” particularly the use of the words “disciple,” “steal,” and “''mēpote''” – “lest” (except once where the gospel of Peter is clearly following Matthew in a subjunctive construction). He quotes John P. Meier by way of conclusion:

<blockquote>When it comes to who is dependent on whom, all the signs point to Matthew’s priority…. The clause is a tissue of Matthean vocabulary and style, a vocabulary and style almost totally absent from the rest of the Gospel of Peter.<ref>Meier 1991, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

Secondly, there are doctrines and sayings in the gospel of Peter which do not occur in the canonical Gospels or the New Testament. For example, Jesus’ preaching to those who have fallen asleep (to those who have died). Quarles notes in this regard:

<blockquote>If the emerging consensus of interpretation regarding 1Peter is correct, the presence of the reference to preaching to those who sleep in the Gospel of Peter suggests that the document was composed no earlier than the first quarter of the second century.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 112.</ref></blockquote>

The same holds true for other sayings, such as the “Lord’s day,” which is mentioned in the Gospel of Peter 9:35 and 12:50, but only appears in the New Testament in the Book of Revelations (approximately 90 AD). The Gospels used the more primitive expression “the first day of the week.”<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 113.</ref>

Thirdly, the description of the resurrection in the gospel of Peter is “fantastic and quite at odds with the descriptions that appear in the canonical Gospels”:

<blockquote>…as the three men exited the tomb, a cross, apparently floating through the air, followed them. …[T]he cross was capable of speech. A heavenly voice asked, “Did you preach to those who are sleeping?” and the cross replied, “Yes.”<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

We have already seen (with respect to Jesus’ miracles) the tendency of the later Gnostic gospels to move from the balanced and mature perspective of the canonical Gospels to an exaggerated, fantastic, and immature perspective (see Unit II-G, Section II). The gospel of Peter here is no different than the gospels of Thomas and Philip.

Fourthly, the “apologetical case” for Jesus’ resurrection (responding to Jewish objections at the time) is more developed in the gospel of Peter than in the Gospel of Matthew, and

<blockquote>no sensible explanation for Matthew’s elimination of helpful apologetic material available to him from the Cross Gospel exists. This suggests that the author of the gospel of Peter depended on Matthew’s Gospel but revised it in order to present a more compelling case for the resurrection.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 118.</ref></blockquote>

For these and other reasons, Quarles (along with Meier) hold Crossan’s position to be untenable , giving rise to the conclusion:

<blockquote>…[I]f the canonical Gospels are the earliest record of the Passion and resurrection, as this paper suggests, and if these contain the narratives based on eyewitness accounts, as the earliest church testimony affirms and as the internal evidence suggests, the earliest narratives of Jesus’ death and resurrection may be viewed as prophecy fulfilled rather than prophecy historicized, and speculation that Jesus was not even buried, much less raised, is groundless.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 120.</ref></blockquote>

We may now proceed to the question of the historicity of the passion narratives. Though all four Gospels portray the passion through narratives aimed at different audiences, and these narratives have different styles and redactional emphases, it does not mean that they do not possess an extensive historical core.<ref>According to Brown: “I see no need for such a dichotomy between acknowledging the narrative form of the passion and maintaining a respect for historical issues” (Brown 1994(b), p. 14).</ref>

There are remarkable agreements among the four lengthy passion narratives, but this does not automatically constitute multiple attestation because Matthew and Luke saw and made recourse to the Marcan narrative. Nevertheless, as will be explained below, Mark and John did not have knowledge of each other’s narratives, and so the many similarities between these two narratives constitute a very strong form of multiple attestation. Before considering this window into the historicity of the passion narratives, we must consider two more fundamental questions which are elucidated by Raymond Brown in his extensive two-volume analysis of the passion entitled: ''The Death of the Messiah''<ref>Brown 1994(b).</ref> :

(1) Did Jesus’ disciples have access to the data recounted in the various passion narratives? (Section I.A), and

(2) How can the criteria of historicity be applied to the passion narratives? (Section I.B)

=== Did Jesus’ Disciples Have Access to the Data Recounted in the Various Passion Narratives? ===

It is not my intention to respond to the extreme skepticism of Koester,<ref>Koester 1980, p. 127.</ref> Crossan,<ref>Crossan 1988, p. 405.</ref> and other members of the Jesus Seminar. Raymond Brown has done this quite well.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), pp. 13-24. See also the “Analysis” sections of each major part of his work, in which historicity is discussed.</ref> My objective is to briefly use the criteria of historicity<ref>See Chapter 6, Section III. Also Brown 1994(b), pp. 22-24.</ref> to uncover those parts of the narratives which may be reasonably and responsibly shown to have come from an early Palestinian passion tradition,<ref>Raymond Brown accepts the existence of such a tradition which may have been linked to eyewitnesses. He qualifies this scholarly opinion as follows: “I have accepted the likely existence of history and tradition behind the heavily scripturally reflective, kerygmatically oriented, and theologically organized PNs [passion narratives] of the Gospels…” (Brown 1994(b), p. 22).</ref> and which may also be linked to the Jesus of history.

Jesus’ crucifixion is so well attested by both Christian and non-Christian sources that it is as close to certain as any historical datum from the first century can be. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus makes explicit reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Annals (15.44) when speaking about Nero’s blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome:

<blockquote>Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.<ref>Cited in Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the authenticity of this passage, but the majority of mainstream scholars concur with Kirby that:

<blockquote>The most persuasive case is made by those who maintain that Tacitus made use of a first century Roman document concerning the nature and status of the Christian religion. As to the reliability of that source, following normal historical practice, it is prudently assumed to be accurate until demonstrated otherwise. The reference from Tacitus constitutes prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus.<ref>Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus’ crucifixion is also attested by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Recall from Unit II-F, Section I. that Josephus was writing for a Roman audience in about 93 AD, and that there are Christian interpolations in the text of Antiquities in which his testimony to Jesus is contained. As noted in Unit II-F, many mainstream scholars consider the italicized sections in the testimony cited below to be authentic:

<blockquote>''Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.'' He was [the] Christ. ''And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,'' those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. ''And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.''<ref>Josephus 1965, 18:3.3.</ref></blockquote>

Again, this non-Christian testimony to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is explicit and highly probable. There are other non-Christian testimonies to Jesus’ crucifixion, but they are far less significant than those of Tacitus and Josephus.

In addition to non-Christian testimony, Jesus’ crucifixion is attested by almost every New Testament source (e.g., the four Gospels, Acts, most of the Pauline letters, 1Peter, and the Letter to the Hebrews), it is recorded in virtually all of the primitive kerygmas,<ref>Very early proclamations of the faith recorded in Acts and the Pauline letters. For a list see Chapter 3, Section I.A.</ref> and is central to the early Church’s interpretation of Jesus and itself. Finally, one is confronted with the questions: “Why would the early Church have given detailed descriptions of the public humiliation and execution of their Messiah and Lord if it had not been historically true? What would have been the point of recounting a story that undermined its apologetical appeal?” In light of this, the crucifixion of Jesus within its proper setting (i.e., a public execution entailing an arrest, trial, and conviction) must be considered incontestable.

What about the details surrounding Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion? Are the events and details recounted in the passion narratives also historically accurate? Some critics, such as Dominic Crossan, believe that it is impossible to say because (as he gratuitously asserts) there were no eyewitnesses to the event:

<blockquote>It seems to me most likely that those closest to Jesus knew almost nothing about the details of the event. They knew only that Jesus had been crucified, outside Jerusalem, at the time of Passover, and probably through some conjunction of imperial and sacerdotal authority.<ref>Crossan 1988 ,p. 405</ref></blockquote>

Brown demolishes Crossan’s contention by pointing to a seemingly obvious and vexing difficulty:

<blockquote>[Crossan] does not explain why he thinks this “most likely,” granted the well-founded tradition that those closest to Jesus had followed him for a long period of time, day and night. Did they suddenly lose all interest, not even taking the trouble to inquire about what must have been a most traumatic moment of their lives?<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 15-16.</ref></blockquote>

Brown explains the implications of his question through a series of virtually unassailable historical judgments:

<blockquote>Yet as we move back from the Gospel narratives to Jesus himself, ultimately there were eyewitnesses and earwitnesses who were in a potion to know the broad lines of Jesus’ passion. He was accompanied in his ministry by a group of disciples known as the Twelve, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the arrest of Jesus was the occasion of his being separated from them. It is inconceivable that they showed no concern about what happened to Jesus after the arrest. True, there is no Christian claim that they were present during the legal proceedings against him, Jewish or Roman; but it is absurd to think that some information was not available to them about why Jesus has hanged on a cross. The whole purpose of crucifixion, after all, was to publicize that certain crimes would be severely punished. (That is the sense in which I include “earwitness”: hearing what was publicly said about the condemnation of Jesus.) The crucifixion itself was public, and nothing suggests that the burial was secret.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 14.</ref></blockquote>

Attempts to present scenarios contrary to Brown’s in this regard truly verge on the illogical, unreasonable, and inconceivable; and they betray motives other than that of seeking the truth.

Furthermore, there is remarkable correspondence between the passion narrative and the Gospel of John, and recent archeological evidence uncovered by Charlesworth and von Wahlde which strongly suggests that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Von Wahlde summarizes his findings as follows:

<blockquote>The significance of this [archeological evidence] for our appreciation of the historical accuracy of John’s reports is considerable. Not only does John provide several details present in the Synoptics (the name of the place [Golgotha], its location outside the city walls), but he goes on to provide more detail than the other Gospels…details not essential to the narrative. If the presence of such details at first makes verification more difficult, the fact that they are corroborated by archaeological and other means [at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem<ref>Charlesworth reports: “Archaeologists have also found the remains of a city wall to the east of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It was built sometime before Herod the Great. What is surprising is the discovery that the present city wall to the west of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the ‘third wall’ built by Agrippa between 41 and 44. This wall reveals that Golgotha was outside Jerusalem’s walls before the early forties, and Jesus was crucified on Golgotha in 30 (or perhaps 33)” (Charlesworth 2006(b), p. 31; italics mine).</ref>] demonstrates not only that the Johannine account contains remarkably accurate knowledge but also that the Gospel is in fact able to serve as a source of unique knowledge about the crucifixion and burial of Jesus.<ref>von Wahlde 2006, p. 582. See also Charlesworth 2006(b), pp. 31-37.</ref></blockquote>

This archaeological corroboration of John’s passion narrative also suggests the presence of eyewitnesses who were not only aware of the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, but also reported it to the authors of the earliest passion traditions.

Presuming, then, that there were eyewitnesses, and that they would have wanted to see or hear as much as possible about the One who was central to their lives, what could they have witnessed? They could have witnessed Jesus’ betrayal by Judas and His apprehension by the Jewish authorities. They could have also heard about any public declaration of Jesus’ charge, conviction, and sentence. They could have known who was involved in the charging, convicting, and sentencing. They could have had knowledge of public events surrounding the conviction (e.g., the release of Barabbas, or Jewish authorities stirring up the crowd). They could have witnessed the carrying of the cross and any outward signs of persecution or torture that might have preceded His journey to Golgotha (e.g., scourging or crowning with thorns). They could have witnessed the crucifixion itself, the public inscription of Jesus’ offense, the people crucified with Jesus, and they could have heard His final words, seen His death, and witnessed His burial. Evidently, they would have been a party to certain events themselves (e.g., cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant and denials).

Most of the above “witnessable” data was apologetically unappealing and presented obstacles to conversion. What would an early Jewish or gentile prospective convert find attractive about the public humiliation and execution of a messiah/leader? How did all the gory details of this crucifixion better establish Jesus’ role as messiah/leader? How would prospective Jewish converts have reacted to the contempt and rejection of Jesus by Jewish authorities? How would Peter’s denials and the apostles’ flight from Jerusalem have added to the Church’s “good image”? How does Jesus being numbered among criminals (e.g., Barabbas and the criminals crucified with Him) help the Church’s credibility among law-abiding citizens? In almost every case, the presentation of the “witnessable” data seems to undermine the early Christian’s image, credibility, and apologetical appeal. Why would they have presented these data in such detail if they had such potential and real damaging effects? I can think of only one reason. Because they were essentially true.

Can we render the same positive historical judgment about other details in the passion narratives beyond the basic “witnessable” data mentioned above? At this juncture, our pursuit of history becomes far more hazy and complex, because the witnessable data moves from eyewitnesses to catechists and teachers who need to interpret these traumatic (and unappealing) events to converts and potential converts. The natural tendency of such catechists, who were reared within Palestinian Judaism, would have been to use Scripture as a means of interpretation.<ref>The conjecture of some members of the Jesus Seminar that the early narratives of Jesus’ passion were a synthesis of interpreted Scriptures rather than an account of what really happened (Koester 1980, p. 127) is simply backwards. It is far more likely that the earliest traditions recounted what happened, allowing catechists to add sections later to interpret them. As Brown notes, “… [T]here is no evidence in the Pauline formula that scriptural reflection caused the creation of the basic incidents of the passion; far more plausibly it caused the selection and interpretation of certain features in an outline of death, burial, resurrection, and appearance that had been dictated by the early Christian memory of what happened” (Brown 1994(b), p. 16).</ref> Some of these attempts would be easily discernable because they would be introduced by phrases like “this was to fulfill the Scripture….” However, other Scripture passages might be on the lips of Jesus, such as the last words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (citing Psalm 22). The historian must now make the judgment of whether this was placed on the lips of Jesus, or whether Jesus selected these words for Himself (see below, Section II). Obviously, Jesus was accustomed to using Scripture to interpret His life, mission, and even crucifixion as much as, if not more than any later interpreter.

The historian’s task becomes even more complex when these traditions are woven into a single narrative. The editors of such narratives would have to be somewhat creative in synthesizing the various traditions. They might be inclined to embellish sayings or dialogue if that helped with the interpretation of recounted events. They could add thematic and even dramatic emphases to the narrative to further their catechetical or theological objectives. At this juncture, the historian must try to peel back the redactions of editors (especially the Evangelists) in order to get closer to the testimony of eyewitnesses which stand behind the narratives.

Recall from Unit II-B, Section I. that the first task is to get back to the primitive traditions that underlie the Gospel narratives, and then to judge the historicity of these primitive traditions by means of historical criteria and techniques to render judgments within a typical historical range:

<blockquote>…certain, very probable, probable, possible, not impossible. “Certain” has nothing to do with the certitude of mathematics or the physical sciences; it refers to the certitude we have in ordinary experience about the things we encounter or are reported to us in writing or orally.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 22.</ref></blockquote>

The earliest passion narrative is in the Gospel of Mark. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke were both aware of Mark’s narrative and relied on it. As will be seen in the next section, John was not aware of Mark’s narrative, but he made recourse to a primitive tradition(s) very similar to the ones used by Mark. This coincidence is extremely useful to historians because it allows for an application of the criterion of multiple attestation, which, in turn, helps historians make judgments about whether various verses in the narratives can be considered to be part of a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition.

In Section I.B, we will take a brief look at these criteria; in Section II we will consider the historicity of Jesus’ last words in Mark; and in Section III we will attempt to uncover the pre-Marcan tradition in Mark’s narrative, and then render some general historical judgments.

=== Application of the Criteria of Historicity to the Passion Narratives ===

The reader may wish to review the descriptions and examples of the criteria and techniques for determining the historicity of Gospel passages, which are summarized in Unit II-B, Section I. A brief description of three of these criteria will be given with particular examples from the passion narratives: (1) multiple attestation, (2) embarrassment, and (3) coherence with Jewish/Roman customs.

The reader will want to recall two caveats about assessment of historicity mentioned in Unit II-B, Section I. namely:

(a) Criteria for historicity can show the likelihood of a particular Gospel datum being historical, but the absence of criteria for historicity does not show the improbability of a particular Gospel datum being historical; the non-applicability of historical criteria shows only that we have no way of assessing historicity of a Gospel datum either positively or negatively. Thus, far more data in the passion narratives (and in the Gospels, for that matter) is historical than can ever be corroborated through historical criteria.

(b) Too rigorous an application of historical criteria can unnecessarily circumscribe corroboratable data from the Gospels. If one says, “The only data that I will accept as historical are those which are attested to by four out of five independent sources” (say, Mark, Q, special Luke, and John, leaving out only special Matthew), then one will limit oneself to very few Gospel data. If one goes even further, and requires four independent Gospel sources plus an external source (such as Tacitus and Josephus), the Gospel will be reduced to the non-interpolated statements of Tacitus and Josephus. Again, if one claims that multiple attestation is not enough – there must also be corroboration from another historical criterion (say, embarrassment or coherence to Jewish culture, etc.), then the field of acceptable data is correspondingly narrowed. The judicious use of historical criteria by mainstream exegetes such as Raymond Brown, N.T. Wright, and John P. Meier can avert unnecessary proscriptions of Gospel data, and lead to reasonable and responsible corroboration of a large range of Gospel data. We may now proceed to the three historical criteria.

1) Multiple Attestation. Recall that multiple attestation does not occur when there is repetition of passages among the three synoptic Gospels, but rather when there is repetition among the five independent sources (Mark, Q, special Matthew, special Luke, and John). Matthew and Luke relied upon and used the full text of Mark. Q is another source upon which Matthew and Luke both relied. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark in their passion narratives, and so attestation among them is not significant.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 81-82.</ref> However, as will be discussed below, Mark and John were written independently of each other, and it is quite likely that neither one had any knowledge of the other’s narrative. Nevertheless, there are no less than thirty-two similarities between the two narratives. If John is truly not dependent on Mark, then these similarities would auger very strongly for a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) passion tradition(s) upon which both Evangelists relied. This pre-Marcan tradition(s) would bring us closer to eyewitness accounts of the passion and therefore to Jesus’ passion itself.

How can we be so sure that John was not directly reliant on Mark’s narrative? In virtually every part of the Gospel except the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on water, and the passion narratives, John’s material is so distinct from Mark that it is difficult to believe that John relied on Mark unless he wanted to separate himself from, or complement Mark. Most scholars in the latter half of the twentieth century do not believe that there is Johannine dependence on Mark.<ref>Brown details the long list of exegetes who support the Johannine non-dependence theory in 1994(b), p. 76, note 91.</ref>

But what about Johannine dependence on the Marcan passion narrative? As can be seen from the table above, there are so many similarities between Mark and John that the possibility of dependence must be considered. There are two significant factors militating against the dependence conjecture. First, despite the many similarities, there are many more dissimilarities in content and order between the two passion narratives.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 81.</ref> Secondly, many of the differences between Mark and John are inexplicable, if not illogical if John truly depended on Mark.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref> Why would John have put his narrative into a more scattered and strangely ordered state than Mark’s if he depended on Mark? (A love of disorder?) Why would he have omitted details in Mark which would have been of interest to him (e.g., the kiss of Judas; mention of Simon of Cyrene; the sixth and ninth hour when darkness came over the land; the derision by the crowds at the cross; the confusion regarding Elijah – even though this may have been elicited by Jesus’ last words in Mark, which are not mentioned in John; omission of three of Mark’s women witnesses – Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, as well as “other women” in Mark, versus Mary the mother of Jesus, and His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas in John). These omissions and reorderings make little sense if John truly depended on Mark. For this reason, Brown concludes:

<blockquote>Throughout the commentary I shall come again and again to what I regard as a completely illogical result if John knew Mark. For that reason I shall work with the thesis that John wrote his passion narrative independently of Mark’s.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref></blockquote>

So what is the likely scenario for the Marcan and Johannine passion narratives’ development? Brown believes that this occurred in five stages:

a) Eyewitnesses. See the rationale for these eyewitness accounts given above in Section I.A.

b) A basic catechetical outline. A basic sequence of major events was formulated soon after the events of the passion connecting the Last Supper to the arrest, then to the condemnation, then to the crucifixion, then to the burial. This sequence guided the Church’s early proclamations and catechesis as well as Eucharistic memories. This is evident from Pauline and other non-Gospel New Testament writings.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 83.</ref>

c) Pre-Gospel traditions. Widely circulated stories/traditions (probably both oral and written) were formed from eyewitness accounts about particular figures and incidents in the passion narratives (alongside the basic catechetical outline). The stories were not yet connected to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 83-84.</ref>

d) Pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine traditions. The stories and basic outline made their way toward the Marcan and Johannine communities where eventually a pre-Marcan author(s) connected many of the stories to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 84.</ref>

e) The Marcan and Johannine passion narratives. The two Evangelists used two versions of the pre-Marcan tradition along with additional pre-Gospel traditions<ref>As Soards’ table indicates, there were probably several such pre-Gospel traditions along with other narrative traditions. See Soards 1994, pp. 1492-1524.</ref> to formulate the passion narratives we have today.

It is likely that much of the “witnessable” data in the thirty-two common elements in the Marcan and Johannine narratives made their way from eyewitnesses into the pre-Gospel traditions, and then into the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition(s), and then into the Gospel narratives. This would include:

Judas as betrayer bringing soldiers with weapons; Jesus being seized; the high priest’s servant’s ear being cut off; Jesus’ exchange with His apprehenders; Jesus being subjected to a Jewish judicial inquest; Peter’s three denials; the high priest’s maid as first inquirer; Peter warming himself by the fire in the high priest’s courtyard; the bystanders as inquirers in the third denial; the Jewish authorities making accusations against Jesus to Pilate; the crowd asking for the release of Barabbas; Pilate not finding Jesus guilty of a crime; the crowds responding multiple times “Crucify Him”; Pilate having Jesus scourged; Pilate handing Jesus over to be crucified, Jesus being crowned with thorns; Jesus proceeding to Golgotha with a cross, the crucifixion of Jesus; an inscription reading “King of the Jews”; the soldiers dividing Jesus’ garments and casting lots for them; two criminals being crucified with Jesus, one on either side of Him; Mary Magdalene witnessing the crucifixion; the soldiers giving a vinegar-filled sponge to Jesus on the cross; Joseph of Arimathea obtaining permission to bury Jesus; and Joseph of Arimathea wrapping the body of Jesus in a linen cloth, and putting Him in a tomb.<ref>For evidence of the apostles knowing the place of burial and witnessing the empty tomb, see Chapter 4, Section II.B.</ref>

Some of these conclusions (as well as others) are corroborated by three other historical criteria which will be discussed in the forthcoming subsections.

(2) Embarrassment. Recall from Unit II-B, Section I., that if a particular Gospel datum was embarrassing to the Church, or undermined the reputation of the apostles, or cast dispersions upon Jesus, then we can be quite certain that the Evangelists (and the formulators of early traditions) did not invent it. Raymond Brown points to several such data in the passion narratives, for example: Judas (one of the Twelve apostles) betraying Jesus; many of the disciples not remaining with Jesus during the passion; and Peter denying Jesus three times.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> There are other data which are embarrassing, but may have been recounted for other reasons. For example, Jesus praying in the garden, “Remove this cup from me” (Mark 14:36), which looks like Jesus is trying to avoid the cross. Although this could not have been catechetically appealing, someone could conjecture that this passage is meant “to teach Christians that facing death constitutes a trial that may challenge even sincere commitment.”<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> Nevertheless, the datum is still catechetically unappealing, and would have been very risky for the Evangelist or early Church to have invented.

The same holds true for Jesus’ last words in the Gospel of Mark: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” As will be discussed below (Section II), the last words of Jesus do not enjoy multiple attestation because John does not recount them (and places a completely different phrase on the lips of Jesus – “It is finished”). Many scholars believe, however, that this datum is historical because it would have likely been misinterpreted by gentile audiences who might not have known that the phrase (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) refers to the whole of Psalm 22 (a Psalm of God redeeming the sufferings of the just one and bringing salvation through it to all nations and generations). Gentile audiences would have been likely to believe that Jesus was so demoralized that He lost His confidence in God and thought that God was forsaking Him. This misinterpretation would not only have been embarrassing to the Church, but would have led to a theology precisely contrary to what Jesus intended and to what the Church taught. It is difficult to believe that Mark would have invented this phrase as Jesus’ last words, and much more likely that John (like Luke), if he was aware of the phrase from a pre-Johannine tradition, would have dropped it since he was writing for a gentile audience that could have easily misinterpreted it.

(3) Coherence with Jewish/Roman customs. There are three elements which are relevant here: (a) coherence with Jewish customs, (b) Semitisms, and (c) coherence with Roman customs. The last area is somewhat complex<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 19ff.</ref> and not especially germane to the point of this Unit; so I will limit discussion to the first two areas.

(a) ''Correspondence with Jewish custom''. One major point bears mentioning, because it shows Mark’s<ref>The historicity of the Marcan narrative will be assessed throughout the rest of the chapter.</ref> fidelity to the Jewish customs which would have been in effect at the time of Jesus’ passion, namely, Mark’s careful recounting of how the Sanhedrin adhered to the Mishna only when it was in conformity to the Sadducee law. Blinzler notes in this regard:

<blockquote>The fact that Mk 14 and 15 juxtapose items which sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the requirements of the Mishnah was hitherto felt puzzling. The explanation is that the Sanhedrin was at that time bound by the Sadducee law, which agreed with the Mishnah only exceptionally. But if Mk 14 and 15 were a legendary construction, it would be hard to explain how the author, supposedly so uninterested in historical fact, managed to be so accurate with regard to the legal custom: to the unlikely extent, that is, that the actions of the Sanhedrin only agreed with the Mishnah when the provisions of the latter coincided with those of the Sadducees, and not otherwise.<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref></blockquote>

(b) ''Semitisms''. There is one truly remarkable Semitism recorded in the Marcan narrative, namely, Jesus’ final words: “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''.” The Marcan version of the final words is to be preferred over the Matthean one, because it is probable that Matthew tried to “clean up” Mark’s Aramaic citation of the divine name (“''Elōi''”)<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref> with the more proper Hebrew version of it (''“’Ēlî”''), which would have been recited in the synagogue.<ref>Recall that Matthew is writing for a well-educated Jewish audience, and was trying to convince them of the Messiahship of Jesus. He knew the appropriate Hebrew form of the Psalm and changed Mark’s Aramaic “Elōi” to the Hebrew “Ēli.” See Brown 1994(b), pp. 1051-1052.</ref> The fact that Matthew records the Aramaic “''sabachthani''” (instead of the more appropriate Hebrew ''ăzabtānî'') convinces most scholars that Matthew retained remnants of an original Aramaic version.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. Mark’s use of “lama” (instead of the Aramaic “lĕmā”) is not problematic because it was common practice at that time to transliterate the shewa (short “e” vowel) by “a” instead of “e.” See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. See also Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58; and Harrington 1990, p. 628.</ref>

Is Mark’s Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words truly Jesus’ words? It seems likely because much of Mark’s mixed gentile-Jewish audience would not have recognized either the Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the Psalm, which evidently compelled Mark to translate it into Greek. Why would Mark have recorded an Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words which most of his audience would not have understood? Why not simply give the Greek translation without the Aramaic? Furthermore, why give an Aramaic translation of the Psalms instead of the more proper and easily recognizable Hebrew version? The fact that Jesus may well have learned the Psalms in Aramaic and recited the Psalms in Aramaic to His Galilean audience may provide a clue to the origin of the Aramaic version of the Psalm – namely, Jesus Himself.<ref>Though Mark cites Aramaic versions of Old Testament texts elsewhere, this may be out of deference to Jesus rather than Mark’s preference.</ref> The application of other historical criteria to this question will further confirm the origin of these words in Jesus. This will be considered in the following section.

== The Final Words of Jesus ==

Given that Mark’s version of Jesus’ final words is more original than Matthew’s version, we may now return to the question of whether Mark’s version is historical. Though the Aramaic rendition of the final words is a clue to their origin in Jesus, it is not definitive because Luke gives a different version of the final words (“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” – Luke 23:46), and so does John (“It is finished” – John 19:30). Why should Mark be preferred to Luke and John?

With respect to Luke’s version of the final words, there are four reasons to suspect that Mark’s version is closer to Jesus’ own. First, Luke was aware of Mark’s version of the final words, and would have had to have intentionally changed them. Secondly, Luke prefers to shift the focus from Jesus’ feelings of desolation to Jesus’ trust. Instead of Psalm 22:2 (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”), Luke portrays Jesus reciting Psalm 31:6 (“Into your hands I commend my spirit”), which effects this shift in focus. Luke’s preference to portray Jesus as confident (and eliminate any hint of spiritual disturbance) is evidenced in his elimination of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ anxiety in the garden of Gethsemane (“My soul is very sorrowful unto death”). It is much easier to believe that Luke has continued his redactional policy of eliminating Marcan references to Jesus’ anxiety than to believe that Luke’s version of Jesus’ words is more original. Thirdly, Luke substitutes “Father” for the Psalmist’s reference to “God,” which is very likely a redaction. Finally, Luke selects a Psalm passage which speaks to Jesus’ Spirit, which is a clear focus of his Gospel and an allusion to the Holy Spirit, which is the focus of the Acts of the Apostles.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1067.</ref> For this reason, most scholars believe that the Lukan version is a redaction of the Marcan original.

What about John’s version of the last words (“It is finished”)? Unlike Luke, John was not aware of the Marcan passion narrative, yet there is significant evidence that Mark and John borrowed from a common pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition (see above, Section I.B.1). Does John’s very different version of Jesus’ final words imply that the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition did not have any version of Jesus’ final words (and that both Mark and John invented their own in the absence of a more original version)? The answer is probably ‘no,’ because of light shed upon the question by the historical criterion of embarrassment.

Recall from Section I.B.2 that John’s predominately gentile audience could have misinterpreted Jesus’ last words as recorded by Mark. Indeed, as we just saw, Luke certainly thought this was a possibility for his gentile audience. The majority of John’s audience would probably not have recognized Psalm 22 in the Aramaic expression, “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani'',” and they would not have known that this first line referred to the entire Psalm. Therefore, they would not have known that Jesus’ last words were a prayer of trust in God which would lead not only to the vindication of His suffering, but to universal salvation for all humankind for all time (see below in this section).<ref>As Brown notes, “Perhaps the most frequently offered argument for softening the dour import of the Mark/Matt death cry is based on the general context of Ps 22. Jesus cites the opening verse of a psalm that continues for thirty more verses. By the end the psalmist will take a positive view: Rejoicing, he will proclaim that he has survived the danger and that after all God did not spurn him or ‘turn His face away’ (Ps 22:25). Accordingly some would invoke a hermeneutic principle that a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context” (Brown 1994(b), pp. 1049-1050).</ref> Thus (as the Johannine author very probably perceived), they would have interpreted these words to mean that Jesus felt abandoned by the Father, which is precisely the opposite of what the Psalm intends, what the early Church believed, and what Jesus intended. Not only would this have been confusing and misleading to gentile members of the early Church; it would have been apologetically unappealing and embarrassing to the Church in gentile regions. Thus, John, like Luke, would have had everything to lose (and nothing to gain) by retaining these words on the lips of the dying Jesus.

Therefore, there is considerable reason to believe prima facie that John, like Luke, would have been inclined to change Jesus’ dying words from those of Psalm 22 to something less misleading and more consistent with Jesus’ intention and the belief of the early Church. He decides upon the simple phrase, “It is finished,” which refers to Jesus’ project of redemption, the completion of which John has been pointing to throughout the “Book of Glory” (chapters 13-21).

This leads to the obvious question of why Mark (who was addressing a mixed gentile-Jewish audience) would have retained Psalm 22 as Jesus’ final words when many of his audience members would have been likely to misinterpret them in the same way as John’s and Luke’s audiences. Before responding, it is worth noting that this question does not apply to Matthew with the same force as Mark because the majority of Matthew’s audience was Jewish. Many in that audience would have been educated enough to see Psalm 22 through Matthew’s Hebraic version of it, and many would have understood that the first line of the Psalm referred to the whole Psalm. Brown points to a well-known hermeneutical principle in this regard:

<blockquote>…a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 1050.</ref></blockquote>

In the case of Psalm 22, the context speaks of trust in God, vindication, and salvation for the world.

However, the above hermeneutical principle would not have applied to the gentile members of Mark’s audience; so why did he retain these words? I think there is only one plausible explanation – namely, that they are in fact the final words of Jesus. It would be inconceivable to suggest that Mark invented these words to place on the lips of Jesus given the probability of their misinterpretation (with significant negative consequences) by a large segment of his audience. Therefore, it seems likely that Mark received these words from either a pre-Marcan tradition or from Peter (for whom Mark was interpreter). In either case, Mark must have believed that these words were truly those of Jesus, and decided to retain them in their Aramaic form precisely for this reason. There does not appear to be any other reasonable motive for his taking the risk of significant misinterpretation and apologetically unappealing embarrassment.

So if we consider “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''” to be the dying words of the historical Jesus, and if we apply Brown’s hermeneutical principle to Jesus Himself (implying that Jesus expected informed listeners to “be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context”), then it seems likely that the dying Jesus was praying the whole of Psalm 22 to His Father while giving His listeners an insight into how He interpreted His sacrificial death through that prayer. Mally notes in this regard:

<blockquote>As a quotation of an OT Ps, it can hardly be taken literally as an expression of real despair or dereliction. Rather, Jesus applies to himself an OT passage that sums up the suffering of the upright individual who turns to his God in the stress of hostile opposition and its ensuing depression. In using the Ps, Jesus does not express the feeling that his life’s work has failed and that God has therefore abandoned him; he identifies himself with a biblical precedent, the persecuted upright man ''who has trusted in Yahweh'', and found in him ''the source of his consolation and ultimate triumph'' [italics mine].<ref>Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58. See also J. Gnilka 1959, pp. 294-97.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, Jesus’ reference to Psalm 22 is an expression of trust and confidence in the Father that His suffering will result in the triumph of His mission. As noted in the previous Unit, that mission is actualized for all future generations through the gift of His presence and unconditional redeeming Love in the Eucharist.

A closer look at the Psalm may give a deep insight into the panoply of Jesus’ thoughts and feelings at the time of His crucifixion. The Psalm may be divided into three parts:

(1) “2-22, the complaint, with repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence (4-6; 10-11),”<ref>Murphy 1968, p. 579.</ref>

(2) “23-32, thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share (23-27),<ref>Murphy 1968, p. 579.</ref>” and

(3) the worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh (28-32).

Each part will be presented in turn.

(1) Complaint, repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence.

''My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

Why are you so far from saving me,

so far from the words of my groaning?

Oh my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,

and by night, but I have no rest.''

Then, the psalmist shifts perspective as he does several times throughout the Psalm, and introduces the theme of God’s holiness and grandeur, worthy of praise and trust:

''Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;

you are the praise of Israel.

In you our fathers put their trust;

they trusted and you delivered them.

They cried to you and were saved;

in you they trusted and were not disappointed.''

The psalmist then turns back to the deplorable nature of his condition:

''But I am a worm and not a man,

scorned by men and despised by the people.

All who see me mock me;

they hurl insults, shaking their heads:

“He trusted in the Lord;

let the Lord rescue him.

Let Him deliver him

since He delights in him.''

The uncanny resemblance between the psalmist’s words and the events taking place around Jesus give one pause. After describing the inauthentic words of the crowd (who believe that the Lord will not fulfill the trust of the psalmist), the psalmist shifts back to his fervent trust in the Lord:

''Yet you brought me out of the womb;

you made me trust in you;

even at my mother’s breast.

From birth I was cast upon you;

from my mother’s womb you have been my God.''

Having renewed his trust in the Lord, the psalmist makes an earnest petition for help:

''Do not be far from me,

for trouble is near

and there is no one to help.

Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.

Roaring lions tearing their prey

open their mouths wide against me.''

Then the psalmist uses the same words seen in the suffering servant song (Is 52:13-53:12) and Jesus’ eucharistic words:

''I am poured out like water,

and all my bones are out of joint.

My heart has turned to wax;

it has melted away within me.

My strength is dried up like a potsherd,

and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;

you lay me in the dust of death.''

In continuing his description of his suffering to Yahweh, the psalmist again describes events uncannily similar to Jesus’ crucifixion:

''Dogs have surrounded me;

a band of evil men has encircled me,

they have pierced my hands and my feet.

I can count all my bones;

people stare and gloat over me.

They divide my garments among them

and cast lots for my clothing.''

The psalmist makes another earnest petition for God’s help and consolation:

''But you, oh Lord, be not far off;

oh my Strength, come quickly to help me.

Deliver my life from the sword,

my precious life from the power of the dogs.

Rescue me from the mouth of the lion;

save me from the horns of the wild oxen.''

(2) Thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share. The psalmist then reaffirms his trust and confidence in the Lord, as if to say that he will live beyond his current persecution to bring the praise of the Lord’s name to all who fear him:

''I will declare your name to my brothers;

in the congregation I will praise you.

You who fear the Lord, praise him!

All you descendents of Jacob, honor him!

Revere him, all you descendents of Israel!''

The psalmist then gives his reason for his confidence in God, and his belief in his future:

''For he has not despised or disdained

the suffering of the afflicted one;

he has not hidden his face from him

but has listened to his cry for help.

From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;

before those who fear you I will fulfill my vows.''

The psalmist then moves into a prophetic, and even messianic tone, speaking of signs of the new Jerusalem; messianic signs which Jesus says, when quoting the prophet Isaiah, are being fulfilled in Himself:<ref>See Matt. 11:5ff and Lk 4:18ff, referring to Is 61:1ff.</ref>

''The poor will eat and be satisfied;

they who seek the Lord will praise Him –

may your hearts live forever.''

(3) The worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh. The psalmist then confidently suggests universality of salvation arising out of Yahweh’s mercy:

''All the ends of the earth

will remember and turn to the Lord,

and all the families of the nations

will bow down before Him,

for dominion belongs to the Lord

and He rules over the nations.''

The psalmist then suggests that Yahweh’s salvation will extend to all those who are raised on high, and those who are in the grave:

''All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;

all who go down to the dust will kneel before Him –

those who cannot keep themselves alive.

Posterity will serve Him;

future generations will be told about the Lord.

They will proclaim His righteousness

to a people yet unborn –

for He has done it.''

This Psalm on the dying lips of Jesus is quite remarkable. In the midst of recounting events quite similar to His crucifixion, the Psalm expresses His mind and heart as He cries out for help, as He is overwhelmingly confident in that help, and as He sees the ultimate result of that help in a salvation that will not only reach to the ends of the earth, but to all future generations on the earth, and even to those who are raised on high and those who “go down to the dust.” Thus, the Psalm connects Jesus’ torment with His confidence in the Father as He looks beyond His suffering, beyond Jerusalem, beyond the present age, and beyond earthly existence, to a redemption which will take hold in the life of God Himself. Jesus’ eucharistic words are not only consonant with those of the psalm, they give the psalm’s words ultimate meaning and reality; for they provide the vehicle through which Jesus’ person and love will save universally and eternally.

== The Passion of Jesus in Mark and in Pre-Marcan Tradition (14:32-15:37) ==

Mark gives us the oldest account of the passion. Though it tries to reconcile the passion with Old Testament prophesy, its primary objective is not apologetical. Rather, it intends to give an account of the sufferings freely endured by Jesus and “to show clearly what persons and what authorities were responsible for the death of Jesus and the extent of their guilt.” Mark believes that this is Jesus’ central salvific act and uses it to frame the rest of his Gospel. As Blinzler notes:

Mark already had before him such a relatively fixed account from oral tradition, as the insertion of 14:3-9 shows, and he enlarged it with further matter, e.g., with “memoirs” of Peter (apart from 14:3-9) such as the account of the denial (14:54, 66-72). …[T]he Gospel of Mark has been called, not unjustly, “a passion-narrative with a long introduction” (M. Kähler).

As noted above, there is substantial New Testament and extra-testamental evidence for the historicity of Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion. Many other facts surrounding the crucifixion are also very probably historical. By using the criteria and techniques elucidated above (Sections I.A and B), we can first ascertain what material from Mark’s passion narrative probably came from a pre-Marcan tradition, and the material from that tradition which could have come from eyewitness accounts. Scholars have worked diligently on these tasks for over a century, and it is beyond the scope of this study to report comprehensively on their findings. My objective is only to give a report about where the preponderance of scholarly opinion lies with regard to an early pre-Marcan tradition and the historicity of the facts within that tradition.

There is a strong likelihood that Mark made recourse to a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which he redacted and stylized to give coherence and meaning to this exceedingly significant event for the Christian Church. There is a wide variety of opinion about which verses originated with this pre-Marcan tradition(s) and which ones originated with Mark. Marion Soards has gathered a tremendous amount of data from 34 scholars representing a wide range of theological and exegetical perspectives. I have taken the liberty of presenting the Revised Standard Version of the Marcan passion narrative, and indicating the likelihood that each of its verses originated with a pre-Marcan tradition or with Mark himself according to the following key:

Bold A large majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Italics A small majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Underline The scholarly community is about evenly split on whether this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition, or with Mark himself.

Normal font The majority of the scholarly community believes that this verse originated with Mark (and is therefore a Marcan redaction).

Mark Chapter 14

32 They went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and He said to His disciples, “Sit here, while I pray.” 33 And He took with Him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. 34 And He said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch.” 35 And going a little farther, He fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. 36 And He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt.” And He came and found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? 38 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 39 And again He went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 And again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer Him. 41 And He came the third time, and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”

43 And immediately, while He was still speaking Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I shall kiss is the man; seize Him and lead Him away safely.” And when he came, he went up to Him at once, and said, “Master!” And he kissed Him. And they laid hands on Him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” And they all forsook Him, and fled.

51 And a young man followed Him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

53 And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. And Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death; but they found none. 56 For many bore false witness against Him, and their witness did not agree. 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against Him, saying, “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet not even so did their testimony agree. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you? 61 But He was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked Him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”Note 63 And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard His blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned Him as deserving death. 65 And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to strike Him, saying to Him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received Him with blows.

66 And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came; 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway. 69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” 70 But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.” 71 But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.” 72 And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

Mark Chapter 15

1 And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. And Pilate asked Him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And He answered him “You have said so.” And the chief priests accused Him of many things. And Pilate again asked Him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered.

Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they asked. And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. And he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered Him up. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” And they cried out again, “Crucify Him.” And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him.” So, Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

And the soldiers led Him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. And they clothed Him in a purple cloak, and placing a crown of thorns they put it on Him. And they began to salute Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck His head with a reed, and spat upon Him, and they knelt down in homage to Him. And when they had mocked Him, they stripped Him of the purple cloak, and put His own clothes on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him.

And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry His cross. And they brought Him to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). And they offered Him wine mingled with myrrh; but He did not take it. And they crucified Him, and divided His garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour, when they crucified Him. And the inscription of the charge against Him read, “The King of the Jews.” And with Him they crucified two robbers, one on His right and one on His left. And those who passed by derided Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 So also the chief priests mocked Him to one another with the scribes, saying, “He saved others; He cannot save Himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with Him also reviled Him.

And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” Which means, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Behold, He is calling Elijah.” And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to Him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down.” And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.

38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing Him, saw that He thus breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the son of God!”

There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, 41 who, when He was in Galilee, followed Him, and ministered to Him; and also many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 And Pilate wondered if He were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether He was already dead. 45 And when he learned from the centurion that He was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 And he bought a linen shroud, and taking Him down, wrapped Him in the linen shroud, and laid Him in a tomb which has been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where He was laid.

*****

As can be seen from the above, most scholars consider the vast majority of the passion narrative to have come from a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which would presumably include some accounts from Peter. Notice that the probable Marcan redactions are not concerned with the torment, crucifixion, and death of Jesus. They are meant to explain who is primarily guilty (i.e., Judas, the chief priests, and the council), who is less culpable (i.e., Pilate), and who is ironically the prophetic spokesman of the meaning of the passion (i.e., the centurion). They also center on Mark’s interpretation of why Jesus was accused of blasphemy (i.e., identifying Himself with the eschatological Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14). If these elements are “bracketed,” the passion story retains its poignant central core, which likely represents the traditions which Mark received as he prepared his narrative.

The question of whether the pre-Marcan tradition is faithful to accounts from eyewitnesses and earwitnesses is more difficult to ascertain. One cannot assume that a verse was witnessed simply because it was included in a pre-Marcan tradition. As was made clear in Section I.B, the pre-Marcan tradition relied on pre-Gospel traditions and stories, and had developments and accretions arising out of catechetical and pedagogical concerns. Nevertheless, it is likely that the pre-Marcan tradition(s) contained a considerable amount of “witnessable” and witnessed data for the reasons mentioned in Section I above – particularly as regards the betrayal by Judas, the arrest, a Jewish judicial inquest, Peter’s denials, the involvement of Pontius Pilate, the involvement of Jewish authorities in accusing Jesus, the release of Barabbas, the involvement of Roman soldiers, and facts surrounding the crucifixion (e.g., being scourged, being crowned with thorns, the vinegary wine, being hanged on a cross, the inscription on the cross, and the two other criminals). I would also include Jesus’ final words as recounted in Mark’s Gospel (for the reasons mentioned in the previous section), and the fact of Jesus’ burial (for the reasons mentioned in Chapter 4, Section II.B). A more detailed list of other “witnessable” data which is common to both the Marcan and Johannine traditions may be found above in Section I.B. Additional details about the historicity of particular verses in the pre-Marcan tradition(s) may be found in the “Analysis” sections following each major part of Raymond Brown’s The Death of the Messiah.

An appreciation of the significance of the passion, particularly as regards the central question of this book (i.e., “Is Jesus Emmanuel?”), cannot be attained through exegetical and historical analysis alone. Though this analysis is necessary in order to understand the meaning and reality of the events surrounding Jesus’ death, it almost blocks out the heart’s reasons to give greater clarity to the mind’s reasons. I can’t speak for you, the reader, but when I am applying criteria and techniques of historicity to particular texts, I am not being flooded with inspiration and love; and so I find it necessary to move to the domain of contemplation after I have satisfied myself about the historicity of the essential elements of Jesus’ passion. Contemplation allows one to be moved in the heart – to be struck with delight, or wonder, or amazement; to perceive beauty; to exalt; to be moved with gratitude; to feel awe and glory; to be inspired; to be moved by what is just and good and generous, and above all, to be moved by love – unconditional Love. Thus, contemplation is essential to the appreciation of Jesus’ passion, which is above all an act of incredible love.

== Contemplation on the Passion ==

The passion narratives open upon a virtually limitless depth of love, which can best be gleaned through contemplation. As explained in the previous chapter, Jesus views His passion as the culmination of His mission, the concretization of His unconditional Love in history, and His gift of unconditional Love to the world for all eternity (through the Eucharist). The reader’s time will be well spent on considering His loving intention, attitude, and feeling in His gift of self in the events of the passion.

One successful method of entering into contemplation is recommended by Saint Ignatius of Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises. It entails entering into the scene, considering the personalities and dispositions of people in the scene, and focusing on the heart of Jesus manifest through the people and events in the scene.

In light of the above, one may want to use the following structure to contemplate on the passion. After reading a particular passage at least twice, first consider various physical aspects of the scene, then:

• the persons in the scene along with Jesus, then
• Jesus’ attitude toward the people in the scene (recalling that Jesus’ attitudes are reflected in the beatitudes – humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, merciful, peacemaking, etc.), then
• Jesus’ relationship to the Father (applying Psalm 22, the Suffering Servant song – Isaiah 52:13-53:12, and Jesus’ prayer in the Garden), then
• Jesus’ universal salvific intent (applying the simile of the paschal lamb and the words “This is my body,” “the blood of the covenant,” “for all,” and “Do this in remembrance of me” – see Chapter 9, Section II.B), then
• Jesus’ love for the people in the scene (including His persecutors), His love of the Father, and His love of humankind.

You might then look at Jesus’ acceptance of anguish for the sake of love. In light of this, you might consider Jesus’ love for you and others; His hopes and aspirations for you and for others. Accept that love, accept His wanting to be your paschal lamb, sin-offering (scapegoat), and blood of the covenant (to guarantee eternal life with Him and the Father); and then, express to God what you desire.

After you have completed your contemplation, you might want to ask the recurrent questions in this book: Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this for my sake and the sake of all? Is Jesus Christ His Emmanuel? If so, then the unconditional Love of God is real and has been fully actualized in the world. That unconditional Love is unconditional light in the darkness, unconditional hope amidst dejection, unconditional resurrection amidst the cross, and unconditional redemption amidst our sin. It is unconditional life unto unconditional joy in the unconditional love of the triune God.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Passion

2015-01-08T17:40:11Z

David Persyn: /* The Final Words of Jesus */ Fix format error

Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith – Jesus

Unit II. M

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Passion

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-M_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Passion.3F | Return to the Table of Contents]]

'''Introduction'''

The Eucharist is not only Jesus’ definitive interpretation of His passion and death; it is also the definitive vehicle through which He communicates His presence and love to all future generations. So, how can our insight into the preciousness of this gift be deepened through the examination of Jesus’ passion? From a contemplative point of view, the possibilities are considerable for deepening the heart’s awareness of the love of Christ. As one considers Jesus’ willing acceptance of each part of the passion as a gift of self (love) for all humankind, one begins to affectively (not just intellectually) appreciate what unconditional Love really is; and when one sees this Love through the eyes, the face, the mind, the heart of the gentle Lamb willingly led to the slaughter, one begins to receive an answer to the questions: “Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this?” and “Is Jesus His Emmanuel?”

Since my intention here is to induce contemplation (that is, prayerful reflection on the texts of the passion), I will discuss only three important propaedeutic points: (1) an overview of the historicity of the passion narratives (Section I)<ref>Any reader interested in a detailed exegesis of the passion narratives should make recourse to Raymond Brown’s comprehensive work The Death of the Messiah [Brown 1994(b)]. </ref>, (2) an analysis of Jesus’ final words on the cross (Section II), and (3) a presentation of the pre-Marcan tradition and Mark’s passion narrative (Section III). The reader may then want to return to the previous Unit on the Eucharist to probe with contemplative insight into the meaning and reality of Jesus’ love.

== The Historicity of the Passion ==

It may be observed from the outset that Jesus’ plan to redeem the world was anything but apologetical or popular, for the idea of a suffering Messiah was thought to be a curse by His Jewish and gentile contemporaries (Dt 21:23, Gal 3:13, I Cor 12:3).<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 350.</ref> Nevertheless, Jesus, knowing what would befall Him,<ref>This is clear from the pre-planning implicit in the institution of the Eucharist, and also from the multiple predictions of His passion (Mt 16:13-23, 17:22-23, 20:17-19; Mk 8:27-33, 9:30-32, 10:32-34; Lk 9:18-22, 9:43-45, and 18:31-34).</ref> proceeded resolutely toward Jerusalem. In light of our discussion of the Eucharist, His plan had but one objective: to join with the Father in an act of unconditional self-gift (love) for the salvation of humankind. Even though Jesus was convinced of His vindication and resurrection (see Unit II-L, Section II), He must have known that the crucifixion would be viewed as a scandal, and used against Him by His critics. Nevertheless, He viewed the passion as being indispensable to His mission. Why? Because He associated the passion with gift of self, which, as is clear from His institution of the Eucharist, He associated with unconditional Love. One can see this kind of love mirrored in parents who willingly endure humiliation, and even place themselves in harm’s way, in order to protect the lives and future of their children. Jesus viewed Himself as responsible (as shepherd and brother) for all of us who were to become, through Him, the Father’s adopted children.

Before beginning a formal analysis of the historicity of the passion narratives, we will want to examine a contention of Dominic Crossan (of the Jesus Seminar) who throws the historicity of these narratives into question by suggesting that they are derivatives of the (Gnostic) gospel of Peter. The gospel of Peter is a narrative of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. It consists of sixty verses and has been dated to Papyri originating in about 200 AD.<ref>See Koester 1990, pp. 216-17.</ref> Crossan ignores the fact that there is no evidence for the gospel of Peter prior to 200 AD, and makes a radical suggestion that it was the only source from which the passion narratives of the four canonical Gospels were derived:

<blockquote>Composed by the fifties C.E., and possibly at Sepphoris in Galilee, it [the Cross Gospel in the Gospel of Peter] is the single source of the intracanonical passion narratives.<ref>See Crossan 1991, p. 429. See also Crossan 1985, pp. 132-34.</ref> <ref>Quarles 2006, p. 119.</ref></blockquote>

Charles Quarles sums up Crossan’s conclusions from his radical contention (which does not enjoy wide acceptance in the scholarly community<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 106.</ref>) as follows:

<blockquote>The GP is more a product of the author’s creative literary imagination than a reflection of eyewitness accounts of actual events. Thus, if the GP is the single source for the canonical narratives of the Passion and resurrection, the canonical Gospels are unreliable revisions of an unreliable tradition. None of the Gospels could then be trusted to provide historically reliable testimony about the final events in the life of the historical Jesus.</blockquote>

Quarles shows this claim to be virtually untenable in the light of textual analysis. First, Crossan contends that the parallels between Matthew and the gospel of Peter regarding the Pharisees gathering before Pilate and expressing concern about a staged resurrection on the third day, the guarding and sealing of the tomb of Jesus, and the description of the Jews as “the people” shows Matthean dependence upon the gospel of Peter. Quarles shows precisely the opposite after studying the redactional tendencies of Matthew and the gospel of Peter. Following Gundry,<ref>Gundry 1994, p. 584.</ref> Quarles shows that these texts are a series of “Mattheanisms,” particularly the use of the words “disciple,” “steal,” and “''mēpote''” – “lest” (except once where the gospel of Peter is clearly following Matthew in a subjunctive construction). He quotes John P. Meier by way of conclusion:

<blockquote>When it comes to who is dependent on whom, all the signs point to Matthew’s priority…. The clause is a tissue of Matthean vocabulary and style, a vocabulary and style almost totally absent from the rest of the Gospel of Peter.<ref>Meier 1991, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

Secondly, there are doctrines and sayings in the gospel of Peter which do not occur in the canonical Gospels or the New Testament. For example, Jesus’ preaching to those who have fallen asleep (to those who have died). Quarles notes in this regard:

<blockquote>If the emerging consensus of interpretation regarding 1Peter is correct, the presence of the reference to preaching to those who sleep in the Gospel of Peter suggests that the document was composed no earlier than the first quarter of the second century.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 112.</ref></blockquote>

The same holds true for other sayings, such as the “Lord’s day,” which is mentioned in the Gospel of Peter 9:35 and 12:50, but only appears in the New Testament in the Book of Revelations (approximately 90 AD). The Gospels used the more primitive expression “the first day of the week.”<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 113.</ref>

Thirdly, the description of the resurrection in the gospel of Peter is “fantastic and quite at odds with the descriptions that appear in the canonical Gospels”:

<blockquote>…as the three men exited the tomb, a cross, apparently floating through the air, followed them. …[T]he cross was capable of speech. A heavenly voice asked, “Did you preach to those who are sleeping?” and the cross replied, “Yes.”<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

We have already seen (with respect to Jesus’ miracles) the tendency of the later Gnostic gospels to move from the balanced and mature perspective of the canonical Gospels to an exaggerated, fantastic, and immature perspective (see Unit II-G, Section II). The gospel of Peter here is no different than the gospels of Thomas and Philip.

Fourthly, the “apologetical case” for Jesus’ resurrection (responding to Jewish objections at the time) is more developed in the gospel of Peter than in the Gospel of Matthew, and

<blockquote>no sensible explanation for Matthew’s elimination of helpful apologetic material available to him from the Cross Gospel exists. This suggests that the author of the gospel of Peter depended on Matthew’s Gospel but revised it in order to present a more compelling case for the resurrection.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 118.</ref></blockquote>

For these and other reasons, Quarles (along with Meier) hold Crossan’s position to be untenable , giving rise to the conclusion:

<blockquote>…[I]f the canonical Gospels are the earliest record of the Passion and resurrection, as this paper suggests, and if these contain the narratives based on eyewitness accounts, as the earliest church testimony affirms and as the internal evidence suggests, the earliest narratives of Jesus’ death and resurrection may be viewed as prophecy fulfilled rather than prophecy historicized, and speculation that Jesus was not even buried, much less raised, is groundless.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 120.</ref></blockquote>

We may now proceed to the question of the historicity of the passion narratives. Though all four Gospels portray the passion through narratives aimed at different audiences, and these narratives have different styles and redactional emphases, it does not mean that they do not possess an extensive historical core.<ref>According to Brown: “I see no need for such a dichotomy between acknowledging the narrative form of the passion and maintaining a respect for historical issues” (Brown 1994(b), p. 14).</ref>

There are remarkable agreements among the four lengthy passion narratives, but this does not automatically constitute multiple attestation because Matthew and Luke saw and made recourse to the Marcan narrative. Nevertheless, as will be explained below, Mark and John did not have knowledge of each other’s narratives, and so the many similarities between these two narratives constitute a very strong form of multiple attestation. Before considering this window into the historicity of the passion narratives, we must consider two more fundamental questions which are elucidated by Raymond Brown in his extensive two-volume analysis of the passion entitled: ''The Death of the Messiah''<ref>Brown 1994(b).</ref> :

(1) Did Jesus’ disciples have access to the data recounted in the various passion narratives? (Section I.A), and

(2) How can the criteria of historicity be applied to the passion narratives? (Section I.B)

=== Did Jesus’ Disciples Have Access to the Data Recounted in the Various Passion Narratives? ===

It is not my intention to respond to the extreme skepticism of Koester,<ref>Koester 1980, p. 127.</ref> Crossan,<ref>Crossan 1988, p. 405.</ref> and other members of the Jesus Seminar. Raymond Brown has done this quite well.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), pp. 13-24. See also the “Analysis” sections of each major part of his work, in which historicity is discussed.</ref> My objective is to briefly use the criteria of historicity<ref>See Chapter 6, Section III. Also Brown 1994(b), pp. 22-24.</ref> to uncover those parts of the narratives which may be reasonably and responsibly shown to have come from an early Palestinian passion tradition,<ref>Raymond Brown accepts the existence of such a tradition which may have been linked to eyewitnesses. He qualifies this scholarly opinion as follows: “I have accepted the likely existence of history and tradition behind the heavily scripturally reflective, kerygmatically oriented, and theologically organized PNs [passion narratives] of the Gospels…” (Brown 1994(b), p. 22).</ref> and which may also be linked to the Jesus of history.

Jesus’ crucifixion is so well attested by both Christian and non-Christian sources that it is as close to certain as any historical datum from the first century can be. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus makes explicit reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Annals (15.44) when speaking about Nero’s blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome:

<blockquote>Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.<ref>Cited in Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the authenticity of this passage, but the majority of mainstream scholars concur with Kirby that:

<blockquote>The most persuasive case is made by those who maintain that Tacitus made use of a first century Roman document concerning the nature and status of the Christian religion. As to the reliability of that source, following normal historical practice, it is prudently assumed to be accurate until demonstrated otherwise. The reference from Tacitus constitutes prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus.<ref>Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus’ crucifixion is also attested by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Recall from Unit II-F, Section I. that Josephus was writing for a Roman audience in about 93 AD, and that there are Christian interpolations in the text of Antiquities in which his testimony to Jesus is contained. As noted in Unit II-F, many mainstream scholars consider the italicized sections in the testimony cited below to be authentic:

<blockquote>''Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.'' He was [the] Christ. ''And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,'' those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. ''And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.''<ref>Josephus 1965, 18:3.3.</ref></blockquote>

Again, this non-Christian testimony to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is explicit and highly probable. There are other non-Christian testimonies to Jesus’ crucifixion, but they are far less significant than those of Tacitus and Josephus.

In addition to non-Christian testimony, Jesus’ crucifixion is attested by almost every New Testament source (e.g., the four Gospels, Acts, most of the Pauline letters, 1Peter, and the Letter to the Hebrews), it is recorded in virtually all of the primitive kerygmas,<ref>Very early proclamations of the faith recorded in Acts and the Pauline letters. For a list see Chapter 3, Section I.A.</ref> and is central to the early Church’s interpretation of Jesus and itself. Finally, one is confronted with the questions: “Why would the early Church have given detailed descriptions of the public humiliation and execution of their Messiah and Lord if it had not been historically true? What would have been the point of recounting a story that undermined its apologetical appeal?” In light of this, the crucifixion of Jesus within its proper setting (i.e., a public execution entailing an arrest, trial, and conviction) must be considered incontestable.

What about the details surrounding Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion? Are the events and details recounted in the passion narratives also historically accurate? Some critics, such as Dominic Crossan, believe that it is impossible to say because (as he gratuitously asserts) there were no eyewitnesses to the event:

<blockquote>It seems to me most likely that those closest to Jesus knew almost nothing about the details of the event. They knew only that Jesus had been crucified, outside Jerusalem, at the time of Passover, and probably through some conjunction of imperial and sacerdotal authority.<ref>Crossan 1988 ,p. 405</ref></blockquote>

Brown demolishes Crossan’s contention by pointing to a seemingly obvious and vexing difficulty:

<blockquote>[Crossan] does not explain why he thinks this “most likely,” granted the well-founded tradition that those closest to Jesus had followed him for a long period of time, day and night. Did they suddenly lose all interest, not even taking the trouble to inquire about what must have been a most traumatic moment of their lives?<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 15-16.</ref></blockquote>

Brown explains the implications of his question through a series of virtually unassailable historical judgments:

<blockquote>Yet as we move back from the Gospel narratives to Jesus himself, ultimately there were eyewitnesses and earwitnesses who were in a potion to know the broad lines of Jesus’ passion. He was accompanied in his ministry by a group of disciples known as the Twelve, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the arrest of Jesus was the occasion of his being separated from them. It is inconceivable that they showed no concern about what happened to Jesus after the arrest. True, there is no Christian claim that they were present during the legal proceedings against him, Jewish or Roman; but it is absurd to think that some information was not available to them about why Jesus has hanged on a cross. The whole purpose of crucifixion, after all, was to publicize that certain crimes would be severely punished. (That is the sense in which I include “earwitness”: hearing what was publicly said about the condemnation of Jesus.) The crucifixion itself was public, and nothing suggests that the burial was secret.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 14.</ref></blockquote>

Attempts to present scenarios contrary to Brown’s in this regard truly verge on the illogical, unreasonable, and inconceivable; and they betray motives other than that of seeking the truth.

Furthermore, there is remarkable correspondence between the passion narrative and the Gospel of John, and recent archeological evidence uncovered by Charlesworth and von Wahlde which strongly suggests that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Von Wahlde summarizes his findings as follows:

<blockquote>The significance of this [archeological evidence] for our appreciation of the historical accuracy of John’s reports is considerable. Not only does John provide several details present in the Synoptics (the name of the place [Golgotha], its location outside the city walls), but he goes on to provide more detail than the other Gospels…details not essential to the narrative. If the presence of such details at first makes verification more difficult, the fact that they are corroborated by archaeological and other means [at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem<ref>Charlesworth reports: “Archaeologists have also found the remains of a city wall to the east of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It was built sometime before Herod the Great. What is surprising is the discovery that the present city wall to the west of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the ‘third wall’ built by Agrippa between 41 and 44. This wall reveals that Golgotha was outside Jerusalem’s walls before the early forties, and Jesus was crucified on Golgotha in 30 (or perhaps 33)” (Charlesworth 2006(b), p. 31; italics mine).</ref>] demonstrates not only that the Johannine account contains remarkably accurate knowledge but also that the Gospel is in fact able to serve as a source of unique knowledge about the crucifixion and burial of Jesus.<ref>von Wahlde 2006, p. 582. See also Charlesworth 2006(b), pp. 31-37.</ref></blockquote>

This archaeological corroboration of John’s passion narrative also suggests the presence of eyewitnesses who were not only aware of the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, but also reported it to the authors of the earliest passion traditions.

Presuming, then, that there were eyewitnesses, and that they would have wanted to see or hear as much as possible about the One who was central to their lives, what could they have witnessed? They could have witnessed Jesus’ betrayal by Judas and His apprehension by the Jewish authorities. They could have also heard about any public declaration of Jesus’ charge, conviction, and sentence. They could have known who was involved in the charging, convicting, and sentencing. They could have had knowledge of public events surrounding the conviction (e.g., the release of Barabbas, or Jewish authorities stirring up the crowd). They could have witnessed the carrying of the cross and any outward signs of persecution or torture that might have preceded His journey to Golgotha (e.g., scourging or crowning with thorns). They could have witnessed the crucifixion itself, the public inscription of Jesus’ offense, the people crucified with Jesus, and they could have heard His final words, seen His death, and witnessed His burial. Evidently, they would have been a party to certain events themselves (e.g., cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant and denials).

Most of the above “witnessable” data was apologetically unappealing and presented obstacles to conversion. What would an early Jewish or gentile prospective convert find attractive about the public humiliation and execution of a messiah/leader? How did all the gory details of this crucifixion better establish Jesus’ role as messiah/leader? How would prospective Jewish converts have reacted to the contempt and rejection of Jesus by Jewish authorities? How would Peter’s denials and the apostles’ flight from Jerusalem have added to the Church’s “good image”? How does Jesus being numbered among criminals (e.g., Barabbas and the criminals crucified with Him) help the Church’s credibility among law-abiding citizens? In almost every case, the presentation of the “witnessable” data seems to undermine the early Christian’s image, credibility, and apologetical appeal. Why would they have presented these data in such detail if they had such potential and real damaging effects? I can think of only one reason. Because they were essentially true.

Can we render the same positive historical judgment about other details in the passion narratives beyond the basic “witnessable” data mentioned above? At this juncture, our pursuit of history becomes far more hazy and complex, because the witnessable data moves from eyewitnesses to catechists and teachers who need to interpret these traumatic (and unappealing) events to converts and potential converts. The natural tendency of such catechists, who were reared within Palestinian Judaism, would have been to use Scripture as a means of interpretation.<ref>The conjecture of some members of the Jesus Seminar that the early narratives of Jesus’ passion were a synthesis of interpreted Scriptures rather than an account of what really happened (Koester 1980, p. 127) is simply backwards. It is far more likely that the earliest traditions recounted what happened, allowing catechists to add sections later to interpret them. As Brown notes, “… [T]here is no evidence in the Pauline formula that scriptural reflection caused the creation of the basic incidents of the passion; far more plausibly it caused the selection and interpretation of certain features in an outline of death, burial, resurrection, and appearance that had been dictated by the early Christian memory of what happened” (Brown 1994(b), p. 16).</ref> Some of these attempts would be easily discernable because they would be introduced by phrases like “this was to fulfill the Scripture….” However, other Scripture passages might be on the lips of Jesus, such as the last words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (citing Psalm 22). The historian must now make the judgment of whether this was placed on the lips of Jesus, or whether Jesus selected these words for Himself (see below, Section II). Obviously, Jesus was accustomed to using Scripture to interpret His life, mission, and even crucifixion as much as, if not more than any later interpreter.

The historian’s task becomes even more complex when these traditions are woven into a single narrative. The editors of such narratives would have to be somewhat creative in synthesizing the various traditions. They might be inclined to embellish sayings or dialogue if that helped with the interpretation of recounted events. They could add thematic and even dramatic emphases to the narrative to further their catechetical or theological objectives. At this juncture, the historian must try to peel back the redactions of editors (especially the Evangelists) in order to get closer to the testimony of eyewitnesses which stand behind the narratives.

Recall from Unit II-B, Section I. that the first task is to get back to the primitive traditions that underlie the Gospel narratives, and then to judge the historicity of these primitive traditions by means of historical criteria and techniques to render judgments within a typical historical range:

<blockquote>…certain, very probable, probable, possible, not impossible. “Certain” has nothing to do with the certitude of mathematics or the physical sciences; it refers to the certitude we have in ordinary experience about the things we encounter or are reported to us in writing or orally.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 22.</ref></blockquote>

The earliest passion narrative is in the Gospel of Mark. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke were both aware of Mark’s narrative and relied on it. As will be seen in the next section, John was not aware of Mark’s narrative, but he made recourse to a primitive tradition(s) very similar to the ones used by Mark. This coincidence is extremely useful to historians because it allows for an application of the criterion of multiple attestation, which, in turn, helps historians make judgments about whether various verses in the narratives can be considered to be part of a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition.

In Section I.B, we will take a brief look at these criteria; in Section II we will consider the historicity of Jesus’ last words in Mark; and in Section III we will attempt to uncover the pre-Marcan tradition in Mark’s narrative, and then render some general historical judgments.

=== Application of the Criteria of Historicity to the Passion Narratives ===

The reader may wish to review the descriptions and examples of the criteria and techniques for determining the historicity of Gospel passages, which are summarized in Unit II-B, Section I. A brief description of three of these criteria will be given with particular examples from the passion narratives: (1) multiple attestation, (2) embarrassment, and (3) coherence with Jewish/Roman customs.

The reader will want to recall two caveats about assessment of historicity mentioned in Unit II-B, Section I. namely:

(a) Criteria for historicity can show the likelihood of a particular Gospel datum being historical, but the absence of criteria for historicity does not show the improbability of a particular Gospel datum being historical; the non-applicability of historical criteria shows only that we have no way of assessing historicity of a Gospel datum either positively or negatively. Thus, far more data in the passion narratives (and in the Gospels, for that matter) is historical than can ever be corroborated through historical criteria.

(b) Too rigorous an application of historical criteria can unnecessarily circumscribe corroboratable data from the Gospels. If one says, “The only data that I will accept as historical are those which are attested to by four out of five independent sources” (say, Mark, Q, special Luke, and John, leaving out only special Matthew), then one will limit oneself to very few Gospel data. If one goes even further, and requires four independent Gospel sources plus an external source (such as Tacitus and Josephus), the Gospel will be reduced to the non-interpolated statements of Tacitus and Josephus. Again, if one claims that multiple attestation is not enough – there must also be corroboration from another historical criterion (say, embarrassment or coherence to Jewish culture, etc.), then the field of acceptable data is correspondingly narrowed. The judicious use of historical criteria by mainstream exegetes such as Raymond Brown, N.T. Wright, and John P. Meier can avert unnecessary proscriptions of Gospel data, and lead to reasonable and responsible corroboration of a large range of Gospel data. We may now proceed to the three historical criteria.

1) Multiple Attestation. Recall that multiple attestation does not occur when there is repetition of passages among the three synoptic Gospels, but rather when there is repetition among the five independent sources (Mark, Q, special Matthew, special Luke, and John). Matthew and Luke relied upon and used the full text of Mark. Q is another source upon which Matthew and Luke both relied. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark in their passion narratives, and so attestation among them is not significant.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 81-82.</ref> However, as will be discussed below, Mark and John were written independently of each other, and it is quite likely that neither one had any knowledge of the other’s narrative. Nevertheless, there are no less than thirty-two similarities between the two narratives. If John is truly not dependent on Mark, then these similarities would auger very strongly for a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) passion tradition(s) upon which both Evangelists relied. This pre-Marcan tradition(s) would bring us closer to eyewitness accounts of the passion and therefore to Jesus’ passion itself.

How can we be so sure that John was not directly reliant on Mark’s narrative? In virtually every part of the Gospel except the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on water, and the passion narratives, John’s material is so distinct from Mark that it is difficult to believe that John relied on Mark unless he wanted to separate himself from, or complement Mark. Most scholars in the latter half of the twentieth century do not believe that there is Johannine dependence on Mark.<ref>Brown details the long list of exegetes who support the Johannine non-dependence theory in 1994(b), p. 76, note 91.</ref>

But what about Johannine dependence on the Marcan passion narrative? As can be seen from the table above, there are so many similarities between Mark and John that the possibility of dependence must be considered. There are two significant factors militating against the dependence conjecture. First, despite the many similarities, there are many more dissimilarities in content and order between the two passion narratives.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 81.</ref> Secondly, many of the differences between Mark and John are inexplicable, if not illogical if John truly depended on Mark.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref> Why would John have put his narrative into a more scattered and strangely ordered state than Mark’s if he depended on Mark? (A love of disorder?) Why would he have omitted details in Mark which would have been of interest to him (e.g., the kiss of Judas; mention of Simon of Cyrene; the sixth and ninth hour when darkness came over the land; the derision by the crowds at the cross; the confusion regarding Elijah – even though this may have been elicited by Jesus’ last words in Mark, which are not mentioned in John; omission of three of Mark’s women witnesses – Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, as well as “other women” in Mark, versus Mary the mother of Jesus, and His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas in John). These omissions and reorderings make little sense if John truly depended on Mark. For this reason, Brown concludes:

<blockquote>Throughout the commentary I shall come again and again to what I regard as a completely illogical result if John knew Mark. For that reason I shall work with the thesis that John wrote his passion narrative independently of Mark’s.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref></blockquote>

So what is the likely scenario for the Marcan and Johannine passion narratives’ development? Brown believes that this occurred in five stages:

a) Eyewitnesses. See the rationale for these eyewitness accounts given above in Section I.A.

b) A basic catechetical outline. A basic sequence of major events was formulated soon after the events of the passion connecting the Last Supper to the arrest, then to the condemnation, then to the crucifixion, then to the burial. This sequence guided the Church’s early proclamations and catechesis as well as Eucharistic memories. This is evident from Pauline and other non-Gospel New Testament writings.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 83.</ref>

c) Pre-Gospel traditions. Widely circulated stories/traditions (probably both oral and written) were formed from eyewitness accounts about particular figures and incidents in the passion narratives (alongside the basic catechetical outline). The stories were not yet connected to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 83-84.</ref>

d) Pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine traditions. The stories and basic outline made their way toward the Marcan and Johannine communities where eventually a pre-Marcan author(s) connected many of the stories to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 84.</ref>

e) The Marcan and Johannine passion narratives. The two Evangelists used two versions of the pre-Marcan tradition along with additional pre-Gospel traditions<ref>As Soards’ table indicates, there were probably several such pre-Gospel traditions along with other narrative traditions. See Soards 1994, pp. 1492-1524.</ref> to formulate the passion narratives we have today.

It is likely that much of the “witnessable” data in the thirty-two common elements in the Marcan and Johannine narratives made their way from eyewitnesses into the pre-Gospel traditions, and then into the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition(s), and then into the Gospel narratives. This would include:

Judas as betrayer bringing soldiers with weapons; Jesus being seized; the high priest’s servant’s ear being cut off; Jesus’ exchange with His apprehenders; Jesus being subjected to a Jewish judicial inquest; Peter’s three denials; the high priest’s maid as first inquirer; Peter warming himself by the fire in the high priest’s courtyard; the bystanders as inquirers in the third denial; the Jewish authorities making accusations against Jesus to Pilate; the crowd asking for the release of Barabbas; Pilate not finding Jesus guilty of a crime; the crowds responding multiple times “Crucify Him”; Pilate having Jesus scourged; Pilate handing Jesus over to be crucified, Jesus being crowned with thorns; Jesus proceeding to Golgotha with a cross, the crucifixion of Jesus; an inscription reading “King of the Jews”; the soldiers dividing Jesus’ garments and casting lots for them; two criminals being crucified with Jesus, one on either side of Him; Mary Magdalene witnessing the crucifixion; the soldiers giving a vinegar-filled sponge to Jesus on the cross; Joseph of Arimathea obtaining permission to bury Jesus; and Joseph of Arimathea wrapping the body of Jesus in a linen cloth, and putting Him in a tomb.<ref>For evidence of the apostles knowing the place of burial and witnessing the empty tomb, see Chapter 4, Section II.B.</ref>

Some of these conclusions (as well as others) are corroborated by three other historical criteria which will be discussed in the forthcoming subsections.

(2) Embarrassment. Recall from Unit II-B, Section I., that if a particular Gospel datum was embarrassing to the Church, or undermined the reputation of the apostles, or cast dispersions upon Jesus, then we can be quite certain that the Evangelists (and the formulators of early traditions) did not invent it. Raymond Brown points to several such data in the passion narratives, for example: Judas (one of the Twelve apostles) betraying Jesus; many of the disciples not remaining with Jesus during the passion; and Peter denying Jesus three times.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> There are other data which are embarrassing, but may have been recounted for other reasons. For example, Jesus praying in the garden, “Remove this cup from me” (Mark 14:36), which looks like Jesus is trying to avoid the cross. Although this could not have been catechetically appealing, someone could conjecture that this passage is meant “to teach Christians that facing death constitutes a trial that may challenge even sincere commitment.”<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> Nevertheless, the datum is still catechetically unappealing, and would have been very risky for the Evangelist or early Church to have invented.

The same holds true for Jesus’ last words in the Gospel of Mark: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” As will be discussed below (Section II), the last words of Jesus do not enjoy multiple attestation because John does not recount them (and places a completely different phrase on the lips of Jesus – “It is finished”). Many scholars believe, however, that this datum is historical because it would have likely been misinterpreted by gentile audiences who might not have known that the phrase (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) refers to the whole of Psalm 22 (a Psalm of God redeeming the sufferings of the just one and bringing salvation through it to all nations and generations). Gentile audiences would have been likely to believe that Jesus was so demoralized that He lost His confidence in God and thought that God was forsaking Him. This misinterpretation would not only have been embarrassing to the Church, but would have led to a theology precisely contrary to what Jesus intended and to what the Church taught. It is difficult to believe that Mark would have invented this phrase as Jesus’ last words, and much more likely that John (like Luke), if he was aware of the phrase from a pre-Johannine tradition, would have dropped it since he was writing for a gentile audience that could have easily misinterpreted it.

(3) Coherence with Jewish/Roman customs. There are three elements which are relevant here: (a) coherence with Jewish customs, (b) Semitisms, and (c) coherence with Roman customs. The last area is somewhat complex<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 19ff.</ref> and not especially germane to the point of this Unit; so I will limit discussion to the first two areas.

(a) ''Correspondence with Jewish custom''. One major point bears mentioning, because it shows Mark’s<ref>The historicity of the Marcan narrative will be assessed throughout the rest of the chapter.</ref> fidelity to the Jewish customs which would have been in effect at the time of Jesus’ passion, namely, Mark’s careful recounting of how the Sanhedrin adhered to the Mishna only when it was in conformity to the Sadducee law. Blinzler notes in this regard:

<blockquote>The fact that Mk 14 and 15 juxtapose items which sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the requirements of the Mishnah was hitherto felt puzzling. The explanation is that the Sanhedrin was at that time bound by the Sadducee law, which agreed with the Mishnah only exceptionally. But if Mk 14 and 15 were a legendary construction, it would be hard to explain how the author, supposedly so uninterested in historical fact, managed to be so accurate with regard to the legal custom: to the unlikely extent, that is, that the actions of the Sanhedrin only agreed with the Mishnah when the provisions of the latter coincided with those of the Sadducees, and not otherwise.<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref></blockquote>

(b) ''Semitisms''. There is one truly remarkable Semitism recorded in the Marcan narrative, namely, Jesus’ final words: “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''.” The Marcan version of the final words is to be preferred over the Matthean one, because it is probable that Matthew tried to “clean up” Mark’s Aramaic citation of the divine name (“''Elōi''”)<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref> with the more proper Hebrew version of it (''“’Ēlî”''), which would have been recited in the synagogue.<ref>Recall that Matthew is writing for a well-educated Jewish audience, and was trying to convince them of the Messiahship of Jesus. He knew the appropriate Hebrew form of the Psalm and changed Mark’s Aramaic “Elōi” to the Hebrew “Ēli.” See Brown 1994(b), pp. 1051-1052.</ref> The fact that Matthew records the Aramaic “''sabachthani''” (instead of the more appropriate Hebrew ''ăzabtānî'') convinces most scholars that Matthew retained remnants of an original Aramaic version.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. Mark’s use of “lama” (instead of the Aramaic “lĕmā”) is not problematic because it was common practice at that time to transliterate the shewa (short “e” vowel) by “a” instead of “e.” See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. See also Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58; and Harrington 1990, p. 628.</ref>

Is Mark’s Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words truly Jesus’ words? It seems likely because much of Mark’s mixed gentile-Jewish audience would not have recognized either the Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the Psalm, which evidently compelled Mark to translate it into Greek. Why would Mark have recorded an Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words which most of his audience would not have understood? Why not simply give the Greek translation without the Aramaic? Furthermore, why give an Aramaic translation of the Psalms instead of the more proper and easily recognizable Hebrew version? The fact that Jesus may well have learned the Psalms in Aramaic and recited the Psalms in Aramaic to His Galilean audience may provide a clue to the origin of the Aramaic version of the Psalm – namely, Jesus Himself.<ref>Though Mark cites Aramaic versions of Old Testament texts elsewhere, this may be out of deference to Jesus rather than Mark’s preference.</ref> The application of other historical criteria to this question will further confirm the origin of these words in Jesus. This will be considered in the following section.

== The Final Words of Jesus ==

Given that Mark’s version of Jesus’ final words is more original than Matthew’s version, we may now return to the question of whether Mark’s version is historical. Though the Aramaic rendition of the final words is a clue to their origin in Jesus, it is not definitive because Luke gives a different version of the final words (“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” – Luke 23:46), and so does John (“It is finished” – John 19:30). Why should Mark be preferred to Luke and John?

With respect to Luke’s version of the final words, there are four reasons to suspect that Mark’s version is closer to Jesus’ own. First, Luke was aware of Mark’s version of the final words, and would have had to have intentionally changed them. Secondly, Luke prefers to shift the focus from Jesus’ feelings of desolation to Jesus’ trust. Instead of Psalm 22:2 (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”), Luke portrays Jesus reciting Psalm 31:6 (“Into your hands I commend my spirit”), which effects this shift in focus. Luke’s preference to portray Jesus as confident (and eliminate any hint of spiritual disturbance) is evidenced in his elimination of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ anxiety in the garden of Gethsemane (“My soul is very sorrowful unto death”). It is much easier to believe that Luke has continued his redactional policy of eliminating Marcan references to Jesus’ anxiety than to believe that Luke’s version of Jesus’ words is more original. Thirdly, Luke substitutes “Father” for the Psalmist’s reference to “God,” which is very likely a redaction. Finally, Luke selects a Psalm passage which speaks to Jesus’ Spirit, which is a clear focus of his Gospel and an allusion to the Holy Spirit, which is the focus of the Acts of the Apostles.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1067.</ref> For this reason, most scholars believe that the Lukan version is a redaction of the Marcan original.

What about John’s version of the last words (“It is finished”)? Unlike Luke, John was not aware of the Marcan passion narrative, yet there is significant evidence that Mark and John borrowed from a common pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition (see above, Section I.B.1). Does John’s very different version of Jesus’ final words imply that the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition did not have any version of Jesus’ final words (and that both Mark and John invented their own in the absence of a more original version)? The answer is probably ‘no,’ because of light shed upon the question by the historical criterion of embarrassment.

Recall from Section I.B.2 that John’s predominately gentile audience could have misinterpreted Jesus’ last words as recorded by Mark. Indeed, as we just saw, Luke certainly thought this was a possibility for his gentile audience. The majority of John’s audience would probably not have recognized Psalm 22 in the Aramaic expression, “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani'',” and they would not have known that this first line referred to the entire Psalm. Therefore, they would not have known that Jesus’ last words were a prayer of trust in God which would lead not only to the vindication of His suffering, but to universal salvation for all humankind for all time (see below in this section).<ref>As Brown notes, “Perhaps the most frequently offered argument for softening the dour import of the Mark/Matt death cry is based on the general context of Ps 22. Jesus cites the opening verse of a psalm that continues for thirty more verses. By the end the psalmist will take a positive view: Rejoicing, he will proclaim that he has survived the danger and that after all God did not spurn him or ‘turn His face away’ (Ps 22:25). Accordingly some would invoke a hermeneutic principle that a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context” (Brown 1994(b), pp. 1049-1050).</ref> Thus (as the Johannine author very probably perceived), they would have interpreted these words to mean that Jesus felt abandoned by the Father, which is precisely the opposite of what the Psalm intends, what the early Church believed, and what Jesus intended. Not only would this have been confusing and misleading to gentile members of the early Church; it would have been apologetically unappealing and embarrassing to the Church in gentile regions. Thus, John, like Luke, would have had everything to lose (and nothing to gain) by retaining these words on the lips of the dying Jesus.

Therefore, there is considerable reason to believe prima facie that John, like Luke, would have been inclined to change Jesus’ dying words from those of Psalm 22 to something less misleading and more consistent with Jesus’ intention and the belief of the early Church. He decides upon the simple phrase, “It is finished,” which refers to Jesus’ project of redemption, the completion of which John has been pointing to throughout the “Book of Glory” (chapters 13-21).

This leads to the obvious question of why Mark (who was addressing a mixed gentile-Jewish audience) would have retained Psalm 22 as Jesus’ final words when many of his audience members would have been likely to misinterpret them in the same way as John’s and Luke’s audiences. Before responding, it is worth noting that this question does not apply to Matthew with the same force as Mark because the majority of Matthew’s audience was Jewish. Many in that audience would have been educated enough to see Psalm 22 through Matthew’s Hebraic version of it, and many would have understood that the first line of the Psalm referred to the whole Psalm. Brown points to a well-known hermeneutical principle in this regard:

<blockquote>…a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 1050.</ref></blockquote>

In the case of Psalm 22, the context speaks of trust in God, vindication, and salvation for the world.

However, the above hermeneutical principle would not have applied to the gentile members of Mark’s audience; so why did he retain these words? I think there is only one plausible explanation – namely, that they are in fact the final words of Jesus. It would be inconceivable to suggest that Mark invented these words to place on the lips of Jesus given the probability of their misinterpretation (with significant negative consequences) by a large segment of his audience. Therefore, it seems likely that Mark received these words from either a pre-Marcan tradition or from Peter (for whom Mark was interpreter). In either case, Mark must have believed that these words were truly those of Jesus, and decided to retain them in their Aramaic form precisely for this reason. There does not appear to be any other reasonable motive for his taking the risk of significant misinterpretation and apologetically unappealing embarrassment.

So if we consider “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''” to be the dying words of the historical Jesus, and if we apply Brown’s hermeneutical principle to Jesus Himself (implying that Jesus expected informed listeners to “be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context”), then it seems likely that the dying Jesus was praying the whole of Psalm 22 to His Father while giving His listeners an insight into how He interpreted His sacrificial death through that prayer. Mally notes in this regard:

<blockquote>As a quotation of an OT Ps, it can hardly be taken literally as an expression of real despair or dereliction. Rather, Jesus applies to himself an OT passage that sums up the suffering of the upright individual who turns to his God in the stress of hostile opposition and its ensuing depression. In using the Ps, Jesus does not express the feeling that his life’s work has failed and that God has therefore abandoned him; he identifies himself with a biblical precedent, the persecuted upright man ''who has trusted in Yahweh'', and found in him ''the source of his consolation and ultimate triumph'' [italics mine].<ref>Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58. See also J. Gnilka 1959, pp. 294-97.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, Jesus’ reference to Psalm 22 is an expression of trust and confidence in the Father that His suffering will result in the triumph of His mission. As noted in the previous Unit, that mission is actualized for all future generations through the gift of His presence and unconditional redeeming Love in the Eucharist.

A closer look at the Psalm may give a deep insight into the panoply of Jesus’ thoughts and feelings at the time of His crucifixion. The Psalm may be divided into three parts:

(1) “2-22, the complaint, with repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence (4-6; 10-11),”<ref>Murphy 1968, p. 579.</ref>

(2) “23-32, thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share (23-27),<ref>Murphy 1968, p. 579.</ref>” and

(3) the worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh (28-32).

Each part will be presented in turn.

(1) Complaint, repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

Why are you so far from saving me,

so far from the words of my groaning?

Oh my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,

and by night, but I have no rest.

Then, the psalmist shifts perspective as he does several times throughout the Psalm, and introduces the theme of God’s holiness and grandeur, worthy of praise and trust:

Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;

you are the praise of Israel.

In you our fathers put their trust;

they trusted and you delivered them.

They cried to you and were saved;

in you they trusted and were not disappointed.

The psalmist then turns back to the deplorable nature of his condition:

But I am a worm and not a man,

scorned by men and despised by the people.

All who see me mock me;

they hurl insults, shaking their heads:

“He trusted in the Lord;

let the Lord rescue him.

Let Him deliver him

since He delights in him.

The uncanny resemblance between the psalmist’s words and the events taking place around Jesus give one pause. After describing the inauthentic words of the crowd (who believe that the Lord will not fulfill the trust of the psalmist), the psalmist shifts back to his fervent trust in the Lord:

Yet you brought me out of the womb;

you made me trust in you;

even at my mother’s breast.

From birth I was cast upon you;

from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

Having renewed his trust in the Lord, the psalmist makes an earnest petition for help:

Do not be far from me,

for trouble is near

and there is no one to help.

Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.

Roaring lions tearing their prey

open their mouths wide against me.

Then the psalmist uses the same words seen in the suffering servant song (Is 52:13-53:12) and Jesus’ eucharistic words:

I am poured out like water,

and all my bones are out of joint.

My heart has turned to wax;

it has melted away within me.

My strength is dried up like a potsherd,

and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;

you lay me in the dust of death.

In continuing his description of his suffering to Yahweh, the psalmist again describes events uncannily similar to Jesus’ crucifixion:

Dogs have surrounded me;

a band of evil men has encircled me,

they have pierced my hands and my feet.

I can count all my bones;

people stare and gloat over me.

They divide my garments among them

and cast lots for my clothing.

The psalmist makes another earnest petition for God’s help and consolation:

But you, oh Lord, be not far off;

oh my Strength, come quickly to help me.

Deliver my life from the sword,

my precious life from the power of the dogs.

Rescue me from the mouth of the lion;

save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

(2) Thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share. The psalmist then reaffirms his trust and confidence in the Lord, as if to say that he will live beyond his current persecution to bring the praise of the Lord’s name to all who fear him:

I will declare your name to my brothers;

in the congregation I will praise you.

You who fear the Lord, praise him!

All you descendents of Jacob, honor him!

Revere him, all you descendents of Israel!

The psalmist then gives his reason for his confidence in God, and his belief in his future:

For he has not despised or disdained

the suffering of the afflicted one;

he has not hidden his face from him

but has listened to his cry for help.

From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;

before those who fear you I will fulfill my vows.

The psalmist then moves into a prophetic, and even messianic tone, speaking of signs of the new Jerusalem; messianic signs which Jesus says, when quoting the prophet Isaiah, are being fulfilled in Himself:<ref>See Matt. 11:5ff and Lk 4:18ff, referring to Is 61:1ff.</ref>

The poor will eat and be satisfied;

they who seek the Lord will praise Him –

may your hearts live forever.

(3) The worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh. The psalmist then confidently suggests universality of salvation arising out of Yahweh’s mercy:

All the ends of the earth

will remember and turn to the Lord,

and all the families of the nations

will bow down before Him,

for dominion belongs to the Lord

and He rules over the nations.

The psalmist then suggests that Yahweh’s salvation will extend to all those who are raised on high, and those who are in the grave:

All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;

all who go down to the dust will kneel before Him –

those who cannot keep themselves alive.

Posterity will serve Him;

future generations will be told about the Lord.

They will proclaim His righteousness

to a people yet unborn –

for He has done it.

This Psalm on the dying lips of Jesus is quite remarkable. In the midst of recounting events quite similar to His crucifixion, the Psalm expresses His mind and heart as He cries out for help, as He is overwhelmingly confident in that help, and as He sees the ultimate result of that help in a salvation that will not only reach to the ends of the earth, but to all future generations on the earth, and even to those who are raised on high and those who “go down to the dust.” Thus, the Psalm connects Jesus’ torment with His confidence in the Father as He looks beyond His suffering, beyond Jerusalem, beyond the present age, and beyond earthly existence, to a redemption which will take hold in the life of God Himself. Jesus’ eucharistic words are not only consonant with those of the psalm, they give the psalm’s words ultimate meaning and reality; for they provide the vehicle through which Jesus’ person and love will save universally and eternally.

== The Passion of Jesus in Mark and in Pre-Marcan Tradition (14:32-15:37) ==

Mark gives us the oldest account of the passion. Though it tries to reconcile the passion with Old Testament prophesy, its primary objective is not apologetical. Rather, it intends to give an account of the sufferings freely endured by Jesus and “to show clearly what persons and what authorities were responsible for the death of Jesus and the extent of their guilt.” Mark believes that this is Jesus’ central salvific act and uses it to frame the rest of his Gospel. As Blinzler notes:

Mark already had before him such a relatively fixed account from oral tradition, as the insertion of 14:3-9 shows, and he enlarged it with further matter, e.g., with “memoirs” of Peter (apart from 14:3-9) such as the account of the denial (14:54, 66-72). …[T]he Gospel of Mark has been called, not unjustly, “a passion-narrative with a long introduction” (M. Kähler).

As noted above, there is substantial New Testament and extra-testamental evidence for the historicity of Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion. Many other facts surrounding the crucifixion are also very probably historical. By using the criteria and techniques elucidated above (Sections I.A and B), we can first ascertain what material from Mark’s passion narrative probably came from a pre-Marcan tradition, and the material from that tradition which could have come from eyewitness accounts. Scholars have worked diligently on these tasks for over a century, and it is beyond the scope of this study to report comprehensively on their findings. My objective is only to give a report about where the preponderance of scholarly opinion lies with regard to an early pre-Marcan tradition and the historicity of the facts within that tradition.

There is a strong likelihood that Mark made recourse to a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which he redacted and stylized to give coherence and meaning to this exceedingly significant event for the Christian Church. There is a wide variety of opinion about which verses originated with this pre-Marcan tradition(s) and which ones originated with Mark. Marion Soards has gathered a tremendous amount of data from 34 scholars representing a wide range of theological and exegetical perspectives. I have taken the liberty of presenting the Revised Standard Version of the Marcan passion narrative, and indicating the likelihood that each of its verses originated with a pre-Marcan tradition or with Mark himself according to the following key:

Bold A large majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Italics A small majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Underline The scholarly community is about evenly split on whether this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition, or with Mark himself.

Normal font The majority of the scholarly community believes that this verse originated with Mark (and is therefore a Marcan redaction).

Mark Chapter 14

32 They went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and He said to His disciples, “Sit here, while I pray.” 33 And He took with Him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. 34 And He said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch.” 35 And going a little farther, He fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. 36 And He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt.” And He came and found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? 38 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 39 And again He went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 And again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer Him. 41 And He came the third time, and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”

43 And immediately, while He was still speaking Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I shall kiss is the man; seize Him and lead Him away safely.” And when he came, he went up to Him at once, and said, “Master!” And he kissed Him. And they laid hands on Him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” And they all forsook Him, and fled.

51 And a young man followed Him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

53 And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. And Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death; but they found none. 56 For many bore false witness against Him, and their witness did not agree. 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against Him, saying, “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet not even so did their testimony agree. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you? 61 But He was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked Him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”Note 63 And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard His blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned Him as deserving death. 65 And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to strike Him, saying to Him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received Him with blows.

66 And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came; 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway. 69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” 70 But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.” 71 But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.” 72 And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

Mark Chapter 15

1 And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. And Pilate asked Him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And He answered him “You have said so.” And the chief priests accused Him of many things. And Pilate again asked Him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered.

Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they asked. And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. And he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered Him up. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” And they cried out again, “Crucify Him.” And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him.” So, Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

And the soldiers led Him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. And they clothed Him in a purple cloak, and placing a crown of thorns they put it on Him. And they began to salute Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck His head with a reed, and spat upon Him, and they knelt down in homage to Him. And when they had mocked Him, they stripped Him of the purple cloak, and put His own clothes on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him.

And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry His cross. And they brought Him to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). And they offered Him wine mingled with myrrh; but He did not take it. And they crucified Him, and divided His garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour, when they crucified Him. And the inscription of the charge against Him read, “The King of the Jews.” And with Him they crucified two robbers, one on His right and one on His left. And those who passed by derided Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 So also the chief priests mocked Him to one another with the scribes, saying, “He saved others; He cannot save Himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with Him also reviled Him.

And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” Which means, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Behold, He is calling Elijah.” And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to Him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down.” And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.

38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing Him, saw that He thus breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the son of God!”

There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, 41 who, when He was in Galilee, followed Him, and ministered to Him; and also many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 And Pilate wondered if He were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether He was already dead. 45 And when he learned from the centurion that He was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 And he bought a linen shroud, and taking Him down, wrapped Him in the linen shroud, and laid Him in a tomb which has been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where He was laid.

*****

As can be seen from the above, most scholars consider the vast majority of the passion narrative to have come from a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which would presumably include some accounts from Peter. Notice that the probable Marcan redactions are not concerned with the torment, crucifixion, and death of Jesus. They are meant to explain who is primarily guilty (i.e., Judas, the chief priests, and the council), who is less culpable (i.e., Pilate), and who is ironically the prophetic spokesman of the meaning of the passion (i.e., the centurion). They also center on Mark’s interpretation of why Jesus was accused of blasphemy (i.e., identifying Himself with the eschatological Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14). If these elements are “bracketed,” the passion story retains its poignant central core, which likely represents the traditions which Mark received as he prepared his narrative.

The question of whether the pre-Marcan tradition is faithful to accounts from eyewitnesses and earwitnesses is more difficult to ascertain. One cannot assume that a verse was witnessed simply because it was included in a pre-Marcan tradition. As was made clear in Section I.B, the pre-Marcan tradition relied on pre-Gospel traditions and stories, and had developments and accretions arising out of catechetical and pedagogical concerns. Nevertheless, it is likely that the pre-Marcan tradition(s) contained a considerable amount of “witnessable” and witnessed data for the reasons mentioned in Section I above – particularly as regards the betrayal by Judas, the arrest, a Jewish judicial inquest, Peter’s denials, the involvement of Pontius Pilate, the involvement of Jewish authorities in accusing Jesus, the release of Barabbas, the involvement of Roman soldiers, and facts surrounding the crucifixion (e.g., being scourged, being crowned with thorns, the vinegary wine, being hanged on a cross, the inscription on the cross, and the two other criminals). I would also include Jesus’ final words as recounted in Mark’s Gospel (for the reasons mentioned in the previous section), and the fact of Jesus’ burial (for the reasons mentioned in Chapter 4, Section II.B). A more detailed list of other “witnessable” data which is common to both the Marcan and Johannine traditions may be found above in Section I.B. Additional details about the historicity of particular verses in the pre-Marcan tradition(s) may be found in the “Analysis” sections following each major part of Raymond Brown’s The Death of the Messiah.

An appreciation of the significance of the passion, particularly as regards the central question of this book (i.e., “Is Jesus Emmanuel?”), cannot be attained through exegetical and historical analysis alone. Though this analysis is necessary in order to understand the meaning and reality of the events surrounding Jesus’ death, it almost blocks out the heart’s reasons to give greater clarity to the mind’s reasons. I can’t speak for you, the reader, but when I am applying criteria and techniques of historicity to particular texts, I am not being flooded with inspiration and love; and so I find it necessary to move to the domain of contemplation after I have satisfied myself about the historicity of the essential elements of Jesus’ passion. Contemplation allows one to be moved in the heart – to be struck with delight, or wonder, or amazement; to perceive beauty; to exalt; to be moved with gratitude; to feel awe and glory; to be inspired; to be moved by what is just and good and generous, and above all, to be moved by love – unconditional Love. Thus, contemplation is essential to the appreciation of Jesus’ passion, which is above all an act of incredible love.

== Contemplation on the Passion ==

The passion narratives open upon a virtually limitless depth of love, which can best be gleaned through contemplation. As explained in the previous chapter, Jesus views His passion as the culmination of His mission, the concretization of His unconditional Love in history, and His gift of unconditional Love to the world for all eternity (through the Eucharist). The reader’s time will be well spent on considering His loving intention, attitude, and feeling in His gift of self in the events of the passion.

One successful method of entering into contemplation is recommended by Saint Ignatius of Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises. It entails entering into the scene, considering the personalities and dispositions of people in the scene, and focusing on the heart of Jesus manifest through the people and events in the scene.

In light of the above, one may want to use the following structure to contemplate on the passion. After reading a particular passage at least twice, first consider various physical aspects of the scene, then:

• the persons in the scene along with Jesus, then
• Jesus’ attitude toward the people in the scene (recalling that Jesus’ attitudes are reflected in the beatitudes – humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, merciful, peacemaking, etc.), then
• Jesus’ relationship to the Father (applying Psalm 22, the Suffering Servant song – Isaiah 52:13-53:12, and Jesus’ prayer in the Garden), then
• Jesus’ universal salvific intent (applying the simile of the paschal lamb and the words “This is my body,” “the blood of the covenant,” “for all,” and “Do this in remembrance of me” – see Chapter 9, Section II.B), then
• Jesus’ love for the people in the scene (including His persecutors), His love of the Father, and His love of humankind.

You might then look at Jesus’ acceptance of anguish for the sake of love. In light of this, you might consider Jesus’ love for you and others; His hopes and aspirations for you and for others. Accept that love, accept His wanting to be your paschal lamb, sin-offering (scapegoat), and blood of the covenant (to guarantee eternal life with Him and the Father); and then, express to God what you desire.

After you have completed your contemplation, you might want to ask the recurrent questions in this book: Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this for my sake and the sake of all? Is Jesus Christ His Emmanuel? If so, then the unconditional Love of God is real and has been fully actualized in the world. That unconditional Love is unconditional light in the darkness, unconditional hope amidst dejection, unconditional resurrection amidst the cross, and unconditional redemption amidst our sin. It is unconditional life unto unconditional joy in the unconditional love of the triune God.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Passion

2015-01-08T17:38:54Z

David Persyn: /* The Final Words of Jesus */

Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith – Jesus

Unit II. M

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Passion

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-M_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Passion.3F | Return to the Table of Contents]]

'''Introduction'''

The Eucharist is not only Jesus’ definitive interpretation of His passion and death; it is also the definitive vehicle through which He communicates His presence and love to all future generations. So, how can our insight into the preciousness of this gift be deepened through the examination of Jesus’ passion? From a contemplative point of view, the possibilities are considerable for deepening the heart’s awareness of the love of Christ. As one considers Jesus’ willing acceptance of each part of the passion as a gift of self (love) for all humankind, one begins to affectively (not just intellectually) appreciate what unconditional Love really is; and when one sees this Love through the eyes, the face, the mind, the heart of the gentle Lamb willingly led to the slaughter, one begins to receive an answer to the questions: “Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this?” and “Is Jesus His Emmanuel?”

Since my intention here is to induce contemplation (that is, prayerful reflection on the texts of the passion), I will discuss only three important propaedeutic points: (1) an overview of the historicity of the passion narratives (Section I)<ref>Any reader interested in a detailed exegesis of the passion narratives should make recourse to Raymond Brown’s comprehensive work The Death of the Messiah [Brown 1994(b)]. </ref>, (2) an analysis of Jesus’ final words on the cross (Section II), and (3) a presentation of the pre-Marcan tradition and Mark’s passion narrative (Section III). The reader may then want to return to the previous Unit on the Eucharist to probe with contemplative insight into the meaning and reality of Jesus’ love.

== The Historicity of the Passion ==

It may be observed from the outset that Jesus’ plan to redeem the world was anything but apologetical or popular, for the idea of a suffering Messiah was thought to be a curse by His Jewish and gentile contemporaries (Dt 21:23, Gal 3:13, I Cor 12:3).<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 350.</ref> Nevertheless, Jesus, knowing what would befall Him,<ref>This is clear from the pre-planning implicit in the institution of the Eucharist, and also from the multiple predictions of His passion (Mt 16:13-23, 17:22-23, 20:17-19; Mk 8:27-33, 9:30-32, 10:32-34; Lk 9:18-22, 9:43-45, and 18:31-34).</ref> proceeded resolutely toward Jerusalem. In light of our discussion of the Eucharist, His plan had but one objective: to join with the Father in an act of unconditional self-gift (love) for the salvation of humankind. Even though Jesus was convinced of His vindication and resurrection (see Unit II-L, Section II), He must have known that the crucifixion would be viewed as a scandal, and used against Him by His critics. Nevertheless, He viewed the passion as being indispensable to His mission. Why? Because He associated the passion with gift of self, which, as is clear from His institution of the Eucharist, He associated with unconditional Love. One can see this kind of love mirrored in parents who willingly endure humiliation, and even place themselves in harm’s way, in order to protect the lives and future of their children. Jesus viewed Himself as responsible (as shepherd and brother) for all of us who were to become, through Him, the Father’s adopted children.

Before beginning a formal analysis of the historicity of the passion narratives, we will want to examine a contention of Dominic Crossan (of the Jesus Seminar) who throws the historicity of these narratives into question by suggesting that they are derivatives of the (Gnostic) gospel of Peter. The gospel of Peter is a narrative of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. It consists of sixty verses and has been dated to Papyri originating in about 200 AD.<ref>See Koester 1990, pp. 216-17.</ref> Crossan ignores the fact that there is no evidence for the gospel of Peter prior to 200 AD, and makes a radical suggestion that it was the only source from which the passion narratives of the four canonical Gospels were derived:

<blockquote>Composed by the fifties C.E., and possibly at Sepphoris in Galilee, it [the Cross Gospel in the Gospel of Peter] is the single source of the intracanonical passion narratives.<ref>See Crossan 1991, p. 429. See also Crossan 1985, pp. 132-34.</ref> <ref>Quarles 2006, p. 119.</ref></blockquote>

Charles Quarles sums up Crossan’s conclusions from his radical contention (which does not enjoy wide acceptance in the scholarly community<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 106.</ref>) as follows:

<blockquote>The GP is more a product of the author’s creative literary imagination than a reflection of eyewitness accounts of actual events. Thus, if the GP is the single source for the canonical narratives of the Passion and resurrection, the canonical Gospels are unreliable revisions of an unreliable tradition. None of the Gospels could then be trusted to provide historically reliable testimony about the final events in the life of the historical Jesus.</blockquote>

Quarles shows this claim to be virtually untenable in the light of textual analysis. First, Crossan contends that the parallels between Matthew and the gospel of Peter regarding the Pharisees gathering before Pilate and expressing concern about a staged resurrection on the third day, the guarding and sealing of the tomb of Jesus, and the description of the Jews as “the people” shows Matthean dependence upon the gospel of Peter. Quarles shows precisely the opposite after studying the redactional tendencies of Matthew and the gospel of Peter. Following Gundry,<ref>Gundry 1994, p. 584.</ref> Quarles shows that these texts are a series of “Mattheanisms,” particularly the use of the words “disciple,” “steal,” and “''mēpote''” – “lest” (except once where the gospel of Peter is clearly following Matthew in a subjunctive construction). He quotes John P. Meier by way of conclusion:

<blockquote>When it comes to who is dependent on whom, all the signs point to Matthew’s priority…. The clause is a tissue of Matthean vocabulary and style, a vocabulary and style almost totally absent from the rest of the Gospel of Peter.<ref>Meier 1991, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

Secondly, there are doctrines and sayings in the gospel of Peter which do not occur in the canonical Gospels or the New Testament. For example, Jesus’ preaching to those who have fallen asleep (to those who have died). Quarles notes in this regard:

<blockquote>If the emerging consensus of interpretation regarding 1Peter is correct, the presence of the reference to preaching to those who sleep in the Gospel of Peter suggests that the document was composed no earlier than the first quarter of the second century.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 112.</ref></blockquote>

The same holds true for other sayings, such as the “Lord’s day,” which is mentioned in the Gospel of Peter 9:35 and 12:50, but only appears in the New Testament in the Book of Revelations (approximately 90 AD). The Gospels used the more primitive expression “the first day of the week.”<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 113.</ref>

Thirdly, the description of the resurrection in the gospel of Peter is “fantastic and quite at odds with the descriptions that appear in the canonical Gospels”:

<blockquote>…as the three men exited the tomb, a cross, apparently floating through the air, followed them. …[T]he cross was capable of speech. A heavenly voice asked, “Did you preach to those who are sleeping?” and the cross replied, “Yes.”<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

We have already seen (with respect to Jesus’ miracles) the tendency of the later Gnostic gospels to move from the balanced and mature perspective of the canonical Gospels to an exaggerated, fantastic, and immature perspective (see Unit II-G, Section II). The gospel of Peter here is no different than the gospels of Thomas and Philip.

Fourthly, the “apologetical case” for Jesus’ resurrection (responding to Jewish objections at the time) is more developed in the gospel of Peter than in the Gospel of Matthew, and

<blockquote>no sensible explanation for Matthew’s elimination of helpful apologetic material available to him from the Cross Gospel exists. This suggests that the author of the gospel of Peter depended on Matthew’s Gospel but revised it in order to present a more compelling case for the resurrection.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 118.</ref></blockquote>

For these and other reasons, Quarles (along with Meier) hold Crossan’s position to be untenable , giving rise to the conclusion:

<blockquote>…[I]f the canonical Gospels are the earliest record of the Passion and resurrection, as this paper suggests, and if these contain the narratives based on eyewitness accounts, as the earliest church testimony affirms and as the internal evidence suggests, the earliest narratives of Jesus’ death and resurrection may be viewed as prophecy fulfilled rather than prophecy historicized, and speculation that Jesus was not even buried, much less raised, is groundless.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 120.</ref></blockquote>

We may now proceed to the question of the historicity of the passion narratives. Though all four Gospels portray the passion through narratives aimed at different audiences, and these narratives have different styles and redactional emphases, it does not mean that they do not possess an extensive historical core.<ref>According to Brown: “I see no need for such a dichotomy between acknowledging the narrative form of the passion and maintaining a respect for historical issues” (Brown 1994(b), p. 14).</ref>

There are remarkable agreements among the four lengthy passion narratives, but this does not automatically constitute multiple attestation because Matthew and Luke saw and made recourse to the Marcan narrative. Nevertheless, as will be explained below, Mark and John did not have knowledge of each other’s narratives, and so the many similarities between these two narratives constitute a very strong form of multiple attestation. Before considering this window into the historicity of the passion narratives, we must consider two more fundamental questions which are elucidated by Raymond Brown in his extensive two-volume analysis of the passion entitled: ''The Death of the Messiah''<ref>Brown 1994(b).</ref> :

(1) Did Jesus’ disciples have access to the data recounted in the various passion narratives? (Section I.A), and

(2) How can the criteria of historicity be applied to the passion narratives? (Section I.B)

=== Did Jesus’ Disciples Have Access to the Data Recounted in the Various Passion Narratives? ===

It is not my intention to respond to the extreme skepticism of Koester,<ref>Koester 1980, p. 127.</ref> Crossan,<ref>Crossan 1988, p. 405.</ref> and other members of the Jesus Seminar. Raymond Brown has done this quite well.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), pp. 13-24. See also the “Analysis” sections of each major part of his work, in which historicity is discussed.</ref> My objective is to briefly use the criteria of historicity<ref>See Chapter 6, Section III. Also Brown 1994(b), pp. 22-24.</ref> to uncover those parts of the narratives which may be reasonably and responsibly shown to have come from an early Palestinian passion tradition,<ref>Raymond Brown accepts the existence of such a tradition which may have been linked to eyewitnesses. He qualifies this scholarly opinion as follows: “I have accepted the likely existence of history and tradition behind the heavily scripturally reflective, kerygmatically oriented, and theologically organized PNs [passion narratives] of the Gospels…” (Brown 1994(b), p. 22).</ref> and which may also be linked to the Jesus of history.

Jesus’ crucifixion is so well attested by both Christian and non-Christian sources that it is as close to certain as any historical datum from the first century can be. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus makes explicit reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Annals (15.44) when speaking about Nero’s blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome:

<blockquote>Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.<ref>Cited in Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the authenticity of this passage, but the majority of mainstream scholars concur with Kirby that:

<blockquote>The most persuasive case is made by those who maintain that Tacitus made use of a first century Roman document concerning the nature and status of the Christian religion. As to the reliability of that source, following normal historical practice, it is prudently assumed to be accurate until demonstrated otherwise. The reference from Tacitus constitutes prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus.<ref>Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus’ crucifixion is also attested by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Recall from Unit II-F, Section I. that Josephus was writing for a Roman audience in about 93 AD, and that there are Christian interpolations in the text of Antiquities in which his testimony to Jesus is contained. As noted in Unit II-F, many mainstream scholars consider the italicized sections in the testimony cited below to be authentic:

<blockquote>''Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.'' He was [the] Christ. ''And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,'' those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. ''And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.''<ref>Josephus 1965, 18:3.3.</ref></blockquote>

Again, this non-Christian testimony to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is explicit and highly probable. There are other non-Christian testimonies to Jesus’ crucifixion, but they are far less significant than those of Tacitus and Josephus.

In addition to non-Christian testimony, Jesus’ crucifixion is attested by almost every New Testament source (e.g., the four Gospels, Acts, most of the Pauline letters, 1Peter, and the Letter to the Hebrews), it is recorded in virtually all of the primitive kerygmas,<ref>Very early proclamations of the faith recorded in Acts and the Pauline letters. For a list see Chapter 3, Section I.A.</ref> and is central to the early Church’s interpretation of Jesus and itself. Finally, one is confronted with the questions: “Why would the early Church have given detailed descriptions of the public humiliation and execution of their Messiah and Lord if it had not been historically true? What would have been the point of recounting a story that undermined its apologetical appeal?” In light of this, the crucifixion of Jesus within its proper setting (i.e., a public execution entailing an arrest, trial, and conviction) must be considered incontestable.

What about the details surrounding Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion? Are the events and details recounted in the passion narratives also historically accurate? Some critics, such as Dominic Crossan, believe that it is impossible to say because (as he gratuitously asserts) there were no eyewitnesses to the event:

<blockquote>It seems to me most likely that those closest to Jesus knew almost nothing about the details of the event. They knew only that Jesus had been crucified, outside Jerusalem, at the time of Passover, and probably through some conjunction of imperial and sacerdotal authority.<ref>Crossan 1988 ,p. 405</ref></blockquote>

Brown demolishes Crossan’s contention by pointing to a seemingly obvious and vexing difficulty:

<blockquote>[Crossan] does not explain why he thinks this “most likely,” granted the well-founded tradition that those closest to Jesus had followed him for a long period of time, day and night. Did they suddenly lose all interest, not even taking the trouble to inquire about what must have been a most traumatic moment of their lives?<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 15-16.</ref></blockquote>

Brown explains the implications of his question through a series of virtually unassailable historical judgments:

<blockquote>Yet as we move back from the Gospel narratives to Jesus himself, ultimately there were eyewitnesses and earwitnesses who were in a potion to know the broad lines of Jesus’ passion. He was accompanied in his ministry by a group of disciples known as the Twelve, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the arrest of Jesus was the occasion of his being separated from them. It is inconceivable that they showed no concern about what happened to Jesus after the arrest. True, there is no Christian claim that they were present during the legal proceedings against him, Jewish or Roman; but it is absurd to think that some information was not available to them about why Jesus has hanged on a cross. The whole purpose of crucifixion, after all, was to publicize that certain crimes would be severely punished. (That is the sense in which I include “earwitness”: hearing what was publicly said about the condemnation of Jesus.) The crucifixion itself was public, and nothing suggests that the burial was secret.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 14.</ref></blockquote>

Attempts to present scenarios contrary to Brown’s in this regard truly verge on the illogical, unreasonable, and inconceivable; and they betray motives other than that of seeking the truth.

Furthermore, there is remarkable correspondence between the passion narrative and the Gospel of John, and recent archeological evidence uncovered by Charlesworth and von Wahlde which strongly suggests that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Von Wahlde summarizes his findings as follows:

<blockquote>The significance of this [archeological evidence] for our appreciation of the historical accuracy of John’s reports is considerable. Not only does John provide several details present in the Synoptics (the name of the place [Golgotha], its location outside the city walls), but he goes on to provide more detail than the other Gospels…details not essential to the narrative. If the presence of such details at first makes verification more difficult, the fact that they are corroborated by archaeological and other means [at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem<ref>Charlesworth reports: “Archaeologists have also found the remains of a city wall to the east of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It was built sometime before Herod the Great. What is surprising is the discovery that the present city wall to the west of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the ‘third wall’ built by Agrippa between 41 and 44. This wall reveals that Golgotha was outside Jerusalem’s walls before the early forties, and Jesus was crucified on Golgotha in 30 (or perhaps 33)” (Charlesworth 2006(b), p. 31; italics mine).</ref>] demonstrates not only that the Johannine account contains remarkably accurate knowledge but also that the Gospel is in fact able to serve as a source of unique knowledge about the crucifixion and burial of Jesus.<ref>von Wahlde 2006, p. 582. See also Charlesworth 2006(b), pp. 31-37.</ref></blockquote>

This archaeological corroboration of John’s passion narrative also suggests the presence of eyewitnesses who were not only aware of the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, but also reported it to the authors of the earliest passion traditions.

Presuming, then, that there were eyewitnesses, and that they would have wanted to see or hear as much as possible about the One who was central to their lives, what could they have witnessed? They could have witnessed Jesus’ betrayal by Judas and His apprehension by the Jewish authorities. They could have also heard about any public declaration of Jesus’ charge, conviction, and sentence. They could have known who was involved in the charging, convicting, and sentencing. They could have had knowledge of public events surrounding the conviction (e.g., the release of Barabbas, or Jewish authorities stirring up the crowd). They could have witnessed the carrying of the cross and any outward signs of persecution or torture that might have preceded His journey to Golgotha (e.g., scourging or crowning with thorns). They could have witnessed the crucifixion itself, the public inscription of Jesus’ offense, the people crucified with Jesus, and they could have heard His final words, seen His death, and witnessed His burial. Evidently, they would have been a party to certain events themselves (e.g., cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant and denials).

Most of the above “witnessable” data was apologetically unappealing and presented obstacles to conversion. What would an early Jewish or gentile prospective convert find attractive about the public humiliation and execution of a messiah/leader? How did all the gory details of this crucifixion better establish Jesus’ role as messiah/leader? How would prospective Jewish converts have reacted to the contempt and rejection of Jesus by Jewish authorities? How would Peter’s denials and the apostles’ flight from Jerusalem have added to the Church’s “good image”? How does Jesus being numbered among criminals (e.g., Barabbas and the criminals crucified with Him) help the Church’s credibility among law-abiding citizens? In almost every case, the presentation of the “witnessable” data seems to undermine the early Christian’s image, credibility, and apologetical appeal. Why would they have presented these data in such detail if they had such potential and real damaging effects? I can think of only one reason. Because they were essentially true.

Can we render the same positive historical judgment about other details in the passion narratives beyond the basic “witnessable” data mentioned above? At this juncture, our pursuit of history becomes far more hazy and complex, because the witnessable data moves from eyewitnesses to catechists and teachers who need to interpret these traumatic (and unappealing) events to converts and potential converts. The natural tendency of such catechists, who were reared within Palestinian Judaism, would have been to use Scripture as a means of interpretation.<ref>The conjecture of some members of the Jesus Seminar that the early narratives of Jesus’ passion were a synthesis of interpreted Scriptures rather than an account of what really happened (Koester 1980, p. 127) is simply backwards. It is far more likely that the earliest traditions recounted what happened, allowing catechists to add sections later to interpret them. As Brown notes, “… [T]here is no evidence in the Pauline formula that scriptural reflection caused the creation of the basic incidents of the passion; far more plausibly it caused the selection and interpretation of certain features in an outline of death, burial, resurrection, and appearance that had been dictated by the early Christian memory of what happened” (Brown 1994(b), p. 16).</ref> Some of these attempts would be easily discernable because they would be introduced by phrases like “this was to fulfill the Scripture….” However, other Scripture passages might be on the lips of Jesus, such as the last words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (citing Psalm 22). The historian must now make the judgment of whether this was placed on the lips of Jesus, or whether Jesus selected these words for Himself (see below, Section II). Obviously, Jesus was accustomed to using Scripture to interpret His life, mission, and even crucifixion as much as, if not more than any later interpreter.

The historian’s task becomes even more complex when these traditions are woven into a single narrative. The editors of such narratives would have to be somewhat creative in synthesizing the various traditions. They might be inclined to embellish sayings or dialogue if that helped with the interpretation of recounted events. They could add thematic and even dramatic emphases to the narrative to further their catechetical or theological objectives. At this juncture, the historian must try to peel back the redactions of editors (especially the Evangelists) in order to get closer to the testimony of eyewitnesses which stand behind the narratives.

Recall from Unit II-B, Section I. that the first task is to get back to the primitive traditions that underlie the Gospel narratives, and then to judge the historicity of these primitive traditions by means of historical criteria and techniques to render judgments within a typical historical range:

<blockquote>…certain, very probable, probable, possible, not impossible. “Certain” has nothing to do with the certitude of mathematics or the physical sciences; it refers to the certitude we have in ordinary experience about the things we encounter or are reported to us in writing or orally.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 22.</ref></blockquote>

The earliest passion narrative is in the Gospel of Mark. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke were both aware of Mark’s narrative and relied on it. As will be seen in the next section, John was not aware of Mark’s narrative, but he made recourse to a primitive tradition(s) very similar to the ones used by Mark. This coincidence is extremely useful to historians because it allows for an application of the criterion of multiple attestation, which, in turn, helps historians make judgments about whether various verses in the narratives can be considered to be part of a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition.

In Section I.B, we will take a brief look at these criteria; in Section II we will consider the historicity of Jesus’ last words in Mark; and in Section III we will attempt to uncover the pre-Marcan tradition in Mark’s narrative, and then render some general historical judgments.

=== Application of the Criteria of Historicity to the Passion Narratives ===

The reader may wish to review the descriptions and examples of the criteria and techniques for determining the historicity of Gospel passages, which are summarized in Unit II-B, Section I. A brief description of three of these criteria will be given with particular examples from the passion narratives: (1) multiple attestation, (2) embarrassment, and (3) coherence with Jewish/Roman customs.

The reader will want to recall two caveats about assessment of historicity mentioned in Unit II-B, Section I. namely:

(a) Criteria for historicity can show the likelihood of a particular Gospel datum being historical, but the absence of criteria for historicity does not show the improbability of a particular Gospel datum being historical; the non-applicability of historical criteria shows only that we have no way of assessing historicity of a Gospel datum either positively or negatively. Thus, far more data in the passion narratives (and in the Gospels, for that matter) is historical than can ever be corroborated through historical criteria.

(b) Too rigorous an application of historical criteria can unnecessarily circumscribe corroboratable data from the Gospels. If one says, “The only data that I will accept as historical are those which are attested to by four out of five independent sources” (say, Mark, Q, special Luke, and John, leaving out only special Matthew), then one will limit oneself to very few Gospel data. If one goes even further, and requires four independent Gospel sources plus an external source (such as Tacitus and Josephus), the Gospel will be reduced to the non-interpolated statements of Tacitus and Josephus. Again, if one claims that multiple attestation is not enough – there must also be corroboration from another historical criterion (say, embarrassment or coherence to Jewish culture, etc.), then the field of acceptable data is correspondingly narrowed. The judicious use of historical criteria by mainstream exegetes such as Raymond Brown, N.T. Wright, and John P. Meier can avert unnecessary proscriptions of Gospel data, and lead to reasonable and responsible corroboration of a large range of Gospel data. We may now proceed to the three historical criteria.

1) Multiple Attestation. Recall that multiple attestation does not occur when there is repetition of passages among the three synoptic Gospels, but rather when there is repetition among the five independent sources (Mark, Q, special Matthew, special Luke, and John). Matthew and Luke relied upon and used the full text of Mark. Q is another source upon which Matthew and Luke both relied. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark in their passion narratives, and so attestation among them is not significant.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 81-82.</ref> However, as will be discussed below, Mark and John were written independently of each other, and it is quite likely that neither one had any knowledge of the other’s narrative. Nevertheless, there are no less than thirty-two similarities between the two narratives. If John is truly not dependent on Mark, then these similarities would auger very strongly for a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) passion tradition(s) upon which both Evangelists relied. This pre-Marcan tradition(s) would bring us closer to eyewitness accounts of the passion and therefore to Jesus’ passion itself.

How can we be so sure that John was not directly reliant on Mark’s narrative? In virtually every part of the Gospel except the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on water, and the passion narratives, John’s material is so distinct from Mark that it is difficult to believe that John relied on Mark unless he wanted to separate himself from, or complement Mark. Most scholars in the latter half of the twentieth century do not believe that there is Johannine dependence on Mark.<ref>Brown details the long list of exegetes who support the Johannine non-dependence theory in 1994(b), p. 76, note 91.</ref>

But what about Johannine dependence on the Marcan passion narrative? As can be seen from the table above, there are so many similarities between Mark and John that the possibility of dependence must be considered. There are two significant factors militating against the dependence conjecture. First, despite the many similarities, there are many more dissimilarities in content and order between the two passion narratives.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 81.</ref> Secondly, many of the differences between Mark and John are inexplicable, if not illogical if John truly depended on Mark.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref> Why would John have put his narrative into a more scattered and strangely ordered state than Mark’s if he depended on Mark? (A love of disorder?) Why would he have omitted details in Mark which would have been of interest to him (e.g., the kiss of Judas; mention of Simon of Cyrene; the sixth and ninth hour when darkness came over the land; the derision by the crowds at the cross; the confusion regarding Elijah – even though this may have been elicited by Jesus’ last words in Mark, which are not mentioned in John; omission of three of Mark’s women witnesses – Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, as well as “other women” in Mark, versus Mary the mother of Jesus, and His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas in John). These omissions and reorderings make little sense if John truly depended on Mark. For this reason, Brown concludes:

<blockquote>Throughout the commentary I shall come again and again to what I regard as a completely illogical result if John knew Mark. For that reason I shall work with the thesis that John wrote his passion narrative independently of Mark’s.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref></blockquote>

So what is the likely scenario for the Marcan and Johannine passion narratives’ development? Brown believes that this occurred in five stages:

a) Eyewitnesses. See the rationale for these eyewitness accounts given above in Section I.A.

b) A basic catechetical outline. A basic sequence of major events was formulated soon after the events of the passion connecting the Last Supper to the arrest, then to the condemnation, then to the crucifixion, then to the burial. This sequence guided the Church’s early proclamations and catechesis as well as Eucharistic memories. This is evident from Pauline and other non-Gospel New Testament writings.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 83.</ref>

c) Pre-Gospel traditions. Widely circulated stories/traditions (probably both oral and written) were formed from eyewitness accounts about particular figures and incidents in the passion narratives (alongside the basic catechetical outline). The stories were not yet connected to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 83-84.</ref>

d) Pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine traditions. The stories and basic outline made their way toward the Marcan and Johannine communities where eventually a pre-Marcan author(s) connected many of the stories to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 84.</ref>

e) The Marcan and Johannine passion narratives. The two Evangelists used two versions of the pre-Marcan tradition along with additional pre-Gospel traditions<ref>As Soards’ table indicates, there were probably several such pre-Gospel traditions along with other narrative traditions. See Soards 1994, pp. 1492-1524.</ref> to formulate the passion narratives we have today.

It is likely that much of the “witnessable” data in the thirty-two common elements in the Marcan and Johannine narratives made their way from eyewitnesses into the pre-Gospel traditions, and then into the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition(s), and then into the Gospel narratives. This would include:

Judas as betrayer bringing soldiers with weapons; Jesus being seized; the high priest’s servant’s ear being cut off; Jesus’ exchange with His apprehenders; Jesus being subjected to a Jewish judicial inquest; Peter’s three denials; the high priest’s maid as first inquirer; Peter warming himself by the fire in the high priest’s courtyard; the bystanders as inquirers in the third denial; the Jewish authorities making accusations against Jesus to Pilate; the crowd asking for the release of Barabbas; Pilate not finding Jesus guilty of a crime; the crowds responding multiple times “Crucify Him”; Pilate having Jesus scourged; Pilate handing Jesus over to be crucified, Jesus being crowned with thorns; Jesus proceeding to Golgotha with a cross, the crucifixion of Jesus; an inscription reading “King of the Jews”; the soldiers dividing Jesus’ garments and casting lots for them; two criminals being crucified with Jesus, one on either side of Him; Mary Magdalene witnessing the crucifixion; the soldiers giving a vinegar-filled sponge to Jesus on the cross; Joseph of Arimathea obtaining permission to bury Jesus; and Joseph of Arimathea wrapping the body of Jesus in a linen cloth, and putting Him in a tomb.<ref>For evidence of the apostles knowing the place of burial and witnessing the empty tomb, see Chapter 4, Section II.B.</ref>

Some of these conclusions (as well as others) are corroborated by three other historical criteria which will be discussed in the forthcoming subsections.

(2) Embarrassment. Recall from Unit II-B, Section I., that if a particular Gospel datum was embarrassing to the Church, or undermined the reputation of the apostles, or cast dispersions upon Jesus, then we can be quite certain that the Evangelists (and the formulators of early traditions) did not invent it. Raymond Brown points to several such data in the passion narratives, for example: Judas (one of the Twelve apostles) betraying Jesus; many of the disciples not remaining with Jesus during the passion; and Peter denying Jesus three times.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> There are other data which are embarrassing, but may have been recounted for other reasons. For example, Jesus praying in the garden, “Remove this cup from me” (Mark 14:36), which looks like Jesus is trying to avoid the cross. Although this could not have been catechetically appealing, someone could conjecture that this passage is meant “to teach Christians that facing death constitutes a trial that may challenge even sincere commitment.”<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> Nevertheless, the datum is still catechetically unappealing, and would have been very risky for the Evangelist or early Church to have invented.

The same holds true for Jesus’ last words in the Gospel of Mark: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” As will be discussed below (Section II), the last words of Jesus do not enjoy multiple attestation because John does not recount them (and places a completely different phrase on the lips of Jesus – “It is finished”). Many scholars believe, however, that this datum is historical because it would have likely been misinterpreted by gentile audiences who might not have known that the phrase (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) refers to the whole of Psalm 22 (a Psalm of God redeeming the sufferings of the just one and bringing salvation through it to all nations and generations). Gentile audiences would have been likely to believe that Jesus was so demoralized that He lost His confidence in God and thought that God was forsaking Him. This misinterpretation would not only have been embarrassing to the Church, but would have led to a theology precisely contrary to what Jesus intended and to what the Church taught. It is difficult to believe that Mark would have invented this phrase as Jesus’ last words, and much more likely that John (like Luke), if he was aware of the phrase from a pre-Johannine tradition, would have dropped it since he was writing for a gentile audience that could have easily misinterpreted it.

(3) Coherence with Jewish/Roman customs. There are three elements which are relevant here: (a) coherence with Jewish customs, (b) Semitisms, and (c) coherence with Roman customs. The last area is somewhat complex<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 19ff.</ref> and not especially germane to the point of this Unit; so I will limit discussion to the first two areas.

(a) ''Correspondence with Jewish custom''. One major point bears mentioning, because it shows Mark’s<ref>The historicity of the Marcan narrative will be assessed throughout the rest of the chapter.</ref> fidelity to the Jewish customs which would have been in effect at the time of Jesus’ passion, namely, Mark’s careful recounting of how the Sanhedrin adhered to the Mishna only when it was in conformity to the Sadducee law. Blinzler notes in this regard:

<blockquote>The fact that Mk 14 and 15 juxtapose items which sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the requirements of the Mishnah was hitherto felt puzzling. The explanation is that the Sanhedrin was at that time bound by the Sadducee law, which agreed with the Mishnah only exceptionally. But if Mk 14 and 15 were a legendary construction, it would be hard to explain how the author, supposedly so uninterested in historical fact, managed to be so accurate with regard to the legal custom: to the unlikely extent, that is, that the actions of the Sanhedrin only agreed with the Mishnah when the provisions of the latter coincided with those of the Sadducees, and not otherwise.<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref></blockquote>

(b) ''Semitisms''. There is one truly remarkable Semitism recorded in the Marcan narrative, namely, Jesus’ final words: “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''.” The Marcan version of the final words is to be preferred over the Matthean one, because it is probable that Matthew tried to “clean up” Mark’s Aramaic citation of the divine name (“''Elōi''”)<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref> with the more proper Hebrew version of it (''“’Ēlî”''), which would have been recited in the synagogue.<ref>Recall that Matthew is writing for a well-educated Jewish audience, and was trying to convince them of the Messiahship of Jesus. He knew the appropriate Hebrew form of the Psalm and changed Mark’s Aramaic “Elōi” to the Hebrew “Ēli.” See Brown 1994(b), pp. 1051-1052.</ref> The fact that Matthew records the Aramaic “''sabachthani''” (instead of the more appropriate Hebrew ''ăzabtānî'') convinces most scholars that Matthew retained remnants of an original Aramaic version.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. Mark’s use of “lama” (instead of the Aramaic “lĕmā”) is not problematic because it was common practice at that time to transliterate the shewa (short “e” vowel) by “a” instead of “e.” See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. See also Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58; and Harrington 1990, p. 628.</ref>

Is Mark’s Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words truly Jesus’ words? It seems likely because much of Mark’s mixed gentile-Jewish audience would not have recognized either the Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the Psalm, which evidently compelled Mark to translate it into Greek. Why would Mark have recorded an Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words which most of his audience would not have understood? Why not simply give the Greek translation without the Aramaic? Furthermore, why give an Aramaic translation of the Psalms instead of the more proper and easily recognizable Hebrew version? The fact that Jesus may well have learned the Psalms in Aramaic and recited the Psalms in Aramaic to His Galilean audience may provide a clue to the origin of the Aramaic version of the Psalm – namely, Jesus Himself.<ref>Though Mark cites Aramaic versions of Old Testament texts elsewhere, this may be out of deference to Jesus rather than Mark’s preference.</ref> The application of other historical criteria to this question will further confirm the origin of these words in Jesus. This will be considered in the following section.

== The Final Words of Jesus ==

Given that Mark’s version of Jesus’ final words is more original than Matthew’s version, we may now return to the question of whether Mark’s version is historical. Though the Aramaic rendition of the final words is a clue to their origin in Jesus, it is not definitive because Luke gives a different version of the final words (“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” – Luke 23:46), and so does John (“It is finished” – John 19:30). Why should Mark be preferred to Luke and John?

With respect to Luke’s version of the final words, there are four reasons to suspect that Mark’s version is closer to Jesus’ own. First, Luke was aware of Mark’s version of the final words, and would have had to have intentionally changed them. Secondly, Luke prefers to shift the focus from Jesus’ feelings of desolation to Jesus’ trust. Instead of Psalm 22:2 (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”), Luke portrays Jesus reciting Psalm 31:6 (“Into your hands I commend my spirit”), which effects this shift in focus. Luke’s preference to portray Jesus as confident (and eliminate any hint of spiritual disturbance) is evidenced in his elimination of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ anxiety in the garden of Gethsemane (“My soul is very sorrowful unto death”). It is much easier to believe that Luke has continued his redactional policy of eliminating Marcan references to Jesus’ anxiety than to believe that Luke’s version of Jesus’ words is more original. Thirdly, Luke substitutes “Father” for the Psalmist’s reference to “God,” which is very likely a redaction. Finally, Luke selects a Psalm passage which speaks to Jesus’ Spirit, which is a clear focus of his Gospel and an allusion to the Holy Spirit, which is the focus of the Acts of the Apostles.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1067.</ref> For this reason, most scholars believe that the Lukan version is a redaction of the Marcan original.

What about John’s version of the last words (“It is finished”)? Unlike Luke, John was not aware of the Marcan passion narrative, yet there is significant evidence that Mark and John borrowed from a common pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition (see above, Section I.B.1). Does John’s very different version of Jesus’ final words imply that the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition did not have any version of Jesus’ final words (and that both Mark and John invented their own in the absence of a more original version)? The answer is probably ‘no,’ because of light shed upon the question by the historical criterion of embarrassment.

Recall from Section I.B.2 that John’s predominately gentile audience could have misinterpreted Jesus’ last words as recorded by Mark. Indeed, as we just saw, Luke certainly thought this was a possibility for his gentile audience. The majority of John’s audience would probably not have recognized Psalm 22 in the Aramaic expression, “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani'',” and they would not have known that this first line referred to the entire Psalm. Therefore, they would not have known that Jesus’ last words were a prayer of trust in God which would lead not only to the vindication of His suffering, but to universal salvation for all humankind for all time (see below in this section).<ref>As Brown notes, “Perhaps the most frequently offered argument for softening the dour import of the Mark/Matt death cry is based on the general context of Ps 22. Jesus cites the opening verse of a psalm that continues for thirty more verses. By the end the psalmist will take a positive view: Rejoicing, he will proclaim that he has survived the danger and that after all God did not spurn him or ‘turn His face away’ (Ps 22:25). Accordingly some would invoke a hermeneutic principle that a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context” (Brown 1994(b), pp. 1049-1050).</ref> Thus (as the Johannine author very probably perceived), they would have interpreted these words to mean that Jesus felt abandoned by the Father, which is precisely the opposite of what the Psalm intends, what the early Church believed, and what Jesus intended. Not only would this have been confusing and misleading to gentile members of the early Church; it would have been apologetically unappealing and embarrassing to the Church in gentile regions. Thus, John, like Luke, would have had everything to lose (and nothing to gain) by retaining these words on the lips of the dying Jesus.

Therefore, there is considerable reason to believe prima facie that John, like Luke, would have been inclined to change Jesus’ dying words from those of Psalm 22 to something less misleading and more consistent with Jesus’ intention and the belief of the early Church. He decides upon the simple phrase, “It is finished,” which refers to Jesus’ project of redemption, the completion of which John has been pointing to throughout the “Book of Glory” (chapters 13-21).

This leads to the obvious question of why Mark (who was addressing a mixed gentile-Jewish audience) would have retained Psalm 22 as Jesus’ final words when many of his audience members would have been likely to misinterpret them in the same way as John’s and Luke’s audiences. Before responding, it is worth noting that this question does not apply to Matthew with the same force as Mark because the majority of Matthew’s audience was Jewish. Many in that audience would have been educated enough to see Psalm 22 through Matthew’s Hebraic version of it, and many would have understood that the first line of the Psalm referred to the whole Psalm. Brown points to a well-known hermeneutical principle in this regard:

<blockquote>…a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 1050.</ref></blockquote>

In the case of Psalm 22, the context speaks of trust in God, vindication, and salvation for the world.

However, the above hermeneutical principle would not have applied to the gentile members of Mark’s audience; so why did he retain these words? I think there is only one plausible explanation – namely, that they are in fact the final words of Jesus. It would be inconceivable to suggest that Mark invented these words to place on the lips of Jesus given the probability of their misinterpretation (with significant negative consequences) by a large segment of his audience. Therefore, it seems likely that Mark received these words from either a pre-Marcan tradition or from Peter (for whom Mark was interpreter). In either case, Mark must have believed that these words were truly those of Jesus, and decided to retain them in their Aramaic form precisely for this reason. There does not appear to be any other reasonable motive for his taking the risk of significant misinterpretation and apologetically unappealing embarrassment.

So if we consider “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''” to be the dying words of the historical Jesus, and if we apply Brown’s hermeneutical principle to Jesus Himself (implying that Jesus expected informed listeners to “be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context”), then it seems likely that the dying Jesus was praying the whole of Psalm 22 to His Father while giving His listeners an insight into how He interpreted His sacrificial death through that prayer. Mally notes in this regard:

<blockquote>As a quotation of an OT Ps, it can hardly be taken literally as an expression of real despair or dereliction. Rather, Jesus applies to himself an OT passage that sums up the suffering of the upright individual who turns to his God in the stress of hostile opposition and its ensuing depression. In using the Ps, Jesus does not express the feeling that his life’s work has failed and that God has therefore abandoned him; he identifies himself with a biblical precedent, the persecuted upright man ''who has trusted in Yahweh'', and found in him ''the source of his consolation and ultimate triumph'' [italics mine].<ref>Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58. See also J. Gnilka 1959, pp. 294-97.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, Jesus’ reference to Psalm 22 is an expression of trust and confidence in the Father that His suffering will result in the triumph of His mission. As noted in the previous Unit, that mission is actualized for all future generations through the gift of His presence and unconditional redeeming Love in the Eucharist.

A closer look at the Psalm may give a deep insight into the panoply of Jesus’ thoughts and feelings at the time of His crucifixion. The Psalm may be divided into three parts:

(1) “2-22, the complaint, with repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence (4-6; 10-11),”<ref>Murphy 1968, p. 579.</ref>

(2) “23-32, thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share (23-27),<ref>Murphy 1968, p. 579.</ref>” and

(3) the worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh (28-32).

Each part will be presented in turn.

(1) Complaint, repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

Why are you so far from saving me,

so far from the words of my groaning?

Oh my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,

and by night, but I have no rest.

Then, the psalmist shifts perspective as he does several times throughout the Psalm, and introduces the theme of God’s holiness and grandeur, worthy of praise and trust:

Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;

you are the praise of Israel.

In you our fathers put their trust;

they trusted and you delivered them.

They cried to you and were saved;

in you they trusted and were not disappointed.

The psalmist then turns back to the deplorable nature of his condition:

But I am a worm and not a man,

scorned by men and despised by the people.

All who see me mock me;

they hurl insults, shaking their heads:

“He trusted in the Lord;

let the Lord rescue him.

Let Him deliver him

since He delights in him.

The uncanny resemblance between the psalmist’s words and the events taking place around Jesus give one pause. After describing the inauthentic words of the crowd (who believe that the Lord will not fulfill the trust of the psalmist), the psalmist shifts back to his fervent trust in the Lord:

Yet you brought me out of the womb;

you made me trust in you;

even at my mother’s breast.

From birth I was cast upon you;

from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

Having renewed his trust in the Lord, the psalmist makes an earnest petition for help:

Do not be far from me,

for trouble is near

and there is no one to help.

Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.

Roaring lions tearing their prey

open their mouths wide against me.

Then the psalmist uses the same words seen in the suffering servant song (Is 52:13-53:12) and Jesus’ eucharistic words:

I am poured out like water,

and all my bones are out of joint.

My heart has turned to wax;

it has melted away within me.

My strength is dried up like a potsherd,

and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;

you lay me in the dust of death.

In continuing his description of his suffering to Yahweh, the psalmist again describes events uncannily similar to Jesus’ crucifixion:

Dogs have surrounded me;

a band of evil men has encircled me,

they have pierced my hands and my feet.

I can count all my bones;

people stare and gloat over me.

They divide my garments among them

and cast lots for my clothing.

The psalmist makes another earnest petition for God’s help and consolation:

But you, oh Lord, be not far off;

oh my Strength, come quickly to help me.

Deliver my life from the sword,

my precious life from the power of the dogs.

Rescue me from the mouth of the lion;

save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

(2) Thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share. The psalmist then reaffirms his trust and confidence in the Lord, as if to say that he will live beyond his current persecution to bring the praise of the Lord’s name to all who fear him:

I will declare your name to my brothers;

in the congregation I will praise you.

You who fear the Lord, praise him!

All you descendents of Jacob, honor him!

Revere him, all you descendents of Israel!

The psalmist then gives his reason for his confidence in God, and his belief in his future:

For he has not despised or disdained

the suffering of the afflicted one;

he has not hidden his face from him

but has listened to his cry for help.

From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;

before those who fear you I will fulfill my vows.

The psalmist then moves into a prophetic, and even messianic tone, speaking of signs of the new Jerusalem; messianic signs which Jesus says, when quoting the prophet Isaiah, are being fulfilled in Himself:<ref>See Matt. 11:5ff and Lk 4:18ff, referring to Is 61:1ff.</ref>

The poor will eat and be satisfied;

they who seek the Lord will praise Him –

may your hearts live forever.

(3) The worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh. The psalmist then confidently suggests universality of salvation arising out of Yahweh’s mercy:

All the ends of the earth

will remember and turn to the Lord,

and all the families of the nations

will bow down before Him,

for dominion belongs to the Lord

and He rules over the nations.

The psalmist then suggests that Yahweh’s salvation will extend to all those who are raised on high, and those who are in the grave:

All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;

all who go down to the dust will kneel before Him –

those who cannot keep themselves alive.

Posterity will serve Him;

future generations will be told about the Lord.

They will proclaim His righteousness

to a people yet unborn –

for He has done it.

This Psalm on the dying lips of Jesus is quite remarkable. In the midst of recounting events quite similar to His crucifixion, the Psalm expresses His mind and heart as He cries out for help, as He is overwhelmingly confident in that help, and as He sees the ultimate result of that help in a salvation that will not only reach to the ends of the earth, but to all future generations on the earth, and even to those who are raised on high and those who “go down to the dust.” Thus, the Psalm connects Jesus’ torment with His confidence in the Father as He looks beyond His suffering, beyond Jerusalem, beyond the present age, and beyond earthly existence, to a redemption which will take hold in the life of God Himself. Jesus’ eucharistic words are not only consonant with those of the psalm, they give the psalm’s words ultimate meaning and reality; for they provide the vehicle through which Jesus’ person and love will save universally and eternally.

== The Passion of Jesus in Mark and in Pre-Marcan Tradition (14:32-15:37) ==

Mark gives us the oldest account of the passion. Though it tries to reconcile the passion with Old Testament prophesy, its primary objective is not apologetical. Rather, it intends to give an account of the sufferings freely endured by Jesus and “to show clearly what persons and what authorities were responsible for the death of Jesus and the extent of their guilt.” Mark believes that this is Jesus’ central salvific act and uses it to frame the rest of his Gospel. As Blinzler notes:

Mark already had before him such a relatively fixed account from oral tradition, as the insertion of 14:3-9 shows, and he enlarged it with further matter, e.g., with “memoirs” of Peter (apart from 14:3-9) such as the account of the denial (14:54, 66-72). …[T]he Gospel of Mark has been called, not unjustly, “a passion-narrative with a long introduction” (M. Kähler).

As noted above, there is substantial New Testament and extra-testamental evidence for the historicity of Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion. Many other facts surrounding the crucifixion are also very probably historical. By using the criteria and techniques elucidated above (Sections I.A and B), we can first ascertain what material from Mark’s passion narrative probably came from a pre-Marcan tradition, and the material from that tradition which could have come from eyewitness accounts. Scholars have worked diligently on these tasks for over a century, and it is beyond the scope of this study to report comprehensively on their findings. My objective is only to give a report about where the preponderance of scholarly opinion lies with regard to an early pre-Marcan tradition and the historicity of the facts within that tradition.

There is a strong likelihood that Mark made recourse to a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which he redacted and stylized to give coherence and meaning to this exceedingly significant event for the Christian Church. There is a wide variety of opinion about which verses originated with this pre-Marcan tradition(s) and which ones originated with Mark. Marion Soards has gathered a tremendous amount of data from 34 scholars representing a wide range of theological and exegetical perspectives. I have taken the liberty of presenting the Revised Standard Version of the Marcan passion narrative, and indicating the likelihood that each of its verses originated with a pre-Marcan tradition or with Mark himself according to the following key:

Bold A large majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Italics A small majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Underline The scholarly community is about evenly split on whether this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition, or with Mark himself.

Normal font The majority of the scholarly community believes that this verse originated with Mark (and is therefore a Marcan redaction).

Mark Chapter 14

32 They went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and He said to His disciples, “Sit here, while I pray.” 33 And He took with Him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. 34 And He said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch.” 35 And going a little farther, He fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. 36 And He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt.” And He came and found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? 38 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 39 And again He went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 And again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer Him. 41 And He came the third time, and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”

43 And immediately, while He was still speaking Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I shall kiss is the man; seize Him and lead Him away safely.” And when he came, he went up to Him at once, and said, “Master!” And he kissed Him. And they laid hands on Him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” And they all forsook Him, and fled.

51 And a young man followed Him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

53 And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. And Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death; but they found none. 56 For many bore false witness against Him, and their witness did not agree. 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against Him, saying, “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet not even so did their testimony agree. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you? 61 But He was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked Him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”Note 63 And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard His blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned Him as deserving death. 65 And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to strike Him, saying to Him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received Him with blows.

66 And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came; 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway. 69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” 70 But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.” 71 But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.” 72 And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

Mark Chapter 15

1 And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. And Pilate asked Him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And He answered him “You have said so.” And the chief priests accused Him of many things. And Pilate again asked Him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered.

Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they asked. And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. And he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered Him up. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” And they cried out again, “Crucify Him.” And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him.” So, Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

And the soldiers led Him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. And they clothed Him in a purple cloak, and placing a crown of thorns they put it on Him. And they began to salute Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck His head with a reed, and spat upon Him, and they knelt down in homage to Him. And when they had mocked Him, they stripped Him of the purple cloak, and put His own clothes on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him.

And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry His cross. And they brought Him to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). And they offered Him wine mingled with myrrh; but He did not take it. And they crucified Him, and divided His garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour, when they crucified Him. And the inscription of the charge against Him read, “The King of the Jews.” And with Him they crucified two robbers, one on His right and one on His left. And those who passed by derided Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 So also the chief priests mocked Him to one another with the scribes, saying, “He saved others; He cannot save Himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with Him also reviled Him.

And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” Which means, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Behold, He is calling Elijah.” And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to Him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down.” And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.

38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing Him, saw that He thus breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the son of God!”

There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, 41 who, when He was in Galilee, followed Him, and ministered to Him; and also many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 And Pilate wondered if He were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether He was already dead. 45 And when he learned from the centurion that He was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 And he bought a linen shroud, and taking Him down, wrapped Him in the linen shroud, and laid Him in a tomb which has been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where He was laid.

*****

As can be seen from the above, most scholars consider the vast majority of the passion narrative to have come from a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which would presumably include some accounts from Peter. Notice that the probable Marcan redactions are not concerned with the torment, crucifixion, and death of Jesus. They are meant to explain who is primarily guilty (i.e., Judas, the chief priests, and the council), who is less culpable (i.e., Pilate), and who is ironically the prophetic spokesman of the meaning of the passion (i.e., the centurion). They also center on Mark’s interpretation of why Jesus was accused of blasphemy (i.e., identifying Himself with the eschatological Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14). If these elements are “bracketed,” the passion story retains its poignant central core, which likely represents the traditions which Mark received as he prepared his narrative.

The question of whether the pre-Marcan tradition is faithful to accounts from eyewitnesses and earwitnesses is more difficult to ascertain. One cannot assume that a verse was witnessed simply because it was included in a pre-Marcan tradition. As was made clear in Section I.B, the pre-Marcan tradition relied on pre-Gospel traditions and stories, and had developments and accretions arising out of catechetical and pedagogical concerns. Nevertheless, it is likely that the pre-Marcan tradition(s) contained a considerable amount of “witnessable” and witnessed data for the reasons mentioned in Section I above – particularly as regards the betrayal by Judas, the arrest, a Jewish judicial inquest, Peter’s denials, the involvement of Pontius Pilate, the involvement of Jewish authorities in accusing Jesus, the release of Barabbas, the involvement of Roman soldiers, and facts surrounding the crucifixion (e.g., being scourged, being crowned with thorns, the vinegary wine, being hanged on a cross, the inscription on the cross, and the two other criminals). I would also include Jesus’ final words as recounted in Mark’s Gospel (for the reasons mentioned in the previous section), and the fact of Jesus’ burial (for the reasons mentioned in Chapter 4, Section II.B). A more detailed list of other “witnessable” data which is common to both the Marcan and Johannine traditions may be found above in Section I.B. Additional details about the historicity of particular verses in the pre-Marcan tradition(s) may be found in the “Analysis” sections following each major part of Raymond Brown’s The Death of the Messiah.

An appreciation of the significance of the passion, particularly as regards the central question of this book (i.e., “Is Jesus Emmanuel?”), cannot be attained through exegetical and historical analysis alone. Though this analysis is necessary in order to understand the meaning and reality of the events surrounding Jesus’ death, it almost blocks out the heart’s reasons to give greater clarity to the mind’s reasons. I can’t speak for you, the reader, but when I am applying criteria and techniques of historicity to particular texts, I am not being flooded with inspiration and love; and so I find it necessary to move to the domain of contemplation after I have satisfied myself about the historicity of the essential elements of Jesus’ passion. Contemplation allows one to be moved in the heart – to be struck with delight, or wonder, or amazement; to perceive beauty; to exalt; to be moved with gratitude; to feel awe and glory; to be inspired; to be moved by what is just and good and generous, and above all, to be moved by love – unconditional Love. Thus, contemplation is essential to the appreciation of Jesus’ passion, which is above all an act of incredible love.

== Contemplation on the Passion ==

The passion narratives open upon a virtually limitless depth of love, which can best be gleaned through contemplation. As explained in the previous chapter, Jesus views His passion as the culmination of His mission, the concretization of His unconditional Love in history, and His gift of unconditional Love to the world for all eternity (through the Eucharist). The reader’s time will be well spent on considering His loving intention, attitude, and feeling in His gift of self in the events of the passion.

One successful method of entering into contemplation is recommended by Saint Ignatius of Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises. It entails entering into the scene, considering the personalities and dispositions of people in the scene, and focusing on the heart of Jesus manifest through the people and events in the scene.

In light of the above, one may want to use the following structure to contemplate on the passion. After reading a particular passage at least twice, first consider various physical aspects of the scene, then:

• the persons in the scene along with Jesus, then
• Jesus’ attitude toward the people in the scene (recalling that Jesus’ attitudes are reflected in the beatitudes – humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, merciful, peacemaking, etc.), then
• Jesus’ relationship to the Father (applying Psalm 22, the Suffering Servant song – Isaiah 52:13-53:12, and Jesus’ prayer in the Garden), then
• Jesus’ universal salvific intent (applying the simile of the paschal lamb and the words “This is my body,” “the blood of the covenant,” “for all,” and “Do this in remembrance of me” – see Chapter 9, Section II.B), then
• Jesus’ love for the people in the scene (including His persecutors), His love of the Father, and His love of humankind.

You might then look at Jesus’ acceptance of anguish for the sake of love. In light of this, you might consider Jesus’ love for you and others; His hopes and aspirations for you and for others. Accept that love, accept His wanting to be your paschal lamb, sin-offering (scapegoat), and blood of the covenant (to guarantee eternal life with Him and the Father); and then, express to God what you desire.

After you have completed your contemplation, you might want to ask the recurrent questions in this book: Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this for my sake and the sake of all? Is Jesus Christ His Emmanuel? If so, then the unconditional Love of God is real and has been fully actualized in the world. That unconditional Love is unconditional light in the darkness, unconditional hope amidst dejection, unconditional resurrection amidst the cross, and unconditional redemption amidst our sin. It is unconditional life unto unconditional joy in the unconditional love of the triune God.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Passion

2015-01-08T17:37:51Z

David Persyn: /* The Final Words of Jesus */ Footnotes and Formats

Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith – Jesus

Unit II. M

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Passion

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-M_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Passion.3F | Return to the Table of Contents]]

'''Introduction'''

The Eucharist is not only Jesus’ definitive interpretation of His passion and death; it is also the definitive vehicle through which He communicates His presence and love to all future generations. So, how can our insight into the preciousness of this gift be deepened through the examination of Jesus’ passion? From a contemplative point of view, the possibilities are considerable for deepening the heart’s awareness of the love of Christ. As one considers Jesus’ willing acceptance of each part of the passion as a gift of self (love) for all humankind, one begins to affectively (not just intellectually) appreciate what unconditional Love really is; and when one sees this Love through the eyes, the face, the mind, the heart of the gentle Lamb willingly led to the slaughter, one begins to receive an answer to the questions: “Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this?” and “Is Jesus His Emmanuel?”

Since my intention here is to induce contemplation (that is, prayerful reflection on the texts of the passion), I will discuss only three important propaedeutic points: (1) an overview of the historicity of the passion narratives (Section I)<ref>Any reader interested in a detailed exegesis of the passion narratives should make recourse to Raymond Brown’s comprehensive work The Death of the Messiah [Brown 1994(b)]. </ref>, (2) an analysis of Jesus’ final words on the cross (Section II), and (3) a presentation of the pre-Marcan tradition and Mark’s passion narrative (Section III). The reader may then want to return to the previous Unit on the Eucharist to probe with contemplative insight into the meaning and reality of Jesus’ love.

== The Historicity of the Passion ==

It may be observed from the outset that Jesus’ plan to redeem the world was anything but apologetical or popular, for the idea of a suffering Messiah was thought to be a curse by His Jewish and gentile contemporaries (Dt 21:23, Gal 3:13, I Cor 12:3).<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 350.</ref> Nevertheless, Jesus, knowing what would befall Him,<ref>This is clear from the pre-planning implicit in the institution of the Eucharist, and also from the multiple predictions of His passion (Mt 16:13-23, 17:22-23, 20:17-19; Mk 8:27-33, 9:30-32, 10:32-34; Lk 9:18-22, 9:43-45, and 18:31-34).</ref> proceeded resolutely toward Jerusalem. In light of our discussion of the Eucharist, His plan had but one objective: to join with the Father in an act of unconditional self-gift (love) for the salvation of humankind. Even though Jesus was convinced of His vindication and resurrection (see Unit II-L, Section II), He must have known that the crucifixion would be viewed as a scandal, and used against Him by His critics. Nevertheless, He viewed the passion as being indispensable to His mission. Why? Because He associated the passion with gift of self, which, as is clear from His institution of the Eucharist, He associated with unconditional Love. One can see this kind of love mirrored in parents who willingly endure humiliation, and even place themselves in harm’s way, in order to protect the lives and future of their children. Jesus viewed Himself as responsible (as shepherd and brother) for all of us who were to become, through Him, the Father’s adopted children.

Before beginning a formal analysis of the historicity of the passion narratives, we will want to examine a contention of Dominic Crossan (of the Jesus Seminar) who throws the historicity of these narratives into question by suggesting that they are derivatives of the (Gnostic) gospel of Peter. The gospel of Peter is a narrative of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. It consists of sixty verses and has been dated to Papyri originating in about 200 AD.<ref>See Koester 1990, pp. 216-17.</ref> Crossan ignores the fact that there is no evidence for the gospel of Peter prior to 200 AD, and makes a radical suggestion that it was the only source from which the passion narratives of the four canonical Gospels were derived:

<blockquote>Composed by the fifties C.E., and possibly at Sepphoris in Galilee, it [the Cross Gospel in the Gospel of Peter] is the single source of the intracanonical passion narratives.<ref>See Crossan 1991, p. 429. See also Crossan 1985, pp. 132-34.</ref> <ref>Quarles 2006, p. 119.</ref></blockquote>

Charles Quarles sums up Crossan’s conclusions from his radical contention (which does not enjoy wide acceptance in the scholarly community<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 106.</ref>) as follows:

<blockquote>The GP is more a product of the author’s creative literary imagination than a reflection of eyewitness accounts of actual events. Thus, if the GP is the single source for the canonical narratives of the Passion and resurrection, the canonical Gospels are unreliable revisions of an unreliable tradition. None of the Gospels could then be trusted to provide historically reliable testimony about the final events in the life of the historical Jesus.</blockquote>

Quarles shows this claim to be virtually untenable in the light of textual analysis. First, Crossan contends that the parallels between Matthew and the gospel of Peter regarding the Pharisees gathering before Pilate and expressing concern about a staged resurrection on the third day, the guarding and sealing of the tomb of Jesus, and the description of the Jews as “the people” shows Matthean dependence upon the gospel of Peter. Quarles shows precisely the opposite after studying the redactional tendencies of Matthew and the gospel of Peter. Following Gundry,<ref>Gundry 1994, p. 584.</ref> Quarles shows that these texts are a series of “Mattheanisms,” particularly the use of the words “disciple,” “steal,” and “''mēpote''” – “lest” (except once where the gospel of Peter is clearly following Matthew in a subjunctive construction). He quotes John P. Meier by way of conclusion:

<blockquote>When it comes to who is dependent on whom, all the signs point to Matthew’s priority…. The clause is a tissue of Matthean vocabulary and style, a vocabulary and style almost totally absent from the rest of the Gospel of Peter.<ref>Meier 1991, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

Secondly, there are doctrines and sayings in the gospel of Peter which do not occur in the canonical Gospels or the New Testament. For example, Jesus’ preaching to those who have fallen asleep (to those who have died). Quarles notes in this regard:

<blockquote>If the emerging consensus of interpretation regarding 1Peter is correct, the presence of the reference to preaching to those who sleep in the Gospel of Peter suggests that the document was composed no earlier than the first quarter of the second century.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 112.</ref></blockquote>

The same holds true for other sayings, such as the “Lord’s day,” which is mentioned in the Gospel of Peter 9:35 and 12:50, but only appears in the New Testament in the Book of Revelations (approximately 90 AD). The Gospels used the more primitive expression “the first day of the week.”<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 113.</ref>

Thirdly, the description of the resurrection in the gospel of Peter is “fantastic and quite at odds with the descriptions that appear in the canonical Gospels”:

<blockquote>…as the three men exited the tomb, a cross, apparently floating through the air, followed them. …[T]he cross was capable of speech. A heavenly voice asked, “Did you preach to those who are sleeping?” and the cross replied, “Yes.”<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

We have already seen (with respect to Jesus’ miracles) the tendency of the later Gnostic gospels to move from the balanced and mature perspective of the canonical Gospels to an exaggerated, fantastic, and immature perspective (see Unit II-G, Section II). The gospel of Peter here is no different than the gospels of Thomas and Philip.

Fourthly, the “apologetical case” for Jesus’ resurrection (responding to Jewish objections at the time) is more developed in the gospel of Peter than in the Gospel of Matthew, and

<blockquote>no sensible explanation for Matthew’s elimination of helpful apologetic material available to him from the Cross Gospel exists. This suggests that the author of the gospel of Peter depended on Matthew’s Gospel but revised it in order to present a more compelling case for the resurrection.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 118.</ref></blockquote>

For these and other reasons, Quarles (along with Meier) hold Crossan’s position to be untenable , giving rise to the conclusion:

<blockquote>…[I]f the canonical Gospels are the earliest record of the Passion and resurrection, as this paper suggests, and if these contain the narratives based on eyewitness accounts, as the earliest church testimony affirms and as the internal evidence suggests, the earliest narratives of Jesus’ death and resurrection may be viewed as prophecy fulfilled rather than prophecy historicized, and speculation that Jesus was not even buried, much less raised, is groundless.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 120.</ref></blockquote>

We may now proceed to the question of the historicity of the passion narratives. Though all four Gospels portray the passion through narratives aimed at different audiences, and these narratives have different styles and redactional emphases, it does not mean that they do not possess an extensive historical core.<ref>According to Brown: “I see no need for such a dichotomy between acknowledging the narrative form of the passion and maintaining a respect for historical issues” (Brown 1994(b), p. 14).</ref>

There are remarkable agreements among the four lengthy passion narratives, but this does not automatically constitute multiple attestation because Matthew and Luke saw and made recourse to the Marcan narrative. Nevertheless, as will be explained below, Mark and John did not have knowledge of each other’s narratives, and so the many similarities between these two narratives constitute a very strong form of multiple attestation. Before considering this window into the historicity of the passion narratives, we must consider two more fundamental questions which are elucidated by Raymond Brown in his extensive two-volume analysis of the passion entitled: ''The Death of the Messiah''<ref>Brown 1994(b).</ref> :

(1) Did Jesus’ disciples have access to the data recounted in the various passion narratives? (Section I.A), and

(2) How can the criteria of historicity be applied to the passion narratives? (Section I.B)

=== Did Jesus’ Disciples Have Access to the Data Recounted in the Various Passion Narratives? ===

It is not my intention to respond to the extreme skepticism of Koester,<ref>Koester 1980, p. 127.</ref> Crossan,<ref>Crossan 1988, p. 405.</ref> and other members of the Jesus Seminar. Raymond Brown has done this quite well.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), pp. 13-24. See also the “Analysis” sections of each major part of his work, in which historicity is discussed.</ref> My objective is to briefly use the criteria of historicity<ref>See Chapter 6, Section III. Also Brown 1994(b), pp. 22-24.</ref> to uncover those parts of the narratives which may be reasonably and responsibly shown to have come from an early Palestinian passion tradition,<ref>Raymond Brown accepts the existence of such a tradition which may have been linked to eyewitnesses. He qualifies this scholarly opinion as follows: “I have accepted the likely existence of history and tradition behind the heavily scripturally reflective, kerygmatically oriented, and theologically organized PNs [passion narratives] of the Gospels…” (Brown 1994(b), p. 22).</ref> and which may also be linked to the Jesus of history.

Jesus’ crucifixion is so well attested by both Christian and non-Christian sources that it is as close to certain as any historical datum from the first century can be. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus makes explicit reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Annals (15.44) when speaking about Nero’s blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome:

<blockquote>Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.<ref>Cited in Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the authenticity of this passage, but the majority of mainstream scholars concur with Kirby that:

<blockquote>The most persuasive case is made by those who maintain that Tacitus made use of a first century Roman document concerning the nature and status of the Christian religion. As to the reliability of that source, following normal historical practice, it is prudently assumed to be accurate until demonstrated otherwise. The reference from Tacitus constitutes prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus.<ref>Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus’ crucifixion is also attested by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Recall from Unit II-F, Section I. that Josephus was writing for a Roman audience in about 93 AD, and that there are Christian interpolations in the text of Antiquities in which his testimony to Jesus is contained. As noted in Unit II-F, many mainstream scholars consider the italicized sections in the testimony cited below to be authentic:

<blockquote>''Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.'' He was [the] Christ. ''And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,'' those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. ''And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.''<ref>Josephus 1965, 18:3.3.</ref></blockquote>

Again, this non-Christian testimony to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is explicit and highly probable. There are other non-Christian testimonies to Jesus’ crucifixion, but they are far less significant than those of Tacitus and Josephus.

In addition to non-Christian testimony, Jesus’ crucifixion is attested by almost every New Testament source (e.g., the four Gospels, Acts, most of the Pauline letters, 1Peter, and the Letter to the Hebrews), it is recorded in virtually all of the primitive kerygmas,<ref>Very early proclamations of the faith recorded in Acts and the Pauline letters. For a list see Chapter 3, Section I.A.</ref> and is central to the early Church’s interpretation of Jesus and itself. Finally, one is confronted with the questions: “Why would the early Church have given detailed descriptions of the public humiliation and execution of their Messiah and Lord if it had not been historically true? What would have been the point of recounting a story that undermined its apologetical appeal?” In light of this, the crucifixion of Jesus within its proper setting (i.e., a public execution entailing an arrest, trial, and conviction) must be considered incontestable.

What about the details surrounding Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion? Are the events and details recounted in the passion narratives also historically accurate? Some critics, such as Dominic Crossan, believe that it is impossible to say because (as he gratuitously asserts) there were no eyewitnesses to the event:

<blockquote>It seems to me most likely that those closest to Jesus knew almost nothing about the details of the event. They knew only that Jesus had been crucified, outside Jerusalem, at the time of Passover, and probably through some conjunction of imperial and sacerdotal authority.<ref>Crossan 1988 ,p. 405</ref></blockquote>

Brown demolishes Crossan’s contention by pointing to a seemingly obvious and vexing difficulty:

<blockquote>[Crossan] does not explain why he thinks this “most likely,” granted the well-founded tradition that those closest to Jesus had followed him for a long period of time, day and night. Did they suddenly lose all interest, not even taking the trouble to inquire about what must have been a most traumatic moment of their lives?<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 15-16.</ref></blockquote>

Brown explains the implications of his question through a series of virtually unassailable historical judgments:

<blockquote>Yet as we move back from the Gospel narratives to Jesus himself, ultimately there were eyewitnesses and earwitnesses who were in a potion to know the broad lines of Jesus’ passion. He was accompanied in his ministry by a group of disciples known as the Twelve, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the arrest of Jesus was the occasion of his being separated from them. It is inconceivable that they showed no concern about what happened to Jesus after the arrest. True, there is no Christian claim that they were present during the legal proceedings against him, Jewish or Roman; but it is absurd to think that some information was not available to them about why Jesus has hanged on a cross. The whole purpose of crucifixion, after all, was to publicize that certain crimes would be severely punished. (That is the sense in which I include “earwitness”: hearing what was publicly said about the condemnation of Jesus.) The crucifixion itself was public, and nothing suggests that the burial was secret.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 14.</ref></blockquote>

Attempts to present scenarios contrary to Brown’s in this regard truly verge on the illogical, unreasonable, and inconceivable; and they betray motives other than that of seeking the truth.

Furthermore, there is remarkable correspondence between the passion narrative and the Gospel of John, and recent archeological evidence uncovered by Charlesworth and von Wahlde which strongly suggests that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Von Wahlde summarizes his findings as follows:

<blockquote>The significance of this [archeological evidence] for our appreciation of the historical accuracy of John’s reports is considerable. Not only does John provide several details present in the Synoptics (the name of the place [Golgotha], its location outside the city walls), but he goes on to provide more detail than the other Gospels…details not essential to the narrative. If the presence of such details at first makes verification more difficult, the fact that they are corroborated by archaeological and other means [at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem<ref>Charlesworth reports: “Archaeologists have also found the remains of a city wall to the east of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It was built sometime before Herod the Great. What is surprising is the discovery that the present city wall to the west of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the ‘third wall’ built by Agrippa between 41 and 44. This wall reveals that Golgotha was outside Jerusalem’s walls before the early forties, and Jesus was crucified on Golgotha in 30 (or perhaps 33)” (Charlesworth 2006(b), p. 31; italics mine).</ref>] demonstrates not only that the Johannine account contains remarkably accurate knowledge but also that the Gospel is in fact able to serve as a source of unique knowledge about the crucifixion and burial of Jesus.<ref>von Wahlde 2006, p. 582. See also Charlesworth 2006(b), pp. 31-37.</ref></blockquote>

This archaeological corroboration of John’s passion narrative also suggests the presence of eyewitnesses who were not only aware of the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, but also reported it to the authors of the earliest passion traditions.

Presuming, then, that there were eyewitnesses, and that they would have wanted to see or hear as much as possible about the One who was central to their lives, what could they have witnessed? They could have witnessed Jesus’ betrayal by Judas and His apprehension by the Jewish authorities. They could have also heard about any public declaration of Jesus’ charge, conviction, and sentence. They could have known who was involved in the charging, convicting, and sentencing. They could have had knowledge of public events surrounding the conviction (e.g., the release of Barabbas, or Jewish authorities stirring up the crowd). They could have witnessed the carrying of the cross and any outward signs of persecution or torture that might have preceded His journey to Golgotha (e.g., scourging or crowning with thorns). They could have witnessed the crucifixion itself, the public inscription of Jesus’ offense, the people crucified with Jesus, and they could have heard His final words, seen His death, and witnessed His burial. Evidently, they would have been a party to certain events themselves (e.g., cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant and denials).

Most of the above “witnessable” data was apologetically unappealing and presented obstacles to conversion. What would an early Jewish or gentile prospective convert find attractive about the public humiliation and execution of a messiah/leader? How did all the gory details of this crucifixion better establish Jesus’ role as messiah/leader? How would prospective Jewish converts have reacted to the contempt and rejection of Jesus by Jewish authorities? How would Peter’s denials and the apostles’ flight from Jerusalem have added to the Church’s “good image”? How does Jesus being numbered among criminals (e.g., Barabbas and the criminals crucified with Him) help the Church’s credibility among law-abiding citizens? In almost every case, the presentation of the “witnessable” data seems to undermine the early Christian’s image, credibility, and apologetical appeal. Why would they have presented these data in such detail if they had such potential and real damaging effects? I can think of only one reason. Because they were essentially true.

Can we render the same positive historical judgment about other details in the passion narratives beyond the basic “witnessable” data mentioned above? At this juncture, our pursuit of history becomes far more hazy and complex, because the witnessable data moves from eyewitnesses to catechists and teachers who need to interpret these traumatic (and unappealing) events to converts and potential converts. The natural tendency of such catechists, who were reared within Palestinian Judaism, would have been to use Scripture as a means of interpretation.<ref>The conjecture of some members of the Jesus Seminar that the early narratives of Jesus’ passion were a synthesis of interpreted Scriptures rather than an account of what really happened (Koester 1980, p. 127) is simply backwards. It is far more likely that the earliest traditions recounted what happened, allowing catechists to add sections later to interpret them. As Brown notes, “… [T]here is no evidence in the Pauline formula that scriptural reflection caused the creation of the basic incidents of the passion; far more plausibly it caused the selection and interpretation of certain features in an outline of death, burial, resurrection, and appearance that had been dictated by the early Christian memory of what happened” (Brown 1994(b), p. 16).</ref> Some of these attempts would be easily discernable because they would be introduced by phrases like “this was to fulfill the Scripture….” However, other Scripture passages might be on the lips of Jesus, such as the last words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (citing Psalm 22). The historian must now make the judgment of whether this was placed on the lips of Jesus, or whether Jesus selected these words for Himself (see below, Section II). Obviously, Jesus was accustomed to using Scripture to interpret His life, mission, and even crucifixion as much as, if not more than any later interpreter.

The historian’s task becomes even more complex when these traditions are woven into a single narrative. The editors of such narratives would have to be somewhat creative in synthesizing the various traditions. They might be inclined to embellish sayings or dialogue if that helped with the interpretation of recounted events. They could add thematic and even dramatic emphases to the narrative to further their catechetical or theological objectives. At this juncture, the historian must try to peel back the redactions of editors (especially the Evangelists) in order to get closer to the testimony of eyewitnesses which stand behind the narratives.

Recall from Unit II-B, Section I. that the first task is to get back to the primitive traditions that underlie the Gospel narratives, and then to judge the historicity of these primitive traditions by means of historical criteria and techniques to render judgments within a typical historical range:

<blockquote>…certain, very probable, probable, possible, not impossible. “Certain” has nothing to do with the certitude of mathematics or the physical sciences; it refers to the certitude we have in ordinary experience about the things we encounter or are reported to us in writing or orally.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 22.</ref></blockquote>

The earliest passion narrative is in the Gospel of Mark. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke were both aware of Mark’s narrative and relied on it. As will be seen in the next section, John was not aware of Mark’s narrative, but he made recourse to a primitive tradition(s) very similar to the ones used by Mark. This coincidence is extremely useful to historians because it allows for an application of the criterion of multiple attestation, which, in turn, helps historians make judgments about whether various verses in the narratives can be considered to be part of a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition.

In Section I.B, we will take a brief look at these criteria; in Section II we will consider the historicity of Jesus’ last words in Mark; and in Section III we will attempt to uncover the pre-Marcan tradition in Mark’s narrative, and then render some general historical judgments.

=== Application of the Criteria of Historicity to the Passion Narratives ===

The reader may wish to review the descriptions and examples of the criteria and techniques for determining the historicity of Gospel passages, which are summarized in Unit II-B, Section I. A brief description of three of these criteria will be given with particular examples from the passion narratives: (1) multiple attestation, (2) embarrassment, and (3) coherence with Jewish/Roman customs.

The reader will want to recall two caveats about assessment of historicity mentioned in Unit II-B, Section I. namely:

(a) Criteria for historicity can show the likelihood of a particular Gospel datum being historical, but the absence of criteria for historicity does not show the improbability of a particular Gospel datum being historical; the non-applicability of historical criteria shows only that we have no way of assessing historicity of a Gospel datum either positively or negatively. Thus, far more data in the passion narratives (and in the Gospels, for that matter) is historical than can ever be corroborated through historical criteria.

(b) Too rigorous an application of historical criteria can unnecessarily circumscribe corroboratable data from the Gospels. If one says, “The only data that I will accept as historical are those which are attested to by four out of five independent sources” (say, Mark, Q, special Luke, and John, leaving out only special Matthew), then one will limit oneself to very few Gospel data. If one goes even further, and requires four independent Gospel sources plus an external source (such as Tacitus and Josephus), the Gospel will be reduced to the non-interpolated statements of Tacitus and Josephus. Again, if one claims that multiple attestation is not enough – there must also be corroboration from another historical criterion (say, embarrassment or coherence to Jewish culture, etc.), then the field of acceptable data is correspondingly narrowed. The judicious use of historical criteria by mainstream exegetes such as Raymond Brown, N.T. Wright, and John P. Meier can avert unnecessary proscriptions of Gospel data, and lead to reasonable and responsible corroboration of a large range of Gospel data. We may now proceed to the three historical criteria.

1) Multiple Attestation. Recall that multiple attestation does not occur when there is repetition of passages among the three synoptic Gospels, but rather when there is repetition among the five independent sources (Mark, Q, special Matthew, special Luke, and John). Matthew and Luke relied upon and used the full text of Mark. Q is another source upon which Matthew and Luke both relied. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark in their passion narratives, and so attestation among them is not significant.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 81-82.</ref> However, as will be discussed below, Mark and John were written independently of each other, and it is quite likely that neither one had any knowledge of the other’s narrative. Nevertheless, there are no less than thirty-two similarities between the two narratives. If John is truly not dependent on Mark, then these similarities would auger very strongly for a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) passion tradition(s) upon which both Evangelists relied. This pre-Marcan tradition(s) would bring us closer to eyewitness accounts of the passion and therefore to Jesus’ passion itself.

How can we be so sure that John was not directly reliant on Mark’s narrative? In virtually every part of the Gospel except the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on water, and the passion narratives, John’s material is so distinct from Mark that it is difficult to believe that John relied on Mark unless he wanted to separate himself from, or complement Mark. Most scholars in the latter half of the twentieth century do not believe that there is Johannine dependence on Mark.<ref>Brown details the long list of exegetes who support the Johannine non-dependence theory in 1994(b), p. 76, note 91.</ref>

But what about Johannine dependence on the Marcan passion narrative? As can be seen from the table above, there are so many similarities between Mark and John that the possibility of dependence must be considered. There are two significant factors militating against the dependence conjecture. First, despite the many similarities, there are many more dissimilarities in content and order between the two passion narratives.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 81.</ref> Secondly, many of the differences between Mark and John are inexplicable, if not illogical if John truly depended on Mark.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref> Why would John have put his narrative into a more scattered and strangely ordered state than Mark’s if he depended on Mark? (A love of disorder?) Why would he have omitted details in Mark which would have been of interest to him (e.g., the kiss of Judas; mention of Simon of Cyrene; the sixth and ninth hour when darkness came over the land; the derision by the crowds at the cross; the confusion regarding Elijah – even though this may have been elicited by Jesus’ last words in Mark, which are not mentioned in John; omission of three of Mark’s women witnesses – Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, as well as “other women” in Mark, versus Mary the mother of Jesus, and His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas in John). These omissions and reorderings make little sense if John truly depended on Mark. For this reason, Brown concludes:

<blockquote>Throughout the commentary I shall come again and again to what I regard as a completely illogical result if John knew Mark. For that reason I shall work with the thesis that John wrote his passion narrative independently of Mark’s.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref></blockquote>

So what is the likely scenario for the Marcan and Johannine passion narratives’ development? Brown believes that this occurred in five stages:

a) Eyewitnesses. See the rationale for these eyewitness accounts given above in Section I.A.

b) A basic catechetical outline. A basic sequence of major events was formulated soon after the events of the passion connecting the Last Supper to the arrest, then to the condemnation, then to the crucifixion, then to the burial. This sequence guided the Church’s early proclamations and catechesis as well as Eucharistic memories. This is evident from Pauline and other non-Gospel New Testament writings.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 83.</ref>

c) Pre-Gospel traditions. Widely circulated stories/traditions (probably both oral and written) were formed from eyewitness accounts about particular figures and incidents in the passion narratives (alongside the basic catechetical outline). The stories were not yet connected to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 83-84.</ref>

d) Pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine traditions. The stories and basic outline made their way toward the Marcan and Johannine communities where eventually a pre-Marcan author(s) connected many of the stories to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 84.</ref>

e) The Marcan and Johannine passion narratives. The two Evangelists used two versions of the pre-Marcan tradition along with additional pre-Gospel traditions<ref>As Soards’ table indicates, there were probably several such pre-Gospel traditions along with other narrative traditions. See Soards 1994, pp. 1492-1524.</ref> to formulate the passion narratives we have today.

It is likely that much of the “witnessable” data in the thirty-two common elements in the Marcan and Johannine narratives made their way from eyewitnesses into the pre-Gospel traditions, and then into the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition(s), and then into the Gospel narratives. This would include:

Judas as betrayer bringing soldiers with weapons; Jesus being seized; the high priest’s servant’s ear being cut off; Jesus’ exchange with His apprehenders; Jesus being subjected to a Jewish judicial inquest; Peter’s three denials; the high priest’s maid as first inquirer; Peter warming himself by the fire in the high priest’s courtyard; the bystanders as inquirers in the third denial; the Jewish authorities making accusations against Jesus to Pilate; the crowd asking for the release of Barabbas; Pilate not finding Jesus guilty of a crime; the crowds responding multiple times “Crucify Him”; Pilate having Jesus scourged; Pilate handing Jesus over to be crucified, Jesus being crowned with thorns; Jesus proceeding to Golgotha with a cross, the crucifixion of Jesus; an inscription reading “King of the Jews”; the soldiers dividing Jesus’ garments and casting lots for them; two criminals being crucified with Jesus, one on either side of Him; Mary Magdalene witnessing the crucifixion; the soldiers giving a vinegar-filled sponge to Jesus on the cross; Joseph of Arimathea obtaining permission to bury Jesus; and Joseph of Arimathea wrapping the body of Jesus in a linen cloth, and putting Him in a tomb.<ref>For evidence of the apostles knowing the place of burial and witnessing the empty tomb, see Chapter 4, Section II.B.</ref>

Some of these conclusions (as well as others) are corroborated by three other historical criteria which will be discussed in the forthcoming subsections.

(2) Embarrassment. Recall from Unit II-B, Section I., that if a particular Gospel datum was embarrassing to the Church, or undermined the reputation of the apostles, or cast dispersions upon Jesus, then we can be quite certain that the Evangelists (and the formulators of early traditions) did not invent it. Raymond Brown points to several such data in the passion narratives, for example: Judas (one of the Twelve apostles) betraying Jesus; many of the disciples not remaining with Jesus during the passion; and Peter denying Jesus three times.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> There are other data which are embarrassing, but may have been recounted for other reasons. For example, Jesus praying in the garden, “Remove this cup from me” (Mark 14:36), which looks like Jesus is trying to avoid the cross. Although this could not have been catechetically appealing, someone could conjecture that this passage is meant “to teach Christians that facing death constitutes a trial that may challenge even sincere commitment.”<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> Nevertheless, the datum is still catechetically unappealing, and would have been very risky for the Evangelist or early Church to have invented.

The same holds true for Jesus’ last words in the Gospel of Mark: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” As will be discussed below (Section II), the last words of Jesus do not enjoy multiple attestation because John does not recount them (and places a completely different phrase on the lips of Jesus – “It is finished”). Many scholars believe, however, that this datum is historical because it would have likely been misinterpreted by gentile audiences who might not have known that the phrase (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) refers to the whole of Psalm 22 (a Psalm of God redeeming the sufferings of the just one and bringing salvation through it to all nations and generations). Gentile audiences would have been likely to believe that Jesus was so demoralized that He lost His confidence in God and thought that God was forsaking Him. This misinterpretation would not only have been embarrassing to the Church, but would have led to a theology precisely contrary to what Jesus intended and to what the Church taught. It is difficult to believe that Mark would have invented this phrase as Jesus’ last words, and much more likely that John (like Luke), if he was aware of the phrase from a pre-Johannine tradition, would have dropped it since he was writing for a gentile audience that could have easily misinterpreted it.

(3) Coherence with Jewish/Roman customs. There are three elements which are relevant here: (a) coherence with Jewish customs, (b) Semitisms, and (c) coherence with Roman customs. The last area is somewhat complex<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 19ff.</ref> and not especially germane to the point of this Unit; so I will limit discussion to the first two areas.

(a) ''Correspondence with Jewish custom''. One major point bears mentioning, because it shows Mark’s<ref>The historicity of the Marcan narrative will be assessed throughout the rest of the chapter.</ref> fidelity to the Jewish customs which would have been in effect at the time of Jesus’ passion, namely, Mark’s careful recounting of how the Sanhedrin adhered to the Mishna only when it was in conformity to the Sadducee law. Blinzler notes in this regard:

<blockquote>The fact that Mk 14 and 15 juxtapose items which sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the requirements of the Mishnah was hitherto felt puzzling. The explanation is that the Sanhedrin was at that time bound by the Sadducee law, which agreed with the Mishnah only exceptionally. But if Mk 14 and 15 were a legendary construction, it would be hard to explain how the author, supposedly so uninterested in historical fact, managed to be so accurate with regard to the legal custom: to the unlikely extent, that is, that the actions of the Sanhedrin only agreed with the Mishnah when the provisions of the latter coincided with those of the Sadducees, and not otherwise.<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref></blockquote>

(b) ''Semitisms''. There is one truly remarkable Semitism recorded in the Marcan narrative, namely, Jesus’ final words: “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''.” The Marcan version of the final words is to be preferred over the Matthean one, because it is probable that Matthew tried to “clean up” Mark’s Aramaic citation of the divine name (“''Elōi''”)<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref> with the more proper Hebrew version of it (''“’Ēlî”''), which would have been recited in the synagogue.<ref>Recall that Matthew is writing for a well-educated Jewish audience, and was trying to convince them of the Messiahship of Jesus. He knew the appropriate Hebrew form of the Psalm and changed Mark’s Aramaic “Elōi” to the Hebrew “Ēli.” See Brown 1994(b), pp. 1051-1052.</ref> The fact that Matthew records the Aramaic “''sabachthani''” (instead of the more appropriate Hebrew ''ăzabtānî'') convinces most scholars that Matthew retained remnants of an original Aramaic version.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. Mark’s use of “lama” (instead of the Aramaic “lĕmā”) is not problematic because it was common practice at that time to transliterate the shewa (short “e” vowel) by “a” instead of “e.” See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. See also Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58; and Harrington 1990, p. 628.</ref>

Is Mark’s Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words truly Jesus’ words? It seems likely because much of Mark’s mixed gentile-Jewish audience would not have recognized either the Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the Psalm, which evidently compelled Mark to translate it into Greek. Why would Mark have recorded an Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words which most of his audience would not have understood? Why not simply give the Greek translation without the Aramaic? Furthermore, why give an Aramaic translation of the Psalms instead of the more proper and easily recognizable Hebrew version? The fact that Jesus may well have learned the Psalms in Aramaic and recited the Psalms in Aramaic to His Galilean audience may provide a clue to the origin of the Aramaic version of the Psalm – namely, Jesus Himself.<ref>Though Mark cites Aramaic versions of Old Testament texts elsewhere, this may be out of deference to Jesus rather than Mark’s preference.</ref> The application of other historical criteria to this question will further confirm the origin of these words in Jesus. This will be considered in the following section.

== The Final Words of Jesus ==

Given that Mark’s version of Jesus’ final words is more original than Matthew’s version, we may now return to the question of whether Mark’s version is historical. Though the Aramaic rendition of the final words is a clue to their origin in Jesus, it is not definitive because Luke gives a different version of the final words (“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” – Luke 23:46), and so does John (“It is finished” – John 19:30). Why should Mark be preferred to Luke and John?

With respect to Luke’s version of the final words, there are four reasons to suspect that Mark’s version is closer to Jesus’ own. First, Luke was aware of Mark’s version of the final words, and would have had to have intentionally changed them. Secondly, Luke prefers to shift the focus from Jesus’ feelings of desolation to Jesus’ trust. Instead of Psalm 22:2 (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”), Luke portrays Jesus reciting Psalm 31:6 (“Into your hands I commend my spirit”), which effects this shift in focus. Luke’s preference to portray Jesus as confident (and eliminate any hint of spiritual disturbance) is evidenced in his elimination of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ anxiety in the garden of Gethsemane (“My soul is very sorrowful unto death”). It is much easier to believe that Luke has continued his redactional policy of eliminating Marcan references to Jesus’ anxiety than to believe that Luke’s version of Jesus’ words is more original. Thirdly, Luke substitutes “Father” for the Psalmist’s reference to “God,” which is very likely a redaction. Finally, Luke selects a Psalm passage which speaks to Jesus’ Spirit, which is a clear focus of his Gospel and an allusion to the Holy Spirit, which is the focus of the Acts of the Apostles.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1067.</ref> For this reason, most scholars believe that the Lukan version is a redaction of the Marcan original.

What about John’s version of the last words (“It is finished”)? Unlike Luke, John was not aware of the Marcan passion narrative, yet there is significant evidence that Mark and John borrowed from a common pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition (see above, Section I.B.1). Does John’s very different version of Jesus’ final words imply that the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition did not have any version of Jesus’ final words (and that both Mark and John invented their own in the absence of a more original version)? The answer is probably ‘no,’ because of light shed upon the question by the historical criterion of embarrassment.

Recall from Section I.B.2 that John’s predominately gentile audience could have misinterpreted Jesus’ last words as recorded by Mark. Indeed, as we just saw, Luke certainly thought this was a possibility for his gentile audience. The majority of John’s audience would probably not have recognized Psalm 22 in the Aramaic expression, “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani'',” and they would not have known that this first line referred to the entire Psalm. Therefore, they would not have known that Jesus’ last words were a prayer of trust in God which would lead not only to the vindication of His suffering, but to universal salvation for all humankind for all time (see below in this section).<ref>As Brown notes, “Perhaps the most frequently offered argument for softening the dour import of the Mark/Matt death cry is based on the general context of Ps 22. Jesus cites the opening verse of a psalm that continues for thirty more verses. By the end the psalmist will take a positive view: Rejoicing, he will proclaim that he has survived the danger and that after all God did not spurn him or ‘turn His face away’ (Ps 22:25). Accordingly some would invoke a hermeneutic principle that a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context” (Brown 1994(b), pp. 1049-1050).</ref> Thus (as the Johannine author very probably perceived), they would have interpreted these words to mean that Jesus felt abandoned by the Father, which is precisely the opposite of what the Psalm intends, what the early Church believed, and what Jesus intended. Not only would this have been confusing and misleading to gentile members of the early Church; it would have been apologetically unappealing and embarrassing to the Church in gentile regions. Thus, John, like Luke, would have had everything to lose (and nothing to gain) by retaining these words on the lips of the dying Jesus.

Therefore, there is considerable reason to believe prima facie that John, like Luke, would have been inclined to change Jesus’ dying words from those of Psalm 22 to something less misleading and more consistent with Jesus’ intention and the belief of the early Church. He decides upon the simple phrase, “It is finished,” which refers to Jesus’ project of redemption, the completion of which John has been pointing to throughout the “Book of Glory” (chapters 13-21).

This leads to the obvious question of why Mark (who was addressing a mixed gentile-Jewish audience) would have retained Psalm 22 as Jesus’ final words when many of his audience members would have been likely to misinterpret them in the same way as John’s and Luke’s audiences. Before responding, it is worth noting that this question does not apply to Matthew with the same force as Mark because the majority of Matthew’s audience was Jewish. Many in that audience would have been educated enough to see Psalm 22 through Matthew’s Hebraic version of it, and many would have understood that the first line of the Psalm referred to the whole Psalm. Brown points to a well-known hermeneutical principle in this regard:

<blockquote>…a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 1050.

In the case of Psalm 22, the context speaks of trust in God, vindication, and salvation for the world.

However, the above hermeneutical principle would not have applied to the gentile members of Mark’s audience; so why did he retain these words? I think there is only one plausible explanation – namely, that they are in fact the final words of Jesus. It would be inconceivable to suggest that Mark invented these words to place on the lips of Jesus given the probability of their misinterpretation (with significant negative consequences) by a large segment of his audience. Therefore, it seems likely that Mark received these words from either a pre-Marcan tradition or from Peter (for whom Mark was interpreter). In either case, Mark must have believed that these words were truly those of Jesus, and decided to retain them in their Aramaic form precisely for this reason. There does not appear to be any other reasonable motive for his taking the risk of significant misinterpretation and apologetically unappealing embarrassment.

So if we consider “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''” to be the dying words of the historical Jesus, and if we apply Brown’s hermeneutical principle to Jesus Himself (implying that Jesus expected informed listeners to “be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context”), then it seems likely that the dying Jesus was praying the whole of Psalm 22 to His Father while giving His listeners an insight into how He interpreted His sacrificial death through that prayer. Mally notes in this regard:

<blockquote>As a quotation of an OT Ps, it can hardly be taken literally as an expression of real despair or dereliction. Rather, Jesus applies to himself an OT passage that sums up the suffering of the upright individual who turns to his God in the stress of hostile opposition and its ensuing depression. In using the Ps, Jesus does not express the feeling that his life’s work has failed and that God has therefore abandoned him; he identifies himself with a biblical precedent, the persecuted upright man ''who has trusted in Yahweh'', and found in him ''the source of his consolation and ultimate triumph'' [italics mine].<ref>Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58. See also J. Gnilka 1959, pp. 294-97.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, Jesus’ reference to Psalm 22 is an expression of trust and confidence in the Father that His suffering will result in the triumph of His mission. As noted in the previous Unit, that mission is actualized for all future generations through the gift of His presence and unconditional redeeming Love in the Eucharist.

A closer look at the Psalm may give a deep insight into the panoply of Jesus’ thoughts and feelings at the time of His crucifixion. The Psalm may be divided into three parts:

(1) “2-22, the complaint, with repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence (4-6; 10-11),”<ref>Murphy 1968, p. 579.</ref>

(2) “23-32, thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share (23-27),<ref>Murphy 1968, p. 579.</ref>” and

(3) the worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh (28-32).

Each part will be presented in turn.

(1) Complaint, repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

Why are you so far from saving me,

so far from the words of my groaning?

Oh my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,

and by night, but I have no rest.

Then, the psalmist shifts perspective as he does several times throughout the Psalm, and introduces the theme of God’s holiness and grandeur, worthy of praise and trust:

Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;

you are the praise of Israel.

In you our fathers put their trust;

they trusted and you delivered them.

They cried to you and were saved;

in you they trusted and were not disappointed.

The psalmist then turns back to the deplorable nature of his condition:

But I am a worm and not a man,

scorned by men and despised by the people.

All who see me mock me;

they hurl insults, shaking their heads:

“He trusted in the Lord;

let the Lord rescue him.

Let Him deliver him

since He delights in him.

The uncanny resemblance between the psalmist’s words and the events taking place around Jesus give one pause. After describing the inauthentic words of the crowd (who believe that the Lord will not fulfill the trust of the psalmist), the psalmist shifts back to his fervent trust in the Lord:

Yet you brought me out of the womb;

you made me trust in you;

even at my mother’s breast.

From birth I was cast upon you;

from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

Having renewed his trust in the Lord, the psalmist makes an earnest petition for help:

Do not be far from me,

for trouble is near

and there is no one to help.

Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.

Roaring lions tearing their prey

open their mouths wide against me.

Then the psalmist uses the same words seen in the suffering servant song (Is 52:13-53:12) and Jesus’ eucharistic words:

I am poured out like water,

and all my bones are out of joint.

My heart has turned to wax;

it has melted away within me.

My strength is dried up like a potsherd,

and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;

you lay me in the dust of death.

In continuing his description of his suffering to Yahweh, the psalmist again describes events uncannily similar to Jesus’ crucifixion:

Dogs have surrounded me;

a band of evil men has encircled me,

they have pierced my hands and my feet.

I can count all my bones;

people stare and gloat over me.

They divide my garments among them

and cast lots for my clothing.

The psalmist makes another earnest petition for God’s help and consolation:

But you, oh Lord, be not far off;

oh my Strength, come quickly to help me.

Deliver my life from the sword,

my precious life from the power of the dogs.

Rescue me from the mouth of the lion;

save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

(2) Thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share. The psalmist then reaffirms his trust and confidence in the Lord, as if to say that he will live beyond his current persecution to bring the praise of the Lord’s name to all who fear him:

I will declare your name to my brothers;

in the congregation I will praise you.

You who fear the Lord, praise him!

All you descendents of Jacob, honor him!

Revere him, all you descendents of Israel!

The psalmist then gives his reason for his confidence in God, and his belief in his future:

For he has not despised or disdained

the suffering of the afflicted one;

he has not hidden his face from him

but has listened to his cry for help.

From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;

before those who fear you I will fulfill my vows.

The psalmist then moves into a prophetic, and even messianic tone, speaking of signs of the new Jerusalem; messianic signs which Jesus says, when quoting the prophet Isaiah, are being fulfilled in Himself:<ref>See Matt. 11:5ff and Lk 4:18ff, referring to Is 61:1ff.</ref>

The poor will eat and be satisfied;

they who seek the Lord will praise Him –

may your hearts live forever.

(3) The worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh. The psalmist then confidently suggests universality of salvation arising out of Yahweh’s mercy:

All the ends of the earth

will remember and turn to the Lord,

and all the families of the nations

will bow down before Him,

for dominion belongs to the Lord

and He rules over the nations.

The psalmist then suggests that Yahweh’s salvation will extend to all those who are raised on high, and those who are in the grave:

All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;

all who go down to the dust will kneel before Him –

those who cannot keep themselves alive.

Posterity will serve Him;

future generations will be told about the Lord.

They will proclaim His righteousness

to a people yet unborn –

for He has done it.

This Psalm on the dying lips of Jesus is quite remarkable. In the midst of recounting events quite similar to His crucifixion, the Psalm expresses His mind and heart as He cries out for help, as He is overwhelmingly confident in that help, and as He sees the ultimate result of that help in a salvation that will not only reach to the ends of the earth, but to all future generations on the earth, and even to those who are raised on high and those who “go down to the dust.” Thus, the Psalm connects Jesus’ torment with His confidence in the Father as He looks beyond His suffering, beyond Jerusalem, beyond the present age, and beyond earthly existence, to a redemption which will take hold in the life of God Himself. Jesus’ eucharistic words are not only consonant with those of the psalm, they give the psalm’s words ultimate meaning and reality; for they provide the vehicle through which Jesus’ person and love will save universally and eternally.

== The Passion of Jesus in Mark and in Pre-Marcan Tradition (14:32-15:37) ==

Mark gives us the oldest account of the passion. Though it tries to reconcile the passion with Old Testament prophesy, its primary objective is not apologetical. Rather, it intends to give an account of the sufferings freely endured by Jesus and “to show clearly what persons and what authorities were responsible for the death of Jesus and the extent of their guilt.” Mark believes that this is Jesus’ central salvific act and uses it to frame the rest of his Gospel. As Blinzler notes:

Mark already had before him such a relatively fixed account from oral tradition, as the insertion of 14:3-9 shows, and he enlarged it with further matter, e.g., with “memoirs” of Peter (apart from 14:3-9) such as the account of the denial (14:54, 66-72). …[T]he Gospel of Mark has been called, not unjustly, “a passion-narrative with a long introduction” (M. Kähler).

As noted above, there is substantial New Testament and extra-testamental evidence for the historicity of Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion. Many other facts surrounding the crucifixion are also very probably historical. By using the criteria and techniques elucidated above (Sections I.A and B), we can first ascertain what material from Mark’s passion narrative probably came from a pre-Marcan tradition, and the material from that tradition which could have come from eyewitness accounts. Scholars have worked diligently on these tasks for over a century, and it is beyond the scope of this study to report comprehensively on their findings. My objective is only to give a report about where the preponderance of scholarly opinion lies with regard to an early pre-Marcan tradition and the historicity of the facts within that tradition.

There is a strong likelihood that Mark made recourse to a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which he redacted and stylized to give coherence and meaning to this exceedingly significant event for the Christian Church. There is a wide variety of opinion about which verses originated with this pre-Marcan tradition(s) and which ones originated with Mark. Marion Soards has gathered a tremendous amount of data from 34 scholars representing a wide range of theological and exegetical perspectives. I have taken the liberty of presenting the Revised Standard Version of the Marcan passion narrative, and indicating the likelihood that each of its verses originated with a pre-Marcan tradition or with Mark himself according to the following key:

Bold A large majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Italics A small majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Underline The scholarly community is about evenly split on whether this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition, or with Mark himself.

Normal font The majority of the scholarly community believes that this verse originated with Mark (and is therefore a Marcan redaction).

Mark Chapter 14

32 They went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and He said to His disciples, “Sit here, while I pray.” 33 And He took with Him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. 34 And He said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch.” 35 And going a little farther, He fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. 36 And He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt.” And He came and found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? 38 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 39 And again He went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 And again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer Him. 41 And He came the third time, and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”

43 And immediately, while He was still speaking Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I shall kiss is the man; seize Him and lead Him away safely.” And when he came, he went up to Him at once, and said, “Master!” And he kissed Him. And they laid hands on Him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” And they all forsook Him, and fled.

51 And a young man followed Him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

53 And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. And Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death; but they found none. 56 For many bore false witness against Him, and their witness did not agree. 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against Him, saying, “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet not even so did their testimony agree. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you? 61 But He was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked Him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”Note 63 And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard His blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned Him as deserving death. 65 And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to strike Him, saying to Him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received Him with blows.

66 And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came; 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway. 69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” 70 But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.” 71 But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.” 72 And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

Mark Chapter 15

1 And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. And Pilate asked Him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And He answered him “You have said so.” And the chief priests accused Him of many things. And Pilate again asked Him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered.

Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they asked. And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. And he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered Him up. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” And they cried out again, “Crucify Him.” And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him.” So, Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

And the soldiers led Him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. And they clothed Him in a purple cloak, and placing a crown of thorns they put it on Him. And they began to salute Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck His head with a reed, and spat upon Him, and they knelt down in homage to Him. And when they had mocked Him, they stripped Him of the purple cloak, and put His own clothes on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him.

And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry His cross. And they brought Him to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). And they offered Him wine mingled with myrrh; but He did not take it. And they crucified Him, and divided His garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour, when they crucified Him. And the inscription of the charge against Him read, “The King of the Jews.” And with Him they crucified two robbers, one on His right and one on His left. And those who passed by derided Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 So also the chief priests mocked Him to one another with the scribes, saying, “He saved others; He cannot save Himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with Him also reviled Him.

And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” Which means, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Behold, He is calling Elijah.” And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to Him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down.” And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.

38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing Him, saw that He thus breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the son of God!”

There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, 41 who, when He was in Galilee, followed Him, and ministered to Him; and also many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 And Pilate wondered if He were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether He was already dead. 45 And when he learned from the centurion that He was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 And he bought a linen shroud, and taking Him down, wrapped Him in the linen shroud, and laid Him in a tomb which has been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where He was laid.

*****

As can be seen from the above, most scholars consider the vast majority of the passion narrative to have come from a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which would presumably include some accounts from Peter. Notice that the probable Marcan redactions are not concerned with the torment, crucifixion, and death of Jesus. They are meant to explain who is primarily guilty (i.e., Judas, the chief priests, and the council), who is less culpable (i.e., Pilate), and who is ironically the prophetic spokesman of the meaning of the passion (i.e., the centurion). They also center on Mark’s interpretation of why Jesus was accused of blasphemy (i.e., identifying Himself with the eschatological Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14). If these elements are “bracketed,” the passion story retains its poignant central core, which likely represents the traditions which Mark received as he prepared his narrative.

The question of whether the pre-Marcan tradition is faithful to accounts from eyewitnesses and earwitnesses is more difficult to ascertain. One cannot assume that a verse was witnessed simply because it was included in a pre-Marcan tradition. As was made clear in Section I.B, the pre-Marcan tradition relied on pre-Gospel traditions and stories, and had developments and accretions arising out of catechetical and pedagogical concerns. Nevertheless, it is likely that the pre-Marcan tradition(s) contained a considerable amount of “witnessable” and witnessed data for the reasons mentioned in Section I above – particularly as regards the betrayal by Judas, the arrest, a Jewish judicial inquest, Peter’s denials, the involvement of Pontius Pilate, the involvement of Jewish authorities in accusing Jesus, the release of Barabbas, the involvement of Roman soldiers, and facts surrounding the crucifixion (e.g., being scourged, being crowned with thorns, the vinegary wine, being hanged on a cross, the inscription on the cross, and the two other criminals). I would also include Jesus’ final words as recounted in Mark’s Gospel (for the reasons mentioned in the previous section), and the fact of Jesus’ burial (for the reasons mentioned in Chapter 4, Section II.B). A more detailed list of other “witnessable” data which is common to both the Marcan and Johannine traditions may be found above in Section I.B. Additional details about the historicity of particular verses in the pre-Marcan tradition(s) may be found in the “Analysis” sections following each major part of Raymond Brown’s The Death of the Messiah.

An appreciation of the significance of the passion, particularly as regards the central question of this book (i.e., “Is Jesus Emmanuel?”), cannot be attained through exegetical and historical analysis alone. Though this analysis is necessary in order to understand the meaning and reality of the events surrounding Jesus’ death, it almost blocks out the heart’s reasons to give greater clarity to the mind’s reasons. I can’t speak for you, the reader, but when I am applying criteria and techniques of historicity to particular texts, I am not being flooded with inspiration and love; and so I find it necessary to move to the domain of contemplation after I have satisfied myself about the historicity of the essential elements of Jesus’ passion. Contemplation allows one to be moved in the heart – to be struck with delight, or wonder, or amazement; to perceive beauty; to exalt; to be moved with gratitude; to feel awe and glory; to be inspired; to be moved by what is just and good and generous, and above all, to be moved by love – unconditional Love. Thus, contemplation is essential to the appreciation of Jesus’ passion, which is above all an act of incredible love.

== Contemplation on the Passion ==

The passion narratives open upon a virtually limitless depth of love, which can best be gleaned through contemplation. As explained in the previous chapter, Jesus views His passion as the culmination of His mission, the concretization of His unconditional Love in history, and His gift of unconditional Love to the world for all eternity (through the Eucharist). The reader’s time will be well spent on considering His loving intention, attitude, and feeling in His gift of self in the events of the passion.

One successful method of entering into contemplation is recommended by Saint Ignatius of Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises. It entails entering into the scene, considering the personalities and dispositions of people in the scene, and focusing on the heart of Jesus manifest through the people and events in the scene.

In light of the above, one may want to use the following structure to contemplate on the passion. After reading a particular passage at least twice, first consider various physical aspects of the scene, then:

• the persons in the scene along with Jesus, then
• Jesus’ attitude toward the people in the scene (recalling that Jesus’ attitudes are reflected in the beatitudes – humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, merciful, peacemaking, etc.), then
• Jesus’ relationship to the Father (applying Psalm 22, the Suffering Servant song – Isaiah 52:13-53:12, and Jesus’ prayer in the Garden), then
• Jesus’ universal salvific intent (applying the simile of the paschal lamb and the words “This is my body,” “the blood of the covenant,” “for all,” and “Do this in remembrance of me” – see Chapter 9, Section II.B), then
• Jesus’ love for the people in the scene (including His persecutors), His love of the Father, and His love of humankind.

You might then look at Jesus’ acceptance of anguish for the sake of love. In light of this, you might consider Jesus’ love for you and others; His hopes and aspirations for you and for others. Accept that love, accept His wanting to be your paschal lamb, sin-offering (scapegoat), and blood of the covenant (to guarantee eternal life with Him and the Father); and then, express to God what you desire.

After you have completed your contemplation, you might want to ask the recurrent questions in this book: Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this for my sake and the sake of all? Is Jesus Christ His Emmanuel? If so, then the unconditional Love of God is real and has been fully actualized in the world. That unconditional Love is unconditional light in the darkness, unconditional hope amidst dejection, unconditional resurrection amidst the cross, and unconditional redemption amidst our sin. It is unconditional life unto unconditional joy in the unconditional love of the triune God.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Passion

2015-01-08T17:26:05Z

David Persyn: /* The Historicity of the Passion */ Footnotes and Formats

Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith – Jesus

Unit II. M

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Passion

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-M_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Passion.3F | Return to the Table of Contents]]

'''Introduction'''

The Eucharist is not only Jesus’ definitive interpretation of His passion and death; it is also the definitive vehicle through which He communicates His presence and love to all future generations. So, how can our insight into the preciousness of this gift be deepened through the examination of Jesus’ passion? From a contemplative point of view, the possibilities are considerable for deepening the heart’s awareness of the love of Christ. As one considers Jesus’ willing acceptance of each part of the passion as a gift of self (love) for all humankind, one begins to affectively (not just intellectually) appreciate what unconditional Love really is; and when one sees this Love through the eyes, the face, the mind, the heart of the gentle Lamb willingly led to the slaughter, one begins to receive an answer to the questions: “Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this?” and “Is Jesus His Emmanuel?”

Since my intention here is to induce contemplation (that is, prayerful reflection on the texts of the passion), I will discuss only three important propaedeutic points: (1) an overview of the historicity of the passion narratives (Section I)<ref>Any reader interested in a detailed exegesis of the passion narratives should make recourse to Raymond Brown’s comprehensive work The Death of the Messiah [Brown 1994(b)]. </ref>, (2) an analysis of Jesus’ final words on the cross (Section II), and (3) a presentation of the pre-Marcan tradition and Mark’s passion narrative (Section III). The reader may then want to return to the previous Unit on the Eucharist to probe with contemplative insight into the meaning and reality of Jesus’ love.

== The Historicity of the Passion ==

It may be observed from the outset that Jesus’ plan to redeem the world was anything but apologetical or popular, for the idea of a suffering Messiah was thought to be a curse by His Jewish and gentile contemporaries (Dt 21:23, Gal 3:13, I Cor 12:3).<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 350.</ref> Nevertheless, Jesus, knowing what would befall Him,<ref>This is clear from the pre-planning implicit in the institution of the Eucharist, and also from the multiple predictions of His passion (Mt 16:13-23, 17:22-23, 20:17-19; Mk 8:27-33, 9:30-32, 10:32-34; Lk 9:18-22, 9:43-45, and 18:31-34).</ref> proceeded resolutely toward Jerusalem. In light of our discussion of the Eucharist, His plan had but one objective: to join with the Father in an act of unconditional self-gift (love) for the salvation of humankind. Even though Jesus was convinced of His vindication and resurrection (see Unit II-L, Section II), He must have known that the crucifixion would be viewed as a scandal, and used against Him by His critics. Nevertheless, He viewed the passion as being indispensable to His mission. Why? Because He associated the passion with gift of self, which, as is clear from His institution of the Eucharist, He associated with unconditional Love. One can see this kind of love mirrored in parents who willingly endure humiliation, and even place themselves in harm’s way, in order to protect the lives and future of their children. Jesus viewed Himself as responsible (as shepherd and brother) for all of us who were to become, through Him, the Father’s adopted children.

Before beginning a formal analysis of the historicity of the passion narratives, we will want to examine a contention of Dominic Crossan (of the Jesus Seminar) who throws the historicity of these narratives into question by suggesting that they are derivatives of the (Gnostic) gospel of Peter. The gospel of Peter is a narrative of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. It consists of sixty verses and has been dated to Papyri originating in about 200 AD.<ref>See Koester 1990, pp. 216-17.</ref> Crossan ignores the fact that there is no evidence for the gospel of Peter prior to 200 AD, and makes a radical suggestion that it was the only source from which the passion narratives of the four canonical Gospels were derived:

<blockquote>Composed by the fifties C.E., and possibly at Sepphoris in Galilee, it [the Cross Gospel in the Gospel of Peter] is the single source of the intracanonical passion narratives.<ref>See Crossan 1991, p. 429. See also Crossan 1985, pp. 132-34.</ref> <ref>Quarles 2006, p. 119.</ref></blockquote>

Charles Quarles sums up Crossan’s conclusions from his radical contention (which does not enjoy wide acceptance in the scholarly community<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 106.</ref>) as follows:

<blockquote>The GP is more a product of the author’s creative literary imagination than a reflection of eyewitness accounts of actual events. Thus, if the GP is the single source for the canonical narratives of the Passion and resurrection, the canonical Gospels are unreliable revisions of an unreliable tradition. None of the Gospels could then be trusted to provide historically reliable testimony about the final events in the life of the historical Jesus.</blockquote>

Quarles shows this claim to be virtually untenable in the light of textual analysis. First, Crossan contends that the parallels between Matthew and the gospel of Peter regarding the Pharisees gathering before Pilate and expressing concern about a staged resurrection on the third day, the guarding and sealing of the tomb of Jesus, and the description of the Jews as “the people” shows Matthean dependence upon the gospel of Peter. Quarles shows precisely the opposite after studying the redactional tendencies of Matthew and the gospel of Peter. Following Gundry,<ref>Gundry 1994, p. 584.</ref> Quarles shows that these texts are a series of “Mattheanisms,” particularly the use of the words “disciple,” “steal,” and “''mēpote''” – “lest” (except once where the gospel of Peter is clearly following Matthew in a subjunctive construction). He quotes John P. Meier by way of conclusion:

<blockquote>When it comes to who is dependent on whom, all the signs point to Matthew’s priority…. The clause is a tissue of Matthean vocabulary and style, a vocabulary and style almost totally absent from the rest of the Gospel of Peter.<ref>Meier 1991, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

Secondly, there are doctrines and sayings in the gospel of Peter which do not occur in the canonical Gospels or the New Testament. For example, Jesus’ preaching to those who have fallen asleep (to those who have died). Quarles notes in this regard:

<blockquote>If the emerging consensus of interpretation regarding 1Peter is correct, the presence of the reference to preaching to those who sleep in the Gospel of Peter suggests that the document was composed no earlier than the first quarter of the second century.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 112.</ref></blockquote>

The same holds true for other sayings, such as the “Lord’s day,” which is mentioned in the Gospel of Peter 9:35 and 12:50, but only appears in the New Testament in the Book of Revelations (approximately 90 AD). The Gospels used the more primitive expression “the first day of the week.”<ref>See Quarles 2006, p. 113.</ref>

Thirdly, the description of the resurrection in the gospel of Peter is “fantastic and quite at odds with the descriptions that appear in the canonical Gospels”:

<blockquote>…as the three men exited the tomb, a cross, apparently floating through the air, followed them. …[T]he cross was capable of speech. A heavenly voice asked, “Did you preach to those who are sleeping?” and the cross replied, “Yes.”<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 117.</ref></blockquote>

We have already seen (with respect to Jesus’ miracles) the tendency of the later Gnostic gospels to move from the balanced and mature perspective of the canonical Gospels to an exaggerated, fantastic, and immature perspective (see Unit II-G, Section II). The gospel of Peter here is no different than the gospels of Thomas and Philip.

Fourthly, the “apologetical case” for Jesus’ resurrection (responding to Jewish objections at the time) is more developed in the gospel of Peter than in the Gospel of Matthew, and

<blockquote>no sensible explanation for Matthew’s elimination of helpful apologetic material available to him from the Cross Gospel exists. This suggests that the author of the gospel of Peter depended on Matthew’s Gospel but revised it in order to present a more compelling case for the resurrection.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 118.</ref></blockquote>

For these and other reasons, Quarles (along with Meier) hold Crossan’s position to be untenable , giving rise to the conclusion:

<blockquote>…[I]f the canonical Gospels are the earliest record of the Passion and resurrection, as this paper suggests, and if these contain the narratives based on eyewitness accounts, as the earliest church testimony affirms and as the internal evidence suggests, the earliest narratives of Jesus’ death and resurrection may be viewed as prophecy fulfilled rather than prophecy historicized, and speculation that Jesus was not even buried, much less raised, is groundless.<ref>Quarles 2006, p. 120.</ref></blockquote>

We may now proceed to the question of the historicity of the passion narratives. Though all four Gospels portray the passion through narratives aimed at different audiences, and these narratives have different styles and redactional emphases, it does not mean that they do not possess an extensive historical core.<ref>According to Brown: “I see no need for such a dichotomy between acknowledging the narrative form of the passion and maintaining a respect for historical issues” (Brown 1994(b), p. 14).</ref>

There are remarkable agreements among the four lengthy passion narratives, but this does not automatically constitute multiple attestation because Matthew and Luke saw and made recourse to the Marcan narrative. Nevertheless, as will be explained below, Mark and John did not have knowledge of each other’s narratives, and so the many similarities between these two narratives constitute a very strong form of multiple attestation. Before considering this window into the historicity of the passion narratives, we must consider two more fundamental questions which are elucidated by Raymond Brown in his extensive two-volume analysis of the passion entitled: ''The Death of the Messiah''<ref>Brown 1994(b).</ref> :

(1) Did Jesus’ disciples have access to the data recounted in the various passion narratives? (Section I.A), and

(2) How can the criteria of historicity be applied to the passion narratives? (Section I.B)

=== Did Jesus’ Disciples Have Access to the Data Recounted in the Various Passion Narratives? ===

It is not my intention to respond to the extreme skepticism of Koester,<ref>Koester 1980, p. 127.</ref> Crossan,<ref>Crossan 1988, p. 405.</ref> and other members of the Jesus Seminar. Raymond Brown has done this quite well.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), pp. 13-24. See also the “Analysis” sections of each major part of his work, in which historicity is discussed.</ref> My objective is to briefly use the criteria of historicity<ref>See Chapter 6, Section III. Also Brown 1994(b), pp. 22-24.</ref> to uncover those parts of the narratives which may be reasonably and responsibly shown to have come from an early Palestinian passion tradition,<ref>Raymond Brown accepts the existence of such a tradition which may have been linked to eyewitnesses. He qualifies this scholarly opinion as follows: “I have accepted the likely existence of history and tradition behind the heavily scripturally reflective, kerygmatically oriented, and theologically organized PNs [passion narratives] of the Gospels…” (Brown 1994(b), p. 22).</ref> and which may also be linked to the Jesus of history.

Jesus’ crucifixion is so well attested by both Christian and non-Christian sources that it is as close to certain as any historical datum from the first century can be. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus makes explicit reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Annals (15.44) when speaking about Nero’s blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome:

<blockquote>Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.<ref>Cited in Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the authenticity of this passage, but the majority of mainstream scholars concur with Kirby that:

<blockquote>The most persuasive case is made by those who maintain that Tacitus made use of a first century Roman document concerning the nature and status of the Christian religion. As to the reliability of that source, following normal historical practice, it is prudently assumed to be accurate until demonstrated otherwise. The reference from Tacitus constitutes prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus.<ref>Kirby 2006.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus’ crucifixion is also attested by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Recall from Unit II-F, Section I. that Josephus was writing for a Roman audience in about 93 AD, and that there are Christian interpolations in the text of Antiquities in which his testimony to Jesus is contained. As noted in Unit II-F, many mainstream scholars consider the italicized sections in the testimony cited below to be authentic:

<blockquote>''Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.'' He was [the] Christ. ''And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,'' those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. ''And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.''<ref>Josephus 1965, 18:3.3.</ref></blockquote>

Again, this non-Christian testimony to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is explicit and highly probable. There are other non-Christian testimonies to Jesus’ crucifixion, but they are far less significant than those of Tacitus and Josephus.

In addition to non-Christian testimony, Jesus’ crucifixion is attested by almost every New Testament source (e.g., the four Gospels, Acts, most of the Pauline letters, 1Peter, and the Letter to the Hebrews), it is recorded in virtually all of the primitive kerygmas,<ref>Very early proclamations of the faith recorded in Acts and the Pauline letters. For a list see Chapter 3, Section I.A.</ref> and is central to the early Church’s interpretation of Jesus and itself. Finally, one is confronted with the questions: “Why would the early Church have given detailed descriptions of the public humiliation and execution of their Messiah and Lord if it had not been historically true? What would have been the point of recounting a story that undermined its apologetical appeal?” In light of this, the crucifixion of Jesus within its proper setting (i.e., a public execution entailing an arrest, trial, and conviction) must be considered incontestable.

What about the details surrounding Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion? Are the events and details recounted in the passion narratives also historically accurate? Some critics, such as Dominic Crossan, believe that it is impossible to say because (as he gratuitously asserts) there were no eyewitnesses to the event:

<blockquote>It seems to me most likely that those closest to Jesus knew almost nothing about the details of the event. They knew only that Jesus had been crucified, outside Jerusalem, at the time of Passover, and probably through some conjunction of imperial and sacerdotal authority.<ref>Crossan 1988 ,p. 405</ref></blockquote>

Brown demolishes Crossan’s contention by pointing to a seemingly obvious and vexing difficulty:

<blockquote>[Crossan] does not explain why he thinks this “most likely,” granted the well-founded tradition that those closest to Jesus had followed him for a long period of time, day and night. Did they suddenly lose all interest, not even taking the trouble to inquire about what must have been a most traumatic moment of their lives?<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 15-16.</ref></blockquote>

Brown explains the implications of his question through a series of virtually unassailable historical judgments:

<blockquote>Yet as we move back from the Gospel narratives to Jesus himself, ultimately there were eyewitnesses and earwitnesses who were in a potion to know the broad lines of Jesus’ passion. He was accompanied in his ministry by a group of disciples known as the Twelve, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the arrest of Jesus was the occasion of his being separated from them. It is inconceivable that they showed no concern about what happened to Jesus after the arrest. True, there is no Christian claim that they were present during the legal proceedings against him, Jewish or Roman; but it is absurd to think that some information was not available to them about why Jesus has hanged on a cross. The whole purpose of crucifixion, after all, was to publicize that certain crimes would be severely punished. (That is the sense in which I include “earwitness”: hearing what was publicly said about the condemnation of Jesus.) The crucifixion itself was public, and nothing suggests that the burial was secret.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 14.</ref></blockquote>

Attempts to present scenarios contrary to Brown’s in this regard truly verge on the illogical, unreasonable, and inconceivable; and they betray motives other than that of seeking the truth.

Furthermore, there is remarkable correspondence between the passion narrative and the Gospel of John, and recent archeological evidence uncovered by Charlesworth and von Wahlde which strongly suggests that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Von Wahlde summarizes his findings as follows:

<blockquote>The significance of this [archeological evidence] for our appreciation of the historical accuracy of John’s reports is considerable. Not only does John provide several details present in the Synoptics (the name of the place [Golgotha], its location outside the city walls), but he goes on to provide more detail than the other Gospels…details not essential to the narrative. If the presence of such details at first makes verification more difficult, the fact that they are corroborated by archaeological and other means [at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem<ref>Charlesworth reports: “Archaeologists have also found the remains of a city wall to the east of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It was built sometime before Herod the Great. What is surprising is the discovery that the present city wall to the west of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the ‘third wall’ built by Agrippa between 41 and 44. This wall reveals that Golgotha was outside Jerusalem’s walls before the early forties, and Jesus was crucified on Golgotha in 30 (or perhaps 33)” (Charlesworth 2006(b), p. 31; italics mine).</ref>] demonstrates not only that the Johannine account contains remarkably accurate knowledge but also that the Gospel is in fact able to serve as a source of unique knowledge about the crucifixion and burial of Jesus.<ref>von Wahlde 2006, p. 582. See also Charlesworth 2006(b), pp. 31-37.</ref></blockquote>

This archaeological corroboration of John’s passion narrative also suggests the presence of eyewitnesses who were not only aware of the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, but also reported it to the authors of the earliest passion traditions.

Presuming, then, that there were eyewitnesses, and that they would have wanted to see or hear as much as possible about the One who was central to their lives, what could they have witnessed? They could have witnessed Jesus’ betrayal by Judas and His apprehension by the Jewish authorities. They could have also heard about any public declaration of Jesus’ charge, conviction, and sentence. They could have known who was involved in the charging, convicting, and sentencing. They could have had knowledge of public events surrounding the conviction (e.g., the release of Barabbas, or Jewish authorities stirring up the crowd). They could have witnessed the carrying of the cross and any outward signs of persecution or torture that might have preceded His journey to Golgotha (e.g., scourging or crowning with thorns). They could have witnessed the crucifixion itself, the public inscription of Jesus’ offense, the people crucified with Jesus, and they could have heard His final words, seen His death, and witnessed His burial. Evidently, they would have been a party to certain events themselves (e.g., cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant and denials).

Most of the above “witnessable” data was apologetically unappealing and presented obstacles to conversion. What would an early Jewish or gentile prospective convert find attractive about the public humiliation and execution of a messiah/leader? How did all the gory details of this crucifixion better establish Jesus’ role as messiah/leader? How would prospective Jewish converts have reacted to the contempt and rejection of Jesus by Jewish authorities? How would Peter’s denials and the apostles’ flight from Jerusalem have added to the Church’s “good image”? How does Jesus being numbered among criminals (e.g., Barabbas and the criminals crucified with Him) help the Church’s credibility among law-abiding citizens? In almost every case, the presentation of the “witnessable” data seems to undermine the early Christian’s image, credibility, and apologetical appeal. Why would they have presented these data in such detail if they had such potential and real damaging effects? I can think of only one reason. Because they were essentially true.

Can we render the same positive historical judgment about other details in the passion narratives beyond the basic “witnessable” data mentioned above? At this juncture, our pursuit of history becomes far more hazy and complex, because the witnessable data moves from eyewitnesses to catechists and teachers who need to interpret these traumatic (and unappealing) events to converts and potential converts. The natural tendency of such catechists, who were reared within Palestinian Judaism, would have been to use Scripture as a means of interpretation.<ref>The conjecture of some members of the Jesus Seminar that the early narratives of Jesus’ passion were a synthesis of interpreted Scriptures rather than an account of what really happened (Koester 1980, p. 127) is simply backwards. It is far more likely that the earliest traditions recounted what happened, allowing catechists to add sections later to interpret them. As Brown notes, “… [T]here is no evidence in the Pauline formula that scriptural reflection caused the creation of the basic incidents of the passion; far more plausibly it caused the selection and interpretation of certain features in an outline of death, burial, resurrection, and appearance that had been dictated by the early Christian memory of what happened” (Brown 1994(b), p. 16).</ref> Some of these attempts would be easily discernable because they would be introduced by phrases like “this was to fulfill the Scripture….” However, other Scripture passages might be on the lips of Jesus, such as the last words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (citing Psalm 22). The historian must now make the judgment of whether this was placed on the lips of Jesus, or whether Jesus selected these words for Himself (see below, Section II). Obviously, Jesus was accustomed to using Scripture to interpret His life, mission, and even crucifixion as much as, if not more than any later interpreter.

The historian’s task becomes even more complex when these traditions are woven into a single narrative. The editors of such narratives would have to be somewhat creative in synthesizing the various traditions. They might be inclined to embellish sayings or dialogue if that helped with the interpretation of recounted events. They could add thematic and even dramatic emphases to the narrative to further their catechetical or theological objectives. At this juncture, the historian must try to peel back the redactions of editors (especially the Evangelists) in order to get closer to the testimony of eyewitnesses which stand behind the narratives.

Recall from Unit II-B, Section I. that the first task is to get back to the primitive traditions that underlie the Gospel narratives, and then to judge the historicity of these primitive traditions by means of historical criteria and techniques to render judgments within a typical historical range:

<blockquote>…certain, very probable, probable, possible, not impossible. “Certain” has nothing to do with the certitude of mathematics or the physical sciences; it refers to the certitude we have in ordinary experience about the things we encounter or are reported to us in writing or orally.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 22.</ref></blockquote>

The earliest passion narrative is in the Gospel of Mark. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke were both aware of Mark’s narrative and relied on it. As will be seen in the next section, John was not aware of Mark’s narrative, but he made recourse to a primitive tradition(s) very similar to the ones used by Mark. This coincidence is extremely useful to historians because it allows for an application of the criterion of multiple attestation, which, in turn, helps historians make judgments about whether various verses in the narratives can be considered to be part of a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition.

In Section I.B, we will take a brief look at these criteria; in Section II we will consider the historicity of Jesus’ last words in Mark; and in Section III we will attempt to uncover the pre-Marcan tradition in Mark’s narrative, and then render some general historical judgments.

=== Application of the Criteria of Historicity to the Passion Narratives ===

The reader may wish to review the descriptions and examples of the criteria and techniques for determining the historicity of Gospel passages, which are summarized in Unit II-B, Section I. A brief description of three of these criteria will be given with particular examples from the passion narratives: (1) multiple attestation, (2) embarrassment, and (3) coherence with Jewish/Roman customs.

The reader will want to recall two caveats about assessment of historicity mentioned in Unit II-B, Section I. namely:

(a) Criteria for historicity can show the likelihood of a particular Gospel datum being historical, but the absence of criteria for historicity does not show the improbability of a particular Gospel datum being historical; the non-applicability of historical criteria shows only that we have no way of assessing historicity of a Gospel datum either positively or negatively. Thus, far more data in the passion narratives (and in the Gospels, for that matter) is historical than can ever be corroborated through historical criteria.

(b) Too rigorous an application of historical criteria can unnecessarily circumscribe corroboratable data from the Gospels. If one says, “The only data that I will accept as historical are those which are attested to by four out of five independent sources” (say, Mark, Q, special Luke, and John, leaving out only special Matthew), then one will limit oneself to very few Gospel data. If one goes even further, and requires four independent Gospel sources plus an external source (such as Tacitus and Josephus), the Gospel will be reduced to the non-interpolated statements of Tacitus and Josephus. Again, if one claims that multiple attestation is not enough – there must also be corroboration from another historical criterion (say, embarrassment or coherence to Jewish culture, etc.), then the field of acceptable data is correspondingly narrowed. The judicious use of historical criteria by mainstream exegetes such as Raymond Brown, N.T. Wright, and John P. Meier can avert unnecessary proscriptions of Gospel data, and lead to reasonable and responsible corroboration of a large range of Gospel data. We may now proceed to the three historical criteria.

1) Multiple Attestation. Recall that multiple attestation does not occur when there is repetition of passages among the three synoptic Gospels, but rather when there is repetition among the five independent sources (Mark, Q, special Matthew, special Luke, and John). Matthew and Luke relied upon and used the full text of Mark. Q is another source upon which Matthew and Luke both relied. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark in their passion narratives, and so attestation among them is not significant.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 81-82.</ref> However, as will be discussed below, Mark and John were written independently of each other, and it is quite likely that neither one had any knowledge of the other’s narrative. Nevertheless, there are no less than thirty-two similarities between the two narratives. If John is truly not dependent on Mark, then these similarities would auger very strongly for a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) passion tradition(s) upon which both Evangelists relied. This pre-Marcan tradition(s) would bring us closer to eyewitness accounts of the passion and therefore to Jesus’ passion itself.

How can we be so sure that John was not directly reliant on Mark’s narrative? In virtually every part of the Gospel except the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on water, and the passion narratives, John’s material is so distinct from Mark that it is difficult to believe that John relied on Mark unless he wanted to separate himself from, or complement Mark. Most scholars in the latter half of the twentieth century do not believe that there is Johannine dependence on Mark.<ref>Brown details the long list of exegetes who support the Johannine non-dependence theory in 1994(b), p. 76, note 91.</ref>

But what about Johannine dependence on the Marcan passion narrative? As can be seen from the table above, there are so many similarities between Mark and John that the possibility of dependence must be considered. There are two significant factors militating against the dependence conjecture. First, despite the many similarities, there are many more dissimilarities in content and order between the two passion narratives.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 81.</ref> Secondly, many of the differences between Mark and John are inexplicable, if not illogical if John truly depended on Mark.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref> Why would John have put his narrative into a more scattered and strangely ordered state than Mark’s if he depended on Mark? (A love of disorder?) Why would he have omitted details in Mark which would have been of interest to him (e.g., the kiss of Judas; mention of Simon of Cyrene; the sixth and ninth hour when darkness came over the land; the derision by the crowds at the cross; the confusion regarding Elijah – even though this may have been elicited by Jesus’ last words in Mark, which are not mentioned in John; omission of three of Mark’s women witnesses – Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, as well as “other women” in Mark, versus Mary the mother of Jesus, and His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas in John). These omissions and reorderings make little sense if John truly depended on Mark. For this reason, Brown concludes:

<blockquote>Throughout the commentary I shall come again and again to what I regard as a completely illogical result if John knew Mark. For that reason I shall work with the thesis that John wrote his passion narrative independently of Mark’s.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 82.</ref></blockquote>

So what is the likely scenario for the Marcan and Johannine passion narratives’ development? Brown believes that this occurred in five stages:

a) Eyewitnesses. See the rationale for these eyewitness accounts given above in Section I.A.

b) A basic catechetical outline. A basic sequence of major events was formulated soon after the events of the passion connecting the Last Supper to the arrest, then to the condemnation, then to the crucifixion, then to the burial. This sequence guided the Church’s early proclamations and catechesis as well as Eucharistic memories. This is evident from Pauline and other non-Gospel New Testament writings.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 83.</ref>

c) Pre-Gospel traditions. Widely circulated stories/traditions (probably both oral and written) were formed from eyewitness accounts about particular figures and incidents in the passion narratives (alongside the basic catechetical outline). The stories were not yet connected to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), pp. 83-84.</ref>

d) Pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine traditions. The stories and basic outline made their way toward the Marcan and Johannine communities where eventually a pre-Marcan author(s) connected many of the stories to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 84.</ref>

e) The Marcan and Johannine passion narratives. The two Evangelists used two versions of the pre-Marcan tradition along with additional pre-Gospel traditions<ref>As Soards’ table indicates, there were probably several such pre-Gospel traditions along with other narrative traditions. See Soards 1994, pp. 1492-1524.</ref> to formulate the passion narratives we have today.

It is likely that much of the “witnessable” data in the thirty-two common elements in the Marcan and Johannine narratives made their way from eyewitnesses into the pre-Gospel traditions, and then into the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition(s), and then into the Gospel narratives. This would include:

Judas as betrayer bringing soldiers with weapons; Jesus being seized; the high priest’s servant’s ear being cut off; Jesus’ exchange with His apprehenders; Jesus being subjected to a Jewish judicial inquest; Peter’s three denials; the high priest’s maid as first inquirer; Peter warming himself by the fire in the high priest’s courtyard; the bystanders as inquirers in the third denial; the Jewish authorities making accusations against Jesus to Pilate; the crowd asking for the release of Barabbas; Pilate not finding Jesus guilty of a crime; the crowds responding multiple times “Crucify Him”; Pilate having Jesus scourged; Pilate handing Jesus over to be crucified, Jesus being crowned with thorns; Jesus proceeding to Golgotha with a cross, the crucifixion of Jesus; an inscription reading “King of the Jews”; the soldiers dividing Jesus’ garments and casting lots for them; two criminals being crucified with Jesus, one on either side of Him; Mary Magdalene witnessing the crucifixion; the soldiers giving a vinegar-filled sponge to Jesus on the cross; Joseph of Arimathea obtaining permission to bury Jesus; and Joseph of Arimathea wrapping the body of Jesus in a linen cloth, and putting Him in a tomb.<ref>For evidence of the apostles knowing the place of burial and witnessing the empty tomb, see Chapter 4, Section II.B.</ref>

Some of these conclusions (as well as others) are corroborated by three other historical criteria which will be discussed in the forthcoming subsections.

(2) Embarrassment. Recall from Unit II-B, Section I., that if a particular Gospel datum was embarrassing to the Church, or undermined the reputation of the apostles, or cast dispersions upon Jesus, then we can be quite certain that the Evangelists (and the formulators of early traditions) did not invent it. Raymond Brown points to several such data in the passion narratives, for example: Judas (one of the Twelve apostles) betraying Jesus; many of the disciples not remaining with Jesus during the passion; and Peter denying Jesus three times.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> There are other data which are embarrassing, but may have been recounted for other reasons. For example, Jesus praying in the garden, “Remove this cup from me” (Mark 14:36), which looks like Jesus is trying to avoid the cross. Although this could not have been catechetically appealing, someone could conjecture that this passage is meant “to teach Christians that facing death constitutes a trial that may challenge even sincere commitment.”<ref>Brown 1994(b), p. 18.</ref> Nevertheless, the datum is still catechetically unappealing, and would have been very risky for the Evangelist or early Church to have invented.

The same holds true for Jesus’ last words in the Gospel of Mark: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” As will be discussed below (Section II), the last words of Jesus do not enjoy multiple attestation because John does not recount them (and places a completely different phrase on the lips of Jesus – “It is finished”). Many scholars believe, however, that this datum is historical because it would have likely been misinterpreted by gentile audiences who might not have known that the phrase (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) refers to the whole of Psalm 22 (a Psalm of God redeeming the sufferings of the just one and bringing salvation through it to all nations and generations). Gentile audiences would have been likely to believe that Jesus was so demoralized that He lost His confidence in God and thought that God was forsaking Him. This misinterpretation would not only have been embarrassing to the Church, but would have led to a theology precisely contrary to what Jesus intended and to what the Church taught. It is difficult to believe that Mark would have invented this phrase as Jesus’ last words, and much more likely that John (like Luke), if he was aware of the phrase from a pre-Johannine tradition, would have dropped it since he was writing for a gentile audience that could have easily misinterpreted it.

(3) Coherence with Jewish/Roman customs. There are three elements which are relevant here: (a) coherence with Jewish customs, (b) Semitisms, and (c) coherence with Roman customs. The last area is somewhat complex<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 19ff.</ref> and not especially germane to the point of this Unit; so I will limit discussion to the first two areas.

(a) ''Correspondence with Jewish custom''. One major point bears mentioning, because it shows Mark’s<ref>The historicity of the Marcan narrative will be assessed throughout the rest of the chapter.</ref> fidelity to the Jewish customs which would have been in effect at the time of Jesus’ passion, namely, Mark’s careful recounting of how the Sanhedrin adhered to the Mishna only when it was in conformity to the Sadducee law. Blinzler notes in this regard:

<blockquote>The fact that Mk 14 and 15 juxtapose items which sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the requirements of the Mishnah was hitherto felt puzzling. The explanation is that the Sanhedrin was at that time bound by the Sadducee law, which agreed with the Mishnah only exceptionally. But if Mk 14 and 15 were a legendary construction, it would be hard to explain how the author, supposedly so uninterested in historical fact, managed to be so accurate with regard to the legal custom: to the unlikely extent, that is, that the actions of the Sanhedrin only agreed with the Mishnah when the provisions of the latter coincided with those of the Sadducees, and not otherwise.<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref></blockquote>

(b) ''Semitisms''. There is one truly remarkable Semitism recorded in the Marcan narrative, namely, Jesus’ final words: “''Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani''.” The Marcan version of the final words is to be preferred over the Matthean one, because it is probable that Matthew tried to “clean up” Mark’s Aramaic citation of the divine name (“''Elōi''”)<ref>Blinzler 1968-70, p. 352.</ref> with the more proper Hebrew version of it (''“’Ēlî”''), which would have been recited in the synagogue.<ref>Recall that Matthew is writing for a well-educated Jewish audience, and was trying to convince them of the Messiahship of Jesus. He knew the appropriate Hebrew form of the Psalm and changed Mark’s Aramaic “Elōi” to the Hebrew “Ēli.” See Brown 1994(b), pp. 1051-1052.</ref> The fact that Matthew records the Aramaic “''sabachthani''” (instead of the more appropriate Hebrew ''ăzabtānî'') convinces most scholars that Matthew retained remnants of an original Aramaic version.<ref>See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. Mark’s use of “lama” (instead of the Aramaic “lĕmā”) is not problematic because it was common practice at that time to transliterate the shewa (short “e” vowel) by “a” instead of “e.” See Brown 1994(b), p. 1052. See also Mally 1968, vol. II, p. 58; and Harrington 1990, p. 628.</ref>

Is Mark’s Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words truly Jesus’ words? It seems likely because much of Mark’s mixed gentile-Jewish audience would not have recognized either the Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the Psalm, which evidently compelled Mark to translate it into Greek. Why would Mark have recorded an Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words which most of his audience would not have understood? Why not simply give the Greek translation without the Aramaic? Furthermore, why give an Aramaic translation of the Psalms instead of the more proper and easily recognizable Hebrew version? The fact that Jesus may well have learned the Psalms in Aramaic and recited the Psalms in Aramaic to His Galilean audience may provide a clue to the origin of the Aramaic version of the Psalm – namely, Jesus Himself.<ref>Though Mark cites Aramaic versions of Old Testament texts elsewhere, this may be out of deference to Jesus rather than Mark’s preference.</ref> The application of other historical criteria to this question will further confirm the origin of these words in Jesus. This will be considered in the following section.

== The Final Words of Jesus ==

Given that Mark’s version of Jesus’ final words is more original than Matthew’s version, we may now return to the question of whether Mark’s version is historical. Though the Aramaic rendition of the final words is a clue to their origin in Jesus, it is not definitive because Luke gives a different version of the final words (“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” – Luke 23:46), and so does John (“It is finished” – John 19:30). Why should Mark be preferred to Luke and John?

With respect to Luke’s version of the final words, there are four reasons to suspect that Mark’s version is closer to Jesus’ own. First, Luke was aware of Mark’s version of the final words, and would have had to have intentionally changed them. Secondly, Luke prefers to shift the focus from Jesus’ feelings of desolation to Jesus’ trust. Instead of Psalm 22:2 (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”), Luke portrays Jesus reciting Psalm 31:6 (“Into your hands I commend my spirit”), which effects this shift in focus. Luke’s preference to portray Jesus as confident (and eliminate any hint of spiritual disturbance) is evidenced in his elimination of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ anxiety in the garden of Gethsemane (“My soul is very sorrowful unto death”). It is much easier to believe that Luke has continued his redactional policy of eliminating Marcan references to Jesus’ anxiety than to believe that Luke’s version of Jesus’ words is more original. Thirdly, Luke substitutes “Father” for the Psalmist’s reference to “God,” which is very likely a redaction. Finally, Luke selects a Psalm passage which speaks to Jesus’ Spirit, which is a clear focus of his Gospel and an allusion to the Holy Spirit, which is the focus of the Acts of the Apostles. For this reason, most scholars believe that the Lukan version is a redaction of the Marcan original.

What about John’s version of the last words (“It is finished”)? Unlike Luke, John was not aware of the Marcan passion narrative, yet there is significant evidence that Mark and John borrowed from a common pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition (see above, Section I.B.1). Does John’s very different version of Jesus’ final words imply that the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition did not have any version of Jesus’ final words (and that both Mark and John invented their own in the absence of a more original version)? The answer is probably ‘no,’ because of light shed upon the question by the historical criterion of embarrassment.

Recall from Section I.B.2 that John’s predominately gentile audience could have misinterpreted Jesus’ last words as recorded by Mark. Indeed, as we just saw, Luke certainly thought this was a possibility for his gentile audience. The majority of John’s audience would probably not have recognized Psalm 22 in the Aramaic expression, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani,” and they would not have known that this first line referred to the entire Psalm. Therefore, they would not have known that Jesus’ last words were a prayer of trust in God which would lead not only to the vindication of His suffering, but to universal salvation for all humankind for all time (see below in this section). Thus (as the Johannine author very probably perceived), they would have interpreted these words to mean that Jesus felt abandoned by the Father, which is precisely the opposite of what the Psalm intends, what the early Church believed, and what Jesus intended. Not only would this have been confusing and misleading to gentile members of the early Church; it would have been apologetically unappealing and embarrassing to the Church in gentile regions. Thus, John, like Luke, would have had everything to lose (and nothing to gain) by retaining these words on the lips of the dying Jesus.

Therefore, there is considerable reason to believe prima facie that John, like Luke, would have been inclined to change Jesus’ dying words from those of Psalm 22 to something less misleading and more consistent with Jesus’ intention and the belief of the early Church. He decides upon the simple phrase, “It is finished,” which refers to Jesus’ project of redemption, the completion of which John has been pointing to throughout the “Book of Glory” (chapters 13-21).

This leads to the obvious question of why Mark (who was addressing a mixed gentile-Jewish audience) would have retained Psalm 22 as Jesus’ final words when many of his audience members would have been likely to misinterpret them in the same way as John’s and Luke’s audiences. Before responding, it is worth noting that this question does not apply to Matthew with the same force as Mark because the majority of Matthew’s audience was Jewish. Many in that audience would have been educated enough to see Psalm 22 through Matthew’s Hebraic version of it, and many would have understood that the first line of the Psalm referred to the whole Psalm. Brown points to a well-known hermeneutical principle in this regard:

…a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context.

In the case of Psalm 22, the context speaks of trust in God, vindication, and salvation for the world.

However, the above hermeneutical principle would not have applied to the gentile members of Mark’s audience; so why did he retain these words? I think there is only one plausible explanation – namely, that they are in fact the final words of Jesus. It would be inconceivable to suggest that Mark invented these words to place on the lips of Jesus given the probability of their misinterpretation (with significant negative consequences) by a large segment of his audience. Therefore, it seems likely that Mark received these words from either a pre-Marcan tradition or from Peter (for whom Mark was interpreter). In either case, Mark must have believed that these words were truly those of Jesus, and decided to retain them in their Aramaic form precisely for this reason. There does not appear to be any other reasonable motive for his taking the risk of significant misinterpretation and apologetically unappealing embarrassment.

So if we consider “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani” to be the dying words of the historical Jesus, and if we apply Brown’s hermeneutical principle to Jesus Himself (implying that Jesus expected informed listeners to “be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context”), then it seems likely that the dying Jesus was praying the whole of Psalm 22 to His Father while giving His listeners an insight into how He interpreted His sacrificial death through that prayer. Mally notes in this regard:

As a quotation of an OT Ps, it can hardly be taken literally as an expression of real despair or dereliction. Rather, Jesus applies to himself an OT passage that sums up the suffering of the upright individual who turns to his God in the stress of hostile opposition and its ensuing depression. In using the Ps, Jesus does not express the feeling that his life’s work has failed and that God has therefore abandoned him; he identifies himself with a biblical precedent, the persecuted upright man who has trusted in Yahweh, and found in him the source of his consolation and ultimate triumph [italics mine].

Thus, Jesus’ reference to Psalm 22 is an expression of trust and confidence in the Father that His suffering will result in the triumph of His mission. As noted in the previous Unit, that mission is actualized for all future generations through the gift of His presence and unconditional redeeming Love in the Eucharist.

A closer look at the Psalm may give a deep insight into the panoply of Jesus’ thoughts and feelings at the time of His crucifixion. The Psalm may be divided into three parts:

(1) “2-22, the complaint, with repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence (4-6; 10-11),”
(2) “23-32, thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share (23-27), ” and
(3) the worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh (28-32).

Each part will be presented in turn.

(1) Complaint, repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?
Oh my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
and by night, but I have no rest.

Then, the psalmist shifts perspective as he does several times throughout the Psalm, and introduces the theme of God’s holiness and grandeur, worthy of praise and trust:

Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel.
In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.

The psalmist then turns back to the deplorable nature of his condition:

But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.
All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
“He trusted in the Lord;
let the Lord rescue him.
Let Him deliver him
since He delights in him.

The uncanny resemblance between the psalmist’s words and the events taking place around Jesus give one pause. After describing the inauthentic words of the crowd (who believe that the Lord will not fulfill the trust of the psalmist), the psalmist shifts back to his fervent trust in the Lord:

Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you;
even at my mother’s breast.
From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

Having renewed his trust in the Lord, the psalmist makes an earnest petition for help:

Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.
Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.

Then the psalmist uses the same words seen in the suffering servant song (Is 52:13-53:12) and Jesus’ eucharistic words:

I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.
My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.

In continuing his description of his suffering to Yahweh, the psalmist again describes events uncannily similar to Jesus’ crucifixion:

Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.
I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

The psalmist makes another earnest petition for God’s help and consolation:

But you, oh Lord, be not far off;
oh my Strength, come quickly to help me.
Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
Rescue me from the mouth of the lion;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

(2) Thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share. The psalmist then reaffirms his trust and confidence in the Lord, as if to say that he will live beyond his current persecution to bring the praise of the Lord’s name to all who fear him:

I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the congregation I will praise you.
You who fear the Lord, praise him!
All you descendents of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendents of Israel!

The psalmist then gives his reason for his confidence in God, and his belief in his future:

For he has not despised or disdained
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you I will fulfill my vows.

The psalmist then moves into a prophetic, and even messianic tone, speaking of signs of the new Jerusalem; messianic signs which Jesus says, when quoting the prophet Isaiah, are being fulfilled in Himself:

The poor will eat and be satisfied;
they who seek the Lord will praise Him –
may your hearts live forever.

(3) The worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh. The psalmist then confidently suggests universality of salvation arising out of Yahweh’s mercy:

All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before Him,
for dominion belongs to the Lord
and He rules over the nations.

The psalmist then suggests that Yahweh’s salvation will extend to all those who are raised on high, and those who are in the grave:

All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before Him –
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
Posterity will serve Him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
They will proclaim His righteousness
to a people yet unborn –
for He has done it.

This Psalm on the dying lips of Jesus is quite remarkable. In the midst of recounting events quite similar to His crucifixion, the Psalm expresses His mind and heart as He cries out for help, as He is overwhelmingly confident in that help, and as He sees the ultimate result of that help in a salvation that will not only reach to the ends of the earth, but to all future generations on the earth, and even to those who are raised on high and those who “go down to the dust.” Thus, the Psalm connects Jesus’ torment with His confidence in the Father as He looks beyond His suffering, beyond Jerusalem, beyond the present age, and beyond earthly existence, to a redemption which will take hold in the life of God Himself. Jesus’ eucharistic words are not only consonant with those of the psalm, they give the psalm’s words ultimate meaning and reality; for they provide the vehicle through which Jesus’ person and love will save universally and eternally.

== The Passion of Jesus in Mark and in Pre-Marcan Tradition (14:32-15:37) ==

Mark gives us the oldest account of the passion. Though it tries to reconcile the passion with Old Testament prophesy, its primary objective is not apologetical. Rather, it intends to give an account of the sufferings freely endured by Jesus and “to show clearly what persons and what authorities were responsible for the death of Jesus and the extent of their guilt.” Mark believes that this is Jesus’ central salvific act and uses it to frame the rest of his Gospel. As Blinzler notes:

Mark already had before him such a relatively fixed account from oral tradition, as the insertion of 14:3-9 shows, and he enlarged it with further matter, e.g., with “memoirs” of Peter (apart from 14:3-9) such as the account of the denial (14:54, 66-72). …[T]he Gospel of Mark has been called, not unjustly, “a passion-narrative with a long introduction” (M. Kähler).

As noted above, there is substantial New Testament and extra-testamental evidence for the historicity of Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion. Many other facts surrounding the crucifixion are also very probably historical. By using the criteria and techniques elucidated above (Sections I.A and B), we can first ascertain what material from Mark’s passion narrative probably came from a pre-Marcan tradition, and the material from that tradition which could have come from eyewitness accounts. Scholars have worked diligently on these tasks for over a century, and it is beyond the scope of this study to report comprehensively on their findings. My objective is only to give a report about where the preponderance of scholarly opinion lies with regard to an early pre-Marcan tradition and the historicity of the facts within that tradition.

There is a strong likelihood that Mark made recourse to a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which he redacted and stylized to give coherence and meaning to this exceedingly significant event for the Christian Church. There is a wide variety of opinion about which verses originated with this pre-Marcan tradition(s) and which ones originated with Mark. Marion Soards has gathered a tremendous amount of data from 34 scholars representing a wide range of theological and exegetical perspectives. I have taken the liberty of presenting the Revised Standard Version of the Marcan passion narrative, and indicating the likelihood that each of its verses originated with a pre-Marcan tradition or with Mark himself according to the following key:

Bold A large majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Italics A small majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Underline The scholarly community is about evenly split on whether this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition, or with Mark himself.

Normal font The majority of the scholarly community believes that this verse originated with Mark (and is therefore a Marcan redaction).

Mark Chapter 14

32 They went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and He said to His disciples, “Sit here, while I pray.” 33 And He took with Him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. 34 And He said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch.” 35 And going a little farther, He fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. 36 And He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt.” And He came and found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? 38 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 39 And again He went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 And again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer Him. 41 And He came the third time, and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”

43 And immediately, while He was still speaking Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I shall kiss is the man; seize Him and lead Him away safely.” And when he came, he went up to Him at once, and said, “Master!” And he kissed Him. And they laid hands on Him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” And they all forsook Him, and fled.

51 And a young man followed Him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

53 And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. And Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death; but they found none. 56 For many bore false witness against Him, and their witness did not agree. 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against Him, saying, “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet not even so did their testimony agree. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you? 61 But He was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked Him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”Note 63 And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard His blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned Him as deserving death. 65 And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to strike Him, saying to Him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received Him with blows.

66 And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came; 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway. 69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” 70 But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.” 71 But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.” 72 And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

Mark Chapter 15

1 And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. And Pilate asked Him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And He answered him “You have said so.” And the chief priests accused Him of many things. And Pilate again asked Him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered.

Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they asked. And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. And he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered Him up. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” And they cried out again, “Crucify Him.” And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him.” So, Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

And the soldiers led Him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. And they clothed Him in a purple cloak, and placing a crown of thorns they put it on Him. And they began to salute Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck His head with a reed, and spat upon Him, and they knelt down in homage to Him. And when they had mocked Him, they stripped Him of the purple cloak, and put His own clothes on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him.

And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry His cross. And they brought Him to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). And they offered Him wine mingled with myrrh; but He did not take it. And they crucified Him, and divided His garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour, when they crucified Him. And the inscription of the charge against Him read, “The King of the Jews.” And with Him they crucified two robbers, one on His right and one on His left. And those who passed by derided Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 So also the chief priests mocked Him to one another with the scribes, saying, “He saved others; He cannot save Himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with Him also reviled Him.

And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” Which means, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Behold, He is calling Elijah.” And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to Him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down.” And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.

38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing Him, saw that He thus breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the son of God!”

There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, 41 who, when He was in Galilee, followed Him, and ministered to Him; and also many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 And Pilate wondered if He were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether He was already dead. 45 And when he learned from the centurion that He was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 And he bought a linen shroud, and taking Him down, wrapped Him in the linen shroud, and laid Him in a tomb which has been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where He was laid.

*****

As can be seen from the above, most scholars consider the vast majority of the passion narrative to have come from a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which would presumably include some accounts from Peter. Notice that the probable Marcan redactions are not concerned with the torment, crucifixion, and death of Jesus. They are meant to explain who is primarily guilty (i.e., Judas, the chief priests, and the council), who is less culpable (i.e., Pilate), and who is ironically the prophetic spokesman of the meaning of the passion (i.e., the centurion). They also center on Mark’s interpretation of why Jesus was accused of blasphemy (i.e., identifying Himself with the eschatological Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14). If these elements are “bracketed,” the passion story retains its poignant central core, which likely represents the traditions which Mark received as he prepared his narrative.

The question of whether the pre-Marcan tradition is faithful to accounts from eyewitnesses and earwitnesses is more difficult to ascertain. One cannot assume that a verse was witnessed simply because it was included in a pre-Marcan tradition. As was made clear in Section I.B, the pre-Marcan tradition relied on pre-Gospel traditions and stories, and had developments and accretions arising out of catechetical and pedagogical concerns. Nevertheless, it is likely that the pre-Marcan tradition(s) contained a considerable amount of “witnessable” and witnessed data for the reasons mentioned in Section I above – particularly as regards the betrayal by Judas, the arrest, a Jewish judicial inquest, Peter’s denials, the involvement of Pontius Pilate, the involvement of Jewish authorities in accusing Jesus, the release of Barabbas, the involvement of Roman soldiers, and facts surrounding the crucifixion (e.g., being scourged, being crowned with thorns, the vinegary wine, being hanged on a cross, the inscription on the cross, and the two other criminals). I would also include Jesus’ final words as recounted in Mark’s Gospel (for the reasons mentioned in the previous section), and the fact of Jesus’ burial (for the reasons mentioned in Chapter 4, Section II.B). A more detailed list of other “witnessable” data which is common to both the Marcan and Johannine traditions may be found above in Section I.B. Additional details about the historicity of particular verses in the pre-Marcan tradition(s) may be found in the “Analysis” sections following each major part of Raymond Brown’s The Death of the Messiah.

An appreciation of the significance of the passion, particularly as regards the central question of this book (i.e., “Is Jesus Emmanuel?”), cannot be attained through exegetical and historical analysis alone. Though this analysis is necessary in order to understand the meaning and reality of the events surrounding Jesus’ death, it almost blocks out the heart’s reasons to give greater clarity to the mind’s reasons. I can’t speak for you, the reader, but when I am applying criteria and techniques of historicity to particular texts, I am not being flooded with inspiration and love; and so I find it necessary to move to the domain of contemplation after I have satisfied myself about the historicity of the essential elements of Jesus’ passion. Contemplation allows one to be moved in the heart – to be struck with delight, or wonder, or amazement; to perceive beauty; to exalt; to be moved with gratitude; to feel awe and glory; to be inspired; to be moved by what is just and good and generous, and above all, to be moved by love – unconditional Love. Thus, contemplation is essential to the appreciation of Jesus’ passion, which is above all an act of incredible love.

== Contemplation on the Passion ==

The passion narratives open upon a virtually limitless depth of love, which can best be gleaned through contemplation. As explained in the previous chapter, Jesus views His passion as the culmination of His mission, the concretization of His unconditional Love in history, and His gift of unconditional Love to the world for all eternity (through the Eucharist). The reader’s time will be well spent on considering His loving intention, attitude, and feeling in His gift of self in the events of the passion.

One successful method of entering into contemplation is recommended by Saint Ignatius of Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises. It entails entering into the scene, considering the personalities and dispositions of people in the scene, and focusing on the heart of Jesus manifest through the people and events in the scene.

In light of the above, one may want to use the following structure to contemplate on the passion. After reading a particular passage at least twice, first consider various physical aspects of the scene, then:

• the persons in the scene along with Jesus, then
• Jesus’ attitude toward the people in the scene (recalling that Jesus’ attitudes are reflected in the beatitudes – humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, merciful, peacemaking, etc.), then
• Jesus’ relationship to the Father (applying Psalm 22, the Suffering Servant song – Isaiah 52:13-53:12, and Jesus’ prayer in the Garden), then
• Jesus’ universal salvific intent (applying the simile of the paschal lamb and the words “This is my body,” “the blood of the covenant,” “for all,” and “Do this in remembrance of me” – see Chapter 9, Section II.B), then
• Jesus’ love for the people in the scene (including His persecutors), His love of the Father, and His love of humankind.

You might then look at Jesus’ acceptance of anguish for the sake of love. In light of this, you might consider Jesus’ love for you and others; His hopes and aspirations for you and for others. Accept that love, accept His wanting to be your paschal lamb, sin-offering (scapegoat), and blood of the covenant (to guarantee eternal life with Him and the Father); and then, express to God what you desire.

After you have completed your contemplation, you might want to ask the recurrent questions in this book: Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this for my sake and the sake of all? Is Jesus Christ His Emmanuel? If so, then the unconditional Love of God is real and has been fully actualized in the world. That unconditional Love is unconditional light in the darkness, unconditional hope amidst dejection, unconditional resurrection amidst the cross, and unconditional redemption amidst our sin. It is unconditional life unto unconditional joy in the unconditional love of the triune God.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Passion

2015-01-08T16:41:49Z

David Persyn: Add Footnote Section

Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith – Jesus

Unit II. M

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Passion

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-M_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Passion.3F | Return to the Table of Contents]]

'''Introduction'''

The Eucharist is not only Jesus’ definitive interpretation of His passion and death; it is also the definitive vehicle through which He communicates His presence and love to all future generations. So, how can our insight into the preciousness of this gift be deepened through the examination of Jesus’ passion? From a contemplative point of view, the possibilities are considerable for deepening the heart’s awareness of the love of Christ. As one considers Jesus’ willing acceptance of each part of the passion as a gift of self (love) for all humankind, one begins to affectively (not just intellectually) appreciate what unconditional Love really is; and when one sees this Love through the eyes, the face, the mind, the heart of the gentle Lamb willingly led to the slaughter, one begins to receive an answer to the questions: “Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this?” and “Is Jesus His Emmanuel?”

Since my intention here is to induce contemplation (that is, prayerful reflection on the texts of the passion), I will discuss only three important propaedeutic points: (1) an overview of the historicity of the passion narratives (Section I)<ref>Any reader interested in a detailed exegesis of the passion narratives should make recourse to Raymond Brown’s comprehensive work The Death of the Messiah [Brown 1994(b)]. </ref>, (2) an analysis of Jesus’ final words on the cross (Section II), and (3) a presentation of the pre-Marcan tradition and Mark’s passion narrative (Section III). The reader may then want to return to the previous Unit on the Eucharist to probe with contemplative insight into the meaning and reality of Jesus’ love.

== The Historicity of the Passion ==

It may be observed from the outset that Jesus’ plan to redeem the world was anything but apologetical or popular, for the idea of a suffering Messiah was thought to be a curse by His Jewish and gentile contemporaries (Dt 21:23, Gal 3:13, I Cor 12:3). Nevertheless, Jesus, knowing what would befall Him, proceeded resolutely toward Jerusalem. In light of our discussion of the Eucharist, His plan had but one objective: to join with the Father in an act of unconditional self-gift (love) for the salvation of humankind. Even though Jesus was convinced of His vindication and resurrection (see Unit II-L, Section II), He must have known that the crucifixion would be viewed as a scandal, and used against Him by His critics. Nevertheless, He viewed the passion as being indispensable to His mission. Why? Because He associated the passion with gift of self, which, as is clear from His institution of the Eucharist, He associated with unconditional Love. One can see this kind of love mirrored in parents who willingly endure humiliation, and even place themselves in harm’s way, in order to protect the lives and future of their children. Jesus viewed Himself as responsible (as shepherd and brother) for all of us who were to become, through Him, the Father’s adopted children.

Before beginning a formal analysis of the historicity of the passion narratives, we will want to examine a contention of Dominic Crossan (of the Jesus Seminar) who throws the historicity of these narratives into question by suggesting that they are derivatives of the (Gnostic) gospel of Peter. The gospel of Peter is a narrative of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. It consists of sixty verses and has been dated to Papyri originating in about 200 AD. Crossan ignores the fact that there is no evidence for the gospel of Peter prior to 200 AD, and makes a radical suggestion that it was the only source from which the passion narratives of the four canonical Gospels were derived:

Composed by the fifties C.E., and possibly at Sepphoris in Galilee, it [the Cross Gospel in the Gospel of Peter] is the single source of the intracanonical passion narratives.

Charles Quarles sums up Crossan’s conclusions from his radical contention (which does not enjoy wide acceptance in the scholarly community ) as follows:

The GP is more a product of the author’s creative literary imagination than a reflection of eyewitness accounts of actual events. Thus, if the GP is the single source for the canonical narratives of the Passion and resurrection, the canonical Gospels are unreliable revisions of an unreliable tradition. None of the Gospels could then be trusted to provide historically reliable testimony about the final events in the life of the historical Jesus.

Quarles shows this claim to be virtually untenable in the light of textual analysis. First, Crossan contends that the parallels between Matthew and the gospel of Peter regarding the Pharisees gathering before Pilate and expressing concern about a staged resurrection on the third day, the guarding and sealing of the tomb of Jesus, and the description of the Jews as “the people” shows Matthean dependence upon the gospel of Peter. Quarles shows precisely the opposite after studying the redactional tendencies of Matthew and the gospel of Peter. Following Gundry, Quarles shows that these texts are a series of “Mattheanisms,” particularly the use of the words “disciple,” “steal,” and “mēpote” – “lest” (except once where the gospel of Peter is clearly following Matthew in a subjunctive construction). He quotes John P. Meier by way of conclusion:

When it comes to who is dependent on whom, all the signs point to Matthew’s priority…. The clause is a tissue of Matthean vocabulary and style, a vocabulary and style almost totally absent from the rest of the Gospel of Peter.
Secondly, there are doctrines and sayings in the gospel of Peter which do not occur in the canonical Gospels or the New Testament. For example, Jesus’ preaching to those who have fallen asleep (to those who have died). Quarles notes in this regard:

If the emerging consensus of interpretation regarding 1Peter is correct, the presence of the reference to preaching to those who sleep in the Gospel of Peter suggests that the document was composed no earlier than the first quarter of the second century.

The same holds true for other sayings, such as the “Lord’s day,” which is mentioned in the Gospel of Peter 9:35 and 12:50, but only appears in the New Testament in the Book of Revelations (approximately 90 AD). The Gospels used the more primitive expression “the first day of the week.”

Thirdly, the description of the resurrection in the gospel of Peter is “fantastic and quite at odds with the descriptions that appear in the canonical Gospels”:

…as the three men exited the tomb, a cross, apparently floating through the air, followed them. …[T]he cross was capable of speech. A heavenly voice asked, “Did you preach to those who are sleeping?” and the cross replied, “Yes.”

We have already seen (with respect to Jesus’ miracles) the tendency of the later Gnostic gospels to move from the balanced and mature perspective of the canonical Gospels to an exaggerated, fantastic, and immature perspective (see Unit II-G, Section II). The gospel of Peter here is no different than the gospels of Thomas and Philip.

Fourthly, the “apologetical case” for Jesus’ resurrection (responding to Jewish objections at the time) is more developed in the gospel of Peter than in the Gospel of Matthew, and

no sensible explanation for Matthew’s elimination of helpful apologetic material available to him from the Cross Gospel exists. This suggests that the author of the gospel of Peter depended on Matthew’s Gospel but revised it in order to present a more compelling case for the resurrection.

For these and other reasons, Quarles (along with Meier) hold Crossan’s position to be untenable , giving rise to the conclusion:

…[I]f the canonical Gospels are the earliest record of the Passion and resurrection, as this paper suggests, and if these contain the narratives based on eyewitness accounts, as the earliest church testimony affirms and as the internal evidence suggests, the earliest narratives of Jesus’ death and resurrection may be viewed as prophecy fulfilled rather than prophecy historicized, and speculation that Jesus was not even buried, much less raised, is groundless.

We may now proceed to the question of the historicity of the passion narratives. Though all four Gospels portray the passion through narratives aimed at different audiences, and these narratives have different styles and redactional emphases, it does not mean that they do not possess an extensive historical core.

There are remarkable agreements among the four lengthy passion narratives, but this does not automatically constitute multiple attestation because Matthew and Luke saw and made recourse to the Marcan narrative. Nevertheless, as will be explained below, Mark and John did not have knowledge of each other’s narratives, and so the many similarities between these two narratives constitute a very strong form of multiple attestation. Before considering this window into the historicity of the passion narratives, we must consider two more fundamental questions which are elucidated by Raymond Brown in his extensive two-volume analysis of the passion entitled: The Death of the Messiah :

(1) Did Jesus’ disciples have access to the data recounted in the various passion narratives? (Section I.A), and

(2) How can the criteria of historicity be applied to the passion narratives? (Section I.B)

=== Did Jesus’ Disciples Have Access to the Data Recounted in the Various Passion Narratives? ===

It is not my intention to respond to the extreme skepticism of Koester, Crossan, and other members of the Jesus Seminar. Raymond Brown has done this quite well. My objective is to briefly use the criteria of historicity to uncover those parts of the narratives which may be reasonably and responsibly shown to have come from an early Palestinian passion tradition, and which may also be linked to the Jesus of history.

Jesus’ crucifixion is so well attested by both Christian and non-Christian sources that it is as close to certain as any historical datum from the first century can be. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus makes explicit reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Annals (15.44) when speaking about Nero’s blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the authenticity of this passage, but the majority of mainstream scholars concur with Kirby that:

The most persuasive case is made by those who maintain that Tacitus made use of a first century Roman document concerning the nature and status of the Christian religion. As to the reliability of that source, following normal historical practice, it is prudently assumed to be accurate until demonstrated otherwise. The reference from Tacitus constitutes prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

Jesus’ crucifixion is also attested by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Recall from Unit II-F, Section I. that Josephus was writing for a Roman audience in about 93 AD, and that there are Christian interpolations in the text of Antiquities in which his testimony to Jesus is contained. As noted in Unit II-F, many mainstream scholars consider the italicized sections in the testimony cited below to be authentic:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Again, this non-Christian testimony to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is explicit and highly probable. There are other non-Christian testimonies to Jesus’ crucifixion, but they are far less significant than those of Tacitus and Josephus.

In addition to non-Christian testimony, Jesus’ crucifixion is attested by almost every New Testament source (e.g., the four Gospels, Acts, most of the Pauline letters, 1Peter, and the Letter to the Hebrews), it is recorded in virtually all of the primitive kerygmas, and is central to the early Church’s interpretation of Jesus and itself. Finally, one is confronted with the questions: “Why would the early Church have given detailed descriptions of the public humiliation and execution of their Messiah and Lord if it had not been historically true? What would have been the point of recounting a story that undermined its apologetical appeal?” In light of this, the crucifixion of Jesus within its proper setting (i.e., a public execution entailing an arrest, trial, and conviction) must be considered incontestable.

What about the details surrounding Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion? Are the events and details recounted in the passion narratives also historically accurate? Some critics, such as Dominic Crossan, believe that it is impossible to say because (as he gratuitously asserts) there were no eyewitnesses to the event:

It seems to me most likely that those closest to Jesus knew almost nothing about the details of the event. They knew only that Jesus had been crucified, outside Jerusalem, at the time of Passover, and probably through some conjunction of imperial and sacerdotal authority.

Brown demolishes Crossan’s contention by pointing to a seemingly obvious and vexing difficulty:

[Crossan] does not explain why he thinks this “most likely,” granted the well-founded tradition that those closest to Jesus had followed him for a long period of time, day and night. Did they suddenly lose all interest, not even taking the trouble to inquire about what must have been a most traumatic moment of their lives?

Brown explains the implications of his question through a series of virtually unassailable historical judgments:

Yet as we move back from the Gospel narratives to Jesus himself, ultimately there were eyewitnesses and earwitnesses who were in a potion to know the broad lines of Jesus’ passion. He was accompanied in his ministry by a group of disciples known as the Twelve, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the arrest of Jesus was the occasion of his being separated from them. It is inconceivable that they showed no concern about what happened to Jesus after the arrest. True, there is no Christian claim that they were present during the legal proceedings against him, Jewish or Roman; but it is absurd to think that some information was not available to them about why Jesus has hanged on a cross. The whole purpose of crucifixion, after all, was to publicize that certain crimes would be severely punished. (That is the sense in which I include “earwitness”: hearing what was publicly said about the condemnation of Jesus.) The crucifixion itself was public, and nothing suggests that the burial was secret.

Attempts to present scenarios contrary to Brown’s in this regard truly verge on the illogical, unreasonable, and inconceivable; and they betray motives other than that of seeking the truth.

Furthermore, there is remarkable correspondence between the passion narrative and the Gospel of John, and recent archeological evidence uncovered by Charlesworth and von Wahlde which strongly suggests that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Von Wahlde summarizes his findings as follows:

The significance of this [archeological evidence] for our appreciation of the historical accuracy of John’s reports is considerable. Not only does John provide several details present in the Synoptics (the name of the place [Golgotha], its location outside the city walls), but he goes on to provide more detail than the other Gospels…details not essential to the narrative. If the presence of such details at first makes verification more difficult, the fact that they are corroborated by archaeological and other means [at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem ] demonstrates not only that the Johannine account contains remarkably accurate knowledge but also that the Gospel is in fact able to serve as a source of unique knowledge about the crucifixion and burial of Jesus.

This archaeological corroboration of John’s passion narrative also suggests the presence of eyewitnesses who were not only aware of the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, but also reported it to the authors of the earliest passion traditions.

Presuming, then, that there were eyewitnesses, and that they would have wanted to see or hear as much as possible about the One who was central to their lives, what could they have witnessed? They could have witnessed Jesus’ betrayal by Judas and His apprehension by the Jewish authorities. They could have also heard about any public declaration of Jesus’ charge, conviction, and sentence. They could have known who was involved in the charging, convicting, and sentencing. They could have had knowledge of public events surrounding the conviction (e.g., the release of Barabbas, or Jewish authorities stirring up the crowd). They could have witnessed the carrying of the cross and any outward signs of persecution or torture that might have preceded His journey to Golgotha (e.g., scourging or crowning with thorns). They could have witnessed the crucifixion itself, the public inscription of Jesus’ offense, the people crucified with Jesus, and they could have heard His final words, seen His death, and witnessed His burial. Evidently, they would have been a party to certain events themselves (e.g., cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant and denials).

Most of the above “witnessable” data was apologetically unappealing and presented obstacles to conversion. What would an early Jewish or gentile prospective convert find attractive about the public humiliation and execution of a messiah/leader? How did all the gory details of this crucifixion better establish Jesus’ role as messiah/leader? How would prospective Jewish converts have reacted to the contempt and rejection of Jesus by Jewish authorities? How would Peter’s denials and the apostles’ flight from Jerusalem have added to the Church’s “good image”? How does Jesus being numbered among criminals (e.g., Barabbas and the criminals crucified with Him) help the Church’s credibility among law-abiding citizens? In almost every case, the presentation of the “witnessable” data seems to undermine the early Christian’s image, credibility, and apologetical appeal. Why would they have presented these data in such detail if they had such potential and real damaging effects? I can think of only one reason. Because they were essentially true.

Can we render the same positive historical judgment about other details in the passion narratives beyond the basic “witnessable” data mentioned above? At this juncture, our pursuit of history becomes far more hazy and complex, because the witnessable data moves from eyewitnesses to catechists and teachers who need to interpret these traumatic (and unappealing) events to converts and potential converts. The natural tendency of such catechists, who were reared within Palestinian Judaism, would have been to use Scripture as a means of interpretation. Some of these attempts would be easily discernable because they would be introduced by phrases like “this was to fulfill the Scripture….” However, other Scripture passages might be on the lips of Jesus, such as the last words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (citing Psalm 22). The historian must now make the judgment of whether this was placed on the lips of Jesus, or whether Jesus selected these words for Himself (see below, Section II). Obviously, Jesus was accustomed to using Scripture to interpret His life, mission, and even crucifixion as much as, if not more than any later interpreter.

The historian’s task becomes even more complex when these traditions are woven into a single narrative. The editors of such narratives would have to be somewhat creative in synthesizing the various traditions. They might be inclined to embellish sayings or dialogue if that helped with the interpretation of recounted events. They could add thematic and even dramatic emphases to the narrative to further their catechetical or theological objectives. At this juncture, the historian must try to peel back the redactions of editors (especially the Evangelists) in order to get closer to the testimony of eyewitnesses which stand behind the narratives.

Recall from Unit II-B, Section I. that the first task is to get back to the primitive traditions that underlie the Gospel narratives, and then to judge the historicity of these primitive traditions by means of historical criteria and techniques to render judgments within a typical historical range:

…certain, very probable, probable, possible, not impossible. “Certain” has nothing to do with the certitude of mathematics or the physical sciences; it refers to the certitude we have in ordinary experience about the things we encounter or are reported to us in writing or orally.

The earliest passion narrative is in the Gospel of Mark. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke were both aware of Mark’s narrative and relied on it. As will be seen in the next section, John was not aware of Mark’s narrative, but he made recourse to a primitive tradition(s) very similar to the ones used by Mark. This coincidence is extremely useful to historians because it allows for an application of the criterion of multiple attestation, which, in turn, helps historians make judgments about whether various verses in the narratives can be considered to be part of a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition.

In Section I.B, we will take a brief look at these criteria; in Section II we will consider the historicity of Jesus’ last words in Mark; and in Section III we will attempt to uncover the pre-Marcan tradition in Mark’s narrative, and then render some general historical judgments.

=== Application of the Criteria of Historicity to the Passion Narratives ===

The reader may wish to review the descriptions and examples of the criteria and techniques for determining the historicity of Gospel passages, which are summarized in Unit II-B, Section I. A brief description of three of these criteria will be given with particular examples from the passion narratives: (1) multiple attestation, (2) embarrassment, and (3) coherence with Jewish/Roman customs.

The reader will want to recall two caveats about assessment of historicity mentioned in Unit II-B, Section I. namely:

(a) Criteria for historicity can show the likelihood of a particular Gospel datum being historical, but the absence of criteria for historicity does not show the improbability of a particular Gospel datum being historical; the non-applicability of historical criteria shows only that we have no way of assessing historicity of a Gospel datum either positively or negatively. Thus, far more data in the passion narratives (and in the Gospels, for that matter) is historical than can ever be corroborated through historical criteria.

(b) Too rigorous an application of historical criteria can unnecessarily circumscribe corroboratable data from the Gospels. If one says, “The only data that I will accept as historical are those which are attested to by four out of five independent sources” (say, Mark, Q, special Luke, and John, leaving out only special Matthew), then one will limit oneself to very few Gospel data. If one goes even further, and requires four independent Gospel sources plus an external source (such as Tacitus and Josephus), the Gospel will be reduced to the non-interpolated statements of Tacitus and Josephus. Again, if one claims that multiple attestation is not enough – there must also be corroboration from another historical criterion (say, embarrassment or coherence to Jewish culture, etc.), then the field of acceptable data is correspondingly narrowed. The judicious use of historical criteria by mainstream exegetes such as Raymond Brown, N.T. Wright, and John P. Meier can avert unnecessary proscriptions of Gospel data, and lead to reasonable and responsible corroboration of a large range of Gospel data. We may now proceed to the three historical criteria.

1) Multiple Attestation. Recall that multiple attestation does not occur when there is repetition of passages among the three synoptic Gospels, but rather when there is repetition among the five independent sources (Mark, Q, special Matthew, special Luke, and John). Matthew and Luke relied upon and used the full text of Mark. Q is another source upon which Matthew and Luke both relied. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark in their passion narratives, and so attestation among them is not significant. However, as will be discussed below, Mark and John were written independently of each other, and it is quite likely that neither one had any knowledge of the other’s narrative. Nevertheless, there are no less than thirty-two similarities between the two narratives. If John is truly not dependent on Mark, then these similarities would auger very strongly for a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) passion tradition(s) upon which both Evangelists relied. This pre-Marcan tradition(s) would bring us closer to eyewitness accounts of the passion and therefore to Jesus’ passion itself.

How can we be so sure that John was not directly reliant on Mark’s narrative? In virtually every part of the Gospel except the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on water, and the passion narratives, John’s material is so distinct from Mark that it is difficult to believe that John relied on Mark unless he wanted to separate himself from, or complement Mark. Most scholars in the latter half of the twentieth century do not believe that there is Johannine dependence on Mark.

But what about Johannine dependence on the Marcan passion narrative? As can be seen from the table above, there are so many similarities between Mark and John that the possibility of dependence must be considered. There are two significant factors militating against the dependence conjecture. First, despite the many similarities, there are many more dissimilarities in content and order between the two passion narratives. Secondly, many of the differences between Mark and John are inexplicable, if not illogical if John truly depended on Mark. Why would John have put his narrative into a more scattered and strangely ordered state than Mark’s if he depended on Mark? (A love of disorder?) Why would he have omitted details in Mark which would have been of interest to him (e.g., the kiss of Judas; mention of Simon of Cyrene; the sixth and ninth hour when darkness came over the land; the derision by the crowds at the cross; the confusion regarding Elijah – even though this may have been elicited by Jesus’ last words in Mark, which are not mentioned in John; omission of three of Mark’s women witnesses – Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, as well as “other women” in Mark, versus Mary the mother of Jesus, and His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas in John). These omissions and reorderings make little sense if John truly depended on Mark. For this reason, Brown concludes:

Throughout the commentary I shall come again and again to what I regard as a completely illogical result if John knew Mark. For that reason I shall work with the thesis that John wrote his passion narrative independently of Mark’s.

So what is the likely scenario for the Marcan and Johannine passion narratives’ development? Brown believes that this occurred in five stages:

a) Eyewitnesses. See the rationale for these eyewitness accounts given above in Section I.A.

b) A basic catechetical outline. A basic sequence of major events was formulated soon after the events of the passion connecting the Last Supper to the arrest, then to the condemnation, then to the crucifixion, then to the burial. This sequence guided the Church’s early proclamations and catechesis as well as Eucharistic memories. This is evident from Pauline and other non-Gospel New Testament writings.

c) Pre-Gospel traditions. Widely circulated stories/traditions (probably both oral and written) were formed from eyewitness accounts about particular figures and incidents in the passion narratives (alongside the basic catechetical outline). The stories were not yet connected to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.

d) Pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine traditions. The stories and basic outline made their way toward the Marcan and Johannine communities where eventually a pre-Marcan author(s) connected many of the stories to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.

e) The Marcan and Johannine passion narratives. The two Evangelists used two versions of the pre-Marcan tradition along with additional pre-Gospel traditions to formulate the passion narratives we have today.

It is likely that much of the “witnessable” data in the thirty-two common elements in the Marcan and Johannine narratives made their way from eyewitnesses into the pre-Gospel traditions, and then into the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition(s), and then into the Gospel narratives. This would include:

Judas as betrayer bringing soldiers with weapons; Jesus being seized; the high priest’s servant’s ear being cut off; Jesus’ exchange with His apprehenders; Jesus being subjected to a Jewish judicial inquest; Peter’s three denials; the high priest’s maid as first inquirer; Peter warming himself by the fire in the high priest’s courtyard; the bystanders as inquirers in the third denial; the Jewish authorities making accusations against Jesus to Pilate; the crowd asking for the release of Barabbas; Pilate not finding Jesus guilty of a crime; the crowds responding multiple times “Crucify Him”; Pilate having Jesus scourged; Pilate handing Jesus over to be crucified, Jesus being crowned with thorns; Jesus proceeding to Golgotha with a cross, the crucifixion of Jesus; an inscription reading “King of the Jews”; the soldiers dividing Jesus’ garments and casting lots for them; two criminals being crucified with Jesus, one on either side of Him; Mary Magdalene witnessing the crucifixion; the soldiers giving a vinegar-filled sponge to Jesus on the cross; Joseph of Arimathea obtaining permission to bury Jesus; and Joseph of Arimathea wrapping the body of Jesus in a linen cloth, and putting Him in a tomb.

Some of these conclusions (as well as others) are corroborated by three other historical criteria which will be discussed in the forthcoming subsections.

(2) Embarrassment. Recall from Unit II-B, Section I., that if a particular Gospel datum was embarrassing to the Church, or undermined the reputation of the apostles, or cast dispersions upon Jesus, then we can be quite certain that the Evangelists (and the formulators of early traditions) did not invent it. Raymond Brown points to several such data in the passion narratives, for example: Judas (one of the Twelve apostles) betraying Jesus; many of the disciples not remaining with Jesus during the passion; and Peter denying Jesus three times. There are other data which are embarrassing, but may have been recounted for other reasons. For example, Jesus praying in the garden, “Remove this cup from me” (Mark 14:36), which looks like Jesus is trying to avoid the cross. Although this could not have been catechetically appealing, someone could conjecture that this passage is meant “to teach Christians that facing death constitutes a trial that may challenge even sincere commitment.” Nevertheless, the datum is still catechetically unappealing, and would have been very risky for the Evangelist or early Church to have invented.

The same holds true for Jesus’ last words in the Gospel of Mark: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” As will be discussed below (Section II), the last words of Jesus do not enjoy multiple attestation because John does not recount them (and places a completely different phrase on the lips of Jesus – “It is finished”). Many scholars believe, however, that this datum is historical because it would have likely been misinterpreted by gentile audiences who might not have known that the phrase (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) refers to the whole of Psalm 22 (a Psalm of God redeeming the sufferings of the just one and bringing salvation through it to all nations and generations). Gentile audiences would have been likely to believe that Jesus was so demoralized that He lost His confidence in God and thought that God was forsaking Him. This misinterpretation would not only have been embarrassing to the Church, but would have led to a theology precisely contrary to what Jesus intended and to what the Church taught. It is difficult to believe that Mark would have invented this phrase as Jesus’ last words, and much more likely that John (like Luke), if he was aware of the phrase from a pre-Johannine tradition, would have dropped it since he was writing for a gentile audience that could have easily misinterpreted it.

(3) Coherence with Jewish/Roman customs. There are three elements which are relevant here: (a) coherence with Jewish customs, (b) Semitisms, and (c) coherence with Roman customs. The last area is somewhat complex and not especially germane to the point of this Unit; so I will limit discussion to the first two areas.

(a) ''Correspondence with Jewish custom''. One major point bears mentioning, because it shows Mark’s fidelity to the Jewish customs which would have been in effect at the time of Jesus’ passion, namely, Mark’s careful recounting of how the Sanhedrin adhered to the Mishna only when it was in conformity to the Sadducee law. Blinzler notes in this regard:

The fact that Mk 14 and 15 juxtapose items which sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the requirements of the Mishnah was hitherto felt puzzling. The explanation is that the Sanhedrin was at that time bound by the Sadducee law, which agreed with the Mishnah only exceptionally. But if Mk 14 and 15 were a legendary construction, it would be hard to explain how the author, supposedly so uninterested in historical fact, managed to be so accurate with regard to the legal custom: to the unlikely extent, that is, that the actions of the Sanhedrin only agreed with the Mishnah when the provisions of the latter coincided with those of the Sadducees, and not otherwise.

(b) ''Semitisms''. There is one truly remarkable Semitism recorded in the Marcan narrative, namely, Jesus’ final words: “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” The Marcan version of the final words is to be preferred over the Matthean one, because it is probable that Matthew tried to “clean up” Mark’s Aramaic citation of the divine name (“Elōi”) with the more proper Hebrew version of it (“’Ēlî”), which would have been recited in the synagogue. The fact that Matthew records the Aramaic “sabachthani” (instead of the more appropriate Hebrew ăzabtānî) convinces most scholars that Matthew retained remnants of an original Aramaic version.

Is Mark’s Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words truly Jesus’ words? It seems likely because much of Mark’s mixed gentile-Jewish audience would not have recognized either the Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the Psalm, which evidently compelled Mark to translate it into Greek. Why would Mark have recorded an Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words which most of his audience would not have understood? Why not simply give the Greek translation without the Aramaic? Furthermore, why give an Aramaic translation of the Psalms instead of the more proper and easily recognizable Hebrew version? The fact that Jesus may well have learned the Psalms in Aramaic and recited the Psalms in Aramaic to His Galilean audience may provide a clue to the origin of the Aramaic version of the Psalm – namely, Jesus Himself. The application of other historical criteria to this question will further confirm the origin of these words in Jesus. This will be considered in the following section.

== The Final Words of Jesus ==

Given that Mark’s version of Jesus’ final words is more original than Matthew’s version, we may now return to the question of whether Mark’s version is historical. Though the Aramaic rendition of the final words is a clue to their origin in Jesus, it is not definitive because Luke gives a different version of the final words (“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” – Luke 23:46), and so does John (“It is finished” – John 19:30). Why should Mark be preferred to Luke and John?

With respect to Luke’s version of the final words, there are four reasons to suspect that Mark’s version is closer to Jesus’ own. First, Luke was aware of Mark’s version of the final words, and would have had to have intentionally changed them. Secondly, Luke prefers to shift the focus from Jesus’ feelings of desolation to Jesus’ trust. Instead of Psalm 22:2 (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”), Luke portrays Jesus reciting Psalm 31:6 (“Into your hands I commend my spirit”), which effects this shift in focus. Luke’s preference to portray Jesus as confident (and eliminate any hint of spiritual disturbance) is evidenced in his elimination of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ anxiety in the garden of Gethsemane (“My soul is very sorrowful unto death”). It is much easier to believe that Luke has continued his redactional policy of eliminating Marcan references to Jesus’ anxiety than to believe that Luke’s version of Jesus’ words is more original. Thirdly, Luke substitutes “Father” for the Psalmist’s reference to “God,” which is very likely a redaction. Finally, Luke selects a Psalm passage which speaks to Jesus’ Spirit, which is a clear focus of his Gospel and an allusion to the Holy Spirit, which is the focus of the Acts of the Apostles. For this reason, most scholars believe that the Lukan version is a redaction of the Marcan original.

What about John’s version of the last words (“It is finished”)? Unlike Luke, John was not aware of the Marcan passion narrative, yet there is significant evidence that Mark and John borrowed from a common pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition (see above, Section I.B.1). Does John’s very different version of Jesus’ final words imply that the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition did not have any version of Jesus’ final words (and that both Mark and John invented their own in the absence of a more original version)? The answer is probably ‘no,’ because of light shed upon the question by the historical criterion of embarrassment.

Recall from Section I.B.2 that John’s predominately gentile audience could have misinterpreted Jesus’ last words as recorded by Mark. Indeed, as we just saw, Luke certainly thought this was a possibility for his gentile audience. The majority of John’s audience would probably not have recognized Psalm 22 in the Aramaic expression, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani,” and they would not have known that this first line referred to the entire Psalm. Therefore, they would not have known that Jesus’ last words were a prayer of trust in God which would lead not only to the vindication of His suffering, but to universal salvation for all humankind for all time (see below in this section). Thus (as the Johannine author very probably perceived), they would have interpreted these words to mean that Jesus felt abandoned by the Father, which is precisely the opposite of what the Psalm intends, what the early Church believed, and what Jesus intended. Not only would this have been confusing and misleading to gentile members of the early Church; it would have been apologetically unappealing and embarrassing to the Church in gentile regions. Thus, John, like Luke, would have had everything to lose (and nothing to gain) by retaining these words on the lips of the dying Jesus.

Therefore, there is considerable reason to believe prima facie that John, like Luke, would have been inclined to change Jesus’ dying words from those of Psalm 22 to something less misleading and more consistent with Jesus’ intention and the belief of the early Church. He decides upon the simple phrase, “It is finished,” which refers to Jesus’ project of redemption, the completion of which John has been pointing to throughout the “Book of Glory” (chapters 13-21).

This leads to the obvious question of why Mark (who was addressing a mixed gentile-Jewish audience) would have retained Psalm 22 as Jesus’ final words when many of his audience members would have been likely to misinterpret them in the same way as John’s and Luke’s audiences. Before responding, it is worth noting that this question does not apply to Matthew with the same force as Mark because the majority of Matthew’s audience was Jewish. Many in that audience would have been educated enough to see Psalm 22 through Matthew’s Hebraic version of it, and many would have understood that the first line of the Psalm referred to the whole Psalm. Brown points to a well-known hermeneutical principle in this regard:

…a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context.

In the case of Psalm 22, the context speaks of trust in God, vindication, and salvation for the world.

However, the above hermeneutical principle would not have applied to the gentile members of Mark’s audience; so why did he retain these words? I think there is only one plausible explanation – namely, that they are in fact the final words of Jesus. It would be inconceivable to suggest that Mark invented these words to place on the lips of Jesus given the probability of their misinterpretation (with significant negative consequences) by a large segment of his audience. Therefore, it seems likely that Mark received these words from either a pre-Marcan tradition or from Peter (for whom Mark was interpreter). In either case, Mark must have believed that these words were truly those of Jesus, and decided to retain them in their Aramaic form precisely for this reason. There does not appear to be any other reasonable motive for his taking the risk of significant misinterpretation and apologetically unappealing embarrassment.

So if we consider “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani” to be the dying words of the historical Jesus, and if we apply Brown’s hermeneutical principle to Jesus Himself (implying that Jesus expected informed listeners to “be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context”), then it seems likely that the dying Jesus was praying the whole of Psalm 22 to His Father while giving His listeners an insight into how He interpreted His sacrificial death through that prayer. Mally notes in this regard:

As a quotation of an OT Ps, it can hardly be taken literally as an expression of real despair or dereliction. Rather, Jesus applies to himself an OT passage that sums up the suffering of the upright individual who turns to his God in the stress of hostile opposition and its ensuing depression. In using the Ps, Jesus does not express the feeling that his life’s work has failed and that God has therefore abandoned him; he identifies himself with a biblical precedent, the persecuted upright man who has trusted in Yahweh, and found in him the source of his consolation and ultimate triumph [italics mine].

Thus, Jesus’ reference to Psalm 22 is an expression of trust and confidence in the Father that His suffering will result in the triumph of His mission. As noted in the previous Unit, that mission is actualized for all future generations through the gift of His presence and unconditional redeeming Love in the Eucharist.

A closer look at the Psalm may give a deep insight into the panoply of Jesus’ thoughts and feelings at the time of His crucifixion. The Psalm may be divided into three parts:

(1) “2-22, the complaint, with repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence (4-6; 10-11),”
(2) “23-32, thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share (23-27), ” and
(3) the worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh (28-32).

Each part will be presented in turn.

(1) Complaint, repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?
Oh my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
and by night, but I have no rest.

Then, the psalmist shifts perspective as he does several times throughout the Psalm, and introduces the theme of God’s holiness and grandeur, worthy of praise and trust:

Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel.
In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.

The psalmist then turns back to the deplorable nature of his condition:

But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.
All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
“He trusted in the Lord;
let the Lord rescue him.
Let Him deliver him
since He delights in him.

The uncanny resemblance between the psalmist’s words and the events taking place around Jesus give one pause. After describing the inauthentic words of the crowd (who believe that the Lord will not fulfill the trust of the psalmist), the psalmist shifts back to his fervent trust in the Lord:

Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you;
even at my mother’s breast.
From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

Having renewed his trust in the Lord, the psalmist makes an earnest petition for help:

Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.
Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.

Then the psalmist uses the same words seen in the suffering servant song (Is 52:13-53:12) and Jesus’ eucharistic words:

I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.
My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.

In continuing his description of his suffering to Yahweh, the psalmist again describes events uncannily similar to Jesus’ crucifixion:

Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.
I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

The psalmist makes another earnest petition for God’s help and consolation:

But you, oh Lord, be not far off;
oh my Strength, come quickly to help me.
Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
Rescue me from the mouth of the lion;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

(2) Thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share. The psalmist then reaffirms his trust and confidence in the Lord, as if to say that he will live beyond his current persecution to bring the praise of the Lord’s name to all who fear him:

I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the congregation I will praise you.
You who fear the Lord, praise him!
All you descendents of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendents of Israel!

The psalmist then gives his reason for his confidence in God, and his belief in his future:

For he has not despised or disdained
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you I will fulfill my vows.

The psalmist then moves into a prophetic, and even messianic tone, speaking of signs of the new Jerusalem; messianic signs which Jesus says, when quoting the prophet Isaiah, are being fulfilled in Himself:

The poor will eat and be satisfied;
they who seek the Lord will praise Him –
may your hearts live forever.

(3) The worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh. The psalmist then confidently suggests universality of salvation arising out of Yahweh’s mercy:

All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before Him,
for dominion belongs to the Lord
and He rules over the nations.

The psalmist then suggests that Yahweh’s salvation will extend to all those who are raised on high, and those who are in the grave:

All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before Him –
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
Posterity will serve Him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
They will proclaim His righteousness
to a people yet unborn –
for He has done it.

This Psalm on the dying lips of Jesus is quite remarkable. In the midst of recounting events quite similar to His crucifixion, the Psalm expresses His mind and heart as He cries out for help, as He is overwhelmingly confident in that help, and as He sees the ultimate result of that help in a salvation that will not only reach to the ends of the earth, but to all future generations on the earth, and even to those who are raised on high and those who “go down to the dust.” Thus, the Psalm connects Jesus’ torment with His confidence in the Father as He looks beyond His suffering, beyond Jerusalem, beyond the present age, and beyond earthly existence, to a redemption which will take hold in the life of God Himself. Jesus’ eucharistic words are not only consonant with those of the psalm, they give the psalm’s words ultimate meaning and reality; for they provide the vehicle through which Jesus’ person and love will save universally and eternally.

== The Passion of Jesus in Mark and in Pre-Marcan Tradition (14:32-15:37) ==

Mark gives us the oldest account of the passion. Though it tries to reconcile the passion with Old Testament prophesy, its primary objective is not apologetical. Rather, it intends to give an account of the sufferings freely endured by Jesus and “to show clearly what persons and what authorities were responsible for the death of Jesus and the extent of their guilt.” Mark believes that this is Jesus’ central salvific act and uses it to frame the rest of his Gospel. As Blinzler notes:

Mark already had before him such a relatively fixed account from oral tradition, as the insertion of 14:3-9 shows, and he enlarged it with further matter, e.g., with “memoirs” of Peter (apart from 14:3-9) such as the account of the denial (14:54, 66-72). …[T]he Gospel of Mark has been called, not unjustly, “a passion-narrative with a long introduction” (M. Kähler).

As noted above, there is substantial New Testament and extra-testamental evidence for the historicity of Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion. Many other facts surrounding the crucifixion are also very probably historical. By using the criteria and techniques elucidated above (Sections I.A and B), we can first ascertain what material from Mark’s passion narrative probably came from a pre-Marcan tradition, and the material from that tradition which could have come from eyewitness accounts. Scholars have worked diligently on these tasks for over a century, and it is beyond the scope of this study to report comprehensively on their findings. My objective is only to give a report about where the preponderance of scholarly opinion lies with regard to an early pre-Marcan tradition and the historicity of the facts within that tradition.

There is a strong likelihood that Mark made recourse to a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which he redacted and stylized to give coherence and meaning to this exceedingly significant event for the Christian Church. There is a wide variety of opinion about which verses originated with this pre-Marcan tradition(s) and which ones originated with Mark. Marion Soards has gathered a tremendous amount of data from 34 scholars representing a wide range of theological and exegetical perspectives. I have taken the liberty of presenting the Revised Standard Version of the Marcan passion narrative, and indicating the likelihood that each of its verses originated with a pre-Marcan tradition or with Mark himself according to the following key:

Bold A large majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Italics A small majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Underline The scholarly community is about evenly split on whether this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition, or with Mark himself.

Normal font The majority of the scholarly community believes that this verse originated with Mark (and is therefore a Marcan redaction).

Mark Chapter 14

32 They went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and He said to His disciples, “Sit here, while I pray.” 33 And He took with Him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. 34 And He said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch.” 35 And going a little farther, He fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. 36 And He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt.” And He came and found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? 38 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 39 And again He went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 And again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer Him. 41 And He came the third time, and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”

43 And immediately, while He was still speaking Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I shall kiss is the man; seize Him and lead Him away safely.” And when he came, he went up to Him at once, and said, “Master!” And he kissed Him. And they laid hands on Him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” And they all forsook Him, and fled.

51 And a young man followed Him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

53 And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. And Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death; but they found none. 56 For many bore false witness against Him, and their witness did not agree. 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against Him, saying, “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet not even so did their testimony agree. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you? 61 But He was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked Him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”Note 63 And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard His blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned Him as deserving death. 65 And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to strike Him, saying to Him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received Him with blows.

66 And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came; 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway. 69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” 70 But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.” 71 But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.” 72 And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

Mark Chapter 15

1 And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. And Pilate asked Him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And He answered him “You have said so.” And the chief priests accused Him of many things. And Pilate again asked Him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered.

Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they asked. And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. And he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered Him up. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” And they cried out again, “Crucify Him.” And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him.” So, Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

And the soldiers led Him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. And they clothed Him in a purple cloak, and placing a crown of thorns they put it on Him. And they began to salute Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck His head with a reed, and spat upon Him, and they knelt down in homage to Him. And when they had mocked Him, they stripped Him of the purple cloak, and put His own clothes on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him.

And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry His cross. And they brought Him to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). And they offered Him wine mingled with myrrh; but He did not take it. And they crucified Him, and divided His garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour, when they crucified Him. And the inscription of the charge against Him read, “The King of the Jews.” And with Him they crucified two robbers, one on His right and one on His left. And those who passed by derided Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 So also the chief priests mocked Him to one another with the scribes, saying, “He saved others; He cannot save Himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with Him also reviled Him.

And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” Which means, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Behold, He is calling Elijah.” And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to Him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down.” And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.

38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing Him, saw that He thus breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the son of God!”

There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, 41 who, when He was in Galilee, followed Him, and ministered to Him; and also many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 And Pilate wondered if He were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether He was already dead. 45 And when he learned from the centurion that He was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 And he bought a linen shroud, and taking Him down, wrapped Him in the linen shroud, and laid Him in a tomb which has been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where He was laid.

*****

As can be seen from the above, most scholars consider the vast majority of the passion narrative to have come from a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which would presumably include some accounts from Peter. Notice that the probable Marcan redactions are not concerned with the torment, crucifixion, and death of Jesus. They are meant to explain who is primarily guilty (i.e., Judas, the chief priests, and the council), who is less culpable (i.e., Pilate), and who is ironically the prophetic spokesman of the meaning of the passion (i.e., the centurion). They also center on Mark’s interpretation of why Jesus was accused of blasphemy (i.e., identifying Himself with the eschatological Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14). If these elements are “bracketed,” the passion story retains its poignant central core, which likely represents the traditions which Mark received as he prepared his narrative.

The question of whether the pre-Marcan tradition is faithful to accounts from eyewitnesses and earwitnesses is more difficult to ascertain. One cannot assume that a verse was witnessed simply because it was included in a pre-Marcan tradition. As was made clear in Section I.B, the pre-Marcan tradition relied on pre-Gospel traditions and stories, and had developments and accretions arising out of catechetical and pedagogical concerns. Nevertheless, it is likely that the pre-Marcan tradition(s) contained a considerable amount of “witnessable” and witnessed data for the reasons mentioned in Section I above – particularly as regards the betrayal by Judas, the arrest, a Jewish judicial inquest, Peter’s denials, the involvement of Pontius Pilate, the involvement of Jewish authorities in accusing Jesus, the release of Barabbas, the involvement of Roman soldiers, and facts surrounding the crucifixion (e.g., being scourged, being crowned with thorns, the vinegary wine, being hanged on a cross, the inscription on the cross, and the two other criminals). I would also include Jesus’ final words as recounted in Mark’s Gospel (for the reasons mentioned in the previous section), and the fact of Jesus’ burial (for the reasons mentioned in Chapter 4, Section II.B). A more detailed list of other “witnessable” data which is common to both the Marcan and Johannine traditions may be found above in Section I.B. Additional details about the historicity of particular verses in the pre-Marcan tradition(s) may be found in the “Analysis” sections following each major part of Raymond Brown’s The Death of the Messiah.

An appreciation of the significance of the passion, particularly as regards the central question of this book (i.e., “Is Jesus Emmanuel?”), cannot be attained through exegetical and historical analysis alone. Though this analysis is necessary in order to understand the meaning and reality of the events surrounding Jesus’ death, it almost blocks out the heart’s reasons to give greater clarity to the mind’s reasons. I can’t speak for you, the reader, but when I am applying criteria and techniques of historicity to particular texts, I am not being flooded with inspiration and love; and so I find it necessary to move to the domain of contemplation after I have satisfied myself about the historicity of the essential elements of Jesus’ passion. Contemplation allows one to be moved in the heart – to be struck with delight, or wonder, or amazement; to perceive beauty; to exalt; to be moved with gratitude; to feel awe and glory; to be inspired; to be moved by what is just and good and generous, and above all, to be moved by love – unconditional Love. Thus, contemplation is essential to the appreciation of Jesus’ passion, which is above all an act of incredible love.

== Contemplation on the Passion ==

The passion narratives open upon a virtually limitless depth of love, which can best be gleaned through contemplation. As explained in the previous chapter, Jesus views His passion as the culmination of His mission, the concretization of His unconditional Love in history, and His gift of unconditional Love to the world for all eternity (through the Eucharist). The reader’s time will be well spent on considering His loving intention, attitude, and feeling in His gift of self in the events of the passion.

One successful method of entering into contemplation is recommended by Saint Ignatius of Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises. It entails entering into the scene, considering the personalities and dispositions of people in the scene, and focusing on the heart of Jesus manifest through the people and events in the scene.

In light of the above, one may want to use the following structure to contemplate on the passion. After reading a particular passage at least twice, first consider various physical aspects of the scene, then:

• the persons in the scene along with Jesus, then
• Jesus’ attitude toward the people in the scene (recalling that Jesus’ attitudes are reflected in the beatitudes – humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, merciful, peacemaking, etc.), then
• Jesus’ relationship to the Father (applying Psalm 22, the Suffering Servant song – Isaiah 52:13-53:12, and Jesus’ prayer in the Garden), then
• Jesus’ universal salvific intent (applying the simile of the paschal lamb and the words “This is my body,” “the blood of the covenant,” “for all,” and “Do this in remembrance of me” – see Chapter 9, Section II.B), then
• Jesus’ love for the people in the scene (including His persecutors), His love of the Father, and His love of humankind.

You might then look at Jesus’ acceptance of anguish for the sake of love. In light of this, you might consider Jesus’ love for you and others; His hopes and aspirations for you and for others. Accept that love, accept His wanting to be your paschal lamb, sin-offering (scapegoat), and blood of the covenant (to guarantee eternal life with Him and the Father); and then, express to God what you desire.

After you have completed your contemplation, you might want to ask the recurrent questions in this book: Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this for my sake and the sake of all? Is Jesus Christ His Emmanuel? If so, then the unconditional Love of God is real and has been fully actualized in the world. That unconditional Love is unconditional light in the darkness, unconditional hope amidst dejection, unconditional resurrection amidst the cross, and unconditional redemption amidst our sin. It is unconditional life unto unconditional joy in the unconditional love of the triune God.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Passion

2015-01-08T16:41:02Z

David Persyn: Footnotes and formats

Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith – Jesus

Unit II. M

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Passion

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-M_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Passion.3F | Return to the Table of Contents]]

'''Introduction'''

The Eucharist is not only Jesus’ definitive interpretation of His passion and death; it is also the definitive vehicle through which He communicates His presence and love to all future generations. So, how can our insight into the preciousness of this gift be deepened through the examination of Jesus’ passion? From a contemplative point of view, the possibilities are considerable for deepening the heart’s awareness of the love of Christ. As one considers Jesus’ willing acceptance of each part of the passion as a gift of self (love) for all humankind, one begins to affectively (not just intellectually) appreciate what unconditional Love really is; and when one sees this Love through the eyes, the face, the mind, the heart of the gentle Lamb willingly led to the slaughter, one begins to receive an answer to the questions: “Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this?” and “Is Jesus His Emmanuel?”

Since my intention here is to induce contemplation (that is, prayerful reflection on the texts of the passion), I will discuss only three important propaedeutic points: (1) an overview of the historicity of the passion narratives (Section I)<ref>Any reader interested in a detailed exegesis of the passion narratives should make recourse to Raymond Brown’s comprehensive work The Death of the Messiah [Brown 1994(b)]. </ref>, (2) an analysis of Jesus’ final words on the cross (Section II), and (3) a presentation of the pre-Marcan tradition and Mark’s passion narrative (Section III). The reader may then want to return to the previous Unit on the Eucharist to probe with contemplative insight into the meaning and reality of Jesus’ love.

== The Historicity of the Passion ==

It may be observed from the outset that Jesus’ plan to redeem the world was anything but apologetical or popular, for the idea of a suffering Messiah was thought to be a curse by His Jewish and gentile contemporaries (Dt 21:23, Gal 3:13, I Cor 12:3). Nevertheless, Jesus, knowing what would befall Him, proceeded resolutely toward Jerusalem. In light of our discussion of the Eucharist, His plan had but one objective: to join with the Father in an act of unconditional self-gift (love) for the salvation of humankind. Even though Jesus was convinced of His vindication and resurrection (see Unit II-L, Section II), He must have known that the crucifixion would be viewed as a scandal, and used against Him by His critics. Nevertheless, He viewed the passion as being indispensable to His mission. Why? Because He associated the passion with gift of self, which, as is clear from His institution of the Eucharist, He associated with unconditional Love. One can see this kind of love mirrored in parents who willingly endure humiliation, and even place themselves in harm’s way, in order to protect the lives and future of their children. Jesus viewed Himself as responsible (as shepherd and brother) for all of us who were to become, through Him, the Father’s adopted children.

Before beginning a formal analysis of the historicity of the passion narratives, we will want to examine a contention of Dominic Crossan (of the Jesus Seminar) who throws the historicity of these narratives into question by suggesting that they are derivatives of the (Gnostic) gospel of Peter. The gospel of Peter is a narrative of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. It consists of sixty verses and has been dated to Papyri originating in about 200 AD. Crossan ignores the fact that there is no evidence for the gospel of Peter prior to 200 AD, and makes a radical suggestion that it was the only source from which the passion narratives of the four canonical Gospels were derived:

Composed by the fifties C.E., and possibly at Sepphoris in Galilee, it [the Cross Gospel in the Gospel of Peter] is the single source of the intracanonical passion narratives.

Charles Quarles sums up Crossan’s conclusions from his radical contention (which does not enjoy wide acceptance in the scholarly community ) as follows:

The GP is more a product of the author’s creative literary imagination than a reflection of eyewitness accounts of actual events. Thus, if the GP is the single source for the canonical narratives of the Passion and resurrection, the canonical Gospels are unreliable revisions of an unreliable tradition. None of the Gospels could then be trusted to provide historically reliable testimony about the final events in the life of the historical Jesus.

Quarles shows this claim to be virtually untenable in the light of textual analysis. First, Crossan contends that the parallels between Matthew and the gospel of Peter regarding the Pharisees gathering before Pilate and expressing concern about a staged resurrection on the third day, the guarding and sealing of the tomb of Jesus, and the description of the Jews as “the people” shows Matthean dependence upon the gospel of Peter. Quarles shows precisely the opposite after studying the redactional tendencies of Matthew and the gospel of Peter. Following Gundry, Quarles shows that these texts are a series of “Mattheanisms,” particularly the use of the words “disciple,” “steal,” and “mēpote” – “lest” (except once where the gospel of Peter is clearly following Matthew in a subjunctive construction). He quotes John P. Meier by way of conclusion:

When it comes to who is dependent on whom, all the signs point to Matthew’s priority…. The clause is a tissue of Matthean vocabulary and style, a vocabulary and style almost totally absent from the rest of the Gospel of Peter.
Secondly, there are doctrines and sayings in the gospel of Peter which do not occur in the canonical Gospels or the New Testament. For example, Jesus’ preaching to those who have fallen asleep (to those who have died). Quarles notes in this regard:

If the emerging consensus of interpretation regarding 1Peter is correct, the presence of the reference to preaching to those who sleep in the Gospel of Peter suggests that the document was composed no earlier than the first quarter of the second century.

The same holds true for other sayings, such as the “Lord’s day,” which is mentioned in the Gospel of Peter 9:35 and 12:50, but only appears in the New Testament in the Book of Revelations (approximately 90 AD). The Gospels used the more primitive expression “the first day of the week.”

Thirdly, the description of the resurrection in the gospel of Peter is “fantastic and quite at odds with the descriptions that appear in the canonical Gospels”:

…as the three men exited the tomb, a cross, apparently floating through the air, followed them. …[T]he cross was capable of speech. A heavenly voice asked, “Did you preach to those who are sleeping?” and the cross replied, “Yes.”

We have already seen (with respect to Jesus’ miracles) the tendency of the later Gnostic gospels to move from the balanced and mature perspective of the canonical Gospels to an exaggerated, fantastic, and immature perspective (see Unit II-G, Section II). The gospel of Peter here is no different than the gospels of Thomas and Philip.

Fourthly, the “apologetical case” for Jesus’ resurrection (responding to Jewish objections at the time) is more developed in the gospel of Peter than in the Gospel of Matthew, and

no sensible explanation for Matthew’s elimination of helpful apologetic material available to him from the Cross Gospel exists. This suggests that the author of the gospel of Peter depended on Matthew’s Gospel but revised it in order to present a more compelling case for the resurrection.

For these and other reasons, Quarles (along with Meier) hold Crossan’s position to be untenable , giving rise to the conclusion:

…[I]f the canonical Gospels are the earliest record of the Passion and resurrection, as this paper suggests, and if these contain the narratives based on eyewitness accounts, as the earliest church testimony affirms and as the internal evidence suggests, the earliest narratives of Jesus’ death and resurrection may be viewed as prophecy fulfilled rather than prophecy historicized, and speculation that Jesus was not even buried, much less raised, is groundless.

We may now proceed to the question of the historicity of the passion narratives. Though all four Gospels portray the passion through narratives aimed at different audiences, and these narratives have different styles and redactional emphases, it does not mean that they do not possess an extensive historical core.

There are remarkable agreements among the four lengthy passion narratives, but this does not automatically constitute multiple attestation because Matthew and Luke saw and made recourse to the Marcan narrative. Nevertheless, as will be explained below, Mark and John did not have knowledge of each other’s narratives, and so the many similarities between these two narratives constitute a very strong form of multiple attestation. Before considering this window into the historicity of the passion narratives, we must consider two more fundamental questions which are elucidated by Raymond Brown in his extensive two-volume analysis of the passion entitled: The Death of the Messiah :

(1) Did Jesus’ disciples have access to the data recounted in the various passion narratives? (Section I.A), and

(2) How can the criteria of historicity be applied to the passion narratives? (Section I.B)

=== Did Jesus’ Disciples Have Access to the Data Recounted in the Various Passion Narratives? ===

It is not my intention to respond to the extreme skepticism of Koester, Crossan, and other members of the Jesus Seminar. Raymond Brown has done this quite well. My objective is to briefly use the criteria of historicity to uncover those parts of the narratives which may be reasonably and responsibly shown to have come from an early Palestinian passion tradition, and which may also be linked to the Jesus of history.

Jesus’ crucifixion is so well attested by both Christian and non-Christian sources that it is as close to certain as any historical datum from the first century can be. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus makes explicit reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Annals (15.44) when speaking about Nero’s blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the authenticity of this passage, but the majority of mainstream scholars concur with Kirby that:

The most persuasive case is made by those who maintain that Tacitus made use of a first century Roman document concerning the nature and status of the Christian religion. As to the reliability of that source, following normal historical practice, it is prudently assumed to be accurate until demonstrated otherwise. The reference from Tacitus constitutes prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

Jesus’ crucifixion is also attested by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Recall from Unit II-F, Section I. that Josephus was writing for a Roman audience in about 93 AD, and that there are Christian interpolations in the text of Antiquities in which his testimony to Jesus is contained. As noted in Unit II-F, many mainstream scholars consider the italicized sections in the testimony cited below to be authentic:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Again, this non-Christian testimony to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is explicit and highly probable. There are other non-Christian testimonies to Jesus’ crucifixion, but they are far less significant than those of Tacitus and Josephus.

In addition to non-Christian testimony, Jesus’ crucifixion is attested by almost every New Testament source (e.g., the four Gospels, Acts, most of the Pauline letters, 1Peter, and the Letter to the Hebrews), it is recorded in virtually all of the primitive kerygmas, and is central to the early Church’s interpretation of Jesus and itself. Finally, one is confronted with the questions: “Why would the early Church have given detailed descriptions of the public humiliation and execution of their Messiah and Lord if it had not been historically true? What would have been the point of recounting a story that undermined its apologetical appeal?” In light of this, the crucifixion of Jesus within its proper setting (i.e., a public execution entailing an arrest, trial, and conviction) must be considered incontestable.

What about the details surrounding Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion? Are the events and details recounted in the passion narratives also historically accurate? Some critics, such as Dominic Crossan, believe that it is impossible to say because (as he gratuitously asserts) there were no eyewitnesses to the event:

It seems to me most likely that those closest to Jesus knew almost nothing about the details of the event. They knew only that Jesus had been crucified, outside Jerusalem, at the time of Passover, and probably through some conjunction of imperial and sacerdotal authority.

Brown demolishes Crossan’s contention by pointing to a seemingly obvious and vexing difficulty:

[Crossan] does not explain why he thinks this “most likely,” granted the well-founded tradition that those closest to Jesus had followed him for a long period of time, day and night. Did they suddenly lose all interest, not even taking the trouble to inquire about what must have been a most traumatic moment of their lives?

Brown explains the implications of his question through a series of virtually unassailable historical judgments:

Yet as we move back from the Gospel narratives to Jesus himself, ultimately there were eyewitnesses and earwitnesses who were in a potion to know the broad lines of Jesus’ passion. He was accompanied in his ministry by a group of disciples known as the Twelve, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the arrest of Jesus was the occasion of his being separated from them. It is inconceivable that they showed no concern about what happened to Jesus after the arrest. True, there is no Christian claim that they were present during the legal proceedings against him, Jewish or Roman; but it is absurd to think that some information was not available to them about why Jesus has hanged on a cross. The whole purpose of crucifixion, after all, was to publicize that certain crimes would be severely punished. (That is the sense in which I include “earwitness”: hearing what was publicly said about the condemnation of Jesus.) The crucifixion itself was public, and nothing suggests that the burial was secret.

Attempts to present scenarios contrary to Brown’s in this regard truly verge on the illogical, unreasonable, and inconceivable; and they betray motives other than that of seeking the truth.

Furthermore, there is remarkable correspondence between the passion narrative and the Gospel of John, and recent archeological evidence uncovered by Charlesworth and von Wahlde which strongly suggests that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Von Wahlde summarizes his findings as follows:

The significance of this [archeological evidence] for our appreciation of the historical accuracy of John’s reports is considerable. Not only does John provide several details present in the Synoptics (the name of the place [Golgotha], its location outside the city walls), but he goes on to provide more detail than the other Gospels…details not essential to the narrative. If the presence of such details at first makes verification more difficult, the fact that they are corroborated by archaeological and other means [at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem ] demonstrates not only that the Johannine account contains remarkably accurate knowledge but also that the Gospel is in fact able to serve as a source of unique knowledge about the crucifixion and burial of Jesus.

This archaeological corroboration of John’s passion narrative also suggests the presence of eyewitnesses who were not only aware of the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, but also reported it to the authors of the earliest passion traditions.

Presuming, then, that there were eyewitnesses, and that they would have wanted to see or hear as much as possible about the One who was central to their lives, what could they have witnessed? They could have witnessed Jesus’ betrayal by Judas and His apprehension by the Jewish authorities. They could have also heard about any public declaration of Jesus’ charge, conviction, and sentence. They could have known who was involved in the charging, convicting, and sentencing. They could have had knowledge of public events surrounding the conviction (e.g., the release of Barabbas, or Jewish authorities stirring up the crowd). They could have witnessed the carrying of the cross and any outward signs of persecution or torture that might have preceded His journey to Golgotha (e.g., scourging or crowning with thorns). They could have witnessed the crucifixion itself, the public inscription of Jesus’ offense, the people crucified with Jesus, and they could have heard His final words, seen His death, and witnessed His burial. Evidently, they would have been a party to certain events themselves (e.g., cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant and denials).

Most of the above “witnessable” data was apologetically unappealing and presented obstacles to conversion. What would an early Jewish or gentile prospective convert find attractive about the public humiliation and execution of a messiah/leader? How did all the gory details of this crucifixion better establish Jesus’ role as messiah/leader? How would prospective Jewish converts have reacted to the contempt and rejection of Jesus by Jewish authorities? How would Peter’s denials and the apostles’ flight from Jerusalem have added to the Church’s “good image”? How does Jesus being numbered among criminals (e.g., Barabbas and the criminals crucified with Him) help the Church’s credibility among law-abiding citizens? In almost every case, the presentation of the “witnessable” data seems to undermine the early Christian’s image, credibility, and apologetical appeal. Why would they have presented these data in such detail if they had such potential and real damaging effects? I can think of only one reason. Because they were essentially true.

Can we render the same positive historical judgment about other details in the passion narratives beyond the basic “witnessable” data mentioned above? At this juncture, our pursuit of history becomes far more hazy and complex, because the witnessable data moves from eyewitnesses to catechists and teachers who need to interpret these traumatic (and unappealing) events to converts and potential converts. The natural tendency of such catechists, who were reared within Palestinian Judaism, would have been to use Scripture as a means of interpretation. Some of these attempts would be easily discernable because they would be introduced by phrases like “this was to fulfill the Scripture….” However, other Scripture passages might be on the lips of Jesus, such as the last words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (citing Psalm 22). The historian must now make the judgment of whether this was placed on the lips of Jesus, or whether Jesus selected these words for Himself (see below, Section II). Obviously, Jesus was accustomed to using Scripture to interpret His life, mission, and even crucifixion as much as, if not more than any later interpreter.

The historian’s task becomes even more complex when these traditions are woven into a single narrative. The editors of such narratives would have to be somewhat creative in synthesizing the various traditions. They might be inclined to embellish sayings or dialogue if that helped with the interpretation of recounted events. They could add thematic and even dramatic emphases to the narrative to further their catechetical or theological objectives. At this juncture, the historian must try to peel back the redactions of editors (especially the Evangelists) in order to get closer to the testimony of eyewitnesses which stand behind the narratives.

Recall from Unit II-B, Section I. that the first task is to get back to the primitive traditions that underlie the Gospel narratives, and then to judge the historicity of these primitive traditions by means of historical criteria and techniques to render judgments within a typical historical range:

…certain, very probable, probable, possible, not impossible. “Certain” has nothing to do with the certitude of mathematics or the physical sciences; it refers to the certitude we have in ordinary experience about the things we encounter or are reported to us in writing or orally.

The earliest passion narrative is in the Gospel of Mark. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke were both aware of Mark’s narrative and relied on it. As will be seen in the next section, John was not aware of Mark’s narrative, but he made recourse to a primitive tradition(s) very similar to the ones used by Mark. This coincidence is extremely useful to historians because it allows for an application of the criterion of multiple attestation, which, in turn, helps historians make judgments about whether various verses in the narratives can be considered to be part of a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition.

In Section I.B, we will take a brief look at these criteria; in Section II we will consider the historicity of Jesus’ last words in Mark; and in Section III we will attempt to uncover the pre-Marcan tradition in Mark’s narrative, and then render some general historical judgments.

=== Application of the Criteria of Historicity to the Passion Narratives ===

The reader may wish to review the descriptions and examples of the criteria and techniques for determining the historicity of Gospel passages, which are summarized in Unit II-B, Section I. A brief description of three of these criteria will be given with particular examples from the passion narratives: (1) multiple attestation, (2) embarrassment, and (3) coherence with Jewish/Roman customs.

The reader will want to recall two caveats about assessment of historicity mentioned in Unit II-B, Section I. namely:

(a) Criteria for historicity can show the likelihood of a particular Gospel datum being historical, but the absence of criteria for historicity does not show the improbability of a particular Gospel datum being historical; the non-applicability of historical criteria shows only that we have no way of assessing historicity of a Gospel datum either positively or negatively. Thus, far more data in the passion narratives (and in the Gospels, for that matter) is historical than can ever be corroborated through historical criteria.

(b) Too rigorous an application of historical criteria can unnecessarily circumscribe corroboratable data from the Gospels. If one says, “The only data that I will accept as historical are those which are attested to by four out of five independent sources” (say, Mark, Q, special Luke, and John, leaving out only special Matthew), then one will limit oneself to very few Gospel data. If one goes even further, and requires four independent Gospel sources plus an external source (such as Tacitus and Josephus), the Gospel will be reduced to the non-interpolated statements of Tacitus and Josephus. Again, if one claims that multiple attestation is not enough – there must also be corroboration from another historical criterion (say, embarrassment or coherence to Jewish culture, etc.), then the field of acceptable data is correspondingly narrowed. The judicious use of historical criteria by mainstream exegetes such as Raymond Brown, N.T. Wright, and John P. Meier can avert unnecessary proscriptions of Gospel data, and lead to reasonable and responsible corroboration of a large range of Gospel data. We may now proceed to the three historical criteria.

1) Multiple Attestation. Recall that multiple attestation does not occur when there is repetition of passages among the three synoptic Gospels, but rather when there is repetition among the five independent sources (Mark, Q, special Matthew, special Luke, and John). Matthew and Luke relied upon and used the full text of Mark. Q is another source upon which Matthew and Luke both relied. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark in their passion narratives, and so attestation among them is not significant. However, as will be discussed below, Mark and John were written independently of each other, and it is quite likely that neither one had any knowledge of the other’s narrative. Nevertheless, there are no less than thirty-two similarities between the two narratives. If John is truly not dependent on Mark, then these similarities would auger very strongly for a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) passion tradition(s) upon which both Evangelists relied. This pre-Marcan tradition(s) would bring us closer to eyewitness accounts of the passion and therefore to Jesus’ passion itself.

How can we be so sure that John was not directly reliant on Mark’s narrative? In virtually every part of the Gospel except the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on water, and the passion narratives, John’s material is so distinct from Mark that it is difficult to believe that John relied on Mark unless he wanted to separate himself from, or complement Mark. Most scholars in the latter half of the twentieth century do not believe that there is Johannine dependence on Mark.

But what about Johannine dependence on the Marcan passion narrative? As can be seen from the table above, there are so many similarities between Mark and John that the possibility of dependence must be considered. There are two significant factors militating against the dependence conjecture. First, despite the many similarities, there are many more dissimilarities in content and order between the two passion narratives. Secondly, many of the differences between Mark and John are inexplicable, if not illogical if John truly depended on Mark. Why would John have put his narrative into a more scattered and strangely ordered state than Mark’s if he depended on Mark? (A love of disorder?) Why would he have omitted details in Mark which would have been of interest to him (e.g., the kiss of Judas; mention of Simon of Cyrene; the sixth and ninth hour when darkness came over the land; the derision by the crowds at the cross; the confusion regarding Elijah – even though this may have been elicited by Jesus’ last words in Mark, which are not mentioned in John; omission of three of Mark’s women witnesses – Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, as well as “other women” in Mark, versus Mary the mother of Jesus, and His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas in John). These omissions and reorderings make little sense if John truly depended on Mark. For this reason, Brown concludes:

Throughout the commentary I shall come again and again to what I regard as a completely illogical result if John knew Mark. For that reason I shall work with the thesis that John wrote his passion narrative independently of Mark’s.

So what is the likely scenario for the Marcan and Johannine passion narratives’ development? Brown believes that this occurred in five stages:

a) Eyewitnesses. See the rationale for these eyewitness accounts given above in Section I.A.

b) A basic catechetical outline. A basic sequence of major events was formulated soon after the events of the passion connecting the Last Supper to the arrest, then to the condemnation, then to the crucifixion, then to the burial. This sequence guided the Church’s early proclamations and catechesis as well as Eucharistic memories. This is evident from Pauline and other non-Gospel New Testament writings.

c) Pre-Gospel traditions. Widely circulated stories/traditions (probably both oral and written) were formed from eyewitness accounts about particular figures and incidents in the passion narratives (alongside the basic catechetical outline). The stories were not yet connected to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.

d) Pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine traditions. The stories and basic outline made their way toward the Marcan and Johannine communities where eventually a pre-Marcan author(s) connected many of the stories to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.

e) The Marcan and Johannine passion narratives. The two Evangelists used two versions of the pre-Marcan tradition along with additional pre-Gospel traditions to formulate the passion narratives we have today.

It is likely that much of the “witnessable” data in the thirty-two common elements in the Marcan and Johannine narratives made their way from eyewitnesses into the pre-Gospel traditions, and then into the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition(s), and then into the Gospel narratives. This would include:

Judas as betrayer bringing soldiers with weapons; Jesus being seized; the high priest’s servant’s ear being cut off; Jesus’ exchange with His apprehenders; Jesus being subjected to a Jewish judicial inquest; Peter’s three denials; the high priest’s maid as first inquirer; Peter warming himself by the fire in the high priest’s courtyard; the bystanders as inquirers in the third denial; the Jewish authorities making accusations against Jesus to Pilate; the crowd asking for the release of Barabbas; Pilate not finding Jesus guilty of a crime; the crowds responding multiple times “Crucify Him”; Pilate having Jesus scourged; Pilate handing Jesus over to be crucified, Jesus being crowned with thorns; Jesus proceeding to Golgotha with a cross, the crucifixion of Jesus; an inscription reading “King of the Jews”; the soldiers dividing Jesus’ garments and casting lots for them; two criminals being crucified with Jesus, one on either side of Him; Mary Magdalene witnessing the crucifixion; the soldiers giving a vinegar-filled sponge to Jesus on the cross; Joseph of Arimathea obtaining permission to bury Jesus; and Joseph of Arimathea wrapping the body of Jesus in a linen cloth, and putting Him in a tomb.

Some of these conclusions (as well as others) are corroborated by three other historical criteria which will be discussed in the forthcoming subsections.

(2) Embarrassment. Recall from Unit II-B, Section I., that if a particular Gospel datum was embarrassing to the Church, or undermined the reputation of the apostles, or cast dispersions upon Jesus, then we can be quite certain that the Evangelists (and the formulators of early traditions) did not invent it. Raymond Brown points to several such data in the passion narratives, for example: Judas (one of the Twelve apostles) betraying Jesus; many of the disciples not remaining with Jesus during the passion; and Peter denying Jesus three times. There are other data which are embarrassing, but may have been recounted for other reasons. For example, Jesus praying in the garden, “Remove this cup from me” (Mark 14:36), which looks like Jesus is trying to avoid the cross. Although this could not have been catechetically appealing, someone could conjecture that this passage is meant “to teach Christians that facing death constitutes a trial that may challenge even sincere commitment.” Nevertheless, the datum is still catechetically unappealing, and would have been very risky for the Evangelist or early Church to have invented.

The same holds true for Jesus’ last words in the Gospel of Mark: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” As will be discussed below (Section II), the last words of Jesus do not enjoy multiple attestation because John does not recount them (and places a completely different phrase on the lips of Jesus – “It is finished”). Many scholars believe, however, that this datum is historical because it would have likely been misinterpreted by gentile audiences who might not have known that the phrase (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) refers to the whole of Psalm 22 (a Psalm of God redeeming the sufferings of the just one and bringing salvation through it to all nations and generations). Gentile audiences would have been likely to believe that Jesus was so demoralized that He lost His confidence in God and thought that God was forsaking Him. This misinterpretation would not only have been embarrassing to the Church, but would have led to a theology precisely contrary to what Jesus intended and to what the Church taught. It is difficult to believe that Mark would have invented this phrase as Jesus’ last words, and much more likely that John (like Luke), if he was aware of the phrase from a pre-Johannine tradition, would have dropped it since he was writing for a gentile audience that could have easily misinterpreted it.

(3) Coherence with Jewish/Roman customs. There are three elements which are relevant here: (a) coherence with Jewish customs, (b) Semitisms, and (c) coherence with Roman customs. The last area is somewhat complex and not especially germane to the point of this Unit; so I will limit discussion to the first two areas.

(a) ''Correspondence with Jewish custom''. One major point bears mentioning, because it shows Mark’s fidelity to the Jewish customs which would have been in effect at the time of Jesus’ passion, namely, Mark’s careful recounting of how the Sanhedrin adhered to the Mishna only when it was in conformity to the Sadducee law. Blinzler notes in this regard:

The fact that Mk 14 and 15 juxtapose items which sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the requirements of the Mishnah was hitherto felt puzzling. The explanation is that the Sanhedrin was at that time bound by the Sadducee law, which agreed with the Mishnah only exceptionally. But if Mk 14 and 15 were a legendary construction, it would be hard to explain how the author, supposedly so uninterested in historical fact, managed to be so accurate with regard to the legal custom: to the unlikely extent, that is, that the actions of the Sanhedrin only agreed with the Mishnah when the provisions of the latter coincided with those of the Sadducees, and not otherwise.

(b) ''Semitisms''. There is one truly remarkable Semitism recorded in the Marcan narrative, namely, Jesus’ final words: “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” The Marcan version of the final words is to be preferred over the Matthean one, because it is probable that Matthew tried to “clean up” Mark’s Aramaic citation of the divine name (“Elōi”) with the more proper Hebrew version of it (“’Ēlî”), which would have been recited in the synagogue. The fact that Matthew records the Aramaic “sabachthani” (instead of the more appropriate Hebrew ăzabtānî) convinces most scholars that Matthew retained remnants of an original Aramaic version.

Is Mark’s Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words truly Jesus’ words? It seems likely because much of Mark’s mixed gentile-Jewish audience would not have recognized either the Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the Psalm, which evidently compelled Mark to translate it into Greek. Why would Mark have recorded an Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words which most of his audience would not have understood? Why not simply give the Greek translation without the Aramaic? Furthermore, why give an Aramaic translation of the Psalms instead of the more proper and easily recognizable Hebrew version? The fact that Jesus may well have learned the Psalms in Aramaic and recited the Psalms in Aramaic to His Galilean audience may provide a clue to the origin of the Aramaic version of the Psalm – namely, Jesus Himself. The application of other historical criteria to this question will further confirm the origin of these words in Jesus. This will be considered in the following section.

== The Final Words of Jesus ==

Given that Mark’s version of Jesus’ final words is more original than Matthew’s version, we may now return to the question of whether Mark’s version is historical. Though the Aramaic rendition of the final words is a clue to their origin in Jesus, it is not definitive because Luke gives a different version of the final words (“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” – Luke 23:46), and so does John (“It is finished” – John 19:30). Why should Mark be preferred to Luke and John?

With respect to Luke’s version of the final words, there are four reasons to suspect that Mark’s version is closer to Jesus’ own. First, Luke was aware of Mark’s version of the final words, and would have had to have intentionally changed them. Secondly, Luke prefers to shift the focus from Jesus’ feelings of desolation to Jesus’ trust. Instead of Psalm 22:2 (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”), Luke portrays Jesus reciting Psalm 31:6 (“Into your hands I commend my spirit”), which effects this shift in focus. Luke’s preference to portray Jesus as confident (and eliminate any hint of spiritual disturbance) is evidenced in his elimination of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ anxiety in the garden of Gethsemane (“My soul is very sorrowful unto death”). It is much easier to believe that Luke has continued his redactional policy of eliminating Marcan references to Jesus’ anxiety than to believe that Luke’s version of Jesus’ words is more original. Thirdly, Luke substitutes “Father” for the Psalmist’s reference to “God,” which is very likely a redaction. Finally, Luke selects a Psalm passage which speaks to Jesus’ Spirit, which is a clear focus of his Gospel and an allusion to the Holy Spirit, which is the focus of the Acts of the Apostles. For this reason, most scholars believe that the Lukan version is a redaction of the Marcan original.

What about John’s version of the last words (“It is finished”)? Unlike Luke, John was not aware of the Marcan passion narrative, yet there is significant evidence that Mark and John borrowed from a common pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition (see above, Section I.B.1). Does John’s very different version of Jesus’ final words imply that the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition did not have any version of Jesus’ final words (and that both Mark and John invented their own in the absence of a more original version)? The answer is probably ‘no,’ because of light shed upon the question by the historical criterion of embarrassment.

Recall from Section I.B.2 that John’s predominately gentile audience could have misinterpreted Jesus’ last words as recorded by Mark. Indeed, as we just saw, Luke certainly thought this was a possibility for his gentile audience. The majority of John’s audience would probably not have recognized Psalm 22 in the Aramaic expression, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani,” and they would not have known that this first line referred to the entire Psalm. Therefore, they would not have known that Jesus’ last words were a prayer of trust in God which would lead not only to the vindication of His suffering, but to universal salvation for all humankind for all time (see below in this section). Thus (as the Johannine author very probably perceived), they would have interpreted these words to mean that Jesus felt abandoned by the Father, which is precisely the opposite of what the Psalm intends, what the early Church believed, and what Jesus intended. Not only would this have been confusing and misleading to gentile members of the early Church; it would have been apologetically unappealing and embarrassing to the Church in gentile regions. Thus, John, like Luke, would have had everything to lose (and nothing to gain) by retaining these words on the lips of the dying Jesus.

Therefore, there is considerable reason to believe prima facie that John, like Luke, would have been inclined to change Jesus’ dying words from those of Psalm 22 to something less misleading and more consistent with Jesus’ intention and the belief of the early Church. He decides upon the simple phrase, “It is finished,” which refers to Jesus’ project of redemption, the completion of which John has been pointing to throughout the “Book of Glory” (chapters 13-21).

This leads to the obvious question of why Mark (who was addressing a mixed gentile-Jewish audience) would have retained Psalm 22 as Jesus’ final words when many of his audience members would have been likely to misinterpret them in the same way as John’s and Luke’s audiences. Before responding, it is worth noting that this question does not apply to Matthew with the same force as Mark because the majority of Matthew’s audience was Jewish. Many in that audience would have been educated enough to see Psalm 22 through Matthew’s Hebraic version of it, and many would have understood that the first line of the Psalm referred to the whole Psalm. Brown points to a well-known hermeneutical principle in this regard:

…a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context.

In the case of Psalm 22, the context speaks of trust in God, vindication, and salvation for the world.

However, the above hermeneutical principle would not have applied to the gentile members of Mark’s audience; so why did he retain these words? I think there is only one plausible explanation – namely, that they are in fact the final words of Jesus. It would be inconceivable to suggest that Mark invented these words to place on the lips of Jesus given the probability of their misinterpretation (with significant negative consequences) by a large segment of his audience. Therefore, it seems likely that Mark received these words from either a pre-Marcan tradition or from Peter (for whom Mark was interpreter). In either case, Mark must have believed that these words were truly those of Jesus, and decided to retain them in their Aramaic form precisely for this reason. There does not appear to be any other reasonable motive for his taking the risk of significant misinterpretation and apologetically unappealing embarrassment.

So if we consider “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani” to be the dying words of the historical Jesus, and if we apply Brown’s hermeneutical principle to Jesus Himself (implying that Jesus expected informed listeners to “be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context”), then it seems likely that the dying Jesus was praying the whole of Psalm 22 to His Father while giving His listeners an insight into how He interpreted His sacrificial death through that prayer. Mally notes in this regard:

As a quotation of an OT Ps, it can hardly be taken literally as an expression of real despair or dereliction. Rather, Jesus applies to himself an OT passage that sums up the suffering of the upright individual who turns to his God in the stress of hostile opposition and its ensuing depression. In using the Ps, Jesus does not express the feeling that his life’s work has failed and that God has therefore abandoned him; he identifies himself with a biblical precedent, the persecuted upright man who has trusted in Yahweh, and found in him the source of his consolation and ultimate triumph [italics mine].

Thus, Jesus’ reference to Psalm 22 is an expression of trust and confidence in the Father that His suffering will result in the triumph of His mission. As noted in the previous Unit, that mission is actualized for all future generations through the gift of His presence and unconditional redeeming Love in the Eucharist.

A closer look at the Psalm may give a deep insight into the panoply of Jesus’ thoughts and feelings at the time of His crucifixion. The Psalm may be divided into three parts:

(1) “2-22, the complaint, with repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence (4-6; 10-11),”
(2) “23-32, thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share (23-27), ” and
(3) the worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh (28-32).

Each part will be presented in turn.

(1) Complaint, repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?
Oh my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
and by night, but I have no rest.

Then, the psalmist shifts perspective as he does several times throughout the Psalm, and introduces the theme of God’s holiness and grandeur, worthy of praise and trust:

Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel.
In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.

The psalmist then turns back to the deplorable nature of his condition:

But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.
All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
“He trusted in the Lord;
let the Lord rescue him.
Let Him deliver him
since He delights in him.

The uncanny resemblance between the psalmist’s words and the events taking place around Jesus give one pause. After describing the inauthentic words of the crowd (who believe that the Lord will not fulfill the trust of the psalmist), the psalmist shifts back to his fervent trust in the Lord:

Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you;
even at my mother’s breast.
From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

Having renewed his trust in the Lord, the psalmist makes an earnest petition for help:

Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.
Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.

Then the psalmist uses the same words seen in the suffering servant song (Is 52:13-53:12) and Jesus’ eucharistic words:

I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.
My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.

In continuing his description of his suffering to Yahweh, the psalmist again describes events uncannily similar to Jesus’ crucifixion:

Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.
I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

The psalmist makes another earnest petition for God’s help and consolation:

But you, oh Lord, be not far off;
oh my Strength, come quickly to help me.
Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
Rescue me from the mouth of the lion;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

(2) Thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share. The psalmist then reaffirms his trust and confidence in the Lord, as if to say that he will live beyond his current persecution to bring the praise of the Lord’s name to all who fear him:

I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the congregation I will praise you.
You who fear the Lord, praise him!
All you descendents of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendents of Israel!

The psalmist then gives his reason for his confidence in God, and his belief in his future:

For he has not despised or disdained
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you I will fulfill my vows.

The psalmist then moves into a prophetic, and even messianic tone, speaking of signs of the new Jerusalem; messianic signs which Jesus says, when quoting the prophet Isaiah, are being fulfilled in Himself:

The poor will eat and be satisfied;
they who seek the Lord will praise Him –
may your hearts live forever.

(3) The worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh. The psalmist then confidently suggests universality of salvation arising out of Yahweh’s mercy:

All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before Him,
for dominion belongs to the Lord
and He rules over the nations.

The psalmist then suggests that Yahweh’s salvation will extend to all those who are raised on high, and those who are in the grave:

All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before Him –
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
Posterity will serve Him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
They will proclaim His righteousness
to a people yet unborn –
for He has done it.

This Psalm on the dying lips of Jesus is quite remarkable. In the midst of recounting events quite similar to His crucifixion, the Psalm expresses His mind and heart as He cries out for help, as He is overwhelmingly confident in that help, and as He sees the ultimate result of that help in a salvation that will not only reach to the ends of the earth, but to all future generations on the earth, and even to those who are raised on high and those who “go down to the dust.” Thus, the Psalm connects Jesus’ torment with His confidence in the Father as He looks beyond His suffering, beyond Jerusalem, beyond the present age, and beyond earthly existence, to a redemption which will take hold in the life of God Himself. Jesus’ eucharistic words are not only consonant with those of the psalm, they give the psalm’s words ultimate meaning and reality; for they provide the vehicle through which Jesus’ person and love will save universally and eternally.

== The Passion of Jesus in Mark and in Pre-Marcan Tradition (14:32-15:37) ==

Mark gives us the oldest account of the passion. Though it tries to reconcile the passion with Old Testament prophesy, its primary objective is not apologetical. Rather, it intends to give an account of the sufferings freely endured by Jesus and “to show clearly what persons and what authorities were responsible for the death of Jesus and the extent of their guilt.” Mark believes that this is Jesus’ central salvific act and uses it to frame the rest of his Gospel. As Blinzler notes:

Mark already had before him such a relatively fixed account from oral tradition, as the insertion of 14:3-9 shows, and he enlarged it with further matter, e.g., with “memoirs” of Peter (apart from 14:3-9) such as the account of the denial (14:54, 66-72). …[T]he Gospel of Mark has been called, not unjustly, “a passion-narrative with a long introduction” (M. Kähler).

As noted above, there is substantial New Testament and extra-testamental evidence for the historicity of Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion. Many other facts surrounding the crucifixion are also very probably historical. By using the criteria and techniques elucidated above (Sections I.A and B), we can first ascertain what material from Mark’s passion narrative probably came from a pre-Marcan tradition, and the material from that tradition which could have come from eyewitness accounts. Scholars have worked diligently on these tasks for over a century, and it is beyond the scope of this study to report comprehensively on their findings. My objective is only to give a report about where the preponderance of scholarly opinion lies with regard to an early pre-Marcan tradition and the historicity of the facts within that tradition.

There is a strong likelihood that Mark made recourse to a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which he redacted and stylized to give coherence and meaning to this exceedingly significant event for the Christian Church. There is a wide variety of opinion about which verses originated with this pre-Marcan tradition(s) and which ones originated with Mark. Marion Soards has gathered a tremendous amount of data from 34 scholars representing a wide range of theological and exegetical perspectives. I have taken the liberty of presenting the Revised Standard Version of the Marcan passion narrative, and indicating the likelihood that each of its verses originated with a pre-Marcan tradition or with Mark himself according to the following key:

Bold A large majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Italics A small majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Underline The scholarly community is about evenly split on whether this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition, or with Mark himself.

Normal font The majority of the scholarly community believes that this verse originated with Mark (and is therefore a Marcan redaction).

Mark Chapter 14

32 They went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and He said to His disciples, “Sit here, while I pray.” 33 And He took with Him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. 34 And He said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch.” 35 And going a little farther, He fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. 36 And He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt.” And He came and found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? 38 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 39 And again He went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 And again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer Him. 41 And He came the third time, and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”

43 And immediately, while He was still speaking Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I shall kiss is the man; seize Him and lead Him away safely.” And when he came, he went up to Him at once, and said, “Master!” And he kissed Him. And they laid hands on Him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” And they all forsook Him, and fled.

51 And a young man followed Him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

53 And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. And Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death; but they found none. 56 For many bore false witness against Him, and their witness did not agree. 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against Him, saying, “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet not even so did their testimony agree. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you? 61 But He was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked Him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”Note 63 And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard His blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned Him as deserving death. 65 And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to strike Him, saying to Him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received Him with blows.

66 And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came; 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway. 69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” 70 But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.” 71 But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.” 72 And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

Mark Chapter 15

1 And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. And Pilate asked Him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And He answered him “You have said so.” And the chief priests accused Him of many things. And Pilate again asked Him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered.

Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they asked. And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. And he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered Him up. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” And they cried out again, “Crucify Him.” And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him.” So, Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

And the soldiers led Him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. And they clothed Him in a purple cloak, and placing a crown of thorns they put it on Him. And they began to salute Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck His head with a reed, and spat upon Him, and they knelt down in homage to Him. And when they had mocked Him, they stripped Him of the purple cloak, and put His own clothes on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him.

And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry His cross. And they brought Him to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). And they offered Him wine mingled with myrrh; but He did not take it. And they crucified Him, and divided His garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour, when they crucified Him. And the inscription of the charge against Him read, “The King of the Jews.” And with Him they crucified two robbers, one on His right and one on His left. And those who passed by derided Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 So also the chief priests mocked Him to one another with the scribes, saying, “He saved others; He cannot save Himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with Him also reviled Him.

And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” Which means, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Behold, He is calling Elijah.” And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to Him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down.” And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.

38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing Him, saw that He thus breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the son of God!”

There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, 41 who, when He was in Galilee, followed Him, and ministered to Him; and also many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 And Pilate wondered if He were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether He was already dead. 45 And when he learned from the centurion that He was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 And he bought a linen shroud, and taking Him down, wrapped Him in the linen shroud, and laid Him in a tomb which has been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where He was laid.

*****

As can be seen from the above, most scholars consider the vast majority of the passion narrative to have come from a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which would presumably include some accounts from Peter. Notice that the probable Marcan redactions are not concerned with the torment, crucifixion, and death of Jesus. They are meant to explain who is primarily guilty (i.e., Judas, the chief priests, and the council), who is less culpable (i.e., Pilate), and who is ironically the prophetic spokesman of the meaning of the passion (i.e., the centurion). They also center on Mark’s interpretation of why Jesus was accused of blasphemy (i.e., identifying Himself with the eschatological Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14). If these elements are “bracketed,” the passion story retains its poignant central core, which likely represents the traditions which Mark received as he prepared his narrative.

The question of whether the pre-Marcan tradition is faithful to accounts from eyewitnesses and earwitnesses is more difficult to ascertain. One cannot assume that a verse was witnessed simply because it was included in a pre-Marcan tradition. As was made clear in Section I.B, the pre-Marcan tradition relied on pre-Gospel traditions and stories, and had developments and accretions arising out of catechetical and pedagogical concerns. Nevertheless, it is likely that the pre-Marcan tradition(s) contained a considerable amount of “witnessable” and witnessed data for the reasons mentioned in Section I above – particularly as regards the betrayal by Judas, the arrest, a Jewish judicial inquest, Peter’s denials, the involvement of Pontius Pilate, the involvement of Jewish authorities in accusing Jesus, the release of Barabbas, the involvement of Roman soldiers, and facts surrounding the crucifixion (e.g., being scourged, being crowned with thorns, the vinegary wine, being hanged on a cross, the inscription on the cross, and the two other criminals). I would also include Jesus’ final words as recounted in Mark’s Gospel (for the reasons mentioned in the previous section), and the fact of Jesus’ burial (for the reasons mentioned in Chapter 4, Section II.B). A more detailed list of other “witnessable” data which is common to both the Marcan and Johannine traditions may be found above in Section I.B. Additional details about the historicity of particular verses in the pre-Marcan tradition(s) may be found in the “Analysis” sections following each major part of Raymond Brown’s The Death of the Messiah.

An appreciation of the significance of the passion, particularly as regards the central question of this book (i.e., “Is Jesus Emmanuel?”), cannot be attained through exegetical and historical analysis alone. Though this analysis is necessary in order to understand the meaning and reality of the events surrounding Jesus’ death, it almost blocks out the heart’s reasons to give greater clarity to the mind’s reasons. I can’t speak for you, the reader, but when I am applying criteria and techniques of historicity to particular texts, I am not being flooded with inspiration and love; and so I find it necessary to move to the domain of contemplation after I have satisfied myself about the historicity of the essential elements of Jesus’ passion. Contemplation allows one to be moved in the heart – to be struck with delight, or wonder, or amazement; to perceive beauty; to exalt; to be moved with gratitude; to feel awe and glory; to be inspired; to be moved by what is just and good and generous, and above all, to be moved by love – unconditional Love. Thus, contemplation is essential to the appreciation of Jesus’ passion, which is above all an act of incredible love.

== Contemplation on the Passion ==

The passion narratives open upon a virtually limitless depth of love, which can best be gleaned through contemplation. As explained in the previous chapter, Jesus views His passion as the culmination of His mission, the concretization of His unconditional Love in history, and His gift of unconditional Love to the world for all eternity (through the Eucharist). The reader’s time will be well spent on considering His loving intention, attitude, and feeling in His gift of self in the events of the passion.

One successful method of entering into contemplation is recommended by Saint Ignatius of Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises. It entails entering into the scene, considering the personalities and dispositions of people in the scene, and focusing on the heart of Jesus manifest through the people and events in the scene.

In light of the above, one may want to use the following structure to contemplate on the passion. After reading a particular passage at least twice, first consider various physical aspects of the scene, then:

• the persons in the scene along with Jesus, then
• Jesus’ attitude toward the people in the scene (recalling that Jesus’ attitudes are reflected in the beatitudes – humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, merciful, peacemaking, etc.), then
• Jesus’ relationship to the Father (applying Psalm 22, the Suffering Servant song – Isaiah 52:13-53:12, and Jesus’ prayer in the Garden), then
• Jesus’ universal salvific intent (applying the simile of the paschal lamb and the words “This is my body,” “the blood of the covenant,” “for all,” and “Do this in remembrance of me” – see Chapter 9, Section II.B), then
• Jesus’ love for the people in the scene (including His persecutors), His love of the Father, and His love of humankind.

You might then look at Jesus’ acceptance of anguish for the sake of love. In light of this, you might consider Jesus’ love for you and others; His hopes and aspirations for you and for others. Accept that love, accept His wanting to be your paschal lamb, sin-offering (scapegoat), and blood of the covenant (to guarantee eternal life with Him and the Father); and then, express to God what you desire.

After you have completed your contemplation, you might want to ask the recurrent questions in this book: Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this for my sake and the sake of all? Is Jesus Christ His Emmanuel? If so, then the unconditional Love of God is real and has been fully actualized in the world. That unconditional Love is unconditional light in the darkness, unconditional hope amidst dejection, unconditional resurrection amidst the cross, and unconditional redemption amidst our sin. It is unconditional life unto unconditional joy in the unconditional love of the triune God.

Passion

2015-01-08T16:38:04Z

David Persyn: /* Application of the Criteria of Historicity to the Passion Narratives */ formats

Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith – Jesus

Unit II. M

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Passion

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-M_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Passion.3F | Return to the Table of Contents]]

'''Introduction'''

The Eucharist is not only Jesus’ definitive interpretation of His passion and death; it is also the definitive vehicle through which He communicates His presence and love to all future generations. So, how can our insight into the preciousness of this gift be deepened through the examination of Jesus’ passion? From a contemplative point of view, the possibilities are considerable for deepening the heart’s awareness of the love of Christ. As one considers Jesus’ willing acceptance of each part of the passion as a gift of self (love) for all humankind, one begins to affectively (not just intellectually) appreciate what unconditional Love really is; and when one sees this Love through the eyes, the face, the mind, the heart of the gentle Lamb willingly led to the slaughter, one begins to receive an answer to the questions: “Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this?” and “Is Jesus His Emmanuel?”

Since my intention here is to induce contemplation (that is, prayerful reflection on the texts of the passion), I will discuss only three important propaedeutic points: (1) an overview of the historicity of the passion narratives (Section I) , (2) an analysis of Jesus’ final words on the cross (Section II), and (3) a presentation of the pre-Marcan tradition and Mark’s passion narrative (Section III). The reader may then want to return to the previous Unit on the Eucharist to probe with contemplative insight into the meaning and reality of Jesus’ love.

== The Historicity of the Passion ==

It may be observed from the outset that Jesus’ plan to redeem the world was anything but apologetical or popular, for the idea of a suffering Messiah was thought to be a curse by His Jewish and gentile contemporaries (Dt 21:23, Gal 3:13, I Cor 12:3). Nevertheless, Jesus, knowing what would befall Him, proceeded resolutely toward Jerusalem. In light of our discussion of the Eucharist, His plan had but one objective: to join with the Father in an act of unconditional self-gift (love) for the salvation of humankind. Even though Jesus was convinced of His vindication and resurrection (see Unit II-L, Section II), He must have known that the crucifixion would be viewed as a scandal, and used against Him by His critics. Nevertheless, He viewed the passion as being indispensable to His mission. Why? Because He associated the passion with gift of self, which, as is clear from His institution of the Eucharist, He associated with unconditional Love. One can see this kind of love mirrored in parents who willingly endure humiliation, and even place themselves in harm’s way, in order to protect the lives and future of their children. Jesus viewed Himself as responsible (as shepherd and brother) for all of us who were to become, through Him, the Father’s adopted children.

Before beginning a formal analysis of the historicity of the passion narratives, we will want to examine a contention of Dominic Crossan (of the Jesus Seminar) who throws the historicity of these narratives into question by suggesting that they are derivatives of the (Gnostic) gospel of Peter. The gospel of Peter is a narrative of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. It consists of sixty verses and has been dated to Papyri originating in about 200 AD. Crossan ignores the fact that there is no evidence for the gospel of Peter prior to 200 AD, and makes a radical suggestion that it was the only source from which the passion narratives of the four canonical Gospels were derived:

Composed by the fifties C.E., and possibly at Sepphoris in Galilee, it [the Cross Gospel in the Gospel of Peter] is the single source of the intracanonical passion narratives.

Charles Quarles sums up Crossan’s conclusions from his radical contention (which does not enjoy wide acceptance in the scholarly community ) as follows:

The GP is more a product of the author’s creative literary imagination than a reflection of eyewitness accounts of actual events. Thus, if the GP is the single source for the canonical narratives of the Passion and resurrection, the canonical Gospels are unreliable revisions of an unreliable tradition. None of the Gospels could then be trusted to provide historically reliable testimony about the final events in the life of the historical Jesus.

Quarles shows this claim to be virtually untenable in the light of textual analysis. First, Crossan contends that the parallels between Matthew and the gospel of Peter regarding the Pharisees gathering before Pilate and expressing concern about a staged resurrection on the third day, the guarding and sealing of the tomb of Jesus, and the description of the Jews as “the people” shows Matthean dependence upon the gospel of Peter. Quarles shows precisely the opposite after studying the redactional tendencies of Matthew and the gospel of Peter. Following Gundry, Quarles shows that these texts are a series of “Mattheanisms,” particularly the use of the words “disciple,” “steal,” and “mēpote” – “lest” (except once where the gospel of Peter is clearly following Matthew in a subjunctive construction). He quotes John P. Meier by way of conclusion:

When it comes to who is dependent on whom, all the signs point to Matthew’s priority…. The clause is a tissue of Matthean vocabulary and style, a vocabulary and style almost totally absent from the rest of the Gospel of Peter.
Secondly, there are doctrines and sayings in the gospel of Peter which do not occur in the canonical Gospels or the New Testament. For example, Jesus’ preaching to those who have fallen asleep (to those who have died). Quarles notes in this regard:

If the emerging consensus of interpretation regarding 1Peter is correct, the presence of the reference to preaching to those who sleep in the Gospel of Peter suggests that the document was composed no earlier than the first quarter of the second century.

The same holds true for other sayings, such as the “Lord’s day,” which is mentioned in the Gospel of Peter 9:35 and 12:50, but only appears in the New Testament in the Book of Revelations (approximately 90 AD). The Gospels used the more primitive expression “the first day of the week.”

Thirdly, the description of the resurrection in the gospel of Peter is “fantastic and quite at odds with the descriptions that appear in the canonical Gospels”:

…as the three men exited the tomb, a cross, apparently floating through the air, followed them. …[T]he cross was capable of speech. A heavenly voice asked, “Did you preach to those who are sleeping?” and the cross replied, “Yes.”

We have already seen (with respect to Jesus’ miracles) the tendency of the later Gnostic gospels to move from the balanced and mature perspective of the canonical Gospels to an exaggerated, fantastic, and immature perspective (see Unit II-G, Section II). The gospel of Peter here is no different than the gospels of Thomas and Philip.

Fourthly, the “apologetical case” for Jesus’ resurrection (responding to Jewish objections at the time) is more developed in the gospel of Peter than in the Gospel of Matthew, and

no sensible explanation for Matthew’s elimination of helpful apologetic material available to him from the Cross Gospel exists. This suggests that the author of the gospel of Peter depended on Matthew’s Gospel but revised it in order to present a more compelling case for the resurrection.

For these and other reasons, Quarles (along with Meier) hold Crossan’s position to be untenable , giving rise to the conclusion:

…[I]f the canonical Gospels are the earliest record of the Passion and resurrection, as this paper suggests, and if these contain the narratives based on eyewitness accounts, as the earliest church testimony affirms and as the internal evidence suggests, the earliest narratives of Jesus’ death and resurrection may be viewed as prophecy fulfilled rather than prophecy historicized, and speculation that Jesus was not even buried, much less raised, is groundless.

We may now proceed to the question of the historicity of the passion narratives. Though all four Gospels portray the passion through narratives aimed at different audiences, and these narratives have different styles and redactional emphases, it does not mean that they do not possess an extensive historical core.

There are remarkable agreements among the four lengthy passion narratives, but this does not automatically constitute multiple attestation because Matthew and Luke saw and made recourse to the Marcan narrative. Nevertheless, as will be explained below, Mark and John did not have knowledge of each other’s narratives, and so the many similarities between these two narratives constitute a very strong form of multiple attestation. Before considering this window into the historicity of the passion narratives, we must consider two more fundamental questions which are elucidated by Raymond Brown in his extensive two-volume analysis of the passion entitled: The Death of the Messiah :

(1) Did Jesus’ disciples have access to the data recounted in the various passion narratives? (Section I.A), and

(2) How can the criteria of historicity be applied to the passion narratives? (Section I.B)

=== Did Jesus’ Disciples Have Access to the Data Recounted in the Various Passion Narratives? ===

It is not my intention to respond to the extreme skepticism of Koester, Crossan, and other members of the Jesus Seminar. Raymond Brown has done this quite well. My objective is to briefly use the criteria of historicity to uncover those parts of the narratives which may be reasonably and responsibly shown to have come from an early Palestinian passion tradition, and which may also be linked to the Jesus of history.

Jesus’ crucifixion is so well attested by both Christian and non-Christian sources that it is as close to certain as any historical datum from the first century can be. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus makes explicit reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Annals (15.44) when speaking about Nero’s blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the authenticity of this passage, but the majority of mainstream scholars concur with Kirby that:

The most persuasive case is made by those who maintain that Tacitus made use of a first century Roman document concerning the nature and status of the Christian religion. As to the reliability of that source, following normal historical practice, it is prudently assumed to be accurate until demonstrated otherwise. The reference from Tacitus constitutes prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

Jesus’ crucifixion is also attested by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Recall from Unit II-F, Section I. that Josephus was writing for a Roman audience in about 93 AD, and that there are Christian interpolations in the text of Antiquities in which his testimony to Jesus is contained. As noted in Unit II-F, many mainstream scholars consider the italicized sections in the testimony cited below to be authentic:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Again, this non-Christian testimony to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is explicit and highly probable. There are other non-Christian testimonies to Jesus’ crucifixion, but they are far less significant than those of Tacitus and Josephus.

In addition to non-Christian testimony, Jesus’ crucifixion is attested by almost every New Testament source (e.g., the four Gospels, Acts, most of the Pauline letters, 1Peter, and the Letter to the Hebrews), it is recorded in virtually all of the primitive kerygmas, and is central to the early Church’s interpretation of Jesus and itself. Finally, one is confronted with the questions: “Why would the early Church have given detailed descriptions of the public humiliation and execution of their Messiah and Lord if it had not been historically true? What would have been the point of recounting a story that undermined its apologetical appeal?” In light of this, the crucifixion of Jesus within its proper setting (i.e., a public execution entailing an arrest, trial, and conviction) must be considered incontestable.

What about the details surrounding Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion? Are the events and details recounted in the passion narratives also historically accurate? Some critics, such as Dominic Crossan, believe that it is impossible to say because (as he gratuitously asserts) there were no eyewitnesses to the event:

It seems to me most likely that those closest to Jesus knew almost nothing about the details of the event. They knew only that Jesus had been crucified, outside Jerusalem, at the time of Passover, and probably through some conjunction of imperial and sacerdotal authority.

Brown demolishes Crossan’s contention by pointing to a seemingly obvious and vexing difficulty:

[Crossan] does not explain why he thinks this “most likely,” granted the well-founded tradition that those closest to Jesus had followed him for a long period of time, day and night. Did they suddenly lose all interest, not even taking the trouble to inquire about what must have been a most traumatic moment of their lives?

Brown explains the implications of his question through a series of virtually unassailable historical judgments:

Yet as we move back from the Gospel narratives to Jesus himself, ultimately there were eyewitnesses and earwitnesses who were in a potion to know the broad lines of Jesus’ passion. He was accompanied in his ministry by a group of disciples known as the Twelve, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the arrest of Jesus was the occasion of his being separated from them. It is inconceivable that they showed no concern about what happened to Jesus after the arrest. True, there is no Christian claim that they were present during the legal proceedings against him, Jewish or Roman; but it is absurd to think that some information was not available to them about why Jesus has hanged on a cross. The whole purpose of crucifixion, after all, was to publicize that certain crimes would be severely punished. (That is the sense in which I include “earwitness”: hearing what was publicly said about the condemnation of Jesus.) The crucifixion itself was public, and nothing suggests that the burial was secret.

Attempts to present scenarios contrary to Brown’s in this regard truly verge on the illogical, unreasonable, and inconceivable; and they betray motives other than that of seeking the truth.

Furthermore, there is remarkable correspondence between the passion narrative and the Gospel of John, and recent archeological evidence uncovered by Charlesworth and von Wahlde which strongly suggests that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Von Wahlde summarizes his findings as follows:

The significance of this [archeological evidence] for our appreciation of the historical accuracy of John’s reports is considerable. Not only does John provide several details present in the Synoptics (the name of the place [Golgotha], its location outside the city walls), but he goes on to provide more detail than the other Gospels…details not essential to the narrative. If the presence of such details at first makes verification more difficult, the fact that they are corroborated by archaeological and other means [at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem ] demonstrates not only that the Johannine account contains remarkably accurate knowledge but also that the Gospel is in fact able to serve as a source of unique knowledge about the crucifixion and burial of Jesus.

This archaeological corroboration of John’s passion narrative also suggests the presence of eyewitnesses who were not only aware of the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, but also reported it to the authors of the earliest passion traditions.

Presuming, then, that there were eyewitnesses, and that they would have wanted to see or hear as much as possible about the One who was central to their lives, what could they have witnessed? They could have witnessed Jesus’ betrayal by Judas and His apprehension by the Jewish authorities. They could have also heard about any public declaration of Jesus’ charge, conviction, and sentence. They could have known who was involved in the charging, convicting, and sentencing. They could have had knowledge of public events surrounding the conviction (e.g., the release of Barabbas, or Jewish authorities stirring up the crowd). They could have witnessed the carrying of the cross and any outward signs of persecution or torture that might have preceded His journey to Golgotha (e.g., scourging or crowning with thorns). They could have witnessed the crucifixion itself, the public inscription of Jesus’ offense, the people crucified with Jesus, and they could have heard His final words, seen His death, and witnessed His burial. Evidently, they would have been a party to certain events themselves (e.g., cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant and denials).

Most of the above “witnessable” data was apologetically unappealing and presented obstacles to conversion. What would an early Jewish or gentile prospective convert find attractive about the public humiliation and execution of a messiah/leader? How did all the gory details of this crucifixion better establish Jesus’ role as messiah/leader? How would prospective Jewish converts have reacted to the contempt and rejection of Jesus by Jewish authorities? How would Peter’s denials and the apostles’ flight from Jerusalem have added to the Church’s “good image”? How does Jesus being numbered among criminals (e.g., Barabbas and the criminals crucified with Him) help the Church’s credibility among law-abiding citizens? In almost every case, the presentation of the “witnessable” data seems to undermine the early Christian’s image, credibility, and apologetical appeal. Why would they have presented these data in such detail if they had such potential and real damaging effects? I can think of only one reason. Because they were essentially true.

Can we render the same positive historical judgment about other details in the passion narratives beyond the basic “witnessable” data mentioned above? At this juncture, our pursuit of history becomes far more hazy and complex, because the witnessable data moves from eyewitnesses to catechists and teachers who need to interpret these traumatic (and unappealing) events to converts and potential converts. The natural tendency of such catechists, who were reared within Palestinian Judaism, would have been to use Scripture as a means of interpretation. Some of these attempts would be easily discernable because they would be introduced by phrases like “this was to fulfill the Scripture….” However, other Scripture passages might be on the lips of Jesus, such as the last words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (citing Psalm 22). The historian must now make the judgment of whether this was placed on the lips of Jesus, or whether Jesus selected these words for Himself (see below, Section II). Obviously, Jesus was accustomed to using Scripture to interpret His life, mission, and even crucifixion as much as, if not more than any later interpreter.

The historian’s task becomes even more complex when these traditions are woven into a single narrative. The editors of such narratives would have to be somewhat creative in synthesizing the various traditions. They might be inclined to embellish sayings or dialogue if that helped with the interpretation of recounted events. They could add thematic and even dramatic emphases to the narrative to further their catechetical or theological objectives. At this juncture, the historian must try to peel back the redactions of editors (especially the Evangelists) in order to get closer to the testimony of eyewitnesses which stand behind the narratives.

Recall from Unit II-B, Section I. that the first task is to get back to the primitive traditions that underlie the Gospel narratives, and then to judge the historicity of these primitive traditions by means of historical criteria and techniques to render judgments within a typical historical range:

…certain, very probable, probable, possible, not impossible. “Certain” has nothing to do with the certitude of mathematics or the physical sciences; it refers to the certitude we have in ordinary experience about the things we encounter or are reported to us in writing or orally.

The earliest passion narrative is in the Gospel of Mark. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke were both aware of Mark’s narrative and relied on it. As will be seen in the next section, John was not aware of Mark’s narrative, but he made recourse to a primitive tradition(s) very similar to the ones used by Mark. This coincidence is extremely useful to historians because it allows for an application of the criterion of multiple attestation, which, in turn, helps historians make judgments about whether various verses in the narratives can be considered to be part of a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition.

In Section I.B, we will take a brief look at these criteria; in Section II we will consider the historicity of Jesus’ last words in Mark; and in Section III we will attempt to uncover the pre-Marcan tradition in Mark’s narrative, and then render some general historical judgments.

=== Application of the Criteria of Historicity to the Passion Narratives ===

The reader may wish to review the descriptions and examples of the criteria and techniques for determining the historicity of Gospel passages, which are summarized in Unit II-B, Section I. A brief description of three of these criteria will be given with particular examples from the passion narratives: (1) multiple attestation, (2) embarrassment, and (3) coherence with Jewish/Roman customs.

The reader will want to recall two caveats about assessment of historicity mentioned in Unit II-B, Section I. namely:

(a) Criteria for historicity can show the likelihood of a particular Gospel datum being historical, but the absence of criteria for historicity does not show the improbability of a particular Gospel datum being historical; the non-applicability of historical criteria shows only that we have no way of assessing historicity of a Gospel datum either positively or negatively. Thus, far more data in the passion narratives (and in the Gospels, for that matter) is historical than can ever be corroborated through historical criteria.

(b) Too rigorous an application of historical criteria can unnecessarily circumscribe corroboratable data from the Gospels. If one says, “The only data that I will accept as historical are those which are attested to by four out of five independent sources” (say, Mark, Q, special Luke, and John, leaving out only special Matthew), then one will limit oneself to very few Gospel data. If one goes even further, and requires four independent Gospel sources plus an external source (such as Tacitus and Josephus), the Gospel will be reduced to the non-interpolated statements of Tacitus and Josephus. Again, if one claims that multiple attestation is not enough – there must also be corroboration from another historical criterion (say, embarrassment or coherence to Jewish culture, etc.), then the field of acceptable data is correspondingly narrowed. The judicious use of historical criteria by mainstream exegetes such as Raymond Brown, N.T. Wright, and John P. Meier can avert unnecessary proscriptions of Gospel data, and lead to reasonable and responsible corroboration of a large range of Gospel data. We may now proceed to the three historical criteria.

1) Multiple Attestation. Recall that multiple attestation does not occur when there is repetition of passages among the three synoptic Gospels, but rather when there is repetition among the five independent sources (Mark, Q, special Matthew, special Luke, and John). Matthew and Luke relied upon and used the full text of Mark. Q is another source upon which Matthew and Luke both relied. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark in their passion narratives, and so attestation among them is not significant. However, as will be discussed below, Mark and John were written independently of each other, and it is quite likely that neither one had any knowledge of the other’s narrative. Nevertheless, there are no less than thirty-two similarities between the two narratives. If John is truly not dependent on Mark, then these similarities would auger very strongly for a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) passion tradition(s) upon which both Evangelists relied. This pre-Marcan tradition(s) would bring us closer to eyewitness accounts of the passion and therefore to Jesus’ passion itself.

How can we be so sure that John was not directly reliant on Mark’s narrative? In virtually every part of the Gospel except the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on water, and the passion narratives, John’s material is so distinct from Mark that it is difficult to believe that John relied on Mark unless he wanted to separate himself from, or complement Mark. Most scholars in the latter half of the twentieth century do not believe that there is Johannine dependence on Mark.

But what about Johannine dependence on the Marcan passion narrative? As can be seen from the table above, there are so many similarities between Mark and John that the possibility of dependence must be considered. There are two significant factors militating against the dependence conjecture. First, despite the many similarities, there are many more dissimilarities in content and order between the two passion narratives. Secondly, many of the differences between Mark and John are inexplicable, if not illogical if John truly depended on Mark. Why would John have put his narrative into a more scattered and strangely ordered state than Mark’s if he depended on Mark? (A love of disorder?) Why would he have omitted details in Mark which would have been of interest to him (e.g., the kiss of Judas; mention of Simon of Cyrene; the sixth and ninth hour when darkness came over the land; the derision by the crowds at the cross; the confusion regarding Elijah – even though this may have been elicited by Jesus’ last words in Mark, which are not mentioned in John; omission of three of Mark’s women witnesses – Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, as well as “other women” in Mark, versus Mary the mother of Jesus, and His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas in John). These omissions and reorderings make little sense if John truly depended on Mark. For this reason, Brown concludes:

Throughout the commentary I shall come again and again to what I regard as a completely illogical result if John knew Mark. For that reason I shall work with the thesis that John wrote his passion narrative independently of Mark’s.

So what is the likely scenario for the Marcan and Johannine passion narratives’ development? Brown believes that this occurred in five stages:

a) Eyewitnesses. See the rationale for these eyewitness accounts given above in Section I.A.

b) A basic catechetical outline. A basic sequence of major events was formulated soon after the events of the passion connecting the Last Supper to the arrest, then to the condemnation, then to the crucifixion, then to the burial. This sequence guided the Church’s early proclamations and catechesis as well as Eucharistic memories. This is evident from Pauline and other non-Gospel New Testament writings.

c) Pre-Gospel traditions. Widely circulated stories/traditions (probably both oral and written) were formed from eyewitness accounts about particular figures and incidents in the passion narratives (alongside the basic catechetical outline). The stories were not yet connected to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.

d) Pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine traditions. The stories and basic outline made their way toward the Marcan and Johannine communities where eventually a pre-Marcan author(s) connected many of the stories to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.

e) The Marcan and Johannine passion narratives. The two Evangelists used two versions of the pre-Marcan tradition along with additional pre-Gospel traditions to formulate the passion narratives we have today.

It is likely that much of the “witnessable” data in the thirty-two common elements in the Marcan and Johannine narratives made their way from eyewitnesses into the pre-Gospel traditions, and then into the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition(s), and then into the Gospel narratives. This would include:

Judas as betrayer bringing soldiers with weapons; Jesus being seized; the high priest’s servant’s ear being cut off; Jesus’ exchange with His apprehenders; Jesus being subjected to a Jewish judicial inquest; Peter’s three denials; the high priest’s maid as first inquirer; Peter warming himself by the fire in the high priest’s courtyard; the bystanders as inquirers in the third denial; the Jewish authorities making accusations against Jesus to Pilate; the crowd asking for the release of Barabbas; Pilate not finding Jesus guilty of a crime; the crowds responding multiple times “Crucify Him”; Pilate having Jesus scourged; Pilate handing Jesus over to be crucified, Jesus being crowned with thorns; Jesus proceeding to Golgotha with a cross, the crucifixion of Jesus; an inscription reading “King of the Jews”; the soldiers dividing Jesus’ garments and casting lots for them; two criminals being crucified with Jesus, one on either side of Him; Mary Magdalene witnessing the crucifixion; the soldiers giving a vinegar-filled sponge to Jesus on the cross; Joseph of Arimathea obtaining permission to bury Jesus; and Joseph of Arimathea wrapping the body of Jesus in a linen cloth, and putting Him in a tomb.

Some of these conclusions (as well as others) are corroborated by three other historical criteria which will be discussed in the forthcoming subsections.

(2) Embarrassment. Recall from Unit II-B, Section I., that if a particular Gospel datum was embarrassing to the Church, or undermined the reputation of the apostles, or cast dispersions upon Jesus, then we can be quite certain that the Evangelists (and the formulators of early traditions) did not invent it. Raymond Brown points to several such data in the passion narratives, for example: Judas (one of the Twelve apostles) betraying Jesus; many of the disciples not remaining with Jesus during the passion; and Peter denying Jesus three times. There are other data which are embarrassing, but may have been recounted for other reasons. For example, Jesus praying in the garden, “Remove this cup from me” (Mark 14:36), which looks like Jesus is trying to avoid the cross. Although this could not have been catechetically appealing, someone could conjecture that this passage is meant “to teach Christians that facing death constitutes a trial that may challenge even sincere commitment.” Nevertheless, the datum is still catechetically unappealing, and would have been very risky for the Evangelist or early Church to have invented.

The same holds true for Jesus’ last words in the Gospel of Mark: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” As will be discussed below (Section II), the last words of Jesus do not enjoy multiple attestation because John does not recount them (and places a completely different phrase on the lips of Jesus – “It is finished”). Many scholars believe, however, that this datum is historical because it would have likely been misinterpreted by gentile audiences who might not have known that the phrase (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) refers to the whole of Psalm 22 (a Psalm of God redeeming the sufferings of the just one and bringing salvation through it to all nations and generations). Gentile audiences would have been likely to believe that Jesus was so demoralized that He lost His confidence in God and thought that God was forsaking Him. This misinterpretation would not only have been embarrassing to the Church, but would have led to a theology precisely contrary to what Jesus intended and to what the Church taught. It is difficult to believe that Mark would have invented this phrase as Jesus’ last words, and much more likely that John (like Luke), if he was aware of the phrase from a pre-Johannine tradition, would have dropped it since he was writing for a gentile audience that could have easily misinterpreted it.

(3) Coherence with Jewish/Roman customs. There are three elements which are relevant here: (a) coherence with Jewish customs, (b) Semitisms, and (c) coherence with Roman customs. The last area is somewhat complex and not especially germane to the point of this Unit; so I will limit discussion to the first two areas.

(a) ''Correspondence with Jewish custom''. One major point bears mentioning, because it shows Mark’s fidelity to the Jewish customs which would have been in effect at the time of Jesus’ passion, namely, Mark’s careful recounting of how the Sanhedrin adhered to the Mishna only when it was in conformity to the Sadducee law. Blinzler notes in this regard:

The fact that Mk 14 and 15 juxtapose items which sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the requirements of the Mishnah was hitherto felt puzzling. The explanation is that the Sanhedrin was at that time bound by the Sadducee law, which agreed with the Mishnah only exceptionally. But if Mk 14 and 15 were a legendary construction, it would be hard to explain how the author, supposedly so uninterested in historical fact, managed to be so accurate with regard to the legal custom: to the unlikely extent, that is, that the actions of the Sanhedrin only agreed with the Mishnah when the provisions of the latter coincided with those of the Sadducees, and not otherwise.

(b) ''Semitisms''. There is one truly remarkable Semitism recorded in the Marcan narrative, namely, Jesus’ final words: “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” The Marcan version of the final words is to be preferred over the Matthean one, because it is probable that Matthew tried to “clean up” Mark’s Aramaic citation of the divine name (“Elōi”) with the more proper Hebrew version of it (“’Ēlî”), which would have been recited in the synagogue. The fact that Matthew records the Aramaic “sabachthani” (instead of the more appropriate Hebrew ăzabtānî) convinces most scholars that Matthew retained remnants of an original Aramaic version.

Is Mark’s Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words truly Jesus’ words? It seems likely because much of Mark’s mixed gentile-Jewish audience would not have recognized either the Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the Psalm, which evidently compelled Mark to translate it into Greek. Why would Mark have recorded an Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words which most of his audience would not have understood? Why not simply give the Greek translation without the Aramaic? Furthermore, why give an Aramaic translation of the Psalms instead of the more proper and easily recognizable Hebrew version? The fact that Jesus may well have learned the Psalms in Aramaic and recited the Psalms in Aramaic to His Galilean audience may provide a clue to the origin of the Aramaic version of the Psalm – namely, Jesus Himself. The application of other historical criteria to this question will further confirm the origin of these words in Jesus. This will be considered in the following section.

== The Final Words of Jesus ==

Given that Mark’s version of Jesus’ final words is more original than Matthew’s version, we may now return to the question of whether Mark’s version is historical. Though the Aramaic rendition of the final words is a clue to their origin in Jesus, it is not definitive because Luke gives a different version of the final words (“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” – Luke 23:46), and so does John (“It is finished” – John 19:30). Why should Mark be preferred to Luke and John?

With respect to Luke’s version of the final words, there are four reasons to suspect that Mark’s version is closer to Jesus’ own. First, Luke was aware of Mark’s version of the final words, and would have had to have intentionally changed them. Secondly, Luke prefers to shift the focus from Jesus’ feelings of desolation to Jesus’ trust. Instead of Psalm 22:2 (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”), Luke portrays Jesus reciting Psalm 31:6 (“Into your hands I commend my spirit”), which effects this shift in focus. Luke’s preference to portray Jesus as confident (and eliminate any hint of spiritual disturbance) is evidenced in his elimination of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ anxiety in the garden of Gethsemane (“My soul is very sorrowful unto death”). It is much easier to believe that Luke has continued his redactional policy of eliminating Marcan references to Jesus’ anxiety than to believe that Luke’s version of Jesus’ words is more original. Thirdly, Luke substitutes “Father” for the Psalmist’s reference to “God,” which is very likely a redaction. Finally, Luke selects a Psalm passage which speaks to Jesus’ Spirit, which is a clear focus of his Gospel and an allusion to the Holy Spirit, which is the focus of the Acts of the Apostles. For this reason, most scholars believe that the Lukan version is a redaction of the Marcan original.

What about John’s version of the last words (“It is finished”)? Unlike Luke, John was not aware of the Marcan passion narrative, yet there is significant evidence that Mark and John borrowed from a common pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition (see above, Section I.B.1). Does John’s very different version of Jesus’ final words imply that the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition did not have any version of Jesus’ final words (and that both Mark and John invented their own in the absence of a more original version)? The answer is probably ‘no,’ because of light shed upon the question by the historical criterion of embarrassment.

Recall from Section I.B.2 that John’s predominately gentile audience could have misinterpreted Jesus’ last words as recorded by Mark. Indeed, as we just saw, Luke certainly thought this was a possibility for his gentile audience. The majority of John’s audience would probably not have recognized Psalm 22 in the Aramaic expression, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani,” and they would not have known that this first line referred to the entire Psalm. Therefore, they would not have known that Jesus’ last words were a prayer of trust in God which would lead not only to the vindication of His suffering, but to universal salvation for all humankind for all time (see below in this section). Thus (as the Johannine author very probably perceived), they would have interpreted these words to mean that Jesus felt abandoned by the Father, which is precisely the opposite of what the Psalm intends, what the early Church believed, and what Jesus intended. Not only would this have been confusing and misleading to gentile members of the early Church; it would have been apologetically unappealing and embarrassing to the Church in gentile regions. Thus, John, like Luke, would have had everything to lose (and nothing to gain) by retaining these words on the lips of the dying Jesus.

Therefore, there is considerable reason to believe prima facie that John, like Luke, would have been inclined to change Jesus’ dying words from those of Psalm 22 to something less misleading and more consistent with Jesus’ intention and the belief of the early Church. He decides upon the simple phrase, “It is finished,” which refers to Jesus’ project of redemption, the completion of which John has been pointing to throughout the “Book of Glory” (chapters 13-21).

This leads to the obvious question of why Mark (who was addressing a mixed gentile-Jewish audience) would have retained Psalm 22 as Jesus’ final words when many of his audience members would have been likely to misinterpret them in the same way as John’s and Luke’s audiences. Before responding, it is worth noting that this question does not apply to Matthew with the same force as Mark because the majority of Matthew’s audience was Jewish. Many in that audience would have been educated enough to see Psalm 22 through Matthew’s Hebraic version of it, and many would have understood that the first line of the Psalm referred to the whole Psalm. Brown points to a well-known hermeneutical principle in this regard:

…a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context.

In the case of Psalm 22, the context speaks of trust in God, vindication, and salvation for the world.

However, the above hermeneutical principle would not have applied to the gentile members of Mark’s audience; so why did he retain these words? I think there is only one plausible explanation – namely, that they are in fact the final words of Jesus. It would be inconceivable to suggest that Mark invented these words to place on the lips of Jesus given the probability of their misinterpretation (with significant negative consequences) by a large segment of his audience. Therefore, it seems likely that Mark received these words from either a pre-Marcan tradition or from Peter (for whom Mark was interpreter). In either case, Mark must have believed that these words were truly those of Jesus, and decided to retain them in their Aramaic form precisely for this reason. There does not appear to be any other reasonable motive for his taking the risk of significant misinterpretation and apologetically unappealing embarrassment.

So if we consider “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani” to be the dying words of the historical Jesus, and if we apply Brown’s hermeneutical principle to Jesus Himself (implying that Jesus expected informed listeners to “be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context”), then it seems likely that the dying Jesus was praying the whole of Psalm 22 to His Father while giving His listeners an insight into how He interpreted His sacrificial death through that prayer. Mally notes in this regard:

As a quotation of an OT Ps, it can hardly be taken literally as an expression of real despair or dereliction. Rather, Jesus applies to himself an OT passage that sums up the suffering of the upright individual who turns to his God in the stress of hostile opposition and its ensuing depression. In using the Ps, Jesus does not express the feeling that his life’s work has failed and that God has therefore abandoned him; he identifies himself with a biblical precedent, the persecuted upright man who has trusted in Yahweh, and found in him the source of his consolation and ultimate triumph [italics mine].

Thus, Jesus’ reference to Psalm 22 is an expression of trust and confidence in the Father that His suffering will result in the triumph of His mission. As noted in the previous Unit, that mission is actualized for all future generations through the gift of His presence and unconditional redeeming Love in the Eucharist.

A closer look at the Psalm may give a deep insight into the panoply of Jesus’ thoughts and feelings at the time of His crucifixion. The Psalm may be divided into three parts:

(1) “2-22, the complaint, with repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence (4-6; 10-11),”
(2) “23-32, thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share (23-27), ” and
(3) the worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh (28-32).

Each part will be presented in turn.

(1) Complaint, repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?
Oh my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
and by night, but I have no rest.

Then, the psalmist shifts perspective as he does several times throughout the Psalm, and introduces the theme of God’s holiness and grandeur, worthy of praise and trust:

Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel.
In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.

The psalmist then turns back to the deplorable nature of his condition:

But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.
All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
“He trusted in the Lord;
let the Lord rescue him.
Let Him deliver him
since He delights in him.

The uncanny resemblance between the psalmist’s words and the events taking place around Jesus give one pause. After describing the inauthentic words of the crowd (who believe that the Lord will not fulfill the trust of the psalmist), the psalmist shifts back to his fervent trust in the Lord:

Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you;
even at my mother’s breast.
From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

Having renewed his trust in the Lord, the psalmist makes an earnest petition for help:

Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.
Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.

Then the psalmist uses the same words seen in the suffering servant song (Is 52:13-53:12) and Jesus’ eucharistic words:

I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.
My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.

In continuing his description of his suffering to Yahweh, the psalmist again describes events uncannily similar to Jesus’ crucifixion:

Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.
I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

The psalmist makes another earnest petition for God’s help and consolation:

But you, oh Lord, be not far off;
oh my Strength, come quickly to help me.
Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
Rescue me from the mouth of the lion;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

(2) Thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share. The psalmist then reaffirms his trust and confidence in the Lord, as if to say that he will live beyond his current persecution to bring the praise of the Lord’s name to all who fear him:

I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the congregation I will praise you.
You who fear the Lord, praise him!
All you descendents of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendents of Israel!

The psalmist then gives his reason for his confidence in God, and his belief in his future:

For he has not despised or disdained
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you I will fulfill my vows.

The psalmist then moves into a prophetic, and even messianic tone, speaking of signs of the new Jerusalem; messianic signs which Jesus says, when quoting the prophet Isaiah, are being fulfilled in Himself:

The poor will eat and be satisfied;
they who seek the Lord will praise Him –
may your hearts live forever.

(3) The worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh. The psalmist then confidently suggests universality of salvation arising out of Yahweh’s mercy:

All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before Him,
for dominion belongs to the Lord
and He rules over the nations.

The psalmist then suggests that Yahweh’s salvation will extend to all those who are raised on high, and those who are in the grave:

All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before Him –
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
Posterity will serve Him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
They will proclaim His righteousness
to a people yet unborn –
for He has done it.

This Psalm on the dying lips of Jesus is quite remarkable. In the midst of recounting events quite similar to His crucifixion, the Psalm expresses His mind and heart as He cries out for help, as He is overwhelmingly confident in that help, and as He sees the ultimate result of that help in a salvation that will not only reach to the ends of the earth, but to all future generations on the earth, and even to those who are raised on high and those who “go down to the dust.” Thus, the Psalm connects Jesus’ torment with His confidence in the Father as He looks beyond His suffering, beyond Jerusalem, beyond the present age, and beyond earthly existence, to a redemption which will take hold in the life of God Himself. Jesus’ eucharistic words are not only consonant with those of the psalm, they give the psalm’s words ultimate meaning and reality; for they provide the vehicle through which Jesus’ person and love will save universally and eternally.

== The Passion of Jesus in Mark and in Pre-Marcan Tradition (14:32-15:37) ==

Mark gives us the oldest account of the passion. Though it tries to reconcile the passion with Old Testament prophesy, its primary objective is not apologetical. Rather, it intends to give an account of the sufferings freely endured by Jesus and “to show clearly what persons and what authorities were responsible for the death of Jesus and the extent of their guilt.” Mark believes that this is Jesus’ central salvific act and uses it to frame the rest of his Gospel. As Blinzler notes:

Mark already had before him such a relatively fixed account from oral tradition, as the insertion of 14:3-9 shows, and he enlarged it with further matter, e.g., with “memoirs” of Peter (apart from 14:3-9) such as the account of the denial (14:54, 66-72). …[T]he Gospel of Mark has been called, not unjustly, “a passion-narrative with a long introduction” (M. Kähler).

As noted above, there is substantial New Testament and extra-testamental evidence for the historicity of Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion. Many other facts surrounding the crucifixion are also very probably historical. By using the criteria and techniques elucidated above (Sections I.A and B), we can first ascertain what material from Mark’s passion narrative probably came from a pre-Marcan tradition, and the material from that tradition which could have come from eyewitness accounts. Scholars have worked diligently on these tasks for over a century, and it is beyond the scope of this study to report comprehensively on their findings. My objective is only to give a report about where the preponderance of scholarly opinion lies with regard to an early pre-Marcan tradition and the historicity of the facts within that tradition.

There is a strong likelihood that Mark made recourse to a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which he redacted and stylized to give coherence and meaning to this exceedingly significant event for the Christian Church. There is a wide variety of opinion about which verses originated with this pre-Marcan tradition(s) and which ones originated with Mark. Marion Soards has gathered a tremendous amount of data from 34 scholars representing a wide range of theological and exegetical perspectives. I have taken the liberty of presenting the Revised Standard Version of the Marcan passion narrative, and indicating the likelihood that each of its verses originated with a pre-Marcan tradition or with Mark himself according to the following key:

Bold A large majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Italics A small majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Underline The scholarly community is about evenly split on whether this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition, or with Mark himself.

Normal font The majority of the scholarly community believes that this verse originated with Mark (and is therefore a Marcan redaction).

Mark Chapter 14

32 They went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and He said to His disciples, “Sit here, while I pray.” 33 And He took with Him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. 34 And He said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch.” 35 And going a little farther, He fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. 36 And He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt.” And He came and found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? 38 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 39 And again He went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 And again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer Him. 41 And He came the third time, and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”

43 And immediately, while He was still speaking Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I shall kiss is the man; seize Him and lead Him away safely.” And when he came, he went up to Him at once, and said, “Master!” And he kissed Him. And they laid hands on Him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” And they all forsook Him, and fled.

51 And a young man followed Him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

53 And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. And Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death; but they found none. 56 For many bore false witness against Him, and their witness did not agree. 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against Him, saying, “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet not even so did their testimony agree. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you? 61 But He was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked Him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”Note 63 And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard His blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned Him as deserving death. 65 And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to strike Him, saying to Him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received Him with blows.

66 And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came; 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway. 69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” 70 But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.” 71 But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.” 72 And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

Mark Chapter 15

1 And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. And Pilate asked Him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And He answered him “You have said so.” And the chief priests accused Him of many things. And Pilate again asked Him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered.

Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they asked. And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. And he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered Him up. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” And they cried out again, “Crucify Him.” And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him.” So, Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

And the soldiers led Him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. And they clothed Him in a purple cloak, and placing a crown of thorns they put it on Him. And they began to salute Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck His head with a reed, and spat upon Him, and they knelt down in homage to Him. And when they had mocked Him, they stripped Him of the purple cloak, and put His own clothes on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him.

And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry His cross. And they brought Him to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). And they offered Him wine mingled with myrrh; but He did not take it. And they crucified Him, and divided His garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour, when they crucified Him. And the inscription of the charge against Him read, “The King of the Jews.” And with Him they crucified two robbers, one on His right and one on His left. And those who passed by derided Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 So also the chief priests mocked Him to one another with the scribes, saying, “He saved others; He cannot save Himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with Him also reviled Him.

And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” Which means, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Behold, He is calling Elijah.” And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to Him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down.” And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.

38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing Him, saw that He thus breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the son of God!”

There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, 41 who, when He was in Galilee, followed Him, and ministered to Him; and also many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 And Pilate wondered if He were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether He was already dead. 45 And when he learned from the centurion that He was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 And he bought a linen shroud, and taking Him down, wrapped Him in the linen shroud, and laid Him in a tomb which has been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where He was laid.

*****

As can be seen from the above, most scholars consider the vast majority of the passion narrative to have come from a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which would presumably include some accounts from Peter. Notice that the probable Marcan redactions are not concerned with the torment, crucifixion, and death of Jesus. They are meant to explain who is primarily guilty (i.e., Judas, the chief priests, and the council), who is less culpable (i.e., Pilate), and who is ironically the prophetic spokesman of the meaning of the passion (i.e., the centurion). They also center on Mark’s interpretation of why Jesus was accused of blasphemy (i.e., identifying Himself with the eschatological Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14). If these elements are “bracketed,” the passion story retains its poignant central core, which likely represents the traditions which Mark received as he prepared his narrative.

The question of whether the pre-Marcan tradition is faithful to accounts from eyewitnesses and earwitnesses is more difficult to ascertain. One cannot assume that a verse was witnessed simply because it was included in a pre-Marcan tradition. As was made clear in Section I.B, the pre-Marcan tradition relied on pre-Gospel traditions and stories, and had developments and accretions arising out of catechetical and pedagogical concerns. Nevertheless, it is likely that the pre-Marcan tradition(s) contained a considerable amount of “witnessable” and witnessed data for the reasons mentioned in Section I above – particularly as regards the betrayal by Judas, the arrest, a Jewish judicial inquest, Peter’s denials, the involvement of Pontius Pilate, the involvement of Jewish authorities in accusing Jesus, the release of Barabbas, the involvement of Roman soldiers, and facts surrounding the crucifixion (e.g., being scourged, being crowned with thorns, the vinegary wine, being hanged on a cross, the inscription on the cross, and the two other criminals). I would also include Jesus’ final words as recounted in Mark’s Gospel (for the reasons mentioned in the previous section), and the fact of Jesus’ burial (for the reasons mentioned in Chapter 4, Section II.B). A more detailed list of other “witnessable” data which is common to both the Marcan and Johannine traditions may be found above in Section I.B. Additional details about the historicity of particular verses in the pre-Marcan tradition(s) may be found in the “Analysis” sections following each major part of Raymond Brown’s The Death of the Messiah.

An appreciation of the significance of the passion, particularly as regards the central question of this book (i.e., “Is Jesus Emmanuel?”), cannot be attained through exegetical and historical analysis alone. Though this analysis is necessary in order to understand the meaning and reality of the events surrounding Jesus’ death, it almost blocks out the heart’s reasons to give greater clarity to the mind’s reasons. I can’t speak for you, the reader, but when I am applying criteria and techniques of historicity to particular texts, I am not being flooded with inspiration and love; and so I find it necessary to move to the domain of contemplation after I have satisfied myself about the historicity of the essential elements of Jesus’ passion. Contemplation allows one to be moved in the heart – to be struck with delight, or wonder, or amazement; to perceive beauty; to exalt; to be moved with gratitude; to feel awe and glory; to be inspired; to be moved by what is just and good and generous, and above all, to be moved by love – unconditional Love. Thus, contemplation is essential to the appreciation of Jesus’ passion, which is above all an act of incredible love.

== Contemplation on the Passion ==

The passion narratives open upon a virtually limitless depth of love, which can best be gleaned through contemplation. As explained in the previous chapter, Jesus views His passion as the culmination of His mission, the concretization of His unconditional Love in history, and His gift of unconditional Love to the world for all eternity (through the Eucharist). The reader’s time will be well spent on considering His loving intention, attitude, and feeling in His gift of self in the events of the passion.

One successful method of entering into contemplation is recommended by Saint Ignatius of Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises. It entails entering into the scene, considering the personalities and dispositions of people in the scene, and focusing on the heart of Jesus manifest through the people and events in the scene.

In light of the above, one may want to use the following structure to contemplate on the passion. After reading a particular passage at least twice, first consider various physical aspects of the scene, then:

• the persons in the scene along with Jesus, then
• Jesus’ attitude toward the people in the scene (recalling that Jesus’ attitudes are reflected in the beatitudes – humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, merciful, peacemaking, etc.), then
• Jesus’ relationship to the Father (applying Psalm 22, the Suffering Servant song – Isaiah 52:13-53:12, and Jesus’ prayer in the Garden), then
• Jesus’ universal salvific intent (applying the simile of the paschal lamb and the words “This is my body,” “the blood of the covenant,” “for all,” and “Do this in remembrance of me” – see Chapter 9, Section II.B), then
• Jesus’ love for the people in the scene (including His persecutors), His love of the Father, and His love of humankind.

You might then look at Jesus’ acceptance of anguish for the sake of love. In light of this, you might consider Jesus’ love for you and others; His hopes and aspirations for you and for others. Accept that love, accept His wanting to be your paschal lamb, sin-offering (scapegoat), and blood of the covenant (to guarantee eternal life with Him and the Father); and then, express to God what you desire.

After you have completed your contemplation, you might want to ask the recurrent questions in this book: Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this for my sake and the sake of all? Is Jesus Christ His Emmanuel? If so, then the unconditional Love of God is real and has been fully actualized in the world. That unconditional Love is unconditional light in the darkness, unconditional hope amidst dejection, unconditional resurrection amidst the cross, and unconditional redemption amidst our sin. It is unconditional life unto unconditional joy in the unconditional love of the triune God.

Passion

2015-01-08T16:30:30Z

David Persyn: /* The Historicity of the Passion */ correct format typo

Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith – Jesus

Unit II. M

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Passion

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-M_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Passion.3F | Return to the Table of Contents]]

'''Introduction'''

The Eucharist is not only Jesus’ definitive interpretation of His passion and death; it is also the definitive vehicle through which He communicates His presence and love to all future generations. So, how can our insight into the preciousness of this gift be deepened through the examination of Jesus’ passion? From a contemplative point of view, the possibilities are considerable for deepening the heart’s awareness of the love of Christ. As one considers Jesus’ willing acceptance of each part of the passion as a gift of self (love) for all humankind, one begins to affectively (not just intellectually) appreciate what unconditional Love really is; and when one sees this Love through the eyes, the face, the mind, the heart of the gentle Lamb willingly led to the slaughter, one begins to receive an answer to the questions: “Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this?” and “Is Jesus His Emmanuel?”

Since my intention here is to induce contemplation (that is, prayerful reflection on the texts of the passion), I will discuss only three important propaedeutic points: (1) an overview of the historicity of the passion narratives (Section I) , (2) an analysis of Jesus’ final words on the cross (Section II), and (3) a presentation of the pre-Marcan tradition and Mark’s passion narrative (Section III). The reader may then want to return to the previous Unit on the Eucharist to probe with contemplative insight into the meaning and reality of Jesus’ love.

== The Historicity of the Passion ==

It may be observed from the outset that Jesus’ plan to redeem the world was anything but apologetical or popular, for the idea of a suffering Messiah was thought to be a curse by His Jewish and gentile contemporaries (Dt 21:23, Gal 3:13, I Cor 12:3). Nevertheless, Jesus, knowing what would befall Him, proceeded resolutely toward Jerusalem. In light of our discussion of the Eucharist, His plan had but one objective: to join with the Father in an act of unconditional self-gift (love) for the salvation of humankind. Even though Jesus was convinced of His vindication and resurrection (see Unit II-L, Section II), He must have known that the crucifixion would be viewed as a scandal, and used against Him by His critics. Nevertheless, He viewed the passion as being indispensable to His mission. Why? Because He associated the passion with gift of self, which, as is clear from His institution of the Eucharist, He associated with unconditional Love. One can see this kind of love mirrored in parents who willingly endure humiliation, and even place themselves in harm’s way, in order to protect the lives and future of their children. Jesus viewed Himself as responsible (as shepherd and brother) for all of us who were to become, through Him, the Father’s adopted children.

Before beginning a formal analysis of the historicity of the passion narratives, we will want to examine a contention of Dominic Crossan (of the Jesus Seminar) who throws the historicity of these narratives into question by suggesting that they are derivatives of the (Gnostic) gospel of Peter. The gospel of Peter is a narrative of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. It consists of sixty verses and has been dated to Papyri originating in about 200 AD. Crossan ignores the fact that there is no evidence for the gospel of Peter prior to 200 AD, and makes a radical suggestion that it was the only source from which the passion narratives of the four canonical Gospels were derived:

Composed by the fifties C.E., and possibly at Sepphoris in Galilee, it [the Cross Gospel in the Gospel of Peter] is the single source of the intracanonical passion narratives.

Charles Quarles sums up Crossan’s conclusions from his radical contention (which does not enjoy wide acceptance in the scholarly community ) as follows:

The GP is more a product of the author’s creative literary imagination than a reflection of eyewitness accounts of actual events. Thus, if the GP is the single source for the canonical narratives of the Passion and resurrection, the canonical Gospels are unreliable revisions of an unreliable tradition. None of the Gospels could then be trusted to provide historically reliable testimony about the final events in the life of the historical Jesus.

Quarles shows this claim to be virtually untenable in the light of textual analysis. First, Crossan contends that the parallels between Matthew and the gospel of Peter regarding the Pharisees gathering before Pilate and expressing concern about a staged resurrection on the third day, the guarding and sealing of the tomb of Jesus, and the description of the Jews as “the people” shows Matthean dependence upon the gospel of Peter. Quarles shows precisely the opposite after studying the redactional tendencies of Matthew and the gospel of Peter. Following Gundry, Quarles shows that these texts are a series of “Mattheanisms,” particularly the use of the words “disciple,” “steal,” and “mēpote” – “lest” (except once where the gospel of Peter is clearly following Matthew in a subjunctive construction). He quotes John P. Meier by way of conclusion:

When it comes to who is dependent on whom, all the signs point to Matthew’s priority…. The clause is a tissue of Matthean vocabulary and style, a vocabulary and style almost totally absent from the rest of the Gospel of Peter.
Secondly, there are doctrines and sayings in the gospel of Peter which do not occur in the canonical Gospels or the New Testament. For example, Jesus’ preaching to those who have fallen asleep (to those who have died). Quarles notes in this regard:

If the emerging consensus of interpretation regarding 1Peter is correct, the presence of the reference to preaching to those who sleep in the Gospel of Peter suggests that the document was composed no earlier than the first quarter of the second century.

The same holds true for other sayings, such as the “Lord’s day,” which is mentioned in the Gospel of Peter 9:35 and 12:50, but only appears in the New Testament in the Book of Revelations (approximately 90 AD). The Gospels used the more primitive expression “the first day of the week.”

Thirdly, the description of the resurrection in the gospel of Peter is “fantastic and quite at odds with the descriptions that appear in the canonical Gospels”:

…as the three men exited the tomb, a cross, apparently floating through the air, followed them. …[T]he cross was capable of speech. A heavenly voice asked, “Did you preach to those who are sleeping?” and the cross replied, “Yes.”

We have already seen (with respect to Jesus’ miracles) the tendency of the later Gnostic gospels to move from the balanced and mature perspective of the canonical Gospels to an exaggerated, fantastic, and immature perspective (see Unit II-G, Section II). The gospel of Peter here is no different than the gospels of Thomas and Philip.

Fourthly, the “apologetical case” for Jesus’ resurrection (responding to Jewish objections at the time) is more developed in the gospel of Peter than in the Gospel of Matthew, and

no sensible explanation for Matthew’s elimination of helpful apologetic material available to him from the Cross Gospel exists. This suggests that the author of the gospel of Peter depended on Matthew’s Gospel but revised it in order to present a more compelling case for the resurrection.

For these and other reasons, Quarles (along with Meier) hold Crossan’s position to be untenable , giving rise to the conclusion:

…[I]f the canonical Gospels are the earliest record of the Passion and resurrection, as this paper suggests, and if these contain the narratives based on eyewitness accounts, as the earliest church testimony affirms and as the internal evidence suggests, the earliest narratives of Jesus’ death and resurrection may be viewed as prophecy fulfilled rather than prophecy historicized, and speculation that Jesus was not even buried, much less raised, is groundless.

We may now proceed to the question of the historicity of the passion narratives. Though all four Gospels portray the passion through narratives aimed at different audiences, and these narratives have different styles and redactional emphases, it does not mean that they do not possess an extensive historical core.

There are remarkable agreements among the four lengthy passion narratives, but this does not automatically constitute multiple attestation because Matthew and Luke saw and made recourse to the Marcan narrative. Nevertheless, as will be explained below, Mark and John did not have knowledge of each other’s narratives, and so the many similarities between these two narratives constitute a very strong form of multiple attestation. Before considering this window into the historicity of the passion narratives, we must consider two more fundamental questions which are elucidated by Raymond Brown in his extensive two-volume analysis of the passion entitled: The Death of the Messiah :

(1) Did Jesus’ disciples have access to the data recounted in the various passion narratives? (Section I.A), and

(2) How can the criteria of historicity be applied to the passion narratives? (Section I.B)

=== Did Jesus’ Disciples Have Access to the Data Recounted in the Various Passion Narratives? ===

It is not my intention to respond to the extreme skepticism of Koester, Crossan, and other members of the Jesus Seminar. Raymond Brown has done this quite well. My objective is to briefly use the criteria of historicity to uncover those parts of the narratives which may be reasonably and responsibly shown to have come from an early Palestinian passion tradition, and which may also be linked to the Jesus of history.

Jesus’ crucifixion is so well attested by both Christian and non-Christian sources that it is as close to certain as any historical datum from the first century can be. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus makes explicit reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Annals (15.44) when speaking about Nero’s blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the authenticity of this passage, but the majority of mainstream scholars concur with Kirby that:

The most persuasive case is made by those who maintain that Tacitus made use of a first century Roman document concerning the nature and status of the Christian religion. As to the reliability of that source, following normal historical practice, it is prudently assumed to be accurate until demonstrated otherwise. The reference from Tacitus constitutes prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

Jesus’ crucifixion is also attested by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Recall from Unit II-F, Section I. that Josephus was writing for a Roman audience in about 93 AD, and that there are Christian interpolations in the text of Antiquities in which his testimony to Jesus is contained. As noted in Unit II-F, many mainstream scholars consider the italicized sections in the testimony cited below to be authentic:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Again, this non-Christian testimony to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is explicit and highly probable. There are other non-Christian testimonies to Jesus’ crucifixion, but they are far less significant than those of Tacitus and Josephus.

In addition to non-Christian testimony, Jesus’ crucifixion is attested by almost every New Testament source (e.g., the four Gospels, Acts, most of the Pauline letters, 1Peter, and the Letter to the Hebrews), it is recorded in virtually all of the primitive kerygmas, and is central to the early Church’s interpretation of Jesus and itself. Finally, one is confronted with the questions: “Why would the early Church have given detailed descriptions of the public humiliation and execution of their Messiah and Lord if it had not been historically true? What would have been the point of recounting a story that undermined its apologetical appeal?” In light of this, the crucifixion of Jesus within its proper setting (i.e., a public execution entailing an arrest, trial, and conviction) must be considered incontestable.

What about the details surrounding Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion? Are the events and details recounted in the passion narratives also historically accurate? Some critics, such as Dominic Crossan, believe that it is impossible to say because (as he gratuitously asserts) there were no eyewitnesses to the event:

It seems to me most likely that those closest to Jesus knew almost nothing about the details of the event. They knew only that Jesus had been crucified, outside Jerusalem, at the time of Passover, and probably through some conjunction of imperial and sacerdotal authority.

Brown demolishes Crossan’s contention by pointing to a seemingly obvious and vexing difficulty:

[Crossan] does not explain why he thinks this “most likely,” granted the well-founded tradition that those closest to Jesus had followed him for a long period of time, day and night. Did they suddenly lose all interest, not even taking the trouble to inquire about what must have been a most traumatic moment of their lives?

Brown explains the implications of his question through a series of virtually unassailable historical judgments:

Yet as we move back from the Gospel narratives to Jesus himself, ultimately there were eyewitnesses and earwitnesses who were in a potion to know the broad lines of Jesus’ passion. He was accompanied in his ministry by a group of disciples known as the Twelve, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the arrest of Jesus was the occasion of his being separated from them. It is inconceivable that they showed no concern about what happened to Jesus after the arrest. True, there is no Christian claim that they were present during the legal proceedings against him, Jewish or Roman; but it is absurd to think that some information was not available to them about why Jesus has hanged on a cross. The whole purpose of crucifixion, after all, was to publicize that certain crimes would be severely punished. (That is the sense in which I include “earwitness”: hearing what was publicly said about the condemnation of Jesus.) The crucifixion itself was public, and nothing suggests that the burial was secret.

Attempts to present scenarios contrary to Brown’s in this regard truly verge on the illogical, unreasonable, and inconceivable; and they betray motives other than that of seeking the truth.

Furthermore, there is remarkable correspondence between the passion narrative and the Gospel of John, and recent archeological evidence uncovered by Charlesworth and von Wahlde which strongly suggests that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Von Wahlde summarizes his findings as follows:

The significance of this [archeological evidence] for our appreciation of the historical accuracy of John’s reports is considerable. Not only does John provide several details present in the Synoptics (the name of the place [Golgotha], its location outside the city walls), but he goes on to provide more detail than the other Gospels…details not essential to the narrative. If the presence of such details at first makes verification more difficult, the fact that they are corroborated by archaeological and other means [at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem ] demonstrates not only that the Johannine account contains remarkably accurate knowledge but also that the Gospel is in fact able to serve as a source of unique knowledge about the crucifixion and burial of Jesus.

This archaeological corroboration of John’s passion narrative also suggests the presence of eyewitnesses who were not only aware of the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, but also reported it to the authors of the earliest passion traditions.

Presuming, then, that there were eyewitnesses, and that they would have wanted to see or hear as much as possible about the One who was central to their lives, what could they have witnessed? They could have witnessed Jesus’ betrayal by Judas and His apprehension by the Jewish authorities. They could have also heard about any public declaration of Jesus’ charge, conviction, and sentence. They could have known who was involved in the charging, convicting, and sentencing. They could have had knowledge of public events surrounding the conviction (e.g., the release of Barabbas, or Jewish authorities stirring up the crowd). They could have witnessed the carrying of the cross and any outward signs of persecution or torture that might have preceded His journey to Golgotha (e.g., scourging or crowning with thorns). They could have witnessed the crucifixion itself, the public inscription of Jesus’ offense, the people crucified with Jesus, and they could have heard His final words, seen His death, and witnessed His burial. Evidently, they would have been a party to certain events themselves (e.g., cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant and denials).

Most of the above “witnessable” data was apologetically unappealing and presented obstacles to conversion. What would an early Jewish or gentile prospective convert find attractive about the public humiliation and execution of a messiah/leader? How did all the gory details of this crucifixion better establish Jesus’ role as messiah/leader? How would prospective Jewish converts have reacted to the contempt and rejection of Jesus by Jewish authorities? How would Peter’s denials and the apostles’ flight from Jerusalem have added to the Church’s “good image”? How does Jesus being numbered among criminals (e.g., Barabbas and the criminals crucified with Him) help the Church’s credibility among law-abiding citizens? In almost every case, the presentation of the “witnessable” data seems to undermine the early Christian’s image, credibility, and apologetical appeal. Why would they have presented these data in such detail if they had such potential and real damaging effects? I can think of only one reason. Because they were essentially true.

Can we render the same positive historical judgment about other details in the passion narratives beyond the basic “witnessable” data mentioned above? At this juncture, our pursuit of history becomes far more hazy and complex, because the witnessable data moves from eyewitnesses to catechists and teachers who need to interpret these traumatic (and unappealing) events to converts and potential converts. The natural tendency of such catechists, who were reared within Palestinian Judaism, would have been to use Scripture as a means of interpretation. Some of these attempts would be easily discernable because they would be introduced by phrases like “this was to fulfill the Scripture….” However, other Scripture passages might be on the lips of Jesus, such as the last words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (citing Psalm 22). The historian must now make the judgment of whether this was placed on the lips of Jesus, or whether Jesus selected these words for Himself (see below, Section II). Obviously, Jesus was accustomed to using Scripture to interpret His life, mission, and even crucifixion as much as, if not more than any later interpreter.

The historian’s task becomes even more complex when these traditions are woven into a single narrative. The editors of such narratives would have to be somewhat creative in synthesizing the various traditions. They might be inclined to embellish sayings or dialogue if that helped with the interpretation of recounted events. They could add thematic and even dramatic emphases to the narrative to further their catechetical or theological objectives. At this juncture, the historian must try to peel back the redactions of editors (especially the Evangelists) in order to get closer to the testimony of eyewitnesses which stand behind the narratives.

Recall from Unit II-B, Section I. that the first task is to get back to the primitive traditions that underlie the Gospel narratives, and then to judge the historicity of these primitive traditions by means of historical criteria and techniques to render judgments within a typical historical range:

…certain, very probable, probable, possible, not impossible. “Certain” has nothing to do with the certitude of mathematics or the physical sciences; it refers to the certitude we have in ordinary experience about the things we encounter or are reported to us in writing or orally.

The earliest passion narrative is in the Gospel of Mark. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke were both aware of Mark’s narrative and relied on it. As will be seen in the next section, John was not aware of Mark’s narrative, but he made recourse to a primitive tradition(s) very similar to the ones used by Mark. This coincidence is extremely useful to historians because it allows for an application of the criterion of multiple attestation, which, in turn, helps historians make judgments about whether various verses in the narratives can be considered to be part of a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition.

In Section I.B, we will take a brief look at these criteria; in Section II we will consider the historicity of Jesus’ last words in Mark; and in Section III we will attempt to uncover the pre-Marcan tradition in Mark’s narrative, and then render some general historical judgments.

=== Application of the Criteria of Historicity to the Passion Narratives ===

The reader may wish to review the descriptions and examples of the criteria and techniques for determining the historicity of Gospel passages, which are summarized in Unit II-B, Section I. A brief description of three of these criteria will be given with particular examples from the passion narratives: (1) multiple attestation, (2) embarrassment, and (3) coherence with Jewish/Roman customs.

The reader will want to recall two caveats about assessment of historicity mentioned in Unit II-B, Section I. namely:

(a) Criteria for historicity can show the likelihood of a particular Gospel datum being historical, but the absence of criteria for historicity does not show the improbability of a particular Gospel datum being historical; the non-applicability of historical criteria shows only that we have no way of assessing historicity of a Gospel datum either positively or negatively. Thus, far more data in the passion narratives (and in the Gospels, for that matter) is historical than can ever be corroborated through historical criteria.

(b) Too rigorous an application of historical criteria can unnecessarily circumscribe corroboratable data from the Gospels. If one says, “The only data that I will accept as historical are those which are attested to by four out of five independent sources” (say, Mark, Q, special Luke, and John, leaving out only special Matthew), then one will limit oneself to very few Gospel data. If one goes even further, and requires four independent Gospel sources plus an external source (such as Tacitus and Josephus), the Gospel will be reduced to the non-interpolated statements of Tacitus and Josephus. Again, if one claims that multiple attestation is not enough – there must also be corroboration from another historical criterion (say, embarrassment or coherence to Jewish culture, etc.), then the field of acceptable data is correspondingly narrowed. The judicious use of historical criteria by mainstream exegetes such as Raymond Brown, N.T. Wright, and John P. Meier can avert unnecessary proscriptions of Gospel data, and lead to reasonable and responsible corroboration of a large range of Gospel data. We may now proceed to the three historical criteria.

1) Multiple Attestation. Recall that multiple attestation does not occur when there is repetition of passages among the three synoptic Gospels, but rather when there is repetition among the five independent sources (Mark, Q, special Matthew, special Luke, and John). Matthew and Luke relied upon and used the full text of Mark. Q is another source upon which Matthew and Luke both relied. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark in their passion narratives, and so attestation among them is not significant. However, as will be discussed below, Mark and John were written independently of each other, and it is quite likely that neither one had any knowledge of the other’s narrative. Nevertheless, there are no less than thirty-two similarities between the two narratives detailed in the table below. If John is truly not dependent on Mark, then these similarities would auger very strongly for a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) passion tradition(s) upon which both Evangelists relied. This pre-Marcan tradition(s) would bring us closer to eyewitness accounts of the passion and therefore to Jesus’ passion itself.

MARK JOHN TYPE OF SIMILARITY

Betrayal
14:43

Seizure and Severing of Ear
14:44-49

Jewish Inquest and Denials
14:55-72

Pilate’s Inquest
15:1-5

Barabbas
15:6-15

Torment and Humiliation
15:16-20

15:21-22

Crucifixion
15:23-41

Burial
15:42-47

18:2-3

18:4-12

18:13-27

18:28-19:11

18:38-19:16

19:2-3

19:17

19:18-30

19:38-42

(1) Judas as betrayer, brings soldiers, with weapons.

(2) Jesus is seized; (3) Cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant; (4) Jesus dialogues with apprehenders.

(5) Jesus is subjected to a Jewish judicial inquest (including high/chief priest); (6) Jesus receives blows from guards/officer after response; (7) three denials by Peter; (8) the high priest’s maid as questioner in first denial; (9) Peter warming himself by fire in high priest’s courtyard; (10) bystanders as questioners in third denial (though chronology is different in Mark and John).

(11) Next morning; Pilate’s inquiry, “Are you King of the Jews?”; (12) Jesus’ first response equals no assent to inquiry; (13) Jewish authorities make accusations against Jesus to Pilate; (14) Jesus is silent at the end of the inquest.

(15) Pilate suggests that Jesus be the prisoner released for the feast; (16) Jews (including chief priests) ask for release of Barabbas; (17) Pilate finds no crime committed by Jesus and remonstrates with Jewish authorities on behalf of Jesus; (18) crowds respond multiple times “Crucify Him”; (19) Pilate has Jesus scourged; (20) Pilate hands Jesus over to be crucified.

(21) Crown of thorns; (22) purple robe; (23) soldiers striking Jesus and saying “Hail, King of the Jews.”

(24) Jesus proceeds to Golgotha with cross.

(25) Crucifixion of Jesus; (26) inscription “King of the Jews”; (27) dividing garments and casting lots for them; (28) two criminals are crucified with Jesus, one on either side of Him; (29) Mary Magdalene witnesses crucifixion; (30) vinegar-filled sponge given to Jesus on the cross.

(31) Joseph of Arimathea makes the request for the body of Jesus; (32) Joseph (plus Nicodemus in John) wraps the body of Jesus in a linen cloth, and puts Him in a tomb.

How can we be so sure that John was not directly reliant on Mark’s narrative? In virtually every part of the Gospel except the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on water, and the passion narratives, John’s material is so distinct from Mark that it is difficult to believe that John relied on Mark unless he wanted to separate himself from, or complement Mark. Most scholars in the latter half of the twentieth century do not believe that there is Johannine dependence on Mark.

But what about Johannine dependence on the Marcan passion narrative? As can be seen from the table above, there are so many similarities between Mark and John that the possibility of dependence must be considered. There are two significant factors militating against the dependence conjecture. First, despite the many similarities, there are many more dissimilarities in content and order between the two passion narratives. Secondly, many of the differences between Mark and John are inexplicable, if not illogical if John truly depended on Mark. Why would John have put his narrative into a more scattered and strangely ordered state than Mark’s if he depended on Mark? (A love of disorder?) Why would he have omitted details in Mark which would have been of interest to him (e.g., the kiss of Judas; mention of Simon of Cyrene; the sixth and ninth hour when darkness came over the land; the derision by the crowds at the cross; the confusion regarding Elijah – even though this may have been elicited by Jesus’ last words in Mark, which are not mentioned in John; omission of three of Mark’s women witnesses – Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, as well as “other women” in Mark, versus Mary the mother of Jesus, and His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas in John). These omissions and reorderings make little sense if John truly depended on Mark. For this reason, Brown concludes:

Throughout the commentary I shall come again and again to what I regard as a completely illogical result if John knew Mark. For that reason I shall work with the thesis that John wrote his passion narrative independently of Mark’s.

So what is the likely scenario for the Marcan and Johannine passion narratives’ development? Brown believes that this occurred in five stages:

a) Eyewitnesses. See the rationale for these eyewitness accounts given above in Section I.A.
b) A basic catechetical outline. A basic sequence of major events was formulated soon after the events of the passion connecting the Last Supper to the arrest, then to the condemnation, then to the crucifixion, then to the burial. This sequence guided the Church’s early proclamations and catechesis as well as Eucharistic memories. This is evident from Pauline and other non-Gospel New Testament writings.
c) Pre-Gospel traditions. Widely circulated stories/traditions (probably both oral and written) were formed from eyewitness accounts about particular figures and incidents in the passion narratives (alongside the basic catechetical outline). The stories were not yet connected to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.
d) Pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine traditions. The stories and basic outline made their way toward the Marcan and Johannine communities where eventually a pre-Marcan author(s) connected many of the stories to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.
e) The Marcan and Johannine passion narratives. The two Evangelists used two versions of the pre-Marcan tradition along with additional pre-Gospel traditions to formulate the passion narratives we have today.

It is likely that much of the “witnessable” data in the thirty-two common elements in the Marcan and Johannine narratives made their way from eyewitnesses into the pre-Gospel traditions, and then into the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition(s), and then into the Gospel narratives. This would include:

Judas as betrayer bringing soldiers with weapons; Jesus being seized; the high priest’s servant’s ear being cut off; Jesus’ exchange with His apprehenders; Jesus being subjected to a Jewish judicial inquest; Peter’s three denials; the high priest’s maid as first inquirer; Peter warming himself by the fire in the high priest’s courtyard; the bystanders as inquirers in the third denial; the Jewish authorities making accusations against Jesus to Pilate; the crowd asking for the release of Barabbas; Pilate not finding Jesus guilty of a crime; the crowds responding multiple times “Crucify Him”; Pilate having Jesus scourged; Pilate handing Jesus over to be crucified, Jesus being crowned with thorns; Jesus proceeding to Golgotha with a cross, the crucifixion of Jesus; an inscription reading “King of the Jews”; the soldiers dividing Jesus’ garments and casting lots for them; two criminals being crucified with Jesus, one on either side of Him; Mary Magdalene witnessing the crucifixion; the soldiers giving a vinegar-filled sponge to Jesus on the cross; Joseph of Arimathea obtaining permission to bury Jesus; and Joseph of Arimathea wrapping the body of Jesus in a linen cloth, and putting Him in a tomb.

Some of these conclusions (as well as others) are corroborated by three other historical criteria which will be discussed in the forthcoming subsections.

(2) Embarrassment. Recall from Unit II-B, Section I., that if a particular Gospel datum was embarrassing to the Church, or undermined the reputation of the apostles, or cast dispersions upon Jesus, then we can be quite certain that the Evangelists (and the formulators of early traditions) did not invent it. Raymond Brown points to several such data in the passion narratives, for example: Judas (one of the Twelve apostles) betraying Jesus; many of the disciples not remaining with Jesus during the passion; and Peter denying Jesus three times. There are other data which are embarrassing, but may have been recounted for other reasons. For example, Jesus praying in the garden, “Remove this cup from me” (Mark 14:36), which looks like Jesus is trying to avoid the cross. Although this could not have been catechetically appealing, someone could conjecture that this passage is meant “to teach Christians that facing death constitutes a trial that may challenge even sincere commitment.” Nevertheless, the datum is still catechetically unappealing, and would have been very risky for the Evangelist or early Church to have invented.

The same holds true for Jesus’ last words in the Gospel of Mark: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” As will be discussed below (Section II), the last words of Jesus do not enjoy multiple attestation because John does not recount them (and places a completely different phrase on the lips of Jesus – “It is finished”). Many scholars believe, however, that this datum is historical because it would have likely been misinterpreted by gentile audiences who might not have known that the phrase (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) refers to the whole of Psalm 22 (a Psalm of God redeeming the sufferings of the just one and bringing salvation through it to all nations and generations). Gentile audiences would have been likely to believe that Jesus was so demoralized that He lost His confidence in God and thought that God was forsaking Him. This misinterpretation would not only have been embarrassing to the Church, but would have led to a theology precisely contrary to what Jesus intended and to what the Church taught. It is difficult to believe that Mark would have invented this phrase as Jesus’ last words, and much more likely that John (like Luke), if he was aware of the phrase from a pre-Johannine tradition, would have dropped it since he was writing for a gentile audience that could have easily misinterpreted it.

(3) Coherence with Jewish/Roman customs. There are three elements which are relevant here: (a) coherence with Jewish customs, (b) Semitisms, and (c) coherence with Roman customs. The last area is somewhat complex and not especially germane to the point of this Unit; so I will limit discussion to the first two areas.

(a) Correspondence with Jewish custom. One major point bears mentioning, because it shows Mark’s fidelity to the Jewish customs which would have been in effect at the time of Jesus’ passion, namely, Mark’s careful recounting of how the Sanhedrin adhered to the Mishna only when it was in conformity to the Sadducee law. Blinzler notes in this regard:

The fact that Mk 14 and 15 juxtapose items which sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the requirements of the Mishnah was hitherto felt puzzling. The explanation is that the Sanhedrin was at that time bound by the Sadducee law, which agreed with the Mishnah only exceptionally. But if Mk 14 and 15 were a legendary construction, it would be hard to explain how the author, supposedly so uninterested in historical fact, managed to be so accurate with regard to the legal custom: to the unlikely extent, that is, that the actions of the Sanhedrin only agreed with the Mishnah when the provisions of the latter coincided with those of the Sadducees, and not otherwise.

(b) Semitisms. There is one truly remarkable Semitism recorded in the Marcan narrative, namely, Jesus’ final words: “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” The Marcan version of the final words is to be preferred over the Matthean one, because it is probable that Matthew tried to “clean up” Mark’s Aramaic citation of the divine name (“Elōi”) with the more proper Hebrew version of it (“’Ēlî”), which would have been recited in the synagogue. The fact that Matthew records the Aramaic “sabachthani” (instead of the more appropriate Hebrew ăzabtānî) convinces most scholars that Matthew retained remnants of an original Aramaic version.

Is Mark’s Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words truly Jesus’ words? It seems likely because much of Mark’s mixed gentile-Jewish audience would not have recognized either the Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the Psalm, which evidently compelled Mark to translate it into Greek. Why would Mark have recorded an Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words which most of his audience would not have understood? Why not simply give the Greek translation without the Aramaic? Furthermore, why give an Aramaic translation of the Psalms instead of the more proper and easily recognizable Hebrew version? The fact that Jesus may well have learned the Psalms in Aramaic and recited the Psalms in Aramaic to His Galilean audience may provide a clue to the origin of the Aramaic version of the Psalm – namely, Jesus Himself. The application of other historical criteria to this question will further confirm the origin of these words in Jesus. This will be considered in the following section.

== The Final Words of Jesus ==

Given that Mark’s version of Jesus’ final words is more original than Matthew’s version, we may now return to the question of whether Mark’s version is historical. Though the Aramaic rendition of the final words is a clue to their origin in Jesus, it is not definitive because Luke gives a different version of the final words (“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” – Luke 23:46), and so does John (“It is finished” – John 19:30). Why should Mark be preferred to Luke and John?

With respect to Luke’s version of the final words, there are four reasons to suspect that Mark’s version is closer to Jesus’ own. First, Luke was aware of Mark’s version of the final words, and would have had to have intentionally changed them. Secondly, Luke prefers to shift the focus from Jesus’ feelings of desolation to Jesus’ trust. Instead of Psalm 22:2 (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”), Luke portrays Jesus reciting Psalm 31:6 (“Into your hands I commend my spirit”), which effects this shift in focus. Luke’s preference to portray Jesus as confident (and eliminate any hint of spiritual disturbance) is evidenced in his elimination of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ anxiety in the garden of Gethsemane (“My soul is very sorrowful unto death”). It is much easier to believe that Luke has continued his redactional policy of eliminating Marcan references to Jesus’ anxiety than to believe that Luke’s version of Jesus’ words is more original. Thirdly, Luke substitutes “Father” for the Psalmist’s reference to “God,” which is very likely a redaction. Finally, Luke selects a Psalm passage which speaks to Jesus’ Spirit, which is a clear focus of his Gospel and an allusion to the Holy Spirit, which is the focus of the Acts of the Apostles. For this reason, most scholars believe that the Lukan version is a redaction of the Marcan original.

What about John’s version of the last words (“It is finished”)? Unlike Luke, John was not aware of the Marcan passion narrative, yet there is significant evidence that Mark and John borrowed from a common pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition (see above, Section I.B.1). Does John’s very different version of Jesus’ final words imply that the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition did not have any version of Jesus’ final words (and that both Mark and John invented their own in the absence of a more original version)? The answer is probably ‘no,’ because of light shed upon the question by the historical criterion of embarrassment.

Recall from Section I.B.2 that John’s predominately gentile audience could have misinterpreted Jesus’ last words as recorded by Mark. Indeed, as we just saw, Luke certainly thought this was a possibility for his gentile audience. The majority of John’s audience would probably not have recognized Psalm 22 in the Aramaic expression, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani,” and they would not have known that this first line referred to the entire Psalm. Therefore, they would not have known that Jesus’ last words were a prayer of trust in God which would lead not only to the vindication of His suffering, but to universal salvation for all humankind for all time (see below in this section). Thus (as the Johannine author very probably perceived), they would have interpreted these words to mean that Jesus felt abandoned by the Father, which is precisely the opposite of what the Psalm intends, what the early Church believed, and what Jesus intended. Not only would this have been confusing and misleading to gentile members of the early Church; it would have been apologetically unappealing and embarrassing to the Church in gentile regions. Thus, John, like Luke, would have had everything to lose (and nothing to gain) by retaining these words on the lips of the dying Jesus.

Therefore, there is considerable reason to believe prima facie that John, like Luke, would have been inclined to change Jesus’ dying words from those of Psalm 22 to something less misleading and more consistent with Jesus’ intention and the belief of the early Church. He decides upon the simple phrase, “It is finished,” which refers to Jesus’ project of redemption, the completion of which John has been pointing to throughout the “Book of Glory” (chapters 13-21).

This leads to the obvious question of why Mark (who was addressing a mixed gentile-Jewish audience) would have retained Psalm 22 as Jesus’ final words when many of his audience members would have been likely to misinterpret them in the same way as John’s and Luke’s audiences. Before responding, it is worth noting that this question does not apply to Matthew with the same force as Mark because the majority of Matthew’s audience was Jewish. Many in that audience would have been educated enough to see Psalm 22 through Matthew’s Hebraic version of it, and many would have understood that the first line of the Psalm referred to the whole Psalm. Brown points to a well-known hermeneutical principle in this regard:

…a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context.

In the case of Psalm 22, the context speaks of trust in God, vindication, and salvation for the world.

However, the above hermeneutical principle would not have applied to the gentile members of Mark’s audience; so why did he retain these words? I think there is only one plausible explanation – namely, that they are in fact the final words of Jesus. It would be inconceivable to suggest that Mark invented these words to place on the lips of Jesus given the probability of their misinterpretation (with significant negative consequences) by a large segment of his audience. Therefore, it seems likely that Mark received these words from either a pre-Marcan tradition or from Peter (for whom Mark was interpreter). In either case, Mark must have believed that these words were truly those of Jesus, and decided to retain them in their Aramaic form precisely for this reason. There does not appear to be any other reasonable motive for his taking the risk of significant misinterpretation and apologetically unappealing embarrassment.

So if we consider “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani” to be the dying words of the historical Jesus, and if we apply Brown’s hermeneutical principle to Jesus Himself (implying that Jesus expected informed listeners to “be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context”), then it seems likely that the dying Jesus was praying the whole of Psalm 22 to His Father while giving His listeners an insight into how He interpreted His sacrificial death through that prayer. Mally notes in this regard:

As a quotation of an OT Ps, it can hardly be taken literally as an expression of real despair or dereliction. Rather, Jesus applies to himself an OT passage that sums up the suffering of the upright individual who turns to his God in the stress of hostile opposition and its ensuing depression. In using the Ps, Jesus does not express the feeling that his life’s work has failed and that God has therefore abandoned him; he identifies himself with a biblical precedent, the persecuted upright man who has trusted in Yahweh, and found in him the source of his consolation and ultimate triumph [italics mine].

Thus, Jesus’ reference to Psalm 22 is an expression of trust and confidence in the Father that His suffering will result in the triumph of His mission. As noted in the previous Unit, that mission is actualized for all future generations through the gift of His presence and unconditional redeeming Love in the Eucharist.

A closer look at the Psalm may give a deep insight into the panoply of Jesus’ thoughts and feelings at the time of His crucifixion. The Psalm may be divided into three parts:

(1) “2-22, the complaint, with repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence (4-6; 10-11),”
(2) “23-32, thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share (23-27), ” and
(3) the worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh (28-32).

Each part will be presented in turn.

(1) Complaint, repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?
Oh my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
and by night, but I have no rest.

Then, the psalmist shifts perspective as he does several times throughout the Psalm, and introduces the theme of God’s holiness and grandeur, worthy of praise and trust:

Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel.
In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.

The psalmist then turns back to the deplorable nature of his condition:

But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.
All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
“He trusted in the Lord;
let the Lord rescue him.
Let Him deliver him
since He delights in him.

The uncanny resemblance between the psalmist’s words and the events taking place around Jesus give one pause. After describing the inauthentic words of the crowd (who believe that the Lord will not fulfill the trust of the psalmist), the psalmist shifts back to his fervent trust in the Lord:

Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you;
even at my mother’s breast.
From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

Having renewed his trust in the Lord, the psalmist makes an earnest petition for help:

Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.
Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.

Then the psalmist uses the same words seen in the suffering servant song (Is 52:13-53:12) and Jesus’ eucharistic words:

I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.
My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.

In continuing his description of his suffering to Yahweh, the psalmist again describes events uncannily similar to Jesus’ crucifixion:

Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.
I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

The psalmist makes another earnest petition for God’s help and consolation:

But you, oh Lord, be not far off;
oh my Strength, come quickly to help me.
Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
Rescue me from the mouth of the lion;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

(2) Thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share. The psalmist then reaffirms his trust and confidence in the Lord, as if to say that he will live beyond his current persecution to bring the praise of the Lord’s name to all who fear him:

I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the congregation I will praise you.
You who fear the Lord, praise him!
All you descendents of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendents of Israel!

The psalmist then gives his reason for his confidence in God, and his belief in his future:

For he has not despised or disdained
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you I will fulfill my vows.

The psalmist then moves into a prophetic, and even messianic tone, speaking of signs of the new Jerusalem; messianic signs which Jesus says, when quoting the prophet Isaiah, are being fulfilled in Himself:

The poor will eat and be satisfied;
they who seek the Lord will praise Him –
may your hearts live forever.

(3) The worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh. The psalmist then confidently suggests universality of salvation arising out of Yahweh’s mercy:

All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before Him,
for dominion belongs to the Lord
and He rules over the nations.

The psalmist then suggests that Yahweh’s salvation will extend to all those who are raised on high, and those who are in the grave:

All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before Him –
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
Posterity will serve Him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
They will proclaim His righteousness
to a people yet unborn –
for He has done it.

This Psalm on the dying lips of Jesus is quite remarkable. In the midst of recounting events quite similar to His crucifixion, the Psalm expresses His mind and heart as He cries out for help, as He is overwhelmingly confident in that help, and as He sees the ultimate result of that help in a salvation that will not only reach to the ends of the earth, but to all future generations on the earth, and even to those who are raised on high and those who “go down to the dust.” Thus, the Psalm connects Jesus’ torment with His confidence in the Father as He looks beyond His suffering, beyond Jerusalem, beyond the present age, and beyond earthly existence, to a redemption which will take hold in the life of God Himself. Jesus’ eucharistic words are not only consonant with those of the psalm, they give the psalm’s words ultimate meaning and reality; for they provide the vehicle through which Jesus’ person and love will save universally and eternally.

== The Passion of Jesus in Mark and in Pre-Marcan Tradition (14:32-15:37) ==

Mark gives us the oldest account of the passion. Though it tries to reconcile the passion with Old Testament prophesy, its primary objective is not apologetical. Rather, it intends to give an account of the sufferings freely endured by Jesus and “to show clearly what persons and what authorities were responsible for the death of Jesus and the extent of their guilt.” Mark believes that this is Jesus’ central salvific act and uses it to frame the rest of his Gospel. As Blinzler notes:

Mark already had before him such a relatively fixed account from oral tradition, as the insertion of 14:3-9 shows, and he enlarged it with further matter, e.g., with “memoirs” of Peter (apart from 14:3-9) such as the account of the denial (14:54, 66-72). …[T]he Gospel of Mark has been called, not unjustly, “a passion-narrative with a long introduction” (M. Kähler).

As noted above, there is substantial New Testament and extra-testamental evidence for the historicity of Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion. Many other facts surrounding the crucifixion are also very probably historical. By using the criteria and techniques elucidated above (Sections I.A and B), we can first ascertain what material from Mark’s passion narrative probably came from a pre-Marcan tradition, and the material from that tradition which could have come from eyewitness accounts. Scholars have worked diligently on these tasks for over a century, and it is beyond the scope of this study to report comprehensively on their findings. My objective is only to give a report about where the preponderance of scholarly opinion lies with regard to an early pre-Marcan tradition and the historicity of the facts within that tradition.

There is a strong likelihood that Mark made recourse to a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which he redacted and stylized to give coherence and meaning to this exceedingly significant event for the Christian Church. There is a wide variety of opinion about which verses originated with this pre-Marcan tradition(s) and which ones originated with Mark. Marion Soards has gathered a tremendous amount of data from 34 scholars representing a wide range of theological and exegetical perspectives. I have taken the liberty of presenting the Revised Standard Version of the Marcan passion narrative, and indicating the likelihood that each of its verses originated with a pre-Marcan tradition or with Mark himself according to the following key:

Bold A large majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Italics A small majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Underline The scholarly community is about evenly split on whether this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition, or with Mark himself.

Normal font The majority of the scholarly community believes that this verse originated with Mark (and is therefore a Marcan redaction).

Mark Chapter 14

32 They went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and He said to His disciples, “Sit here, while I pray.” 33 And He took with Him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. 34 And He said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch.” 35 And going a little farther, He fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. 36 And He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt.” And He came and found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? 38 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 39 And again He went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 And again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer Him. 41 And He came the third time, and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”

43 And immediately, while He was still speaking Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I shall kiss is the man; seize Him and lead Him away safely.” And when he came, he went up to Him at once, and said, “Master!” And he kissed Him. And they laid hands on Him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” And they all forsook Him, and fled.

51 And a young man followed Him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

53 And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. And Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death; but they found none. 56 For many bore false witness against Him, and their witness did not agree. 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against Him, saying, “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet not even so did their testimony agree. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you? 61 But He was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked Him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”Note 63 And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard His blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned Him as deserving death. 65 And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to strike Him, saying to Him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received Him with blows.

66 And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came; 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway. 69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” 70 But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.” 71 But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.” 72 And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

Mark Chapter 15

1 And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. And Pilate asked Him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And He answered him “You have said so.” And the chief priests accused Him of many things. And Pilate again asked Him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered.

Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they asked. And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. And he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered Him up. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” And they cried out again, “Crucify Him.” And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him.” So, Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

And the soldiers led Him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. And they clothed Him in a purple cloak, and placing a crown of thorns they put it on Him. And they began to salute Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck His head with a reed, and spat upon Him, and they knelt down in homage to Him. And when they had mocked Him, they stripped Him of the purple cloak, and put His own clothes on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him.

And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry His cross. And they brought Him to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). And they offered Him wine mingled with myrrh; but He did not take it. And they crucified Him, and divided His garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour, when they crucified Him. And the inscription of the charge against Him read, “The King of the Jews.” And with Him they crucified two robbers, one on His right and one on His left. And those who passed by derided Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 So also the chief priests mocked Him to one another with the scribes, saying, “He saved others; He cannot save Himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with Him also reviled Him.

And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” Which means, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Behold, He is calling Elijah.” And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to Him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down.” And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.

38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing Him, saw that He thus breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the son of God!”

There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, 41 who, when He was in Galilee, followed Him, and ministered to Him; and also many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 And Pilate wondered if He were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether He was already dead. 45 And when he learned from the centurion that He was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 And he bought a linen shroud, and taking Him down, wrapped Him in the linen shroud, and laid Him in a tomb which has been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where He was laid.

*****

As can be seen from the above, most scholars consider the vast majority of the passion narrative to have come from a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which would presumably include some accounts from Peter. Notice that the probable Marcan redactions are not concerned with the torment, crucifixion, and death of Jesus. They are meant to explain who is primarily guilty (i.e., Judas, the chief priests, and the council), who is less culpable (i.e., Pilate), and who is ironically the prophetic spokesman of the meaning of the passion (i.e., the centurion). They also center on Mark’s interpretation of why Jesus was accused of blasphemy (i.e., identifying Himself with the eschatological Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14). If these elements are “bracketed,” the passion story retains its poignant central core, which likely represents the traditions which Mark received as he prepared his narrative.

The question of whether the pre-Marcan tradition is faithful to accounts from eyewitnesses and earwitnesses is more difficult to ascertain. One cannot assume that a verse was witnessed simply because it was included in a pre-Marcan tradition. As was made clear in Section I.B, the pre-Marcan tradition relied on pre-Gospel traditions and stories, and had developments and accretions arising out of catechetical and pedagogical concerns. Nevertheless, it is likely that the pre-Marcan tradition(s) contained a considerable amount of “witnessable” and witnessed data for the reasons mentioned in Section I above – particularly as regards the betrayal by Judas, the arrest, a Jewish judicial inquest, Peter’s denials, the involvement of Pontius Pilate, the involvement of Jewish authorities in accusing Jesus, the release of Barabbas, the involvement of Roman soldiers, and facts surrounding the crucifixion (e.g., being scourged, being crowned with thorns, the vinegary wine, being hanged on a cross, the inscription on the cross, and the two other criminals). I would also include Jesus’ final words as recounted in Mark’s Gospel (for the reasons mentioned in the previous section), and the fact of Jesus’ burial (for the reasons mentioned in Chapter 4, Section II.B). A more detailed list of other “witnessable” data which is common to both the Marcan and Johannine traditions may be found above in Section I.B. Additional details about the historicity of particular verses in the pre-Marcan tradition(s) may be found in the “Analysis” sections following each major part of Raymond Brown’s The Death of the Messiah.

An appreciation of the significance of the passion, particularly as regards the central question of this book (i.e., “Is Jesus Emmanuel?”), cannot be attained through exegetical and historical analysis alone. Though this analysis is necessary in order to understand the meaning and reality of the events surrounding Jesus’ death, it almost blocks out the heart’s reasons to give greater clarity to the mind’s reasons. I can’t speak for you, the reader, but when I am applying criteria and techniques of historicity to particular texts, I am not being flooded with inspiration and love; and so I find it necessary to move to the domain of contemplation after I have satisfied myself about the historicity of the essential elements of Jesus’ passion. Contemplation allows one to be moved in the heart – to be struck with delight, or wonder, or amazement; to perceive beauty; to exalt; to be moved with gratitude; to feel awe and glory; to be inspired; to be moved by what is just and good and generous, and above all, to be moved by love – unconditional Love. Thus, contemplation is essential to the appreciation of Jesus’ passion, which is above all an act of incredible love.

== Contemplation on the Passion ==

The passion narratives open upon a virtually limitless depth of love, which can best be gleaned through contemplation. As explained in the previous chapter, Jesus views His passion as the culmination of His mission, the concretization of His unconditional Love in history, and His gift of unconditional Love to the world for all eternity (through the Eucharist). The reader’s time will be well spent on considering His loving intention, attitude, and feeling in His gift of self in the events of the passion.

One successful method of entering into contemplation is recommended by Saint Ignatius of Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises. It entails entering into the scene, considering the personalities and dispositions of people in the scene, and focusing on the heart of Jesus manifest through the people and events in the scene.

In light of the above, one may want to use the following structure to contemplate on the passion. After reading a particular passage at least twice, first consider various physical aspects of the scene, then:

• the persons in the scene along with Jesus, then
• Jesus’ attitude toward the people in the scene (recalling that Jesus’ attitudes are reflected in the beatitudes – humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, merciful, peacemaking, etc.), then
• Jesus’ relationship to the Father (applying Psalm 22, the Suffering Servant song – Isaiah 52:13-53:12, and Jesus’ prayer in the Garden), then
• Jesus’ universal salvific intent (applying the simile of the paschal lamb and the words “This is my body,” “the blood of the covenant,” “for all,” and “Do this in remembrance of me” – see Chapter 9, Section II.B), then
• Jesus’ love for the people in the scene (including His persecutors), His love of the Father, and His love of humankind.

You might then look at Jesus’ acceptance of anguish for the sake of love. In light of this, you might consider Jesus’ love for you and others; His hopes and aspirations for you and for others. Accept that love, accept His wanting to be your paschal lamb, sin-offering (scapegoat), and blood of the covenant (to guarantee eternal life with Him and the Father); and then, express to God what you desire.

After you have completed your contemplation, you might want to ask the recurrent questions in this book: Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this for my sake and the sake of all? Is Jesus Christ His Emmanuel? If so, then the unconditional Love of God is real and has been fully actualized in the world. That unconditional Love is unconditional light in the darkness, unconditional hope amidst dejection, unconditional resurrection amidst the cross, and unconditional redemption amidst our sin. It is unconditional life unto unconditional joy in the unconditional love of the triune God.

Passion

2015-01-08T16:29:28Z

David Persyn: Create page Raw form

Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith – Jesus

Unit II. M

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Passion

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-M_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Passion.3F | Return to the Table of Contents]]

'''Introduction'''

The Eucharist is not only Jesus’ definitive interpretation of His passion and death; it is also the definitive vehicle through which He communicates His presence and love to all future generations. So, how can our insight into the preciousness of this gift be deepened through the examination of Jesus’ passion? From a contemplative point of view, the possibilities are considerable for deepening the heart’s awareness of the love of Christ. As one considers Jesus’ willing acceptance of each part of the passion as a gift of self (love) for all humankind, one begins to affectively (not just intellectually) appreciate what unconditional Love really is; and when one sees this Love through the eyes, the face, the mind, the heart of the gentle Lamb willingly led to the slaughter, one begins to receive an answer to the questions: “Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this?” and “Is Jesus His Emmanuel?”

Since my intention here is to induce contemplation (that is, prayerful reflection on the texts of the passion), I will discuss only three important propaedeutic points: (1) an overview of the historicity of the passion narratives (Section I) , (2) an analysis of Jesus’ final words on the cross (Section II), and (3) a presentation of the pre-Marcan tradition and Mark’s passion narrative (Section III). The reader may then want to return to the previous Unit on the Eucharist to probe with contemplative insight into the meaning and reality of Jesus’ love.

== The Historicity of the Passion ==

It may be observed from the outset that Jesus’ plan to redeem the world was anything but apologetical or popular, for the idea of a suffering Messiah was thought to be a curse by His Jewish and gentile contemporaries (Dt 21:23, Gal 3:13, I Cor 12:3). Nevertheless, Jesus, knowing what would befall Him, proceeded resolutely toward Jerusalem. In light of our discussion of the Eucharist, His plan had but one objective: to join with the Father in an act of unconditional self-gift (love) for the salvation of humankind. Even though Jesus was convinced of His vindication and resurrection (see Unit II-L, Section II), He must have known that the crucifixion would be viewed as a scandal, and used against Him by His critics. Nevertheless, He viewed the passion as being indispensable to His mission. Why? Because He associated the passion with gift of self, which, as is clear from His institution of the Eucharist, He associated with unconditional Love. One can see this kind of love mirrored in parents who willingly endure humiliation, and even place themselves in harm’s way, in order to protect the lives and future of their children. Jesus viewed Himself as responsible (as shepherd and brother) for all of us who were to become, through Him, the Father’s adopted children.

Before beginning a formal analysis of the historicity of the passion narratives, we will want to examine a contention of Dominic Crossan (of the Jesus Seminar) who throws the historicity of these narratives into question by suggesting that they are derivatives of the (Gnostic) gospel of Peter. The gospel of Peter is a narrative of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. It consists of sixty verses and has been dated to Papyri originating in about 200 AD. Crossan ignores the fact that there is no evidence for the gospel of Peter prior to 200 AD, and makes a radical suggestion that it was the only source from which the passion narratives of the four canonical Gospels were derived:

Composed by the fifties C.E., and possibly at Sepphoris in Galilee, it [the Cross Gospel in the Gospel of Peter] is the single source of the intracanonical passion narratives.

Charles Quarles sums up Crossan’s conclusions from his radical contention (which does not enjoy wide acceptance in the scholarly community ) as follows:

The GP is more a product of the author’s creative literary imagination than a reflection of eyewitness accounts of actual events. Thus, if the GP is the single source for the canonical narratives of the Passion and resurrection, the canonical Gospels are unreliable revisions of an unreliable tradition. None of the Gospels could then be trusted to provide historically reliable testimony about the final events in the life of the historical Jesus.

Quarles shows this claim to be virtually untenable in the light of textual analysis. First, Crossan contends that the parallels between Matthew and the gospel of Peter regarding the Pharisees gathering before Pilate and expressing concern about a staged resurrection on the third day, the guarding and sealing of the tomb of Jesus, and the description of the Jews as “the people” shows Matthean dependence upon the gospel of Peter. Quarles shows precisely the opposite after studying the redactional tendencies of Matthew and the gospel of Peter. Following Gundry, Quarles shows that these texts are a series of “Mattheanisms,” particularly the use of the words “disciple,” “steal,” and “mēpote” – “lest” (except once where the gospel of Peter is clearly following Matthew in a subjunctive construction). He quotes John P. Meier by way of conclusion:

When it comes to who is dependent on whom, all the signs point to Matthew’s priority…. The clause is a tissue of Matthean vocabulary and style, a vocabulary and style almost totally absent from the rest of the Gospel of Peter.
Secondly, there are doctrines and sayings in the gospel of Peter which do not occur in the canonical Gospels or the New Testament. For example, Jesus’ preaching to those who have fallen asleep (to those who have died). Quarles notes in this regard:

If the emerging consensus of interpretation regarding 1Peter is correct, the presence of the reference to preaching to those who sleep in the Gospel of Peter suggests that the document was composed no earlier than the first quarter of the second century.

The same holds true for other sayings, such as the “Lord’s day,” which is mentioned in the Gospel of Peter 9:35 and 12:50, but only appears in the New Testament in the Book of Revelations (approximately 90 AD). The Gospels used the more primitive expression “the first day of the week.”

Thirdly, the description of the resurrection in the gospel of Peter is “fantastic and quite at odds with the descriptions that appear in the canonical Gospels”:

…as the three men exited the tomb, a cross, apparently floating through the air, followed them. …[T]he cross was capable of speech. A heavenly voice asked, “Did you preach to those who are sleeping?” and the cross replied, “Yes.”

We have already seen (with respect to Jesus’ miracles) the tendency of the later Gnostic gospels to move from the balanced and mature perspective of the canonical Gospels to an exaggerated, fantastic, and immature perspective (see Unit II-G, Section II). The gospel of Peter here is no different than the gospels of Thomas and Philip.

Fourthly, the “apologetical case” for Jesus’ resurrection (responding to Jewish objections at the time) is more developed in the gospel of Peter than in the Gospel of Matthew, and

no sensible explanation for Matthew’s elimination of helpful apologetic material available to him from the Cross Gospel exists. This suggests that the author of the gospel of Peter depended on Matthew’s Gospel but revised it in order to present a more compelling case for the resurrection.

For these and other reasons, Quarles (along with Meier) hold Crossan’s position to be untenable , giving rise to the conclusion:

…[I]f the canonical Gospels are the earliest record of the Passion and resurrection, as this paper suggests, and if these contain the narratives based on eyewitness accounts, as the earliest church testimony affirms and as the internal evidence suggests, the earliest narratives of Jesus’ death and resurrection may be viewed as prophecy fulfilled rather than prophecy historicized, and speculation that Jesus was not even buried, much less raised, is groundless.

We may now proceed to the question of the historicity of the passion narratives. Though all four Gospels portray the passion through narratives aimed at different audiences, and these narratives have different styles and redactional emphases, it does not mean that they do not possess an extensive historical core.

There are remarkable agreements among the four lengthy passion narratives, but this does not automatically constitute multiple attestation because Matthew and Luke saw and made recourse to the Marcan narrative. Nevertheless, as will be explained below, Mark and John did not have knowledge of each other’s narratives, and so the many similarities between these two narratives constitute a very strong form of multiple attestation. Before considering this window into the historicity of the passion narratives, we must consider two more fundamental questions which are elucidated by Raymond Brown in his extensive two-volume analysis of the passion entitled: The Death of the Messiah :

(1) Did Jesus’ disciples have access to the data recounted in the various passion narratives? (Section I.A), and
(2) How can the criteria of historicity be applied to the passion narratives? (Section I.B)

=== Did Jesus’ Disciples Have Access to the Data Recounted in the Various Passion Narratives? ===

It is not my intention to respond to the extreme skepticism of Koester, Crossan, and other members of the Jesus Seminar. Raymond Brown has done this quite well. My objective is to briefly use the criteria of historicity to uncover those parts of the narratives which may be reasonably and responsibly shown to have come from an early Palestinian passion tradition, and which may also be linked to the Jesus of history.

Jesus’ crucifixion is so well attested by both Christian and non-Christian sources that it is as close to certain as any historical datum from the first century can be. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus makes explicit reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Annals (15.44) when speaking about Nero’s blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the authenticity of this passage, but the majority of mainstream scholars concur with Kirby that:

The most persuasive case is made by those who maintain that Tacitus made use of a first century Roman document concerning the nature and status of the Christian religion. As to the reliability of that source, following normal historical practice, it is prudently assumed to be accurate until demonstrated otherwise. The reference from Tacitus constitutes prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

Jesus’ crucifixion is also attested by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Recall from Unit II-F, Section I. that Josephus was writing for a Roman audience in about 93 AD, and that there are Christian interpolations in the text of Antiquities in which his testimony to Jesus is contained. As noted in Unit II-F, many mainstream scholars consider the italicized sections in the testimony cited below to be authentic:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Again, this non-Christian testimony to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is explicit and highly probable. There are other non-Christian testimonies to Jesus’ crucifixion, but they are far less significant than those of Tacitus and Josephus.

In addition to non-Christian testimony, Jesus’ crucifixion is attested by almost every New Testament source (e.g., the four Gospels, Acts, most of the Pauline letters, 1Peter, and the Letter to the Hebrews), it is recorded in virtually all of the primitive kerygmas, and is central to the early Church’s interpretation of Jesus and itself. Finally, one is confronted with the questions: “Why would the early Church have given detailed descriptions of the public humiliation and execution of their Messiah and Lord if it had not been historically true? What would have been the point of recounting a story that undermined its apologetical appeal?” In light of this, the crucifixion of Jesus within its proper setting (i.e., a public execution entailing an arrest, trial, and conviction) must be considered incontestable.

What about the details surrounding Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion? Are the events and details recounted in the passion narratives also historically accurate? Some critics, such as Dominic Crossan, believe that it is impossible to say because (as he gratuitously asserts) there were no eyewitnesses to the event:

It seems to me most likely that those closest to Jesus knew almost nothing about the details of the event. They knew only that Jesus had been crucified, outside Jerusalem, at the time of Passover, and probably through some conjunction of imperial and sacerdotal authority.

Brown demolishes Crossan’s contention by pointing to a seemingly obvious and vexing difficulty:

[Crossan] does not explain why he thinks this “most likely,” granted the well-founded tradition that those closest to Jesus had followed him for a long period of time, day and night. Did they suddenly lose all interest, not even taking the trouble to inquire about what must have been a most traumatic moment of their lives?

Brown explains the implications of his question through a series of virtually unassailable historical judgments:

Yet as we move back from the Gospel narratives to Jesus himself, ultimately there were eyewitnesses and earwitnesses who were in a potion to know the broad lines of Jesus’ passion. He was accompanied in his ministry by a group of disciples known as the Twelve, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the arrest of Jesus was the occasion of his being separated from them. It is inconceivable that they showed no concern about what happened to Jesus after the arrest. True, there is no Christian claim that they were present during the legal proceedings against him, Jewish or Roman; but it is absurd to think that some information was not available to them about why Jesus has hanged on a cross. The whole purpose of crucifixion, after all, was to publicize that certain crimes would be severely punished. (That is the sense in which I include “earwitness”: hearing what was publicly said about the condemnation of Jesus.) The crucifixion itself was public, and nothing suggests that the burial was secret.

Attempts to present scenarios contrary to Brown’s in this regard truly verge on the illogical, unreasonable, and inconceivable; and they betray motives other than that of seeking the truth.

Furthermore, there is remarkable correspondence between the passion narrative and the Gospel of John, and recent archeological evidence uncovered by Charlesworth and von Wahlde which strongly suggests that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Von Wahlde summarizes his findings as follows:

The significance of this [archeological evidence] for our appreciation of the historical accuracy of John’s reports is considerable. Not only does John provide several details present in the Synoptics (the name of the place [Golgotha], its location outside the city walls), but he goes on to provide more detail than the other Gospels…details not essential to the narrative. If the presence of such details at first makes verification more difficult, the fact that they are corroborated by archaeological and other means [at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem ] demonstrates not only that the Johannine account contains remarkably accurate knowledge but also that the Gospel is in fact able to serve as a source of unique knowledge about the crucifixion and burial of Jesus.

This archaeological corroboration of John’s passion narrative also suggests the presence of eyewitnesses who were not only aware of the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, but also reported it to the authors of the earliest passion traditions.

Presuming, then, that there were eyewitnesses, and that they would have wanted to see or hear as much as possible about the One who was central to their lives, what could they have witnessed? They could have witnessed Jesus’ betrayal by Judas and His apprehension by the Jewish authorities. They could have also heard about any public declaration of Jesus’ charge, conviction, and sentence. They could have known who was involved in the charging, convicting, and sentencing. They could have had knowledge of public events surrounding the conviction (e.g., the release of Barabbas, or Jewish authorities stirring up the crowd). They could have witnessed the carrying of the cross and any outward signs of persecution or torture that might have preceded His journey to Golgotha (e.g., scourging or crowning with thorns). They could have witnessed the crucifixion itself, the public inscription of Jesus’ offense, the people crucified with Jesus, and they could have heard His final words, seen His death, and witnessed His burial. Evidently, they would have been a party to certain events themselves (e.g., cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant and denials).

Most of the above “witnessable” data was apologetically unappealing and presented obstacles to conversion. What would an early Jewish or gentile prospective convert find attractive about the public humiliation and execution of a messiah/leader? How did all the gory details of this crucifixion better establish Jesus’ role as messiah/leader? How would prospective Jewish converts have reacted to the contempt and rejection of Jesus by Jewish authorities? How would Peter’s denials and the apostles’ flight from Jerusalem have added to the Church’s “good image”? How does Jesus being numbered among criminals (e.g., Barabbas and the criminals crucified with Him) help the Church’s credibility among law-abiding citizens? In almost every case, the presentation of the “witnessable” data seems to undermine the early Christian’s image, credibility, and apologetical appeal. Why would they have presented these data in such detail if they had such potential and real damaging effects? I can think of only one reason. Because they were essentially true.

Can we render the same positive historical judgment about other details in the passion narratives beyond the basic “witnessable” data mentioned above? At this juncture, our pursuit of history becomes far more hazy and complex, because the witnessable data moves from eyewitnesses to catechists and teachers who need to interpret these traumatic (and unappealing) events to converts and potential converts. The natural tendency of such catechists, who were reared within Palestinian Judaism, would have been to use Scripture as a means of interpretation. Some of these attempts would be easily discernable because they would be introduced by phrases like “this was to fulfill the Scripture….” However, other Scripture passages might be on the lips of Jesus, such as the last words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (citing Psalm 22). The historian must now make the judgment of whether this was placed on the lips of Jesus, or whether Jesus selected these words for Himself (see below, Section II). Obviously, Jesus was accustomed to using Scripture to interpret His life, mission, and even crucifixion as much as, if not more than any later interpreter.

The historian’s task becomes even more complex when these traditions are woven into a single narrative. The editors of such narratives would have to be somewhat creative in synthesizing the various traditions. They might be inclined to embellish sayings or dialogue if that helped with the interpretation of recounted events. They could add thematic and even dramatic emphases to the narrative to further their catechetical or theological objectives. At this juncture, the historian must try to peel back the redactions of editors (especially the Evangelists) in order to get closer to the testimony of eyewitnesses which stand behind the narratives.

Recall from Unit II-B, Section I. that the first task is to get back to the primitive traditions that underlie the Gospel narratives, and then to judge the historicity of these primitive traditions by means of historical criteria and techniques to render judgments within a typical historical range:

…certain, very probable, probable, possible, not impossible. “Certain” has nothing to do with the certitude of mathematics or the physical sciences; it refers to the certitude we have in ordinary experience about the things we encounter or are reported to us in writing or orally.

The earliest passion narrative is in the Gospel of Mark. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke were both aware of Mark’s narrative and relied on it. As will be seen in the next section, John was not aware of Mark’s narrative, but he made recourse to a primitive tradition(s) very similar to the ones used by Mark. This coincidence is extremely useful to historians because it allows for an application of the criterion of multiple attestation, which, in turn, helps historians make judgments about whether various verses in the narratives can be considered to be part of a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition.

In Section I.B, we will take a brief look at these criteria; in Section II we will consider the historicity of Jesus’ last words in Mark; and in Section III we will attempt to uncover the pre-Marcan tradition in Mark’s narrative, and then render some general historical judgments.

=== Application of the Criteria of Historicity to the Passion Narratives ===

The reader may wish to review the descriptions and examples of the criteria and techniques for determining the historicity of Gospel passages, which are summarized in Unit II-B, Section I. A brief description of three of these criteria will be given with particular examples from the passion narratives: (1) multiple attestation, (2) embarrassment, and (3) coherence with Jewish/Roman customs.

The reader will want to recall two caveats about assessment of historicity mentioned in Unit II-B, Section I. namely:

(a) Criteria for historicity can show the likelihood of a particular Gospel datum being historical, but the absence of criteria for historicity does not show the improbability of a particular Gospel datum being historical; the non-applicability of historical criteria shows only that we have no way of assessing historicity of a Gospel datum either positively or negatively. Thus, far more data in the passion narratives (and in the Gospels, for that matter) is historical than can ever be corroborated through historical criteria.

(b) Too rigorous an application of historical criteria can unnecessarily circumscribe corroboratable data from the Gospels. If one says, “The only data that I will accept as historical are those which are attested to by four out of five independent sources” (say, Mark, Q, special Luke, and John, leaving out only special Matthew), then one will limit oneself to very few Gospel data. If one goes even further, and requires four independent Gospel sources plus an external source (such as Tacitus and Josephus), the Gospel will be reduced to the non-interpolated statements of Tacitus and Josephus. Again, if one claims that multiple attestation is not enough – there must also be corroboration from another historical criterion (say, embarrassment or coherence to Jewish culture, etc.), then the field of acceptable data is correspondingly narrowed. The judicious use of historical criteria by mainstream exegetes such as Raymond Brown, N.T. Wright, and John P. Meier can avert unnecessary proscriptions of Gospel data, and lead to reasonable and responsible corroboration of a large range of Gospel data. We may now proceed to the three historical criteria.

1) Multiple Attestation. Recall that multiple attestation does not occur when there is repetition of passages among the three synoptic Gospels, but rather when there is repetition among the five independent sources (Mark, Q, special Matthew, special Luke, and John). Matthew and Luke relied upon and used the full text of Mark. Q is another source upon which Matthew and Luke both relied. There can be little doubt that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark in their passion narratives, and so attestation among them is not significant. However, as will be discussed below, Mark and John were written independently of each other, and it is quite likely that neither one had any knowledge of the other’s narrative. Nevertheless, there are no less than thirty-two similarities between the two narratives detailed in the table below. If John is truly not dependent on Mark, then these similarities would auger very strongly for a pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) passion tradition(s) upon which both Evangelists relied. This pre-Marcan tradition(s) would bring us closer to eyewitness accounts of the passion and therefore to Jesus’ passion itself.

MARK JOHN TYPE OF SIMILARITY

Betrayal
14:43

Seizure and Severing of Ear
14:44-49

Jewish Inquest and Denials
14:55-72

Pilate’s Inquest
15:1-5

Barabbas
15:6-15

Torment and Humiliation
15:16-20

15:21-22

Crucifixion
15:23-41

Burial
15:42-47

18:2-3

18:4-12

18:13-27

18:28-19:11

18:38-19:16

19:2-3

19:17

19:18-30

19:38-42

(1) Judas as betrayer, brings soldiers, with weapons.

(2) Jesus is seized; (3) Cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant; (4) Jesus dialogues with apprehenders.

(5) Jesus is subjected to a Jewish judicial inquest (including high/chief priest); (6) Jesus receives blows from guards/officer after response; (7) three denials by Peter; (8) the high priest’s maid as questioner in first denial; (9) Peter warming himself by fire in high priest’s courtyard; (10) bystanders as questioners in third denial (though chronology is different in Mark and John).

(11) Next morning; Pilate’s inquiry, “Are you King of the Jews?”; (12) Jesus’ first response equals no assent to inquiry; (13) Jewish authorities make accusations against Jesus to Pilate; (14) Jesus is silent at the end of the inquest.

(15) Pilate suggests that Jesus be the prisoner released for the feast; (16) Jews (including chief priests) ask for release of Barabbas; (17) Pilate finds no crime committed by Jesus and remonstrates with Jewish authorities on behalf of Jesus; (18) crowds respond multiple times “Crucify Him”; (19) Pilate has Jesus scourged; (20) Pilate hands Jesus over to be crucified.

(21) Crown of thorns; (22) purple robe; (23) soldiers striking Jesus and saying “Hail, King of the Jews.”

(24) Jesus proceeds to Golgotha with cross.

(25) Crucifixion of Jesus; (26) inscription “King of the Jews”; (27) dividing garments and casting lots for them; (28) two criminals are crucified with Jesus, one on either side of Him; (29) Mary Magdalene witnesses crucifixion; (30) vinegar-filled sponge given to Jesus on the cross.

(31) Joseph of Arimathea makes the request for the body of Jesus; (32) Joseph (plus Nicodemus in John) wraps the body of Jesus in a linen cloth, and puts Him in a tomb.

How can we be so sure that John was not directly reliant on Mark’s narrative? In virtually every part of the Gospel except the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on water, and the passion narratives, John’s material is so distinct from Mark that it is difficult to believe that John relied on Mark unless he wanted to separate himself from, or complement Mark. Most scholars in the latter half of the twentieth century do not believe that there is Johannine dependence on Mark.

But what about Johannine dependence on the Marcan passion narrative? As can be seen from the table above, there are so many similarities between Mark and John that the possibility of dependence must be considered. There are two significant factors militating against the dependence conjecture. First, despite the many similarities, there are many more dissimilarities in content and order between the two passion narratives. Secondly, many of the differences between Mark and John are inexplicable, if not illogical if John truly depended on Mark. Why would John have put his narrative into a more scattered and strangely ordered state than Mark’s if he depended on Mark? (A love of disorder?) Why would he have omitted details in Mark which would have been of interest to him (e.g., the kiss of Judas; mention of Simon of Cyrene; the sixth and ninth hour when darkness came over the land; the derision by the crowds at the cross; the confusion regarding Elijah – even though this may have been elicited by Jesus’ last words in Mark, which are not mentioned in John; omission of three of Mark’s women witnesses – Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, as well as “other women” in Mark, versus Mary the mother of Jesus, and His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas in John). These omissions and reorderings make little sense if John truly depended on Mark. For this reason, Brown concludes:

Throughout the commentary I shall come again and again to what I regard as a completely illogical result if John knew Mark. For that reason I shall work with the thesis that John wrote his passion narrative independently of Mark’s.

So what is the likely scenario for the Marcan and Johannine passion narratives’ development? Brown believes that this occurred in five stages:

a) Eyewitnesses. See the rationale for these eyewitness accounts given above in Section I.A.
b) A basic catechetical outline. A basic sequence of major events was formulated soon after the events of the passion connecting the Last Supper to the arrest, then to the condemnation, then to the crucifixion, then to the burial. This sequence guided the Church’s early proclamations and catechesis as well as Eucharistic memories. This is evident from Pauline and other non-Gospel New Testament writings.
c) Pre-Gospel traditions. Widely circulated stories/traditions (probably both oral and written) were formed from eyewitness accounts about particular figures and incidents in the passion narratives (alongside the basic catechetical outline). The stories were not yet connected to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.
d) Pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine traditions. The stories and basic outline made their way toward the Marcan and Johannine communities where eventually a pre-Marcan author(s) connected many of the stories to the basic catechetical outline to form a narrative tradition.
e) The Marcan and Johannine passion narratives. The two Evangelists used two versions of the pre-Marcan tradition along with additional pre-Gospel traditions to formulate the passion narratives we have today.

It is likely that much of the “witnessable” data in the thirty-two common elements in the Marcan and Johannine narratives made their way from eyewitnesses into the pre-Gospel traditions, and then into the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition(s), and then into the Gospel narratives. This would include:

Judas as betrayer bringing soldiers with weapons; Jesus being seized; the high priest’s servant’s ear being cut off; Jesus’ exchange with His apprehenders; Jesus being subjected to a Jewish judicial inquest; Peter’s three denials; the high priest’s maid as first inquirer; Peter warming himself by the fire in the high priest’s courtyard; the bystanders as inquirers in the third denial; the Jewish authorities making accusations against Jesus to Pilate; the crowd asking for the release of Barabbas; Pilate not finding Jesus guilty of a crime; the crowds responding multiple times “Crucify Him”; Pilate having Jesus scourged; Pilate handing Jesus over to be crucified, Jesus being crowned with thorns; Jesus proceeding to Golgotha with a cross, the crucifixion of Jesus; an inscription reading “King of the Jews”; the soldiers dividing Jesus’ garments and casting lots for them; two criminals being crucified with Jesus, one on either side of Him; Mary Magdalene witnessing the crucifixion; the soldiers giving a vinegar-filled sponge to Jesus on the cross; Joseph of Arimathea obtaining permission to bury Jesus; and Joseph of Arimathea wrapping the body of Jesus in a linen cloth, and putting Him in a tomb.

Some of these conclusions (as well as others) are corroborated by three other historical criteria which will be discussed in the forthcoming subsections.

(2) Embarrassment. Recall from Unit II-B, Section I., that if a particular Gospel datum was embarrassing to the Church, or undermined the reputation of the apostles, or cast dispersions upon Jesus, then we can be quite certain that the Evangelists (and the formulators of early traditions) did not invent it. Raymond Brown points to several such data in the passion narratives, for example: Judas (one of the Twelve apostles) betraying Jesus; many of the disciples not remaining with Jesus during the passion; and Peter denying Jesus three times. There are other data which are embarrassing, but may have been recounted for other reasons. For example, Jesus praying in the garden, “Remove this cup from me” (Mark 14:36), which looks like Jesus is trying to avoid the cross. Although this could not have been catechetically appealing, someone could conjecture that this passage is meant “to teach Christians that facing death constitutes a trial that may challenge even sincere commitment.” Nevertheless, the datum is still catechetically unappealing, and would have been very risky for the Evangelist or early Church to have invented.

The same holds true for Jesus’ last words in the Gospel of Mark: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” As will be discussed below (Section II), the last words of Jesus do not enjoy multiple attestation because John does not recount them (and places a completely different phrase on the lips of Jesus – “It is finished”). Many scholars believe, however, that this datum is historical because it would have likely been misinterpreted by gentile audiences who might not have known that the phrase (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) refers to the whole of Psalm 22 (a Psalm of God redeeming the sufferings of the just one and bringing salvation through it to all nations and generations). Gentile audiences would have been likely to believe that Jesus was so demoralized that He lost His confidence in God and thought that God was forsaking Him. This misinterpretation would not only have been embarrassing to the Church, but would have led to a theology precisely contrary to what Jesus intended and to what the Church taught. It is difficult to believe that Mark would have invented this phrase as Jesus’ last words, and much more likely that John (like Luke), if he was aware of the phrase from a pre-Johannine tradition, would have dropped it since he was writing for a gentile audience that could have easily misinterpreted it.

(3) Coherence with Jewish/Roman customs. There are three elements which are relevant here: (a) coherence with Jewish customs, (b) Semitisms, and (c) coherence with Roman customs. The last area is somewhat complex and not especially germane to the point of this Unit; so I will limit discussion to the first two areas.

(a) Correspondence with Jewish custom. One major point bears mentioning, because it shows Mark’s fidelity to the Jewish customs which would have been in effect at the time of Jesus’ passion, namely, Mark’s careful recounting of how the Sanhedrin adhered to the Mishna only when it was in conformity to the Sadducee law. Blinzler notes in this regard:

The fact that Mk 14 and 15 juxtapose items which sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the requirements of the Mishnah was hitherto felt puzzling. The explanation is that the Sanhedrin was at that time bound by the Sadducee law, which agreed with the Mishnah only exceptionally. But if Mk 14 and 15 were a legendary construction, it would be hard to explain how the author, supposedly so uninterested in historical fact, managed to be so accurate with regard to the legal custom: to the unlikely extent, that is, that the actions of the Sanhedrin only agreed with the Mishnah when the provisions of the latter coincided with those of the Sadducees, and not otherwise.

(b) Semitisms. There is one truly remarkable Semitism recorded in the Marcan narrative, namely, Jesus’ final words: “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” The Marcan version of the final words is to be preferred over the Matthean one, because it is probable that Matthew tried to “clean up” Mark’s Aramaic citation of the divine name (“Elōi”) with the more proper Hebrew version of it (“’Ēlî”), which would have been recited in the synagogue. The fact that Matthew records the Aramaic “sabachthani” (instead of the more appropriate Hebrew ăzabtānî) convinces most scholars that Matthew retained remnants of an original Aramaic version.

Is Mark’s Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words truly Jesus’ words? It seems likely because much of Mark’s mixed gentile-Jewish audience would not have recognized either the Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the Psalm, which evidently compelled Mark to translate it into Greek. Why would Mark have recorded an Aramaic version of Jesus’ final words which most of his audience would not have understood? Why not simply give the Greek translation without the Aramaic? Furthermore, why give an Aramaic translation of the Psalms instead of the more proper and easily recognizable Hebrew version? The fact that Jesus may well have learned the Psalms in Aramaic and recited the Psalms in Aramaic to His Galilean audience may provide a clue to the origin of the Aramaic version of the Psalm – namely, Jesus Himself. The application of other historical criteria to this question will further confirm the origin of these words in Jesus. This will be considered in the following section.

== The Final Words of Jesus ==

Given that Mark’s version of Jesus’ final words is more original than Matthew’s version, we may now return to the question of whether Mark’s version is historical. Though the Aramaic rendition of the final words is a clue to their origin in Jesus, it is not definitive because Luke gives a different version of the final words (“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” – Luke 23:46), and so does John (“It is finished” – John 19:30). Why should Mark be preferred to Luke and John?

With respect to Luke’s version of the final words, there are four reasons to suspect that Mark’s version is closer to Jesus’ own. First, Luke was aware of Mark’s version of the final words, and would have had to have intentionally changed them. Secondly, Luke prefers to shift the focus from Jesus’ feelings of desolation to Jesus’ trust. Instead of Psalm 22:2 (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”), Luke portrays Jesus reciting Psalm 31:6 (“Into your hands I commend my spirit”), which effects this shift in focus. Luke’s preference to portray Jesus as confident (and eliminate any hint of spiritual disturbance) is evidenced in his elimination of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ anxiety in the garden of Gethsemane (“My soul is very sorrowful unto death”). It is much easier to believe that Luke has continued his redactional policy of eliminating Marcan references to Jesus’ anxiety than to believe that Luke’s version of Jesus’ words is more original. Thirdly, Luke substitutes “Father” for the Psalmist’s reference to “God,” which is very likely a redaction. Finally, Luke selects a Psalm passage which speaks to Jesus’ Spirit, which is a clear focus of his Gospel and an allusion to the Holy Spirit, which is the focus of the Acts of the Apostles. For this reason, most scholars believe that the Lukan version is a redaction of the Marcan original.

What about John’s version of the last words (“It is finished”)? Unlike Luke, John was not aware of the Marcan passion narrative, yet there is significant evidence that Mark and John borrowed from a common pre-Marcan (and pre-Johannine) tradition (see above, Section I.B.1). Does John’s very different version of Jesus’ final words imply that the pre-Marcan/pre-Johannine tradition did not have any version of Jesus’ final words (and that both Mark and John invented their own in the absence of a more original version)? The answer is probably ‘no,’ because of light shed upon the question by the historical criterion of embarrassment.

Recall from Section I.B.2 that John’s predominately gentile audience could have misinterpreted Jesus’ last words as recorded by Mark. Indeed, as we just saw, Luke certainly thought this was a possibility for his gentile audience. The majority of John’s audience would probably not have recognized Psalm 22 in the Aramaic expression, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani,” and they would not have known that this first line referred to the entire Psalm. Therefore, they would not have known that Jesus’ last words were a prayer of trust in God which would lead not only to the vindication of His suffering, but to universal salvation for all humankind for all time (see below in this section). Thus (as the Johannine author very probably perceived), they would have interpreted these words to mean that Jesus felt abandoned by the Father, which is precisely the opposite of what the Psalm intends, what the early Church believed, and what Jesus intended. Not only would this have been confusing and misleading to gentile members of the early Church; it would have been apologetically unappealing and embarrassing to the Church in gentile regions. Thus, John, like Luke, would have had everything to lose (and nothing to gain) by retaining these words on the lips of the dying Jesus.

Therefore, there is considerable reason to believe prima facie that John, like Luke, would have been inclined to change Jesus’ dying words from those of Psalm 22 to something less misleading and more consistent with Jesus’ intention and the belief of the early Church. He decides upon the simple phrase, “It is finished,” which refers to Jesus’ project of redemption, the completion of which John has been pointing to throughout the “Book of Glory” (chapters 13-21).

This leads to the obvious question of why Mark (who was addressing a mixed gentile-Jewish audience) would have retained Psalm 22 as Jesus’ final words when many of his audience members would have been likely to misinterpret them in the same way as John’s and Luke’s audiences. Before responding, it is worth noting that this question does not apply to Matthew with the same force as Mark because the majority of Matthew’s audience was Jewish. Many in that audience would have been educated enough to see Psalm 22 through Matthew’s Hebraic version of it, and many would have understood that the first line of the Psalm referred to the whole Psalm. Brown points to a well-known hermeneutical principle in this regard:

…a NT citation of a specific OT passage supposes that the readers will be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context.

In the case of Psalm 22, the context speaks of trust in God, vindication, and salvation for the world.

However, the above hermeneutical principle would not have applied to the gentile members of Mark’s audience; so why did he retain these words? I think there is only one plausible explanation – namely, that they are in fact the final words of Jesus. It would be inconceivable to suggest that Mark invented these words to place on the lips of Jesus given the probability of their misinterpretation (with significant negative consequences) by a large segment of his audience. Therefore, it seems likely that Mark received these words from either a pre-Marcan tradition or from Peter (for whom Mark was interpreter). In either case, Mark must have believed that these words were truly those of Jesus, and decided to retain them in their Aramaic form precisely for this reason. There does not appear to be any other reasonable motive for his taking the risk of significant misinterpretation and apologetically unappealing embarrassment.

So if we consider “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani” to be the dying words of the historical Jesus, and if we apply Brown’s hermeneutical principle to Jesus Himself (implying that Jesus expected informed listeners to “be familiar with the context of that passage and so understand implied references to that context”), then it seems likely that the dying Jesus was praying the whole of Psalm 22 to His Father while giving His listeners an insight into how He interpreted His sacrificial death through that prayer. Mally notes in this regard:

As a quotation of an OT Ps, it can hardly be taken literally as an expression of real despair or dereliction. Rather, Jesus applies to himself an OT passage that sums up the suffering of the upright individual who turns to his God in the stress of hostile opposition and its ensuing depression. In using the Ps, Jesus does not express the feeling that his life’s work has failed and that God has therefore abandoned him; he identifies himself with a biblical precedent, the persecuted upright man who has trusted in Yahweh, and found in him the source of his consolation and ultimate triumph [italics mine].

Thus, Jesus’ reference to Psalm 22 is an expression of trust and confidence in the Father that His suffering will result in the triumph of His mission. As noted in the previous Unit, that mission is actualized for all future generations through the gift of His presence and unconditional redeeming Love in the Eucharist.

A closer look at the Psalm may give a deep insight into the panoply of Jesus’ thoughts and feelings at the time of His crucifixion. The Psalm may be divided into three parts:

(1) “2-22, the complaint, with repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence (4-6; 10-11),”
(2) “23-32, thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share (23-27), ” and
(3) the worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh (28-32).

Each part will be presented in turn.

(1) Complaint, repeated requests, descriptions of suffering, and expressions of confidence.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?
Oh my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
and by night, but I have no rest.

Then, the psalmist shifts perspective as he does several times throughout the Psalm, and introduces the theme of God’s holiness and grandeur, worthy of praise and trust:

Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel.
In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.

The psalmist then turns back to the deplorable nature of his condition:

But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.
All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
“He trusted in the Lord;
let the Lord rescue him.
Let Him deliver him
since He delights in him.

The uncanny resemblance between the psalmist’s words and the events taking place around Jesus give one pause. After describing the inauthentic words of the crowd (who believe that the Lord will not fulfill the trust of the psalmist), the psalmist shifts back to his fervent trust in the Lord:

Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you;
even at my mother’s breast.
From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

Having renewed his trust in the Lord, the psalmist makes an earnest petition for help:

Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.
Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.

Then the psalmist uses the same words seen in the suffering servant song (Is 52:13-53:12) and Jesus’ eucharistic words:

I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.
My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.

In continuing his description of his suffering to Yahweh, the psalmist again describes events uncannily similar to Jesus’ crucifixion:

Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.
I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

The psalmist makes another earnest petition for God’s help and consolation:

But you, oh Lord, be not far off;
oh my Strength, come quickly to help me.
Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
Rescue me from the mouth of the lion;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

(2) Thanksgiving, in which the community is invited to share. The psalmist then reaffirms his trust and confidence in the Lord, as if to say that he will live beyond his current persecution to bring the praise of the Lord’s name to all who fear him:

I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the congregation I will praise you.
You who fear the Lord, praise him!
All you descendents of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendents of Israel!

The psalmist then gives his reason for his confidence in God, and his belief in his future:

For he has not despised or disdained
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you I will fulfill my vows.

The psalmist then moves into a prophetic, and even messianic tone, speaking of signs of the new Jerusalem; messianic signs which Jesus says, when quoting the prophet Isaiah, are being fulfilled in Himself:

The poor will eat and be satisfied;
they who seek the Lord will praise Him –
may your hearts live forever.

(3) The worldwide redemption and worship of Yahweh. The psalmist then confidently suggests universality of salvation arising out of Yahweh’s mercy:

All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before Him,
for dominion belongs to the Lord
and He rules over the nations.

The psalmist then suggests that Yahweh’s salvation will extend to all those who are raised on high, and those who are in the grave:

All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before Him –
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
Posterity will serve Him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
They will proclaim His righteousness
to a people yet unborn –
for He has done it.

This Psalm on the dying lips of Jesus is quite remarkable. In the midst of recounting events quite similar to His crucifixion, the Psalm expresses His mind and heart as He cries out for help, as He is overwhelmingly confident in that help, and as He sees the ultimate result of that help in a salvation that will not only reach to the ends of the earth, but to all future generations on the earth, and even to those who are raised on high and those who “go down to the dust.” Thus, the Psalm connects Jesus’ torment with His confidence in the Father as He looks beyond His suffering, beyond Jerusalem, beyond the present age, and beyond earthly existence, to a redemption which will take hold in the life of God Himself. Jesus’ eucharistic words are not only consonant with those of the psalm, they give the psalm’s words ultimate meaning and reality; for they provide the vehicle through which Jesus’ person and love will save universally and eternally.

== The Passion of Jesus in Mark and in Pre-Marcan Tradition (14:32-15:37) ==

Mark gives us the oldest account of the passion. Though it tries to reconcile the passion with Old Testament prophesy, its primary objective is not apologetical. Rather, it intends to give an account of the sufferings freely endured by Jesus and “to show clearly what persons and what authorities were responsible for the death of Jesus and the extent of their guilt.” Mark believes that this is Jesus’ central salvific act and uses it to frame the rest of his Gospel. As Blinzler notes:

Mark already had before him such a relatively fixed account from oral tradition, as the insertion of 14:3-9 shows, and he enlarged it with further matter, e.g., with “memoirs” of Peter (apart from 14:3-9) such as the account of the denial (14:54, 66-72). …[T]he Gospel of Mark has been called, not unjustly, “a passion-narrative with a long introduction” (M. Kähler).

As noted above, there is substantial New Testament and extra-testamental evidence for the historicity of Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion. Many other facts surrounding the crucifixion are also very probably historical. By using the criteria and techniques elucidated above (Sections I.A and B), we can first ascertain what material from Mark’s passion narrative probably came from a pre-Marcan tradition, and the material from that tradition which could have come from eyewitness accounts. Scholars have worked diligently on these tasks for over a century, and it is beyond the scope of this study to report comprehensively on their findings. My objective is only to give a report about where the preponderance of scholarly opinion lies with regard to an early pre-Marcan tradition and the historicity of the facts within that tradition.

There is a strong likelihood that Mark made recourse to a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which he redacted and stylized to give coherence and meaning to this exceedingly significant event for the Christian Church. There is a wide variety of opinion about which verses originated with this pre-Marcan tradition(s) and which ones originated with Mark. Marion Soards has gathered a tremendous amount of data from 34 scholars representing a wide range of theological and exegetical perspectives. I have taken the liberty of presenting the Revised Standard Version of the Marcan passion narrative, and indicating the likelihood that each of its verses originated with a pre-Marcan tradition or with Mark himself according to the following key:

Bold A large majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Italics A small majority of scholars believe that this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition.

Underline The scholarly community is about evenly split on whether this verse originated with a pre-Marcan tradition, or with Mark himself.

Normal font The majority of the scholarly community believes that this verse originated with Mark (and is therefore a Marcan redaction).

Mark Chapter 14

32 They went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and He said to His disciples, “Sit here, while I pray.” 33 And He took with Him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. 34 And He said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch.” 35 And going a little farther, He fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. 36 And He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt.” And He came and found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? 38 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 39 And again He went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 And again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer Him. 41 And He came the third time, and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”

43 And immediately, while He was still speaking Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I shall kiss is the man; seize Him and lead Him away safely.” And when he came, he went up to Him at once, and said, “Master!” And he kissed Him. And they laid hands on Him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” And they all forsook Him, and fled.

51 And a young man followed Him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

53 And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. And Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death; but they found none. 56 For many bore false witness against Him, and their witness did not agree. 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against Him, saying, “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet not even so did their testimony agree. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you? 61 But He was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked Him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”Note 63 And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard His blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned Him as deserving death. 65 And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to strike Him, saying to Him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received Him with blows.

66 And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came; 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway. 69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” 70 But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.” 71 But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.” 72 And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

Mark Chapter 15

1 And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. And Pilate asked Him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And He answered him “You have said so.” And the chief priests accused Him of many things. And Pilate again asked Him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered.

Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they asked. And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. And he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered Him up. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” And they cried out again, “Crucify Him.” And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him.” So, Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

And the soldiers led Him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. And they clothed Him in a purple cloak, and placing a crown of thorns they put it on Him. And they began to salute Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck His head with a reed, and spat upon Him, and they knelt down in homage to Him. And when they had mocked Him, they stripped Him of the purple cloak, and put His own clothes on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him.

And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry His cross. And they brought Him to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). And they offered Him wine mingled with myrrh; but He did not take it. And they crucified Him, and divided His garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour, when they crucified Him. And the inscription of the charge against Him read, “The King of the Jews.” And with Him they crucified two robbers, one on His right and one on His left. And those who passed by derided Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 So also the chief priests mocked Him to one another with the scribes, saying, “He saved others; He cannot save Himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with Him also reviled Him.

And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani.” Which means, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Behold, He is calling Elijah.” And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to Him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down.” And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.

38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing Him, saw that He thus breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the son of God!”

There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, 41 who, when He was in Galilee, followed Him, and ministered to Him; and also many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 And Pilate wondered if He were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether He was already dead. 45 And when he learned from the centurion that He was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 And he bought a linen shroud, and taking Him down, wrapped Him in the linen shroud, and laid Him in a tomb which has been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where He was laid.

*****

As can be seen from the above, most scholars consider the vast majority of the passion narrative to have come from a pre-Marcan tradition(s) which would presumably include some accounts from Peter. Notice that the probable Marcan redactions are not concerned with the torment, crucifixion, and death of Jesus. They are meant to explain who is primarily guilty (i.e., Judas, the chief priests, and the council), who is less culpable (i.e., Pilate), and who is ironically the prophetic spokesman of the meaning of the passion (i.e., the centurion). They also center on Mark’s interpretation of why Jesus was accused of blasphemy (i.e., identifying Himself with the eschatological Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14). If these elements are “bracketed,” the passion story retains its poignant central core, which likely represents the traditions which Mark received as he prepared his narrative.

The question of whether the pre-Marcan tradition is faithful to accounts from eyewitnesses and earwitnesses is more difficult to ascertain. One cannot assume that a verse was witnessed simply because it was included in a pre-Marcan tradition. As was made clear in Section I.B, the pre-Marcan tradition relied on pre-Gospel traditions and stories, and had developments and accretions arising out of catechetical and pedagogical concerns. Nevertheless, it is likely that the pre-Marcan tradition(s) contained a considerable amount of “witnessable” and witnessed data for the reasons mentioned in Section I above – particularly as regards the betrayal by Judas, the arrest, a Jewish judicial inquest, Peter’s denials, the involvement of Pontius Pilate, the involvement of Jewish authorities in accusing Jesus, the release of Barabbas, the involvement of Roman soldiers, and facts surrounding the crucifixion (e.g., being scourged, being crowned with thorns, the vinegary wine, being hanged on a cross, the inscription on the cross, and the two other criminals). I would also include Jesus’ final words as recounted in Mark’s Gospel (for the reasons mentioned in the previous section), and the fact of Jesus’ burial (for the reasons mentioned in Chapter 4, Section II.B). A more detailed list of other “witnessable” data which is common to both the Marcan and Johannine traditions may be found above in Section I.B. Additional details about the historicity of particular verses in the pre-Marcan tradition(s) may be found in the “Analysis” sections following each major part of Raymond Brown’s The Death of the Messiah.

An appreciation of the significance of the passion, particularly as regards the central question of this book (i.e., “Is Jesus Emmanuel?”), cannot be attained through exegetical and historical analysis alone. Though this analysis is necessary in order to understand the meaning and reality of the events surrounding Jesus’ death, it almost blocks out the heart’s reasons to give greater clarity to the mind’s reasons. I can’t speak for you, the reader, but when I am applying criteria and techniques of historicity to particular texts, I am not being flooded with inspiration and love; and so I find it necessary to move to the domain of contemplation after I have satisfied myself about the historicity of the essential elements of Jesus’ passion. Contemplation allows one to be moved in the heart – to be struck with delight, or wonder, or amazement; to perceive beauty; to exalt; to be moved with gratitude; to feel awe and glory; to be inspired; to be moved by what is just and good and generous, and above all, to be moved by love – unconditional Love. Thus, contemplation is essential to the appreciation of Jesus’ passion, which is above all an act of incredible love.

== Contemplation on the Passion ==

The passion narratives open upon a virtually limitless depth of love, which can best be gleaned through contemplation. As explained in the previous chapter, Jesus views His passion as the culmination of His mission, the concretization of His unconditional Love in history, and His gift of unconditional Love to the world for all eternity (through the Eucharist). The reader’s time will be well spent on considering His loving intention, attitude, and feeling in His gift of self in the events of the passion.

One successful method of entering into contemplation is recommended by Saint Ignatius of Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises. It entails entering into the scene, considering the personalities and dispositions of people in the scene, and focusing on the heart of Jesus manifest through the people and events in the scene.

In light of the above, one may want to use the following structure to contemplate on the passion. After reading a particular passage at least twice, first consider various physical aspects of the scene, then:

• the persons in the scene along with Jesus, then
• Jesus’ attitude toward the people in the scene (recalling that Jesus’ attitudes are reflected in the beatitudes – humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, merciful, peacemaking, etc.), then
• Jesus’ relationship to the Father (applying Psalm 22, the Suffering Servant song – Isaiah 52:13-53:12, and Jesus’ prayer in the Garden), then
• Jesus’ universal salvific intent (applying the simile of the paschal lamb and the words “This is my body,” “the blood of the covenant,” “for all,” and “Do this in remembrance of me” – see Chapter 9, Section II.B), then
• Jesus’ love for the people in the scene (including His persecutors), His love of the Father, and His love of humankind.

You might then look at Jesus’ acceptance of anguish for the sake of love. In light of this, you might consider Jesus’ love for you and others; His hopes and aspirations for you and for others. Accept that love, accept His wanting to be your paschal lamb, sin-offering (scapegoat), and blood of the covenant (to guarantee eternal life with Him and the Father); and then, express to God what you desire.

After you have completed your contemplation, you might want to ask the recurrent questions in this book: Would an unconditionally loving God do something like this for my sake and the sake of all? Is Jesus Christ His Emmanuel? If so, then the unconditional Love of God is real and has been fully actualized in the world. That unconditional Love is unconditional light in the darkness, unconditional hope amidst dejection, unconditional resurrection amidst the cross, and unconditional redemption amidst our sin. It is unconditional life unto unconditional joy in the unconditional love of the triune God.

Why Believe in Jesus?

2015-01-08T16:21:02Z

David Persyn: /* Unit II-N Is Jesus Really Emmanuel – “God With Us”? */ Links

Contents for Why Believe in Jesus?

== Unit I - [http://www.magisgodwiki.org Why Believe in God?] ==

== Unit II - Why Believe in Jesus? ==

=== Unit II A. Why Seek [[Revelation]]? ===

This Unit is a transition Unit from the first part of the encyclopedia [http://www.magisgodwiki.org (Why Believe in God?)]. It gives a summary of the evidence for God from Physics and philosophy, shows why reason must be complemented by revelation, and makes the transition from a Creator to Jesus.

==== A brief summary of the four sets of [[Revelation#Does_Reason_Need_Revelation? | evidence for God]]. ====

a. The evidence from physics.

b. The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God.

c. The evidence from philosophy of mathematics.

d. The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentally.

==== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of [[Revelation#Does_Reason_Need_Revelation? | evidence for God]]. ====

==== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of [[Revelation#Does_Reason_Need_Revelation? | evidence for God]]. ====

==== If reason can probe so deeply, [[Revelation#Why_do_we_need_revelation.3F | why do we need God to reveal himself]] (revelation)? There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply. ====

a. The heart of God.

b. How to pray and worship.

c. Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason (e.g. the trinity).

d. God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering.

e. The dynamic of sacred community.

==== Toward a [http://magischristwiki.org/index.php?title=Revelation#A_Definition_of_Love_.28Agap.C4.93.29 | definition of love] (agape).====

==== [[Revelation#Six_Questions_Toward_Emmanuel | Six reflective questions]] manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically. ====

=== Unit II-B Is There [[Historical Evidence]] for Jesus? ===

==== What is the [[Historical Evidence]] for Jesus outside of the New Testament? ====

==== What are the [[Historical_Evidence#A_Brief_Description_of_Criteria_to_Establish_Historicity | rigorous historical methods]] used to verify historical claims in the New Testament? ====

==== Why did the early Church [[Historical_Evidence#The_High_Cost_of_the_Apostolic_Church.E2.80.99s_Proclamation_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Divinity | proclaim Jesus to be divine]] when it was apologetically disadvantageous? ====

==== The [[Historical_Evidence#The_High_Cost_of_the_Apostolic_Church.E2.80.99s_Proclamation_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Divinity | high cost of the proclamation of Jesus’ divinity]]. ====

=== Unit II-C [[Resurrection Accounts | Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?]] Part One. ===

==== [[Resurrection_Accounts#Who_are_the_Witnesses_in_the_1Corinthians_15_Kerygma.3F | Who were the witnesses to the resurrection appearances?]] ====

==== [[Resurrection_Accounts#Paul.E2.80.99s_Experience_of_the_Risen_Jesus_.E2.80.93_Implications_in_his_Writings | What did St. Paul believe about Jesus’ resurrection?]] ====

==== [[Resurrection_Accounts#Common_Features_in_the_Resurrection_Narratives | How do we make sense out of the gospel narratives on the resurrection?]] ====

==== [[Resurrection_Accounts#The_Appearance_to_the_Eleven_and_Others_in_Luke | How did Jesus appear after His resurrection?]] -- transform (spiritual) corporeality. ====

=== [[Historicity of the Resurrection | Unit II- D Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?]] Part Two. ===

==== Is there any way of [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#Introduction | verifying the historical veracity of the resurrection accounts]] from non-gospel material? ====

==== [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#Implications_of_the_Historicity_of_the_Resurrection_from_the_Uniqueness_of_the_Early_Church.E2.80.99s_Development | Why did Christianity grow so rapidly after the public humiliation and persecution of its Messiah?]] How did this differ from all other messianic movements around the same period? ====

==== [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#An_Argument_for_the_Historicity_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Resurrection_from_Mutations_in_the_Notions_of_.E2.80.9CMessiah.E2.80.9D_and_.E2.80.9CKingdom.E2.80.9D | Christian mutations of Second Temple Judaism’s doctrine on the resurrection.]] ====

==== [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#Mutations_in_Two_Interrelated_Beliefs | What could be a necessary and sufficient cause of these mutations?]] ====

==== [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#Combined_Conclusion | Do the explanations of skeptics and minimalists (e.g. the Jesus Seminar) provide an adequate explanation of the mutations in their historical context?]] ====

==== [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#The_Resurrection_and_the_Lordship_of_Jesus | The case for the resurrection as described by Wright, Brown, Fuller, Jeremiahs, and others.]]====

=== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit |Unit II-E What is the Significance of Jesus’ Gift of the Spirit?]] ===

==== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit#Charismatic_Manifestations_of_the_Spirit_in_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles | How could the Christian Church have grown so rapidly without the impelling presence of the Spirit?]] ====

==== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit#Introduction | Why did the Christian Church differ from the Church of John the Baptist and other messianic movements?]] ====

==== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit#Charismatic_Manifestations_of_the_Spirit_in_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles | What were the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit – healing, miracles, prophesy speaking in tongues?]] ====

==== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit#Paul.E2.80.99s_Account_of_Interior_Gifts_of_the_Spirit | What are the interior gifts of the Spirit? – Abba, faith, prayer, hope, love, zeal, joy.]] ====

==== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit#The_Holy_Spirit_and_the_Divinity_of_Christ | Does the Spirit inspire and operate in the same way today?]] ====

=== [[Miracles | Unit II-F What is the Evidence for Jesus’ Miracles?]] ===

==== [[Miracles#A_Suitable_Definition_of_.E2.80.9CMiracles.E2.80.9D_within_Jesus.E2.80.99_Semitic_Context | What did first century Judaism believe about miracles?]] ====

==== [[Miracles#Raymond_Brown.E2.80.99s_Assessment_of_the_Distinctive_Characteristics_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Miracle-Working | What are the unique aspects of Jesus’ miracle working (compared with others of His day)?]] ====

==== [[Miracles#John_P._Meier.E2.80.99s_Analysis_of_the_Historicity_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Miracles | How do Jesus’ miracles in the Canonical Gospels compare with those recounted in the Gnostic Gospels?]] ====

==== [[Miracles#The_Historicity_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Exorcisms | The application of historical criteria through Jesus’ exorcisms.]] ====

==== [[Miracles#The_Historicity_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Healings | The application of historical criteria to Jesus’ healing miracles.]] ====

==== [[Miracles#The_Historicity_of_Jesus_Raising_the_Dead | The application of historical criteria to Jesus’ “raisings from the dead.”]] ====

==== [[Miracles#Can_Jesus.E2.80.99_Miracles_be_given_a_Purely_Naturalistic_Explanation_Today.3F | The significance of Jesus raising from the dead in His own name and by His own power.]] ====

==== [[Miracles#Conclusion | The manifestation of divinity (and Jesus’ knowledge of His divinity) through His miracles.]] ====

=== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Introduction | Unit II-G What Did Jesus Say about Himself?]] ===

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Jesus_Accomplishes_the_Mission_Reserved_for_Yahweh_Alone | Jesus’ claim to defeat evil/Satan, to bring the Kingdom of God in His own person, and to fulfill the mission reserved for Yahweh alone.]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Jesus.E2.80.99_References_to_Himself | How do these three claims relate to Jesus’ specific ministry of miracles?]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#The_Son_of_Man | The significance of the eschatological son of man (Daniel 7).]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Jesus.E2.80.99_Indirect_Reference_to_Being_the_Exclusive_Son_of_the_Father | Jesus’ claim to be exclusive son of the Father – the parable of the wicked vintners, and the stone rejected by the builders.]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#The_Charge_of_Blasphemy_.28Mk_14:61.29 | The unique charge of blasphemy applied to Jesus—why?]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#.E2.80.9CNo_one_knows_the_Son_except_the_Father.E2.80.A6.E2.80.9D_.28Matthew_11:27.2FLuke_10:22.29 | The famous Q logion -- “No one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son…”]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Did_Jesus_Explicitly_Know_that_He_Was_the_Exclusive_Son_of_the_Father.3F | Did Jesus know He was divine? If so, why did He keep His revelation of it so low key?]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Conclusion | Conclusions about Jesus’ self-conception and self-revelation.]] ====

=== Unit II-H Are the [[Trinity_and_Incarnation | Trinity and the Incarnation]] Really Possible? ===

==== Why can there only be [[Trinity_and_Incarnation#One_Divine_Nature | one real infinite power]]? ====

==== How can there be [[Trinity_and_Incarnation#One_Divine_Nature | three persons]] in one God? ====

==== How can Jesus be [[Trinity_and_Incarnation#The_Incarnation_of_the_Son | true God and true man]] without a contradiction? ====

==== What are the [[Trinity_and_Incarnation#Interpersonal_Love_in_the_Trinity | persons of the Trinity]] doing? How can they be understood in relation to each other? ====

==== How does the [[Trinity_and_Incarnation#Summary | logic of love]] reveal the full meaning of the Trinity and the Incarnation? ====

=== Unit II-J Is God [[Unconditional_Love | Unconditional Love]] – Jesus’ Words? ===

==== The meaning of [[Unconditional_Love#Introduction | love as the highest commandment.]] ====

==== The meaning of [[Unconditional_Love#Love:_the_Highest_Commandment_.5B1.5D | “Abba”.]] ====

==== The Father of the [[Unconditional_Love#The_Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son | Prodigal’s Son]] – explained. ====

==== The [[Unconditional_Love#Jesus.E2.80.99_View_of_Love:_The_Good_Samaritan | Good Samaritan.]] ====

==== The [[Unconditional_Love#Jesus.E2.80.99_Definition_of_Love:_The_Beatitudes | Beatitudes.]] ====

==== How is [[Unconditional_Love#The_Heart_of_God_in_Light_of_the_Beatitudes | God’s true nature revealed]] by all of the above? ====

=== Unit II-K Is God Unconditional Love – [[Friends_of_Jesus | Jesus’ Friends?]] ===

==== Jesus’ [[Friends_of_Jesus#Jesus.E2.80.99_Love_of_the_Poor | love of the poor.]] ====

==== Jesus’ [[Friends_of_Jesus#Jesus.E2.80.99_Acceptance_and_Love_of_Sinners | love of sinners and outcasts.]] ====

==== Jesus’ [[Friends_of_Jesus#Jesus.E2.80.99_Love_of_Disciples_and_Friends.5B9.5D | love of His disciples.]] ====

==== Conclusions about [[Friends_of_Jesus#Introduction | “love one another as I have loved you.”]] ====

=== Unit II-L Is God Unconditional Love – the [[Eucharist | Eucharist?]] ===

==== The [[Eucharist#Did_Jesus_Institute_the_Eucharist_at_a_Passover_Meal.3F | historical context of the Eucharist.]] ====

==== Did Jesus go up to [[Eucharist#Did_Jesus_Institute_the_Eucharist_at_a_Passover_Meal.3F | Jerusalem on the Passover Feast?]] ====

==== [[Eucharist#The_Meaning_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Eucharistic_Words_and_Actions | The Eucharistic actions.]] ====

==== The [[Eucharist#Jeremias.E2.80.99_Interpretation_of_the_Original_Tradition | fourth suffering servant song]] – Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12. ====

==== The original [[Eucharist#Jesus_as_the_New_Sacrificial_Paschal_Lamb | Eucharistic words. ====

==== The meaning of [[Eucharist#.E2.80.9CThis_is_My_Body.E2.80.9D_.28S.C5.8Dma.29 | “body.”]] ====

==== The meaning of [[Eucharist#.E2.80.9CThis_Cup_is_the_Covenant_in_My_Blood.E2.80.9D | “blood.”]] ====

==== [[Eucharist#.E2.80.9CPoured_Out_for_Many.E2.80.9D | For many or for all?]] Jeremiah’s exegesis. ====

==== [[Eucharist#.E2.80.9CDo_this_in_Remembrance_of_Me.E2.80.9D | “Do this in memory of me.”]] -- only a memory or a reliving? ====

==== The [[Eucharist#Conclusion | unconditional love of Jesus]] manifest in the Eucharist. ====

=== Unit II-M Is God Unconditional Love – the Passion? ===

==== Historical considerations surrounding the Passion. ====

==== The Marcan Text and the tradition underlying it. ====

==== So what is the likely series of events? ====

==== What were the last words of Jesus? ====

==== Psalm 22 and its significance – what was Jesus thinking? ====

==== The unconditional love of Christ manifest in His self-sacrificial death. ====

==== Conclusions about the unconditional love of God and the divinity of Christ. ====

=== Unit II-N Is Jesus Really [[Emmanuel | Emmanuel]] – “God With Us”? ===

==== The love of God and Christ in the [[Emmanuel#The_Unconditional_Love_of_God_in_Paul | writings of St. Paul.]] ====

==== The love of God and Christ in the [[Emmanuel#The_Unconditional_Love_of_God_in_John.5B4.5D | writings of St. John.]] ====

==== [[Emmanuel#Synopsis | Conclusions]] about the unconditional love of God and the divinity of Jesus. ====

=== Unit II-O [[References]] ===

Why Believe in Jesus?

2015-01-08T16:10:55Z

David Persyn: /* Unit II-L Is God Unconditional Love – the Eucharist? */ Links

Contents for Why Believe in Jesus?

== Unit I - [http://www.magisgodwiki.org Why Believe in God?] ==

== Unit II - Why Believe in Jesus? ==

=== Unit II A. Why Seek [[Revelation]]? ===

This Unit is a transition Unit from the first part of the encyclopedia [http://www.magisgodwiki.org (Why Believe in God?)]. It gives a summary of the evidence for God from Physics and philosophy, shows why reason must be complemented by revelation, and makes the transition from a Creator to Jesus.

==== A brief summary of the four sets of [[Revelation#Does_Reason_Need_Revelation? | evidence for God]]. ====

a. The evidence from physics.

b. The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God.

c. The evidence from philosophy of mathematics.

d. The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentally.

==== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of [[Revelation#Does_Reason_Need_Revelation? | evidence for God]]. ====

==== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of [[Revelation#Does_Reason_Need_Revelation? | evidence for God]]. ====

==== If reason can probe so deeply, [[Revelation#Why_do_we_need_revelation.3F | why do we need God to reveal himself]] (revelation)? There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply. ====

a. The heart of God.

b. How to pray and worship.

c. Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason (e.g. the trinity).

d. God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering.

e. The dynamic of sacred community.

==== Toward a [http://magischristwiki.org/index.php?title=Revelation#A_Definition_of_Love_.28Agap.C4.93.29 | definition of love] (agape).====

==== [[Revelation#Six_Questions_Toward_Emmanuel | Six reflective questions]] manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically. ====

=== Unit II-B Is There [[Historical Evidence]] for Jesus? ===

==== What is the [[Historical Evidence]] for Jesus outside of the New Testament? ====

==== What are the [[Historical_Evidence#A_Brief_Description_of_Criteria_to_Establish_Historicity | rigorous historical methods]] used to verify historical claims in the New Testament? ====

==== Why did the early Church [[Historical_Evidence#The_High_Cost_of_the_Apostolic_Church.E2.80.99s_Proclamation_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Divinity | proclaim Jesus to be divine]] when it was apologetically disadvantageous? ====

==== The [[Historical_Evidence#The_High_Cost_of_the_Apostolic_Church.E2.80.99s_Proclamation_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Divinity | high cost of the proclamation of Jesus’ divinity]]. ====

=== Unit II-C [[Resurrection Accounts | Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?]] Part One. ===

==== [[Resurrection_Accounts#Who_are_the_Witnesses_in_the_1Corinthians_15_Kerygma.3F | Who were the witnesses to the resurrection appearances?]] ====

==== [[Resurrection_Accounts#Paul.E2.80.99s_Experience_of_the_Risen_Jesus_.E2.80.93_Implications_in_his_Writings | What did St. Paul believe about Jesus’ resurrection?]] ====

==== [[Resurrection_Accounts#Common_Features_in_the_Resurrection_Narratives | How do we make sense out of the gospel narratives on the resurrection?]] ====

==== [[Resurrection_Accounts#The_Appearance_to_the_Eleven_and_Others_in_Luke | How did Jesus appear after His resurrection?]] -- transform (spiritual) corporeality. ====

=== [[Historicity of the Resurrection | Unit II- D Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?]] Part Two. ===

==== Is there any way of [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#Introduction | verifying the historical veracity of the resurrection accounts]] from non-gospel material? ====

==== [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#Implications_of_the_Historicity_of_the_Resurrection_from_the_Uniqueness_of_the_Early_Church.E2.80.99s_Development | Why did Christianity grow so rapidly after the public humiliation and persecution of its Messiah?]] How did this differ from all other messianic movements around the same period? ====

==== [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#An_Argument_for_the_Historicity_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Resurrection_from_Mutations_in_the_Notions_of_.E2.80.9CMessiah.E2.80.9D_and_.E2.80.9CKingdom.E2.80.9D | Christian mutations of Second Temple Judaism’s doctrine on the resurrection.]] ====

==== [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#Mutations_in_Two_Interrelated_Beliefs | What could be a necessary and sufficient cause of these mutations?]] ====

==== [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#Combined_Conclusion | Do the explanations of skeptics and minimalists (e.g. the Jesus Seminar) provide an adequate explanation of the mutations in their historical context?]] ====

==== [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#The_Resurrection_and_the_Lordship_of_Jesus | The case for the resurrection as described by Wright, Brown, Fuller, Jeremiahs, and others.]]====

=== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit |Unit II-E What is the Significance of Jesus’ Gift of the Spirit?]] ===

==== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit#Charismatic_Manifestations_of_the_Spirit_in_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles | How could the Christian Church have grown so rapidly without the impelling presence of the Spirit?]] ====

==== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit#Introduction | Why did the Christian Church differ from the Church of John the Baptist and other messianic movements?]] ====

==== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit#Charismatic_Manifestations_of_the_Spirit_in_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles | What were the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit – healing, miracles, prophesy speaking in tongues?]] ====

==== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit#Paul.E2.80.99s_Account_of_Interior_Gifts_of_the_Spirit | What are the interior gifts of the Spirit? – Abba, faith, prayer, hope, love, zeal, joy.]] ====

==== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit#The_Holy_Spirit_and_the_Divinity_of_Christ | Does the Spirit inspire and operate in the same way today?]] ====

=== [[Miracles | Unit II-F What is the Evidence for Jesus’ Miracles?]] ===

==== [[Miracles#A_Suitable_Definition_of_.E2.80.9CMiracles.E2.80.9D_within_Jesus.E2.80.99_Semitic_Context | What did first century Judaism believe about miracles?]] ====

==== [[Miracles#Raymond_Brown.E2.80.99s_Assessment_of_the_Distinctive_Characteristics_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Miracle-Working | What are the unique aspects of Jesus’ miracle working (compared with others of His day)?]] ====

==== [[Miracles#John_P._Meier.E2.80.99s_Analysis_of_the_Historicity_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Miracles | How do Jesus’ miracles in the Canonical Gospels compare with those recounted in the Gnostic Gospels?]] ====

==== [[Miracles#The_Historicity_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Exorcisms | The application of historical criteria through Jesus’ exorcisms.]] ====

==== [[Miracles#The_Historicity_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Healings | The application of historical criteria to Jesus’ healing miracles.]] ====

==== [[Miracles#The_Historicity_of_Jesus_Raising_the_Dead | The application of historical criteria to Jesus’ “raisings from the dead.”]] ====

==== [[Miracles#Can_Jesus.E2.80.99_Miracles_be_given_a_Purely_Naturalistic_Explanation_Today.3F | The significance of Jesus raising from the dead in His own name and by His own power.]] ====

==== [[Miracles#Conclusion | The manifestation of divinity (and Jesus’ knowledge of His divinity) through His miracles.]] ====

=== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Introduction | Unit II-G What Did Jesus Say about Himself?]] ===

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Jesus_Accomplishes_the_Mission_Reserved_for_Yahweh_Alone | Jesus’ claim to defeat evil/Satan, to bring the Kingdom of God in His own person, and to fulfill the mission reserved for Yahweh alone.]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Jesus.E2.80.99_References_to_Himself | How do these three claims relate to Jesus’ specific ministry of miracles?]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#The_Son_of_Man | The significance of the eschatological son of man (Daniel 7).]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Jesus.E2.80.99_Indirect_Reference_to_Being_the_Exclusive_Son_of_the_Father | Jesus’ claim to be exclusive son of the Father – the parable of the wicked vintners, and the stone rejected by the builders.]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#The_Charge_of_Blasphemy_.28Mk_14:61.29 | The unique charge of blasphemy applied to Jesus—why?]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#.E2.80.9CNo_one_knows_the_Son_except_the_Father.E2.80.A6.E2.80.9D_.28Matthew_11:27.2FLuke_10:22.29 | The famous Q logion -- “No one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son…”]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Did_Jesus_Explicitly_Know_that_He_Was_the_Exclusive_Son_of_the_Father.3F | Did Jesus know He was divine? If so, why did He keep His revelation of it so low key?]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Conclusion | Conclusions about Jesus’ self-conception and self-revelation.]] ====

=== Unit II-H Are the [[Trinity_and_Incarnation | Trinity and the Incarnation]] Really Possible? ===

==== Why can there only be [[Trinity_and_Incarnation#One_Divine_Nature | one real infinite power]]? ====

==== How can there be [[Trinity_and_Incarnation#One_Divine_Nature | three persons]] in one God? ====

==== How can Jesus be [[Trinity_and_Incarnation#The_Incarnation_of_the_Son | true God and true man]] without a contradiction? ====

==== What are the [[Trinity_and_Incarnation#Interpersonal_Love_in_the_Trinity | persons of the Trinity]] doing? How can they be understood in relation to each other? ====

==== How does the [[Trinity_and_Incarnation#Summary | logic of love]] reveal the full meaning of the Trinity and the Incarnation? ====

=== Unit II-J Is God [[Unconditional_Love | Unconditional Love]] – Jesus’ Words? ===

==== The meaning of [[Unconditional_Love#Introduction | love as the highest commandment.]] ====

==== The meaning of [[Unconditional_Love#Love:_the_Highest_Commandment_.5B1.5D | “Abba”.]] ====

==== The Father of the [[Unconditional_Love#The_Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son | Prodigal’s Son]] – explained. ====

==== The [[Unconditional_Love#Jesus.E2.80.99_View_of_Love:_The_Good_Samaritan | Good Samaritan.]] ====

==== The [[Unconditional_Love#Jesus.E2.80.99_Definition_of_Love:_The_Beatitudes | Beatitudes.]] ====

==== How is [[Unconditional_Love#The_Heart_of_God_in_Light_of_the_Beatitudes | God’s true nature revealed]] by all of the above? ====

=== Unit II-K Is God Unconditional Love – [[Friends_of_Jesus | Jesus’ Friends?]] ===

==== Jesus’ [[Friends_of_Jesus#Jesus.E2.80.99_Love_of_the_Poor | love of the poor.]] ====

==== Jesus’ [[Friends_of_Jesus#Jesus.E2.80.99_Acceptance_and_Love_of_Sinners | love of sinners and outcasts.]] ====

==== Jesus’ [[Friends_of_Jesus#Jesus.E2.80.99_Love_of_Disciples_and_Friends.5B9.5D | love of His disciples.]] ====

==== Conclusions about [[Friends_of_Jesus#Introduction | “love one another as I have loved you.”]] ====

=== Unit II-L Is God Unconditional Love – the [[Eucharist | Eucharist?]] ===

==== The [[Eucharist#Did_Jesus_Institute_the_Eucharist_at_a_Passover_Meal.3F | historical context of the Eucharist.]] ====

==== Did Jesus go up to [[Eucharist#Did_Jesus_Institute_the_Eucharist_at_a_Passover_Meal.3F | Jerusalem on the Passover Feast?]] ====

==== [[Eucharist#The_Meaning_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Eucharistic_Words_and_Actions | The Eucharistic actions.]] ====

==== The [[Eucharist#Jeremias.E2.80.99_Interpretation_of_the_Original_Tradition | fourth suffering servant song]] – Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12. ====

==== The original [[Eucharist#Jesus_as_the_New_Sacrificial_Paschal_Lamb | Eucharistic words. ====

==== The meaning of [[Eucharist#.E2.80.9CThis_is_My_Body.E2.80.9D_.28S.C5.8Dma.29 | “body.”]] ====

==== The meaning of [[Eucharist#.E2.80.9CThis_Cup_is_the_Covenant_in_My_Blood.E2.80.9D | “blood.”]] ====

==== [[Eucharist#.E2.80.9CPoured_Out_for_Many.E2.80.9D | For many or for all?]] Jeremiah’s exegesis. ====

==== [[Eucharist#.E2.80.9CDo_this_in_Remembrance_of_Me.E2.80.9D | “Do this in memory of me.”]] -- only a memory or a reliving? ====

==== The [[Eucharist#Conclusion | unconditional love of Jesus]] manifest in the Eucharist. ====

=== Unit II-M Is God Unconditional Love – the Passion? ===

==== Historical considerations surrounding the Passion. ====

==== The Marcan Text and the tradition underlying it. ====

==== So what is the likely series of events? ====

==== What were the last words of Jesus? ====

==== Psalm 22 and its significance – what was Jesus thinking? ====

==== The unconditional love of Christ manifest in His self-sacrificial death. ====

==== Conclusions about the unconditional love of God and the divinity of Christ. ====

=== Unit II-N Is Jesus Really Emmanuel – “God With Us”? ===

==== The love of God and Christ in the writings of St. Paul. ====

==== The love of God and Christ in the writings of St. John. ====

==== Conclusions about the unconditional love of God and the divinity of Jesus. ====

=== Unit II-O [[References]] ===

Why Believe in Jesus?

2015-01-08T16:00:10Z

David Persyn: /* Unit II-L Is God Unconditional Love – the Eucharist? */ Links

Contents for Why Believe in Jesus?

== Unit I - [http://www.magisgodwiki.org Why Believe in God?] ==

== Unit II - Why Believe in Jesus? ==

=== Unit II A. Why Seek [[Revelation]]? ===

This Unit is a transition Unit from the first part of the encyclopedia [http://www.magisgodwiki.org (Why Believe in God?)]. It gives a summary of the evidence for God from Physics and philosophy, shows why reason must be complemented by revelation, and makes the transition from a Creator to Jesus.

==== A brief summary of the four sets of [[Revelation#Does_Reason_Need_Revelation? | evidence for God]]. ====

a. The evidence from physics.

b. The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God.

c. The evidence from philosophy of mathematics.

d. The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentally.

==== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of [[Revelation#Does_Reason_Need_Revelation? | evidence for God]]. ====

==== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of [[Revelation#Does_Reason_Need_Revelation? | evidence for God]]. ====

==== If reason can probe so deeply, [[Revelation#Why_do_we_need_revelation.3F | why do we need God to reveal himself]] (revelation)? There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply. ====

a. The heart of God.

b. How to pray and worship.

c. Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason (e.g. the trinity).

d. God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering.

e. The dynamic of sacred community.

==== Toward a [http://magischristwiki.org/index.php?title=Revelation#A_Definition_of_Love_.28Agap.C4.93.29 | definition of love] (agape).====

==== [[Revelation#Six_Questions_Toward_Emmanuel | Six reflective questions]] manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically. ====

=== Unit II-B Is There [[Historical Evidence]] for Jesus? ===

==== What is the [[Historical Evidence]] for Jesus outside of the New Testament? ====

==== What are the [[Historical_Evidence#A_Brief_Description_of_Criteria_to_Establish_Historicity | rigorous historical methods]] used to verify historical claims in the New Testament? ====

==== Why did the early Church [[Historical_Evidence#The_High_Cost_of_the_Apostolic_Church.E2.80.99s_Proclamation_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Divinity | proclaim Jesus to be divine]] when it was apologetically disadvantageous? ====

==== The [[Historical_Evidence#The_High_Cost_of_the_Apostolic_Church.E2.80.99s_Proclamation_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Divinity | high cost of the proclamation of Jesus’ divinity]]. ====

=== Unit II-C [[Resurrection Accounts | Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?]] Part One. ===

==== [[Resurrection_Accounts#Who_are_the_Witnesses_in_the_1Corinthians_15_Kerygma.3F | Who were the witnesses to the resurrection appearances?]] ====

==== [[Resurrection_Accounts#Paul.E2.80.99s_Experience_of_the_Risen_Jesus_.E2.80.93_Implications_in_his_Writings | What did St. Paul believe about Jesus’ resurrection?]] ====

==== [[Resurrection_Accounts#Common_Features_in_the_Resurrection_Narratives | How do we make sense out of the gospel narratives on the resurrection?]] ====

==== [[Resurrection_Accounts#The_Appearance_to_the_Eleven_and_Others_in_Luke | How did Jesus appear after His resurrection?]] -- transform (spiritual) corporeality. ====

=== [[Historicity of the Resurrection | Unit II- D Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?]] Part Two. ===

==== Is there any way of [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#Introduction | verifying the historical veracity of the resurrection accounts]] from non-gospel material? ====

==== [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#Implications_of_the_Historicity_of_the_Resurrection_from_the_Uniqueness_of_the_Early_Church.E2.80.99s_Development | Why did Christianity grow so rapidly after the public humiliation and persecution of its Messiah?]] How did this differ from all other messianic movements around the same period? ====

==== [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#An_Argument_for_the_Historicity_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Resurrection_from_Mutations_in_the_Notions_of_.E2.80.9CMessiah.E2.80.9D_and_.E2.80.9CKingdom.E2.80.9D | Christian mutations of Second Temple Judaism’s doctrine on the resurrection.]] ====

==== [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#Mutations_in_Two_Interrelated_Beliefs | What could be a necessary and sufficient cause of these mutations?]] ====

==== [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#Combined_Conclusion | Do the explanations of skeptics and minimalists (e.g. the Jesus Seminar) provide an adequate explanation of the mutations in their historical context?]] ====

==== [[Historicity_of_the_Resurrection#The_Resurrection_and_the_Lordship_of_Jesus | The case for the resurrection as described by Wright, Brown, Fuller, Jeremiahs, and others.]]====

=== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit |Unit II-E What is the Significance of Jesus’ Gift of the Spirit?]] ===

==== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit#Charismatic_Manifestations_of_the_Spirit_in_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles | How could the Christian Church have grown so rapidly without the impelling presence of the Spirit?]] ====

==== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit#Introduction | Why did the Christian Church differ from the Church of John the Baptist and other messianic movements?]] ====

==== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit#Charismatic_Manifestations_of_the_Spirit_in_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles | What were the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit – healing, miracles, prophesy speaking in tongues?]] ====

==== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit#Paul.E2.80.99s_Account_of_Interior_Gifts_of_the_Spirit | What are the interior gifts of the Spirit? – Abba, faith, prayer, hope, love, zeal, joy.]] ====

==== [[Significance_of_Gift_of_Spirit#The_Holy_Spirit_and_the_Divinity_of_Christ | Does the Spirit inspire and operate in the same way today?]] ====

=== [[Miracles | Unit II-F What is the Evidence for Jesus’ Miracles?]] ===

==== [[Miracles#A_Suitable_Definition_of_.E2.80.9CMiracles.E2.80.9D_within_Jesus.E2.80.99_Semitic_Context | What did first century Judaism believe about miracles?]] ====

==== [[Miracles#Raymond_Brown.E2.80.99s_Assessment_of_the_Distinctive_Characteristics_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Miracle-Working | What are the unique aspects of Jesus’ miracle working (compared with others of His day)?]] ====

==== [[Miracles#John_P._Meier.E2.80.99s_Analysis_of_the_Historicity_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Miracles | How do Jesus’ miracles in the Canonical Gospels compare with those recounted in the Gnostic Gospels?]] ====

==== [[Miracles#The_Historicity_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Exorcisms | The application of historical criteria through Jesus’ exorcisms.]] ====

==== [[Miracles#The_Historicity_of_Jesus.E2.80.99_Healings | The application of historical criteria to Jesus’ healing miracles.]] ====

==== [[Miracles#The_Historicity_of_Jesus_Raising_the_Dead | The application of historical criteria to Jesus’ “raisings from the dead.”]] ====

==== [[Miracles#Can_Jesus.E2.80.99_Miracles_be_given_a_Purely_Naturalistic_Explanation_Today.3F | The significance of Jesus raising from the dead in His own name and by His own power.]] ====

==== [[Miracles#Conclusion | The manifestation of divinity (and Jesus’ knowledge of His divinity) through His miracles.]] ====

=== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Introduction | Unit II-G What Did Jesus Say about Himself?]] ===

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Jesus_Accomplishes_the_Mission_Reserved_for_Yahweh_Alone | Jesus’ claim to defeat evil/Satan, to bring the Kingdom of God in His own person, and to fulfill the mission reserved for Yahweh alone.]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Jesus.E2.80.99_References_to_Himself | How do these three claims relate to Jesus’ specific ministry of miracles?]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#The_Son_of_Man | The significance of the eschatological son of man (Daniel 7).]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Jesus.E2.80.99_Indirect_Reference_to_Being_the_Exclusive_Son_of_the_Father | Jesus’ claim to be exclusive son of the Father – the parable of the wicked vintners, and the stone rejected by the builders.]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#The_Charge_of_Blasphemy_.28Mk_14:61.29 | The unique charge of blasphemy applied to Jesus—why?]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#.E2.80.9CNo_one_knows_the_Son_except_the_Father.E2.80.A6.E2.80.9D_.28Matthew_11:27.2FLuke_10:22.29 | The famous Q logion -- “No one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son…”]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Did_Jesus_Explicitly_Know_that_He_Was_the_Exclusive_Son_of_the_Father.3F | Did Jesus know He was divine? If so, why did He keep His revelation of it so low key?]] ====

==== [[Jesus_Speaks_About_Himself#Conclusion | Conclusions about Jesus’ self-conception and self-revelation.]] ====

=== Unit II-H Are the [[Trinity_and_Incarnation | Trinity and the Incarnation]] Really Possible? ===

==== Why can there only be [[Trinity_and_Incarnation#One_Divine_Nature | one real infinite power]]? ====

==== How can there be [[Trinity_and_Incarnation#One_Divine_Nature | three persons]] in one God? ====

==== How can Jesus be [[Trinity_and_Incarnation#The_Incarnation_of_the_Son | true God and true man]] without a contradiction? ====

==== What are the [[Trinity_and_Incarnation#Interpersonal_Love_in_the_Trinity | persons of the Trinity]] doing? How can they be understood in relation to each other? ====

==== How does the [[Trinity_and_Incarnation#Summary | logic of love]] reveal the full meaning of the Trinity and the Incarnation? ====

=== Unit II-J Is God [[Unconditional_Love | Unconditional Love]] – Jesus’ Words? ===

==== The meaning of [[Unconditional_Love#Introduction | love as the highest commandment.]] ====

==== The meaning of [[Unconditional_Love#Love:_the_Highest_Commandment_.5B1.5D | “Abba”.]] ====

==== The Father of the [[Unconditional_Love#The_Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son | Prodigal’s Son]] – explained. ====

==== The [[Unconditional_Love#Jesus.E2.80.99_View_of_Love:_The_Good_Samaritan | Good Samaritan.]] ====

==== The [[Unconditional_Love#Jesus.E2.80.99_Definition_of_Love:_The_Beatitudes | Beatitudes.]] ====

==== How is [[Unconditional_Love#The_Heart_of_God_in_Light_of_the_Beatitudes | God’s true nature revealed]] by all of the above? ====

=== Unit II-K Is God Unconditional Love – [[Friends_of_Jesus | Jesus’ Friends?]] ===

==== Jesus’ [[Friends_of_Jesus#Jesus.E2.80.99_Love_of_the_Poor | love of the poor.]] ====

==== Jesus’ [[Friends_of_Jesus#Jesus.E2.80.99_Acceptance_and_Love_of_Sinners | love of sinners and outcasts.]] ====

==== Jesus’ [[Friends_of_Jesus#Jesus.E2.80.99_Love_of_Disciples_and_Friends.5B9.5D | love of His disciples.]] ====

==== Conclusions about [[Friends_of_Jesus#Introduction | “love one another as I have loved you.”]] ====

=== Unit II-L Is God Unconditional Love – the [[Eucharist | Eucharist?]] ===

==== The historical context of the Eucharist. ====

==== Did Jesus go up to Jerusalem on the Passover Feast? ====

==== The Eucharistic actions. ====

==== The fourth suffering servant song – Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12. ====

==== The original Eucharistic words. ====

==== The meaning of “body.” ====

==== The meaning of “blood.” ====

==== For many or for all? Jeremiah’s exegesis. ====

==== “Do this in memory of me.” -- only a memory or a reliving? ====

==== The unconditional love of Jesus manifest in the Eucharist. ====

=== Unit II-M Is God Unconditional Love – the Passion? ===

==== Historical considerations surrounding the Passion. ====

==== The Marcan Text and the tradition underlying it. ====

==== So what is the likely series of events? ====

==== What were the last words of Jesus? ====

==== Psalm 22 and its significance – what was Jesus thinking? ====

==== The unconditional love of Christ manifest in His self-sacrificial death. ====

==== Conclusions about the unconditional love of God and the divinity of Christ. ====

=== Unit II-N Is Jesus Really Emmanuel – “God With Us”? ===

==== The love of God and Christ in the writings of St. Paul. ====

==== The love of God and Christ in the writings of St. John. ====

==== Conclusions about the unconditional love of God and the divinity of Jesus. ====

=== Unit II-O [[References]] ===

Eucharist

2015-01-08T15:58:39Z

David Persyn: /* “This is My Body” (Sōma) */ tag typo

Magis ChristWiki - Magis Institute

Unit II. L

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Eucharist

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-L_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Eucharist.3F | Return to Table of Contents]]

Saint Paul believed that the clearest demonstration of Jesus’ love was in His passion and death: “But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rm 5:8). Jesus instituted the Eucharist to give the “total gift of Himself in the passion” to all future generations. He deliberately walked into His passion by traveling to Jerusalem before the feast of the Passover when the authorities were evidently seeking to put an end to His ministry and even His life. He did this because He had a plan in mind; a plan to give the blessing and power of His person and passion to all future generations through a ritual arising out of His interpretation of the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. The Beloved One of the Father intended to make us all beloveds in His own image by giving Himself (and the eschatological kingdom of love) to us in a definitive, unconditional act. This consummation of His mission (His raison d’être) reveals His core identity. The question naturally follows, “Would it be typical of an unconditionally loving God who enters into complete empathy with us to have such a self-sacrificial mission and plan?” If so, then this is one of our most profound signs that Jesus is Emmanuel.

== Did Jesus Institute the Eucharist at a Passover Meal? ==

Joachim Jeremias’ classic work, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus is still acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive treatments of this subject with the most extensive analysis of rabbinical traditions.<ref>Meier 1991, p. 395.</ref> Some exegetes feel uneasy about his application of rabbinical traditions and extratestamental material to New Testament texts,<ref>See Meier 1991, p. 395.</ref> and many scholars do not agree with his assignment of the Last Supper to the Passover meal, because it requires that too much activity take place on Passover day (the 15th of Nisan):

<blockquote>Despite Jeremias’ deft command of the material, he cannot really establish the likelihood that, at the time of Jesus, the supreme Jewish authorities in Jerusalem would arrest a person suspected of a capital crime, immediately convene a meeting of the Sanhedrin to hear the case (a case involving the death penalty), hold a formal trial with witnesses, reach a decision that the criminal deserved to die, and hand over the criminal to the Gentile authorities with a request for execution on the same day – all within the night and early day hours of Passover Day, the fifteenth of Nisan!<ref>Meier 1991, p. 396.</ref></blockquote>

For this reason, Meier believes that it is more probable that the Last Supper took place on the day before the Passover meal (on the eve of the 14th of Nisan), which corresponds with John’s dating of it rather than the Synoptics’.<ref>See Meier 1991, p. 396.</ref>

Yet, the placement of the Last Supper on the eve of the 14th of Nisan does not rule out the possibility that Jesus, aware of what was to befall Him, celebrated a Passover supper with His disciples (without a lamb) on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. Since the lambs were slaughtered prior to the meal on the 15th of Nisan, it would not have been possible for Jesus to celebrate the Passover meal with a lamb. This is consistent with New Testament accounts which make multiple references to the Passover meal,<ref>See, for example, Luke 22:15 (“I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer”); Luke 22:13 (“they prepared the Passover”); Luke 22:11 (“tell the householder, ‘the Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I am to eat the Passover with my disciples?”); Mark 14:12 (“Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”); Luke 22:8 (“Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it”); Luke 22:7 (“[it was] the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed”). Even if one ignores the passages which refer to the Marcan dating of the Last Supper on the eve of the 15th of Nisan (such as Luke 22:7), there are five distinct references (without dating) to a Passover meal.</ref> but no references to a lamb.

There are six reasons why a Passover meal should not be ruled out even if it occurred on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. First, as noted above, the Passover is linked to Jesus’ Last Supper multiple times in all three synoptic Gospels. Secondly, there are differences in the chronology of the Synoptic Gospels which indicate that a Passover meal could have been celebrated at different times within the weeklong celebration leading up to Passover. The reference to the “first day” in Mark and Luke, as Harrington suggests, betrays a mixed chronology, for:

<blockquote>the paschal lamb was normally eaten on the first day of the feast. Yet Mark describes the “first day” as the day of preparation when the lambs were slaughtered, corresponding to Wednesday, while the meal would be celebrated that evening.<ref>Harrington 1991, p. 392.</ref></blockquote>

Thirdly, the Passover is mentioned in a unique, ancient formula recounted in Luke’s Gospel, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.”<ref>See the extensive analysis of Jeremias in 1966, pp. 190-92.</ref> Fourthly, Jeremias detects several Semitisms behind the wording in the Gospel passages which are traceable to the Passover ceremony itself (such as the “fruit of the vine” in Luke 22:18).<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 161-62.</ref> Fifthly, Jeremias notes that:

<blockquote>[T]he pre-Pauline Passover haggadah preserved in I Cor. 5.7f. calls Jesus “our passover (lamb)” and that Paul presupposes as self-evident the familiarity of the Corinthian community with this comparison, a comparison widespread in the early Christian literature.<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 222-23.</ref></blockquote>

Sixthly, there are references to the Passover meal within the passages (e.g., the multiple cups, which seems to have come from Luke’s special source [22:17-18], and the Passover haggadah between the word over the bread and the word over the cup<ref>See Jeremias 1966, p. 85 and 221.</ref>). In sum, these distinct ancient sources of the institution of the Eucharist at Passover indicate a common Palestinian source which very probably goes back to Jesus Himself.

Could Jesus have celebrated an adapted Passover meal with His disciples on the eve of the 14th of Nisan to anticipate His impending death which would have occurred near the time of the slaughtering of the lambs? Since Jesus was not unaccustomed to adapting Jewish doctrine and ritual to conform to His own doctrinal and ritual requirements, this possibility cannot be ruled out. Even if Jesus did not celebrate a Passover meal (without a lamb) at the Last Supper, He could have borrowed particular rituals from it or alluded to it during the Last Supper. For this reason, I will include Jeremias’ references to the Passover meal in the forthcoming analysis. The reader may want to bear in mind that these Passover rituals may not have occurred, but may only have been implied in Jesus’ actions during the Last Supper.

The analysis will be carried out in two steps:

1) a brief synopsis of Jeremias’ and others’ exegetical work on the original tradition (Section II.A); and

2) the meaning of Jesus’ eucharistic words and actions (Section II.B).

== Jeremias’ Interpretation of the Original Tradition ==

There are four traditions of Jesus’ Eucharistic words:<ref>There is also a tradition in John (6:25-59), but it is a Eucharistic discourse instead of a recounting of the Last Supper; a specific exegesis of this passage is beyond the objective of this study.</ref>

1) I Corinthians 11:23-26:

<blockquote>For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.</blockquote>

2) Mark 14:22-25:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take; this is my body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” He said to them. “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”</blockquote>

3) Matthew 26:26-29:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”</blockquote>

4) Luke 22:17-20:

<blockquote>After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”</blockquote>

A brief glance at the above four traditions reveals two branches of an original tradition – (1) a Paul-Luke branch (which makes specific reference to remembrance; a new covenant; and, in the case of Luke alone, “poured out for you”), and (2) a Mark-Matthew branch (which makes no reference to remembrance; refers to covenant, but not a new covenant; and makes the objective of Jesus’ outpouring for many). Jeremias has split this project into two parts: (1) the four common areas of these traditions (which, given the different theologies in the two branches, would probably have to have their origin in a common source), and (2) in areas where the branches differ, locating the more primitive tradition through grammatical constructions and the presence of Semitisms. The two analyses will bring us close to an original tradition which may closely resemble Jesus’ own words.

There are four common areas within the four traditions:

<blockquote>(1) Jesus’ action with respect to the bread: “took bread, gave thanks [in the case of Paul, “after he had given thanks”], and broke it,”</blockquote>

<blockquote>(2) Jesus’ words over the bread: “this is my body [soma],”</blockquote>

<blockquote>(3) Jesus’ action with respect to the cup. In Mark-Matthew: “Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them.” In Paul-Luke: “In the same way” (referring to the way in which He gave the bread, i.e., “took bread and gave thanks… and gave it to them”), and</blockquote>

<blockquote>(4) Jesus’ word over the cup: “This is my blood of the covenant.” Evidently, Paul and Luke refer to the new covenant whereas Mark and Matthew refer only to the covenant.<ref>Jeremias shows through a grammatical analysis that, despite surface appearances, the Paul-Luke version is essentially the same as the Mark-Matthew version even though the Paul-Luke version refers to the cup (where Mark-Matthew does not), and Paul-Luke refers to “the covenant in my blood” while Mark-Matthew refers to the “blood of the covenant.” See Jeremias 1966, pp. 168-69.</ref></blockquote>

Jeremias holds that the Marcan version of the word over the bread is the more original tradition while the Pauline version of the word over the cup is the more original:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “Take; this is my body.” (Mark 14:22)</blockquote>

<blockquote>In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (1Cor. 11:25a).</blockquote>

Jeremias believes there is good reason for holding the Pauline version to be the more original formula for the word over the cup on linguistic grounds, because the Mark-Matthew version is far more symmetrical, indicating the need to take a more complex narrative form (in Paul-Luke) and convert it to a more symmetrical liturgical form in Mark-Matthew. Though it may be thought that the Paul-Luke form is more apologetically appealing (because it is less evocative of drinking blood in a pagan ritual which would have been repulsive to Jewish people), and therefore later than the Mark-Matthew version (which may have given rise to these apologetically unappealing misimpressions), Paul’s version is probably the earlier because it reveals a separation in time between the word over the bread and the word over the wine (to account for the consumption of the meal between the two events) which the Mark-Matthew version does not represent. Thus, the Mark-Matthew version seems to be a later formula taken from the liturgy, which did not need to account for the separation of the meal (as a more narrative account would have) and needed to be more symmetrical for the sake of liturgical repetition.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 169-171 and 191-92.</ref>

It now remains to establish which of the other three divergent areas is the more original. As implied above, there are three areas of divergence:

<blockquote>a) “the new covenant” (Paul-Luke) versus “the covenant” (Mark-Matthew),</blockquote>

<blockquote>b) poured out for you (Luke) versus “poured out for many” (Mark-Matthew), and</blockquote>

<blockquote>c) word of remembrance – ''anamnēsis'' (in Paul-Luke, but not mentioned in Mark-Matthew).</blockquote>

I will briefly summarize Jeremias’ judgment on these three matters so that an original tradition (close to the words and actions of Jesus) may be adduced.

With respect to the new covenant, Jeremias holds that the Mark-Matthew version would probably be the earlier because the placement of the adjective “new” prior to “covenant” is Hellenistic (but not Semitic) indicating that it originated “on Hellenistic soil.”<ref>Though the Pauline formula is not the more original of the two, its pre-Pauline origins are indicated by its agreement with Luke. See Jeremias 1966, pp. 171-72.</ref>

With respect to the “poured out for you” (Luke) versus “poured out for many”<ref>As will be discussed below, “for many,” in the Semitic sense of “rabbim” which was probably uttered by Jesus, is inclusive (that is, it does not exclude some in contrast to the totality, as in the common Greek and English uses of it – e.g., “many, but not everybody”). The reason for this is that there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word for “all.” Thus, the inclusive sense of “rabbim” explicitly includes the totality and its individual members. See Jeremias 1966, p. 179.</ref> (Mark-Matthew), Jeremias holds that “for many” is the more original on the basis of linguistic grounds, namely, “for many” is a Semitism while “you” is not. Jeremias attributes the replacement of “many” by “you” as having a liturgical purpose where each worshiper feels him or herself to be individually addressed (by “you”), which would not happen with the indefinite “many.” In view of this, he holds that the replacement of “many” by “you” is not an attempt to limit the atoning work of Jesus arising out of later theological reflection.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 172.</ref>

Finally, with respect to the word of remembrance (which Jeremias terms the command for repetition), Paul mentions it twice (after the word over the bread and the word over the wine), Luke mentions it once (after the word over the bread), but Mark and Matthew omit it altogether. Jeremias holds that this tradition is pre-Pauline but probably not a part of the oldest traditions. Yet it could well have originated with Jesus. There are three reasons for suspecting this. First, the bread and wine rituals took on a high degree of significance apart from the meal (suggesting a command of repetition from Jesus with respect to them, but not with respect to the meal separating them). Secondly, the words over the bread and wine are so often repeated that they quickly become a central Christian ritual (which gives them far more significance than mere parts of a farewell meal or a commemoration of Jesus’ death<ref>Jeremias has an extensive discussion of the contention that the word of remembrance was a later Greek accretion imitating annual celebrations of the dead. One of his reasons for rejecting this thesis is that the Christian ritual was daily or weekly and not merely an annual celebration. See Jeremias 1966, pp. 238-43.</ref>) suggesting once again a command of repetition from Jesus. Thirdly, it would be unusual for early liturgical formulations to contain this command since, as Jeremias notes, “the celebration itself was its fulfillment.”<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 238.</ref> In view of the fact that Jesus said much more during the meal than was recorded, it may be surmised that He gave a command of repetition.

So what can we now conclude about Jesus’ actions and words? If the earliest narratives reflect Jesus’ actions, and if Jeremias’ conjectures about Jesus’ words are correct, we can conclude that Jesus gathered with His disciples before the feast of the Passover and indicated to them that He longed to celebrate this Passover with them, but instead of doing so, fasted while the other disciples celebrated.<ref>See Jeremias’ convincing argument in 1966, pp. 208-09.</ref> After drinking one of the four Passover cups while they were eating the Passover meal (or an adapted Passover ritual),<ref>See the discussion of this topic in the introduction to Section II above.</ref> Jesus initiated the ritual of the bread, identifying it with His body: “Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take; this is my body.’” Then, after the completion of the Passover meal (or adapted Passover ritual), Jesus initiated the ritual of the wine which He identifies with the covenant in His blood. He took a cup of red wine, gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This cup is the covenant in my blood.”<ref>Though Jesus identifies the red wine with the “covenant in His blood,” it is clear from the red wine, the parallelism with the bread, and the use of “this cup” that Jesus is identifying the red wine with both His blood and the covenant in His blood. Jeremias notes that the color of the wine is significant here: “The tertium comparationis in the case of the bread is the fact that it was broken, and in the case of the wine the red colour. We have already seen…that it was customary to drink red wine at the Passover…. The comparison between red wine and blood was common in the Old Testament (Gen. 49.11; Deut. 32.14; Isa. 63.3,6), further Ecclus 39.26; 50.15; I Macc. 6.34; Rev. 14.20; Sanh. 70a, etc.” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 223-24).</ref> Sometime either prior to or after this (perhaps both), Jesus gives a command of repetition similar to “Do this in remembrance of me.”

If this reconstruction is accurate, we may now proceed to a brief summary of Jeremias’ and others’ conclusions about the meaning of these words and the ritual they constitute.

== The Meaning of Jesus’ Eucharistic Words and Actions ==

Six elements of Jesus’ institution of the Eucharist merit interpretation:

(1) His view of Himself as “suffering servant” (Is 52:13-53:12 – see Section II.B.1);

(2) Jesus as the new sacrificial paschal lamb (II.B.2);

(3) “This is my body” (soma – II.B.3);

(4) “This cup is the covenant in my blood” (II.B.4);

(5) “Do this in remembrance of me” (II.B5); and

(6) “poured out for many” (II.B.6).

As will become evident, the synthesis of these six elements (in their proper interpretation) points strongly to Jesus’ action as one of unconditional Love, which reveals a heart of unconditional Love.

=== Jesus as Suffering Servant ===

It may be helpful to here set out the whole Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12, because reference will be made to it throughout this Unit on the Eucharist as well as the forthcoming Unit on the passion of Jesus:

<blockquote>See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as there were many who were appalled at him – his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness – so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand (52:13-15).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him (53:1-2).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not (53:3).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted (53:4).</blockquote>

<blockquote>But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed (53:5).</blockquote>

<blockquote>We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all (53:6).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth (53:7).</blockquote>

<blockquote>By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken (53:8).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth (53:9).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities (53:10-11).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he ''poured'' out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of ''many'', and made intercession for the transgressors (53:12 – italics mine).</blockquote>

The obvious tie-in between the suffering servant song and Jesus’ eucharistic words occurs at 53:12. The phrase “poured out for many,” which is a part of the oldest tradition of the eucharistic words, has a remarkable parallel with Isaiah 53:12 which states:

<blockquote>…because he poured out (he’erah) his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many (rabbim)….”</blockquote>

The Hebrew background of both Jesus’ eucharistic words and Isaiah 53:12 as well as the context of these words (the sacrifice of Jesus and the suffering servant) are so close that it would be difficult to believe that the ancient tradition of Jesus’ eucharistic words was not referring to Isaiah 53:12.<ref>According to Jeremias, [“poured out for many”] “is linked with an Old Testament passage: Isa. 53.12, ‘because he poured out (he’erah) his life to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many (rabbim) and made intercession for the transgressors’ (the reference is to the Hebrew text of this passage, a fact to be kept in mind as evidence of the age of the tradition). This allusion to the Old Testament passage on the suffering servant is supported by the fact that the word rabbim/πολλοί is almost a ''leit-motiv'' in Isa. 52.13-53.12.” Jeremias 1966, pp. 226-7.</ref> Moreover, Jesus seems to have had an intimate acquaintance with the texts of Deutero-Isaiah,<ref>See Betz, 1968-70, v.2, p. 257.</ref> and also seems to have interpreted His life and His mission in terms of this passage which was uncannily similar to the passion He was about to suffer. Hence, it seems likely that Jesus intended the words “poured out for many” in a way that could be interpreted through the lens of the Suffering Servant song. This means that Jesus intends His eucharistic actions and words in an expiatory way, that is, as a “sin offering” or “guilt offering” for the sins of many. Johannes Betz notes in this regard:

<blockquote>Jesus accomplished the decisive purpose of His life, His task as Messiah, in carrying out the mission of the servant of God of Deutero-Isaiah, who as God’s majestic envoy proclaims and inaugurates a new phase in salvation and who as martyr takes upon Himself expiatory sufferings for the sins of the many.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v.2, p. 258.</ref></blockquote>

It would seem, therefore, that Jesus had this Suffering Servant song deeply in mind when He decided to proceed toward Jerusalem with full knowledge that the authorities were seeking to persecute Him (see John 11:8). This makes sense of both His resoluteness toward impending death and His obvious preparation for the eucharistic ritual (with its imbedded passage from Isaiah 53:12), which would, in turn, make sense of Matthew’s additional words (probably reflective of a later tradition): “for the forgiveness of sins.”<ref>This is imbedded within Jesus’ words over the cup: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt. 26:28).</ref>

The logic of this sin offering may seem a bit confusing to a contemporary audience, especially the passage in Isaiah that states, “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see the light of life and be satisfied” (Isaiah 53:10). At first glance, it may seem that the portrayal of the Lord in this passage (and therefore Jesus’ view of God’s will) is sadistic, but this is certainly not the case, for Jesus’ interpretation of the Isaiah passage is set within His view of the Father as “Abba” and Himself as Son and Beloved. Thus, Jesus’ interpretation of this passage must be seen within the context of the logic of love, which makes the Johannine words of Jesus particularly significant, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (Jn 15:13). If this passage represents Jesus’ interpretive principle for both the Isaiah passage and His Eucharistic words, then Jesus would have interpreted “the Lord’s will to crush him” in terms of the Father’s acceptance of Jesus’ love offering (the gift of Himself) for the sins of the world.

Recall for a moment some of the observations about Jesus’ view of love (agape) from the previous Unit. We saw that Jesus viewed love as the highest commandment (Mark 12:30 and par.), and that He elucidated His view of love through the beatitudes (Matt 5:3-12), which included humble-heartedness, gentle-heartedness, hungering and thirsting for the will of God, being merciful (which includes being forgiving), peacemaking, and enduring persecution for the kingdom of God. Ironic as it may seem, Jesus’ self-sacrificial gift for the expiation of sins synthesizes and catalyzes every one of these elements from the beatitudes and concretizes their “synthesis in love” within not only historical but future reality.<ref>Paul did not miss this insight in Colossians 3:12-14: “Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which is the bond of completeness.” See the explanation of this passage in Unit II-J, Section IV.</ref>

The Gospel of John has captured Jesus’ intention well. There is no greater love (the synthesis of the beatitudes) that a person can have than to give his life. In light of Jesus’ view of the Father as Abba (which has embedded within it generative, compassionate, forgiving, restoring, affectionate love – similar to the father’s love in the Prodigal Son parable), it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus would have loosely interpreted the words of Isaiah 53:10 to mean “it would have pleased the Father – despite His pain – to see the self-sacrificial (loving) will of His Son become a reality for all humanity.” Just because Jesus uses Isaiah 52:13-53:12 as an interpretive principle for His self-sacrifice does not mean that He agrees with every theological element in that passage. Indeed, Jesus was known to have loosely interpreted and even reinterpreted many passages from Torah and the prophets. It would seem inconceivable that Jesus could have interpreted Isaiah 53:10 outside the context of His being the beloved Son of Abba.

Therefore, we might look at Jesus’ mindset about the passion and Eucharist (as He approached Jerusalem) as follows. First, He intended to make Himself an expiatory offering much like the one spoken of in Isaiah 53:8ff:

<blockquote>…for the transgression of my people he was stricken…. …and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering…. …my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. …because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.</blockquote>

Secondly, Jesus had a twofold understanding of the efficacy of this “sin offering”: (1) the efficacy of sacrifice, and (2) the efficacy of love. With respect to the efficacy of sacrifice, it seems probable that Jesus organized His Eucharistic words to indicate that He was making a sacrifice of Himself. By separating the words over the body and the blood, Jesus implied that what He was about to endure on the cross was like the separation of flesh and blood in a cultic sacrifice.<ref>“This formula derives from Ex 24:8 and characterizes the content of the cup primarily as the cultic sacrificial element “blood”, which is separated from the flesh, then also the death of Jesus as the separation of flesh and blood after the manner of a cultic sacrifice” (Betz 1968-70, v.2, p. 259). See also Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22: “…[I]t also designates, as already in ancient Hebrew, the two component parts of the body [flesh and blood], especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed.”</ref>

Yet, Jesus was not making Himself a cultic sacrifice in the traditional sense, for He, the Son, the Beloved One, the innocent One, made Himself the sacrificial gift for those who are not innocent, in the certain hope of the resurrection and universal atonement. Betz notes in this regard:

<blockquote>Taking on alien guilt meant taking on also the necessity of death. As his life went on, Jesus thought more frequently of his death and spoke more frequently of it to his disciples…. It was for Jesus not something that merely happened to him, but a conscious and willed deed to which he assented as a necessity in the history of salvation, and on which he freely decided (Lk 12:50). His total readiness for the death which was the mission of the Servant of the Lord is also expressed in the logion of the ransom (Mk 10:45), and the prophecies of the passion (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:32ff). … His death is total dedication and the deepest fulfillment of his being. … Unlike the ''cultic'' sacrifices, there is no separate ''gift'' which stands for the offerer and symbolizes his dedication to God. Here the offerer himself functions as ''gift'' in his own person and accomplishes the sacrificial dedication by the real shedding of his blood. Jesus must have been sure that God would accept this sacrifice, his body, and hence that God would fill it with new life. Thus the death of Jesus brings with it the resurrection as an inner consequence, as an essential part of it, regardless of the difference in time between the two events.<ref>Betz, 1968-70, v.2, p. 258. Italics mine.</ref></blockquote>

The middle term, as it were, between efficacy of sacrifice and efficacy of love is gift. As is clear from the above, a cultic sacrifice finds its efficacy in the gift given to God, and, as is clear from the Johannine passage on love, there is no greater love than to give one’s life. When Jesus made Himself the gift in the sacrificial offering, He transformed the efficacy of that gift from one of cultic proportion to one of unconditional Love. This is evidenced in Jesus’ use of the word “covenant” (“the covenant in my blood”) which, as will be seen below, implies a bond of love.

In sum, when Jesus proceeded to Jerusalem He planned to complete His mission of being the suffering (messianic) servant of the Lord by becoming a sacrificial gift for all transgressors. In so doing, he hoped to effect an atonement for all sins as a perfect sacrifice (that is, as the self-sacrifice of the beloved innocent one) in place of cultic sin offerings. This atonement went far beyond mechanical cultic sin offerings because it was fundamentally an act of unconditional self-giving (Love) for humankind. This act of unconditional Love was the source and power of perfect atonement and a new covenant which promised eternal life through the God who has loved us so.

=== Jesus as the New Sacrificial Paschal Lamb ===

As noted above, it is likely that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper within the context of a Passover meal – perhaps an adapted Passover meal (without a lamb) on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. So why would Jesus have chosen the Passover celebration to make His sacrifice and institute the Eucharist? Jeremias believes that He wanted to compare Himself to the paschal lamb, or perhaps better, He wanted to be the eschatological paschal lamb – the one who was to initiate the new covenant (which He correlated with the kingdom of God) in His blood:<ref>Jeremias sees Jesus’ identification of Himself with the paschal lamb as correlative with His identification of the bread and wine with His own person. He also notes that the early Pauline community commonly understood Jesus to be the paschal lamb. See Jeremias 1966, p. 222-23.</ref>

<blockquote>With the words ''den biśri'', “this is my (sacrificial) flesh”, and ''den idmi'', “this is my (sacrificial) blood”, Jesus is therefore most probably speaking of himself as the paschal lamb. He is the eschatological paschal lamb, representing the fulfillment of all that of which the Egyptian paschal lamb and all the subsequent sacrificial paschal lambs were the prototype.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 223.</ref></blockquote>

It should not be thought that the absence of a lamb at an adapted Passover meal (on the eve of the 14th of Nisan) militates against Jeremias’ thesis that Jesus associated Himself with the eschatological paschal lamb, for if Jesus did celebrate the Passover on the eve of the 14th of Nisan, His own passion would have begun at the time that the paschal lambs were being slaughtered in preparation for the feast celebrated on the eve of the 15th of Nisan. This would correlate well with the Last Supper’s anticipation of the impending self-sacrifice which might have been Jesus’ very intention.

The lamb is a simile for two essential dimensions of the Eucharist: (1) the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, and (2) the sacrifice initiating the covenant (leading out of slavery into a new life of freedom in the “promised land”). With respect to the forgiveness of sins, Jeremias notes:

<blockquote>By comparing himself with the eschatological paschal lamb Jesus describes his death as a saving death. … [A]t the passover meal the attention was directed…to the one “passover of the exodus” for the sake of which God had mercifully “passed over” the houses of the Israelites. The blood of the lambs slaughtered at the exodus from Egypt had redemptive power…<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 225.</ref></blockquote>

This “redemptive power,” this atonement for sins, protects from death and leads to everlasting life:

<blockquote>As a reward for the Israelites’ obedience to the commandment to spread blood on their doors, God manifested himself and spared them, “passing over” their houses. For the sake of the passover blood God revoked the death sentence against Israel; he said: “I will see the blood of the passover and make atonement for you.” In the same way the people of God of the End time will be redeemed by the merits of the Passover blood.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus sees His blood not only as a protection from death in this world (in imitation of the blood of the lamb at the Passover), but also as an eschatological protection (that is, a protection from death itself) which opens upon an eternal life of communion with Him and the Father:

<blockquote>Jesus describes his death as this eschatological passover sacrifice: his vicarious (''huper'') ''death brings into operation the final deliverance'', the new covenant of God. ''Diathēkē'' (“covenant”) is a correlate of ''basileia tōn ouranōn'' (“kingdom of heaven”). The content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus’ death is perfect communion with God (Jer. 31.33-34a) in his reign, based upon the remission of sins (31.34b).<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, Jesus’ selection of the Passover (whether this was celebrated on the eve of the 14th or 15th of Nisan) as the context for His death was a deliberate attempt to manifest a ''sacrificial''<ref>As noted above, the separation of the word over the bread and the word over the wine by a Passover supper separates Jesus’ flesh from Jesus’ blood which would have been commonly understood by His audience to signify His self-sacrifice (reminiscent of all sacrifices which separate the flesh and blood of the gifts offered).</ref> death, and therefore, His institution of the Eucharist at this time established Him as the new Passover sacrifice for the atonement of sins and the initiation of the new covenant unto eternal communion with Him and His Father.<ref>This is why the tradition used by Matthew which references the forgiveness of sins (“Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” – Mt 26:28), though unique in the texts of the eucharistic words and therefore probably not original, is compatible with Jesus’ intentions at the last supper. This is further confirmed by Jesus’ references to the suffering servant who atones for the sins of many by his self-sacrificial act (see above, II.A).</ref>

There is one more element to be discussed about Jesus’ identification of Himself with the Passover lamb, namely, its correlation with agape. Recall that there is a natural correlation between Jesus’ view of love and the beatitudes (see Unit II-J, Section IV). Love is humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, peace-making, merciful (forgiving), and accepting of persecution for the kingdom of God. Jesus’ identification of Himself with the unblemished (innocent) lamb (correlative with the suffering servant<ref>“He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth” (Is 53:7).</ref>) brings to mind the humility and gentleness of the paschal lamb, as well as the forgiveness, reconciliation, and “endurance of persecution” intrinsic to its sacrifice. By making Himself a self-sacrificial Passover offering, Jesus revealed Himself to be Unconditional Love.

Thus, it is not only the sacrificial aspect of Jesus’ self-offering which has the redemptive power to atone for sins and establish a covenant of eternal communion with God, but also the unconditional Love intrinsic to that sacrifice. Jesus’ first-century audience would have probably noticed the redemptive power in the sacrifice more readily than in His unconditional Love, but subsequent generations, reflecting on Jesus’ words of love, began to realize that the unconditional Love intrinsic to the self-sacrifice is the sacrifice’s redemptive power. Jesus was not using sacrifice in some kind of magical-mystical way to elicit God’s power; neither did He believe that God the Father was demanding that He sacrifice Himself in a mechanical way to atone for sins (“I will put my Son on one side of the scale to balance off all the negatives on your side”); Jesus sacrificed Himself to concretely actualize unconditional self-sacrificial gift (unconditional Love) in the world, which is the redemptive power overcoming all hatred, darkness, emptiness, and evil. Notice that the Son’s self-sacrifice in unconditional Love was also the Father’s self-sacrifice, for the Father had to give His Son as much as the Son had to give Himself.

=== “This is My Body” (''Sōma'') ===

We may now turn to the words of institution within the context of the suffering servant and the paschal lamb. To what does “this” (''touto'' – in Aramaic, “''den''”) refer in “this is my body?” Jeremias notes that it cannot refer to Jesus’ action of breaking the bread, but rather to the bread itself:

<blockquote>This interpretation [that “this” refers to Jesus’ breaking of the bread], which in any case is incompatible with the ''touto estin'' (“this is”), would only be feasible if the actions named coincided with the words of interpretation. But that is not the case. As regards the bread-word, the fact that it is preceded by ''gabete'' (“take”) shows that Jesus said it not as the bread was being broken, but as it was being distributed.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 220.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus identifies the bread (signified by ''touto/den'') with His body (''sōma''). The Semitic background of ''sōma'', according to Jeremias, is incontestably ''zeh baśari'' (Hebrew) and ''den bisri'' (Aramaic).<ref>“…the words of interpretation (if what has just been presented is conclusive) read, according to Mark, in Hebrew ''zeh beśari'' and ''zeh dami'', and in Aramaic ''den biśri'' and ''den idmi''” (Jeremias 1966, p. 201; see also p. 200).</ref> This Hebrew/Aramaic background indicates that Jesus is referring to His physical body, his flesh, given in self-sacrifice.<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept ''baśar wadam'' or ''biśra udema'' … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref> However, the Greek translation for Jesus’ Semitic word (''sōma'') may also indicate that the translators thought that Jesus was referring not only to His flesh (which would have been translated more precisely by ''sarx''), but also His whole person (His whole self).<ref>Note Jeremias’ wording, “…Jesus now interprets both again as he says grace, and this time in reference to his own person” (Jeremias 1966, p. 221).</ref>

This interpretation is compatible with the Semitic mindset which was not dualistic in a platonic way, and therefore, did not view body as mere corporeality; rather it viewed body as the whole corporeal self. According to McKenzie:

<blockquote>[In the Gospels], the body is parallel with life and is conceived almost as the self. … [In Paul, t]he first meaning of body is the concretely existing human being; in some contexts it again appears to be nearly synonymous with self (Rm 6:12f; 8:10?; 1 Co 6:18 f)…<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 100.</ref></blockquote>

Perhaps the Greek translators used ''sōma'' to more accurately convey to non-Jewish converts that Jesus’ Aramaic/Hebrew words were referring not only to His physicality, but to His whole self (which would have included characteristics the Greeks would have attributed to soul, such as the power of thinking and love, and the desire for justice and beauty, etc.).

If this interpretation is correct, then Jesus is making His whole corporeal self present in the words over the bread. The notion of “making a blessing present” in the reliving of an action or even in a substance (e.g., bread) was not uncommon in Semitic and Jewish religious practices. As Jeremias notes:

<blockquote>When at the daily meal the paterfamilias recites the blessing over the bread – which the members of the household make their own by the “Amen” – and breaks it and hands a piece to each member to eat, the meaning of the action is that each of the members is made a recipient of the blessing by this eating…<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 232.</ref></blockquote>

The bread of blessing, as it were, contains the blessing and conveys it to the willing recipient who says, “Amen” and consumes it.

The blessing which Jesus intends to be internalized by believers is certainly His sacrificed corporeal body; it is also His whole corporeal self. But Jesus’ use of “body” here cannot be restricted to this life alone, for He anticipated that His body would rise, that is, that there would be a fundamental continuity between His whole corporeal self and His “self in risen life with the Father”:

<blockquote>…[W]e can see from the simile and from the use of ekchunnomenon that Jesus did expect a violent death. Mark 14.25 par. makes it clear that Jesus was certain that God would vindicate his death by his resurrection and the establishment of the kingdom.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 225.</ref></blockquote>

What is even more striking is Jesus’ probable intention to use the body of His sacrifice (which He views as being in continuity with His future risen state) to be the medium through which communion with God (and consequent unity among believers) would be effected. Paul implies this in 1Cor 10:15-17:

<blockquote>Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body for we partake of the one loaf.</blockquote>

It seems that by “participation” Paul means more than participating in the historical self-sacrificed body of Jesus; He means participation in the presently existing body of Jesus which is capable of effecting unity among believers through unity with God. McKenzie notes in this regard:

<blockquote>The sacrificial element prominent in this passage of 1 Co and implicit in the formulae of institution is communion with the deity in the sacrificial banquet. Through the Eucharist the deity is rendered present in a striking and unique fashion. Communion is achieved only through Jesus Christ, who is man, and as man is body. The body is therefore rendered really present; the language of the four sources…leaves no room for mere symbolism in this respect. … The body which is present is the glorified body; we seem justified in believing that the NT implies that it is through His resurrection and exaltation that the body of Jesus becomes the Church [the unity of believers]. But this is the body “which was delivered for you,” one and the same Lord Jesus who ''died, rose, and sits at the right hand of the Father.'' Communion is achieved through the ''participation'' of the body and the blood of the victim. The salvation of the NT is not directed to the soul, but to the man, and man in Hebrew thought is body; if salvation is to reach man, his communion with the Savior must be a communication of body.<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 251. Italics mine.</ref></blockquote

Paul’s view of the “body of Christ” cannot be retroactively put into the mind of Christ, for Paul is speaking in the light of having witnessed the risen Jesus. Nevertheless, one cannot altogether delete Paul’s interpretation from the mind of Jesus, for Jesus associated His “body” with His risen life with the Father, and this risen life would have been the vehicle through which the full meaning of the new covenant (which He viewed as “the kingdom of God” or communion with God) would be effected.

Thus, Jesus’ sacrificial words over the bread might be interpreted as, “This is my body to be sacrificed for you, the body which will be risen and will bring the blessing of communion with the Father and with believers through me. This sacrificed – risen – salvific – unifying – mediating body is my gift of self for you.”<ref>Notice that this interpretation is commensurate with John’s later eucharistic discourse: “This bread is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world. … Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood ''remains in me and I in him.'' …[T]he one who feeds on me will live because of me. … He who feeds on this bread will live forever.” The Evangelist is aware of Jesus’ body as efficacious, that is, as a power capable of bestowing both communion with God (“remains in me and I in him”) and eternal life.</ref> Johannes Betz summarizes this as follows:

<blockquote>Hence, the bodily person of Jesus is present in the supper, not however in the static manner of being of a thing, but as the Servant of God who in his sacrificial death effects the salvation of us all and more precisely as the sacrificial offering of the Servant who delivers himself up on the cross. The real presence of the person is there to actualize the presence of the sacrificial deed and is united with this in an organic whole. The Eucharist becomes, then, the abiding presence in the meal of the sacrificially constituted salvific event “Jesus”, in whom person and work form an inseparable unity.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v. 2, p. 260.</ref></blockquote>

Remarkable as these intentions of Jesus may seem, they do not exhaust the meaning and mystery of His words, for He also intends to communicate His unconditional Love through His “gift of self.” Recall that Jesus’ eucharistic words in the context of the suffering Servant Song may be interpreted as a self-sacrifice (gift of self) to “justify many” and to “bear iniquities.” This definition is similar to Jesus’ view of love manifest in the Beatitudes and in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan.

Paul directly associates Jesus’ self-sacrificial death with “gift of self,” and associates “gift of self” with love in several passages. In the Letter to the Romans:

<blockquote>While we were yet helpless, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly. Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man – though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. But God shows his love [agapēn] for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. (5:6-8)</blockquote>

in the letter to the Galatians:

<blockquote>I have been crucified with Christ…; the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. (2:20)</blockquote>

and in Ephesians:

<blockquote>And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (5:2)</blockquote>

It is difficult to miss similar parallels between Jesus’ Eucharistic words, the Suffering Servant song, and the view of agape in the Gospel of John. Jesus indicates that there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life (i.e., “body”) for one’s friends (Jn 15:13), and further that the Father loves the Son precisely in the laying down (“giving”) of His life (“body”).<ref>See Jn 10:17-18: “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.”</ref>

'''Summary.''' If Jesus’ view of love is “gift of self” (as suggested by Paul and John) then the eucharistic words “this is my body” (i.e., “self”) within the context of self-sacrifice (self-gift) would be virtually equivalent to love. Since this love knows no limit (i.e., it is complete self-sacrifice), it seems equivalent to unconditional Love.

Thus, we might interpret Jesus’ words as follows: “This is my body given in sacrifice, my future risen presence with you, and my unconditional Love – atoning for sin, transforming your hearts, unifying the community, and actualizing the new covenant unto eternal life.” If this is truly what Jesus had in mind as He instituted the Eucharist at the time of the Passover, then the Eucharist is not only Jesus’ interpretation of His passion, but also the vehicle for transmitting His gift of unconditional Love to all future generations. This leads to the next point.

=== “This Cup is the Covenant in My Blood” ===

Recall the reconstruction of Jesus’ words and actions with respect to the cup (Section II.A, above): After the completion of a Passover meal, Jesus initiated the ritual of the wine which He identifies with the covenant in His blood. He took a cup of red wine, gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This cup is the covenant in my blood.” Recall further that the cup of red wine is identified with both (1) Jesus’ blood and (2) “the ''covenant'' in His blood.”<ref>See above, Section I. “The tertium comparationis in the case of the bread is the fact that it was broken, and in the case of the wine the red colour. We have already seen…that it was customary to drink red wine at the Passover…. The comparison between red wine and blood was common in the Old Testament (Gen. 49.11; Deut. 32.14; Isa. 63.3,6), further Ecclus 39.26; 50.15; I Macc. 6.34; Rev. 14.20; Sanh. 70a, etc.” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 223-24).</ref> These two concepts, among the richest in Christian history, deserve individual discussion.

With respect to “blood,” the Greek term “''aima''” was probably derived from Jesus’ words of institution: “''zeh dami''” in Hebrew, and “''den idmi''” in Aramaic. Though its meaning within Jesus’ words of institution is in many ways similar to the Old Testament, it is also significantly different. There are three major similarities:

<blockquote>1) blood is the life principle and it is roughly equivalent to life itself;</blockquote>

<blockquote>2) blood (the life principle) was the vehicle through which atonement occurred in sin or guilt offerings (which is most poignantly described in the ceremony of the scapegoat on the day of atonement<ref>McKenzie notes, “The priest, dressed in linen vestments, takes two goats as a sin-offering…. The atoning agent is the blood of the victim, which symbolizes life” (McKenzie 1965, pp. 69-70).</ref>); and</blockquote>

<blockquote>3) blood is the agency through which a covenant is established, restored, and maintained.<ref>As McKenzie notes, “In the covenant ritual the blood of the victims was dashed on the altar, representing God, and on the people, signifying that the covenant partners share a common life (Ex 24:6ff)” (McKenzie 1965, p. 99).</ref></blockquote>

However, Jesus parts ways with the Old Testament tradition by proposing His blood as drink (Mt 26:27ff; Mk 14:23ff; Lk 22:20; Jn 6:53ff; 1 Co 11:25ff). McKenzie notes in this regard that “…the eating of blood is prohibited (Gn 9:4; Lv 17:10ff); life is conferred by God and is under His dominion. This prohibition was retained in the apostolic Church (AA 15:20).”<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 99.</ref>

Recall that Jesus anticipated a violent death to be followed by His resurrection,<ref>“…[W]e can see from the simile and from the use of ekchunnomenon that Jesus did expect a violent death. Mark 14.25 par. makes it clear that Jesus was certain that God would vindicate his death by his resurrection and the establishment of the kingdom” (Jeremias 1966, p. 225).</ref> and that He separated the rituals of the bread and wine indicating a sacrifice (or in this case, a self-sacrifice).<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept [of body-blood] baśar wadam [Hebrew] or biśra udema [Aramaic] … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref>

Thus, the blood He refers to in the eucharistic ritual is His future sacrificial blood (the blood of the passion). Jesus intended this to be a sacrifice of atonement (as implied by His allusions to the suffering servant and the paschal lamb) which was understood and deeply appreciated by the early Church (and reflected in the Pauline epistles and the Letter to the Hebrews). McKenzie notes in this regard that:

<blockquote>[Jesus] is a propitiatory offering in His blood (Rm 3:25), through which we are made righteous (Rm 5:9). We are redeemed through His blood (Eph 1:7) and through it we draw near to God (Eph 2:13), and by His blood He has made peace (between man and God; Col 1:20). The contrast and analogy between the blood of Jesus and the blood of sacrificial victims is drawn out at length in Heb. His blood excels that of animals (Heb 9:12 ff). Blood is the only effective agent of purification (Heb 9:20 ff) and of the remission of sins (9:22). But the blood of animals cannot remove sins (10:4); Christ has effected eternal redemption by His own blood (9:12), through which we have access to the sanctuary (10:19).<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept [of body-blood] baśar wadam [Hebrew] or biśra udema [Aramaic] … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref></blockquote>

Jesus does not ''directly'' advocate violating the Old Testament proscription against drinking blood (because He is not advocating the drinking of physical blood), yet He ''implicitly'' does this when He advocates drinking the red wine which He ''identifies'' with the blood of His impending sacrifice in order to share the ''redemptive power''<ref>“The blood of the lambs slaughtered at the exodus from Egypt had redemptive power…” (Jeremias 1966, p. 225).</ref> of that sacrifice. Recall that the power of the Passover lamb’s blood was protection against death in a specific situation,<ref>“For the sake of the passover blood God revoked the death sentence against Israel; he said: ‘I will see the blood of the passover and make atonement for you.’ In the same way the people of God of the End time will be redeemed by the merits of the passover blood” (Jeremias 1966, p. 226).</ref> but the power of Jesus’ redemptive blood goes far beyond this because it protects against ''every'' manifestation of death unto eternal life and communion with God. The redemptive power of the lamb’s blood was placed on the ''exterior'' (door posts) of every Hebrew house. Jesus’ blood (redemptive power) is taken interiorly and protects from ''interior'' (spiritual) death, making it the transformative power of eternal communion with God. It is difficult to believe that Jesus would have advocated the implicit violation of the Old Testament proscription (against drinking blood) unless He believed that His blood of sacrifice had the ''real power'' to protect against spiritual death.

Jesus also associates His sacrificial blood with the “blood of the new covenant.”<ref>“The blood of the Eucharist is the blood of the new covenant in all the formulae of institution [see above, Section I], an allusion to Ex 24:8…” (McKenzie 1965, p. 99).</ref> A covenant is a solemn promise. McKenzie notes:

<blockquote>In early Hebrew society written documents were employed little or not at all. In their place the spoken word was invested with ritual solemnity which gave it a kind of concrete reality. The spoken word thus uttered could not be annulled or retracted. … The covenant was such a solemn ritual agreement which served the function of a written contract. The covenanting parties bound themselves by a ritual agreement which included terrible imprecations upon the party which should violate the covenant.<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 153.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, a covenant has the effect of an absolutely guaranteed promise. In the case of Jesus (who is representing Abba as His Son and suffering servant) it has the effect of an absolutely guaranteed promise on the part of an absolutely truthful God.

But what is Jesus’ new covenant promising? Four interrelated promises: (1) communion with God, (2) the new covenant of Jeremiah, (3) Isaiah’s servant covenant, and (4) the eschatological (fulfilled) kingdom of God (Jesus’ mission – what He has come to bring in His person).

With respect to the first point, common life was part of any “covenant in blood,”<ref>“In the covenant ritual the blood of the victims was dashed on the altar, representing God, and on the people, signifying that the covenant partners share a common life (Ex 24:6 ff)” (McKenzie 1965, p. 99).</ref> because the sprinkling of blood indicated that the parties were one blood or one family.<ref>Ex. 24:3-8. See also McKenzie 1965, p. 155.</ref> Thus, covenant between God and human beings would indicate common life or communion with Him. It can hardly be doubted that Jesus intended this very basic meaning of “covenant in blood” in His words of institution.

With respect to the second point, Jeremiah promises (presumably at the messianic time) a new covenant which would be written on the hearts of human beings:

<blockquote>“The time is coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers…. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”<ref> Jeremiah 31:31-34.</ref></blockquote>

Presuming that Jesus was as familiar with this common text in Jeremiah as He was with the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, Jesus would have seen His new covenant as embracing the new law of the heart (the law of love) which He came to bring through His sacrificial death, resurrection, and gift of the Spirit. Jesus would have probably seen the blood of the covenant not only as a guaranteed promise of communion with God, but also as the vehicle through which the law of unconditional Love would be infused within the heart of every human being through the Holy Spirit.

With respect to the third point (Isaiah’s “servant covenant”) it seems highly probable that Jesus who identified Himself as the suffering servant in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 would have also been acutely aware of the preceding servant prophecies (Isaiah 42:6ff and 49:8ff). A brief review of these two passages will show that the servant is the covenant, that the covenant is for all peoples, and that it leads to the atonement of sin and new communion with God:

<blockquote>“I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness” (Is 42:6-7).</blockquote>

And also:

<blockquote>This is what the Lord says: “In the time of my favor I will answer you, and in the day of salvation I will help you; I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people, to restore the land and to reassign its desolate inheritances, to say to the captives, ‘Come out,’ and to those in darkness, ‘Be free!’ They will feed beside the roads and find pasture on every barren hill. … See, they will come from afar – some from the north, some from the west…” (Is 49:8-12).</blockquote>

Given Jesus’ familiarity with the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, and the remarkable parallels with the themes surrounding His institution of the Eucharist (the suffering servant, atonement of sin, poured out for the many – for the all) it seems very unlikely that Jesus would not have had this notion of “servant (Himself as covenant)” in mind when speaking of the new covenant (the new communion) with God at the Eucharist. Hence, the new covenant in His blood is filled with the notion of a complete healing of humanity (sight for the blind, liberty for captives, release for those who sit in darkness, etc.).

The above eschatological dimension leads to the fourth and final point, namely, the covenant as definitive bringing of the kingdom. This dimension of covenant is manifest in Isaiah 59:21:

<blockquote>“As for me, this is my covenant with them” says the Lord. “My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,” says the Lord.</blockquote>

The “forever” here indicates that the covenant brings with it the eschatological kingdom through the permanent imparting of the Spirit of God. When this is combined with Jeremiah 31:31 and the eschatological dimensions of Isaiah 42:6-7, 49:8-12, and 59:21, it seems likely that Jesus viewed the new covenant as a “guaranteed promise of the actualization of the kingdom.” Jeremias links Jesus’ “new covenant” to His new Passover sacrifice (see above, Section II.B.2) and concludes to the following:

<blockquote>Jesus describes his death as this eschatological passover sacrifice: his vicarious (huper) death brings into operation the final deliverance, the new covenant of God. Diathēkē (“covenant”) is a correlate of basileia ton ouranōn (“kingdom of heaven”). The content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus’ death is perfect communion with God (Jer. 31.33-34a) in his reign, based upon the remission of sins (31.34b).<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

'''Summary.''' Unconditional Love would seem to be the power of this beautiful and encompassing new covenant. It is Jesus’ total gift of Himself, His taking the place of an animal in the sin-offering, and the offering of His blood in place of an animal’s blood in the covenant sacrifice that enables us all to be “one blood, one family” with God. It is His act of total humility and self-sacrifice (Agape) which unites us together as God’s family. The Holy Spirit is the personal power effecting this unity, and Jesus is its “body.” Jesus intended that His act of self-sacrifice, His gift of self, His unconditional Love, be the creative power of protection from spiritual death and therefore from all death. The new covenant is the absolute bond, the absolute guarantee, the very principle of eternal life in communion with God. It arises out of unconditional Love, it finds its fulfillment in unconditional Love; it is unconditional Love. Though He may not have used these words, one can scarcely interpret His action of taking the place of an animal in a sacrificial offering to mean anything less. Thus, when He said, “This cup is the covenant in my blood,” He intended to bestow on us an eternal communion with one another through His own person/body given in self-sacrifice. This is unquestionably unconditional Love.

=== “Do this in Remembrance of Me” ===

If Jeremias’ extensive study of ''anamnesis'' (remembrance) within Semitic cult is correct, then Jesus’ command of repetition (“Do this in remembrance of me”) has the double function of (1) asking God to recall something of religious significance, and (2) asking God to make that blessing really present (to recreate that blessing in the present).

With respect to the first point, Jeremias shows that in both the Old Testament and New Testament (Mark 14:9, Matt 26:13, and Acts 10:4) a ritual remembrance is not so much directed at the human subject but at God so that He might remember: “…[I]n the Old Testament and Palestinian memorial formulae it is almost always God who remembers. In accordance with this the command for repetition may be translated: ‘This do, that God may remember me’”<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 251-52.</ref>

With respect to the second point, Jeremias notes:

<blockquote>This calling into the presence of God [remembrance – anamnesis], this bringing to life before God, this recalling of the past, this is, on the other side, effective. It has a purpose, it is intended to effect something: that God may remember – mercifully or punishingly. God’s remembrance is, namely (this is an important fact to which O. Michel called attention), never a simple remembering of something, but always and without exception “an effecting and creating event.” When Luke 1.72 says that God remembers his covenant, this means that he is now fulfilling the eschatological covenant promise.<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 248-49. Italics mine on “effecting and creating” and “now fulfilling.”</ref></blockquote>

If we combine all these elements, it would seem that when Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me,” He expected that He and His self-sacrificial action would be presented to God (the Father) to be made present (real) in the blessed and distributed bread whenever the words of institution were repeated. Johannes Betz summarizes the work of Michel, Jeremias, and others as follows:

<blockquote>''Anamnesis'' in the biblical sense means not only the subjective representation of something in the consciousness and as an act of the remembering mind. It is also the objective effectiveness and presence of one reality in another, especially the effectiveness and presence of the salvific actions of God, in the liturgical worship. Even in the OT, the liturgy is the privileged medium in which the covenant attains actuality. The meaning of the logion may perhaps be paraphrased as follows: do this (what I have done) in order to bring about my presence, to make really present the salvation wrought in me.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v. 2, p. 260.</ref></blockquote>

We may here see Jesus’ intention to extend His self-sacrificial gift, His whole self, and the covenant in His blood to all future generations through a ritual which recreates the efficacy of His passion through His real presence. This desire to share in perpetuity is yet another manifestation of the unconditional nature of Jesus’ self-sacrificial covenant love.

=== “Poured Out for Many” ===

As noted above, the notion of ''pollōn'' (many) in Jesus’ logion “poured out for many” is a translation of the Hebrew ''rabbim'' which can have an exclusive or inclusive meaning. When it has the inclusive meaning, it signifies “all.” Jeremias summarizes these linguistic issues as follows:

<blockquote>While “many” in Greek (as in English) stands in opposition to “all”, and therefore has the exclusive sense (“many, but not all”), Hebrew rabbim can have the inclusive sense (“the whole, comprising many individuals”). This inclusive use is connected with the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic possess no word for “all”.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 179.</ref></blockquote>

This inclusive sense of ''rabbim'' was very common in Old Testament and intertestamental literature.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 179-182.</ref> When it is accompanied by the definite article in Talmudic and even New Testament texts, it almost always has an inclusive meaning (“all”); but, as Jeremias points out, it can frequently have an inclusive meaning even without the definite article.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, p. 180.</ref>

In the New Testament (with respect to Jesus’ self-sacrificial passion), Mark 10:45 uses ''pollōn'' in the inclusive sense to refer to Jesus’ “ransom for many.” This passage refers back to the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 53:10-12 which is interpreted in 1Timothy 2:6 by using the Greek word “all” (''pantōn'') instead of “many” (''pollōn''). According to Jeremias:

<blockquote>Of especial importance for our passage is Mark 10.45 par., ''lutron anti pollōn'' “a ransom for many”. That ''polloi'' has here the inclusive meaning “all” is shown by the reference in Mark 10.45 to Isa. 53.10-12, as well as by the parallel in I Tim. 2.6: ''antilutron huper pantōn'', “a ransom for all”. Just as Mark 10.45, so also our passage Mark 14.24 [Jesus’ eucharistic words] is to be interpreted in the inclusive sense. ''Pollōn'' is therefore a Semitism. 14.24 ''to ekchunnomenon huper pollōn'' (“the[blood] poured out for many”). The placing of the prepositional phrase at the end corresponds to Semitic word order. That it is placed between the article and the participle independently of each other in Matthew as well as in Luke shows that the position at the end sounds harsh in Greek.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 181-82.</ref></blockquote>

This remarkable parallel which shows the rabbim in Isaiah 53:10-12 to be translated by both ''pollōn'' (many) and ''pantōn'' (all) in Mark and 1Timothy, respectively, and the very uncharacteristically Greek (but characteristically Semitic) expressions of the eucharistic words in Mark and Matthew offer strong evidence that Jesus’ ''rabbim'' was meant in an inclusive sense, and therefore, as “all” (all human beings).

Once again, the unconditional nature of Jesus’ love emerges. His sacrificial act is not for a chosen few, but rather for all humankind. He offers this not only to His generation, but all future generations. His gift of Himself is total and universal. His love is unconditional.

== Conclusion ==

Given the above interpretation of Jesus’ eucharistic words and actions, one can scarcely deny His intention to give Himself completely to all humankind in the sacrificial act. He not only wanted to give Himself completely in sacrifice (in imitation of the suffering servant, the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and taking the place of an animal in a sin-offering and a covenant sacrifice), but also wanted to be present to us and in us for all generations and all time. This seems to meet the requirements for an unconditional act of love.

Yes, Jesus had a plan, an unconditionally loving plan, as He proceeded toward imminent death in Jerusalem. He planned to atone for the sins of all unconditionally, and to initiate a covenant of unconditional communion with God in everlasting life, through a ritual which would make the blessing of His sacrifice, self, and love really present in perpetuity. Jesus not only wanted the consummation of His mission (His passion) to be an act of total self-sacrifice, He wanted to give it away to everyone for all generations (unconditionally and universally).

If God were Unconditional Love, would He do something like this as Emmanuel (God with us)? Would He give Himself away in self-sacrifice, and then give that self-sacrificial love away forever? If such actions would typify an unconditionally loving God, then Jesus would seem to be His Emmanuel – His Unconditional Love with us.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Eucharist

2015-01-08T15:52:36Z

David Persyn: /* “Poured Out for Many” */ Footnotes and Formats

Magis ChristWiki - Magis Institute

Unit II. L

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Eucharist

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-L_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Eucharist.3F | Return to Table of Contents]]

Saint Paul believed that the clearest demonstration of Jesus’ love was in His passion and death: “But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rm 5:8). Jesus instituted the Eucharist to give the “total gift of Himself in the passion” to all future generations. He deliberately walked into His passion by traveling to Jerusalem before the feast of the Passover when the authorities were evidently seeking to put an end to His ministry and even His life. He did this because He had a plan in mind; a plan to give the blessing and power of His person and passion to all future generations through a ritual arising out of His interpretation of the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. The Beloved One of the Father intended to make us all beloveds in His own image by giving Himself (and the eschatological kingdom of love) to us in a definitive, unconditional act. This consummation of His mission (His raison d’être) reveals His core identity. The question naturally follows, “Would it be typical of an unconditionally loving God who enters into complete empathy with us to have such a self-sacrificial mission and plan?” If so, then this is one of our most profound signs that Jesus is Emmanuel.

== Did Jesus Institute the Eucharist at a Passover Meal? ==

Joachim Jeremias’ classic work, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus is still acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive treatments of this subject with the most extensive analysis of rabbinical traditions.<ref>Meier 1991, p. 395.</ref> Some exegetes feel uneasy about his application of rabbinical traditions and extratestamental material to New Testament texts,<ref>See Meier 1991, p. 395.</ref> and many scholars do not agree with his assignment of the Last Supper to the Passover meal, because it requires that too much activity take place on Passover day (the 15th of Nisan):

<blockquote>Despite Jeremias’ deft command of the material, he cannot really establish the likelihood that, at the time of Jesus, the supreme Jewish authorities in Jerusalem would arrest a person suspected of a capital crime, immediately convene a meeting of the Sanhedrin to hear the case (a case involving the death penalty), hold a formal trial with witnesses, reach a decision that the criminal deserved to die, and hand over the criminal to the Gentile authorities with a request for execution on the same day – all within the night and early day hours of Passover Day, the fifteenth of Nisan!<ref>Meier 1991, p. 396.</ref></blockquote>

For this reason, Meier believes that it is more probable that the Last Supper took place on the day before the Passover meal (on the eve of the 14th of Nisan), which corresponds with John’s dating of it rather than the Synoptics’.<ref>See Meier 1991, p. 396.</ref>

Yet, the placement of the Last Supper on the eve of the 14th of Nisan does not rule out the possibility that Jesus, aware of what was to befall Him, celebrated a Passover supper with His disciples (without a lamb) on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. Since the lambs were slaughtered prior to the meal on the 15th of Nisan, it would not have been possible for Jesus to celebrate the Passover meal with a lamb. This is consistent with New Testament accounts which make multiple references to the Passover meal,<ref>See, for example, Luke 22:15 (“I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer”); Luke 22:13 (“they prepared the Passover”); Luke 22:11 (“tell the householder, ‘the Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I am to eat the Passover with my disciples?”); Mark 14:12 (“Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”); Luke 22:8 (“Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it”); Luke 22:7 (“[it was] the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed”). Even if one ignores the passages which refer to the Marcan dating of the Last Supper on the eve of the 15th of Nisan (such as Luke 22:7), there are five distinct references (without dating) to a Passover meal.</ref> but no references to a lamb.

There are six reasons why a Passover meal should not be ruled out even if it occurred on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. First, as noted above, the Passover is linked to Jesus’ Last Supper multiple times in all three synoptic Gospels. Secondly, there are differences in the chronology of the Synoptic Gospels which indicate that a Passover meal could have been celebrated at different times within the weeklong celebration leading up to Passover. The reference to the “first day” in Mark and Luke, as Harrington suggests, betrays a mixed chronology, for:

<blockquote>the paschal lamb was normally eaten on the first day of the feast. Yet Mark describes the “first day” as the day of preparation when the lambs were slaughtered, corresponding to Wednesday, while the meal would be celebrated that evening.<ref>Harrington 1991, p. 392.</ref></blockquote>

Thirdly, the Passover is mentioned in a unique, ancient formula recounted in Luke’s Gospel, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.”<ref>See the extensive analysis of Jeremias in 1966, pp. 190-92.</ref> Fourthly, Jeremias detects several Semitisms behind the wording in the Gospel passages which are traceable to the Passover ceremony itself (such as the “fruit of the vine” in Luke 22:18).<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 161-62.</ref> Fifthly, Jeremias notes that:

<blockquote>[T]he pre-Pauline Passover haggadah preserved in I Cor. 5.7f. calls Jesus “our passover (lamb)” and that Paul presupposes as self-evident the familiarity of the Corinthian community with this comparison, a comparison widespread in the early Christian literature.<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 222-23.</ref></blockquote>

Sixthly, there are references to the Passover meal within the passages (e.g., the multiple cups, which seems to have come from Luke’s special source [22:17-18], and the Passover haggadah between the word over the bread and the word over the cup<ref>See Jeremias 1966, p. 85 and 221.</ref>). In sum, these distinct ancient sources of the institution of the Eucharist at Passover indicate a common Palestinian source which very probably goes back to Jesus Himself.

Could Jesus have celebrated an adapted Passover meal with His disciples on the eve of the 14th of Nisan to anticipate His impending death which would have occurred near the time of the slaughtering of the lambs? Since Jesus was not unaccustomed to adapting Jewish doctrine and ritual to conform to His own doctrinal and ritual requirements, this possibility cannot be ruled out. Even if Jesus did not celebrate a Passover meal (without a lamb) at the Last Supper, He could have borrowed particular rituals from it or alluded to it during the Last Supper. For this reason, I will include Jeremias’ references to the Passover meal in the forthcoming analysis. The reader may want to bear in mind that these Passover rituals may not have occurred, but may only have been implied in Jesus’ actions during the Last Supper.

The analysis will be carried out in two steps:

1) a brief synopsis of Jeremias’ and others’ exegetical work on the original tradition (Section II.A); and

2) the meaning of Jesus’ eucharistic words and actions (Section II.B).

== Jeremias’ Interpretation of the Original Tradition ==

There are four traditions of Jesus’ Eucharistic words:<ref>There is also a tradition in John (6:25-59), but it is a Eucharistic discourse instead of a recounting of the Last Supper; a specific exegesis of this passage is beyond the objective of this study.</ref>

1) I Corinthians 11:23-26:

<blockquote>For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.</blockquote>

2) Mark 14:22-25:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take; this is my body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” He said to them. “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”</blockquote>

3) Matthew 26:26-29:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”</blockquote>

4) Luke 22:17-20:

<blockquote>After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”</blockquote>

A brief glance at the above four traditions reveals two branches of an original tradition – (1) a Paul-Luke branch (which makes specific reference to remembrance; a new covenant; and, in the case of Luke alone, “poured out for you”), and (2) a Mark-Matthew branch (which makes no reference to remembrance; refers to covenant, but not a new covenant; and makes the objective of Jesus’ outpouring for many). Jeremias has split this project into two parts: (1) the four common areas of these traditions (which, given the different theologies in the two branches, would probably have to have their origin in a common source), and (2) in areas where the branches differ, locating the more primitive tradition through grammatical constructions and the presence of Semitisms. The two analyses will bring us close to an original tradition which may closely resemble Jesus’ own words.

There are four common areas within the four traditions:

<blockquote>(1) Jesus’ action with respect to the bread: “took bread, gave thanks [in the case of Paul, “after he had given thanks”], and broke it,”</blockquote>

<blockquote>(2) Jesus’ words over the bread: “this is my body [soma],”</blockquote>

<blockquote>(3) Jesus’ action with respect to the cup. In Mark-Matthew: “Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them.” In Paul-Luke: “In the same way” (referring to the way in which He gave the bread, i.e., “took bread and gave thanks… and gave it to them”), and</blockquote>

<blockquote>(4) Jesus’ word over the cup: “This is my blood of the covenant.” Evidently, Paul and Luke refer to the new covenant whereas Mark and Matthew refer only to the covenant.<ref>Jeremias shows through a grammatical analysis that, despite surface appearances, the Paul-Luke version is essentially the same as the Mark-Matthew version even though the Paul-Luke version refers to the cup (where Mark-Matthew does not), and Paul-Luke refers to “the covenant in my blood” while Mark-Matthew refers to the “blood of the covenant.” See Jeremias 1966, pp. 168-69.</ref></blockquote>

Jeremias holds that the Marcan version of the word over the bread is the more original tradition while the Pauline version of the word over the cup is the more original:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “Take; this is my body.” (Mark 14:22)</blockquote>

<blockquote>In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (1Cor. 11:25a).</blockquote>

Jeremias believes there is good reason for holding the Pauline version to be the more original formula for the word over the cup on linguistic grounds, because the Mark-Matthew version is far more symmetrical, indicating the need to take a more complex narrative form (in Paul-Luke) and convert it to a more symmetrical liturgical form in Mark-Matthew. Though it may be thought that the Paul-Luke form is more apologetically appealing (because it is less evocative of drinking blood in a pagan ritual which would have been repulsive to Jewish people), and therefore later than the Mark-Matthew version (which may have given rise to these apologetically unappealing misimpressions), Paul’s version is probably the earlier because it reveals a separation in time between the word over the bread and the word over the wine (to account for the consumption of the meal between the two events) which the Mark-Matthew version does not represent. Thus, the Mark-Matthew version seems to be a later formula taken from the liturgy, which did not need to account for the separation of the meal (as a more narrative account would have) and needed to be more symmetrical for the sake of liturgical repetition.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 169-171 and 191-92.</ref>

It now remains to establish which of the other three divergent areas is the more original. As implied above, there are three areas of divergence:

<blockquote>a) “the new covenant” (Paul-Luke) versus “the covenant” (Mark-Matthew),</blockquote>

<blockquote>b) poured out for you (Luke) versus “poured out for many” (Mark-Matthew), and</blockquote>

<blockquote>c) word of remembrance – ''anamnēsis'' (in Paul-Luke, but not mentioned in Mark-Matthew).</blockquote>

I will briefly summarize Jeremias’ judgment on these three matters so that an original tradition (close to the words and actions of Jesus) may be adduced.

With respect to the new covenant, Jeremias holds that the Mark-Matthew version would probably be the earlier because the placement of the adjective “new” prior to “covenant” is Hellenistic (but not Semitic) indicating that it originated “on Hellenistic soil.”<ref>Though the Pauline formula is not the more original of the two, its pre-Pauline origins are indicated by its agreement with Luke. See Jeremias 1966, pp. 171-72.</ref>

With respect to the “poured out for you” (Luke) versus “poured out for many”<ref>As will be discussed below, “for many,” in the Semitic sense of “rabbim” which was probably uttered by Jesus, is inclusive (that is, it does not exclude some in contrast to the totality, as in the common Greek and English uses of it – e.g., “many, but not everybody”). The reason for this is that there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word for “all.” Thus, the inclusive sense of “rabbim” explicitly includes the totality and its individual members. See Jeremias 1966, p. 179.</ref> (Mark-Matthew), Jeremias holds that “for many” is the more original on the basis of linguistic grounds, namely, “for many” is a Semitism while “you” is not. Jeremias attributes the replacement of “many” by “you” as having a liturgical purpose where each worshiper feels him or herself to be individually addressed (by “you”), which would not happen with the indefinite “many.” In view of this, he holds that the replacement of “many” by “you” is not an attempt to limit the atoning work of Jesus arising out of later theological reflection.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 172.</ref>

Finally, with respect to the word of remembrance (which Jeremias terms the command for repetition), Paul mentions it twice (after the word over the bread and the word over the wine), Luke mentions it once (after the word over the bread), but Mark and Matthew omit it altogether. Jeremias holds that this tradition is pre-Pauline but probably not a part of the oldest traditions. Yet it could well have originated with Jesus. There are three reasons for suspecting this. First, the bread and wine rituals took on a high degree of significance apart from the meal (suggesting a command of repetition from Jesus with respect to them, but not with respect to the meal separating them). Secondly, the words over the bread and wine are so often repeated that they quickly become a central Christian ritual (which gives them far more significance than mere parts of a farewell meal or a commemoration of Jesus’ death<ref>Jeremias has an extensive discussion of the contention that the word of remembrance was a later Greek accretion imitating annual celebrations of the dead. One of his reasons for rejecting this thesis is that the Christian ritual was daily or weekly and not merely an annual celebration. See Jeremias 1966, pp. 238-43.</ref>) suggesting once again a command of repetition from Jesus. Thirdly, it would be unusual for early liturgical formulations to contain this command since, as Jeremias notes, “the celebration itself was its fulfillment.”<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 238.</ref> In view of the fact that Jesus said much more during the meal than was recorded, it may be surmised that He gave a command of repetition.

So what can we now conclude about Jesus’ actions and words? If the earliest narratives reflect Jesus’ actions, and if Jeremias’ conjectures about Jesus’ words are correct, we can conclude that Jesus gathered with His disciples before the feast of the Passover and indicated to them that He longed to celebrate this Passover with them, but instead of doing so, fasted while the other disciples celebrated.<ref>See Jeremias’ convincing argument in 1966, pp. 208-09.</ref> After drinking one of the four Passover cups while they were eating the Passover meal (or an adapted Passover ritual),<ref>See the discussion of this topic in the introduction to Section II above.</ref> Jesus initiated the ritual of the bread, identifying it with His body: “Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take; this is my body.’” Then, after the completion of the Passover meal (or adapted Passover ritual), Jesus initiated the ritual of the wine which He identifies with the covenant in His blood. He took a cup of red wine, gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This cup is the covenant in my blood.”<ref>Though Jesus identifies the red wine with the “covenant in His blood,” it is clear from the red wine, the parallelism with the bread, and the use of “this cup” that Jesus is identifying the red wine with both His blood and the covenant in His blood. Jeremias notes that the color of the wine is significant here: “The tertium comparationis in the case of the bread is the fact that it was broken, and in the case of the wine the red colour. We have already seen…that it was customary to drink red wine at the Passover…. The comparison between red wine and blood was common in the Old Testament (Gen. 49.11; Deut. 32.14; Isa. 63.3,6), further Ecclus 39.26; 50.15; I Macc. 6.34; Rev. 14.20; Sanh. 70a, etc.” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 223-24).</ref> Sometime either prior to or after this (perhaps both), Jesus gives a command of repetition similar to “Do this in remembrance of me.”

If this reconstruction is accurate, we may now proceed to a brief summary of Jeremias’ and others’ conclusions about the meaning of these words and the ritual they constitute.

== The Meaning of Jesus’ Eucharistic Words and Actions ==

Six elements of Jesus’ institution of the Eucharist merit interpretation:

(1) His view of Himself as “suffering servant” (Is 52:13-53:12 – see Section II.B.1);

(2) Jesus as the new sacrificial paschal lamb (II.B.2);

(3) “This is my body” (soma – II.B.3);

(4) “This cup is the covenant in my blood” (II.B.4);

(5) “Do this in remembrance of me” (II.B5); and

(6) “poured out for many” (II.B.6).

As will become evident, the synthesis of these six elements (in their proper interpretation) points strongly to Jesus’ action as one of unconditional Love, which reveals a heart of unconditional Love.

=== Jesus as Suffering Servant ===

It may be helpful to here set out the whole Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12, because reference will be made to it throughout this Unit on the Eucharist as well as the forthcoming Unit on the passion of Jesus:

<blockquote>See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as there were many who were appalled at him – his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness – so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand (52:13-15).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him (53:1-2).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not (53:3).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted (53:4).</blockquote>

<blockquote>But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed (53:5).</blockquote>

<blockquote>We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all (53:6).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth (53:7).</blockquote>

<blockquote>By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken (53:8).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth (53:9).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities (53:10-11).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he ''poured'' out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of ''many'', and made intercession for the transgressors (53:12 – italics mine).</blockquote>

The obvious tie-in between the suffering servant song and Jesus’ eucharistic words occurs at 53:12. The phrase “poured out for many,” which is a part of the oldest tradition of the eucharistic words, has a remarkable parallel with Isaiah 53:12 which states:

<blockquote>…because he poured out (he’erah) his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many (rabbim)….”</blockquote>

The Hebrew background of both Jesus’ eucharistic words and Isaiah 53:12 as well as the context of these words (the sacrifice of Jesus and the suffering servant) are so close that it would be difficult to believe that the ancient tradition of Jesus’ eucharistic words was not referring to Isaiah 53:12.<ref>According to Jeremias, [“poured out for many”] “is linked with an Old Testament passage: Isa. 53.12, ‘because he poured out (he’erah) his life to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many (rabbim) and made intercession for the transgressors’ (the reference is to the Hebrew text of this passage, a fact to be kept in mind as evidence of the age of the tradition). This allusion to the Old Testament passage on the suffering servant is supported by the fact that the word rabbim/πολλοί is almost a ''leit-motiv'' in Isa. 52.13-53.12.” Jeremias 1966, pp. 226-7.</ref> Moreover, Jesus seems to have had an intimate acquaintance with the texts of Deutero-Isaiah,<ref>See Betz, 1968-70, v.2, p. 257.</ref> and also seems to have interpreted His life and His mission in terms of this passage which was uncannily similar to the passion He was about to suffer. Hence, it seems likely that Jesus intended the words “poured out for many” in a way that could be interpreted through the lens of the Suffering Servant song. This means that Jesus intends His eucharistic actions and words in an expiatory way, that is, as a “sin offering” or “guilt offering” for the sins of many. Johannes Betz notes in this regard:

<blockquote>Jesus accomplished the decisive purpose of His life, His task as Messiah, in carrying out the mission of the servant of God of Deutero-Isaiah, who as God’s majestic envoy proclaims and inaugurates a new phase in salvation and who as martyr takes upon Himself expiatory sufferings for the sins of the many.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v.2, p. 258.</ref></blockquote>

It would seem, therefore, that Jesus had this Suffering Servant song deeply in mind when He decided to proceed toward Jerusalem with full knowledge that the authorities were seeking to persecute Him (see John 11:8). This makes sense of both His resoluteness toward impending death and His obvious preparation for the eucharistic ritual (with its imbedded passage from Isaiah 53:12), which would, in turn, make sense of Matthew’s additional words (probably reflective of a later tradition): “for the forgiveness of sins.”<ref>This is imbedded within Jesus’ words over the cup: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt. 26:28).</ref>

The logic of this sin offering may seem a bit confusing to a contemporary audience, especially the passage in Isaiah that states, “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see the light of life and be satisfied” (Isaiah 53:10). At first glance, it may seem that the portrayal of the Lord in this passage (and therefore Jesus’ view of God’s will) is sadistic, but this is certainly not the case, for Jesus’ interpretation of the Isaiah passage is set within His view of the Father as “Abba” and Himself as Son and Beloved. Thus, Jesus’ interpretation of this passage must be seen within the context of the logic of love, which makes the Johannine words of Jesus particularly significant, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (Jn 15:13). If this passage represents Jesus’ interpretive principle for both the Isaiah passage and His Eucharistic words, then Jesus would have interpreted “the Lord’s will to crush him” in terms of the Father’s acceptance of Jesus’ love offering (the gift of Himself) for the sins of the world.

Recall for a moment some of the observations about Jesus’ view of love (agape) from the previous Unit. We saw that Jesus viewed love as the highest commandment (Mark 12:30 and par.), and that He elucidated His view of love through the beatitudes (Matt 5:3-12), which included humble-heartedness, gentle-heartedness, hungering and thirsting for the will of God, being merciful (which includes being forgiving), peacemaking, and enduring persecution for the kingdom of God. Ironic as it may seem, Jesus’ self-sacrificial gift for the expiation of sins synthesizes and catalyzes every one of these elements from the beatitudes and concretizes their “synthesis in love” within not only historical but future reality.<ref>Paul did not miss this insight in Colossians 3:12-14: “Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which is the bond of completeness.” See the explanation of this passage in Unit II-J, Section IV.</ref>

The Gospel of John has captured Jesus’ intention well. There is no greater love (the synthesis of the beatitudes) that a person can have than to give his life. In light of Jesus’ view of the Father as Abba (which has embedded within it generative, compassionate, forgiving, restoring, affectionate love – similar to the father’s love in the Prodigal Son parable), it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus would have loosely interpreted the words of Isaiah 53:10 to mean “it would have pleased the Father – despite His pain – to see the self-sacrificial (loving) will of His Son become a reality for all humanity.” Just because Jesus uses Isaiah 52:13-53:12 as an interpretive principle for His self-sacrifice does not mean that He agrees with every theological element in that passage. Indeed, Jesus was known to have loosely interpreted and even reinterpreted many passages from Torah and the prophets. It would seem inconceivable that Jesus could have interpreted Isaiah 53:10 outside the context of His being the beloved Son of Abba.

Therefore, we might look at Jesus’ mindset about the passion and Eucharist (as He approached Jerusalem) as follows. First, He intended to make Himself an expiatory offering much like the one spoken of in Isaiah 53:8ff:

<blockquote>…for the transgression of my people he was stricken…. …and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering…. …my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. …because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.</blockquote>

Secondly, Jesus had a twofold understanding of the efficacy of this “sin offering”: (1) the efficacy of sacrifice, and (2) the efficacy of love. With respect to the efficacy of sacrifice, it seems probable that Jesus organized His Eucharistic words to indicate that He was making a sacrifice of Himself. By separating the words over the body and the blood, Jesus implied that what He was about to endure on the cross was like the separation of flesh and blood in a cultic sacrifice.<ref>“This formula derives from Ex 24:8 and characterizes the content of the cup primarily as the cultic sacrificial element “blood”, which is separated from the flesh, then also the death of Jesus as the separation of flesh and blood after the manner of a cultic sacrifice” (Betz 1968-70, v.2, p. 259). See also Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22: “…[I]t also designates, as already in ancient Hebrew, the two component parts of the body [flesh and blood], especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed.”</ref>

Yet, Jesus was not making Himself a cultic sacrifice in the traditional sense, for He, the Son, the Beloved One, the innocent One, made Himself the sacrificial gift for those who are not innocent, in the certain hope of the resurrection and universal atonement. Betz notes in this regard:

<blockquote>Taking on alien guilt meant taking on also the necessity of death. As his life went on, Jesus thought more frequently of his death and spoke more frequently of it to his disciples…. It was for Jesus not something that merely happened to him, but a conscious and willed deed to which he assented as a necessity in the history of salvation, and on which he freely decided (Lk 12:50). His total readiness for the death which was the mission of the Servant of the Lord is also expressed in the logion of the ransom (Mk 10:45), and the prophecies of the passion (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:32ff). … His death is total dedication and the deepest fulfillment of his being. … Unlike the ''cultic'' sacrifices, there is no separate ''gift'' which stands for the offerer and symbolizes his dedication to God. Here the offerer himself functions as ''gift'' in his own person and accomplishes the sacrificial dedication by the real shedding of his blood. Jesus must have been sure that God would accept this sacrifice, his body, and hence that God would fill it with new life. Thus the death of Jesus brings with it the resurrection as an inner consequence, as an essential part of it, regardless of the difference in time between the two events.<ref>Betz, 1968-70, v.2, p. 258. Italics mine.</ref></blockquote>

The middle term, as it were, between efficacy of sacrifice and efficacy of love is gift. As is clear from the above, a cultic sacrifice finds its efficacy in the gift given to God, and, as is clear from the Johannine passage on love, there is no greater love than to give one’s life. When Jesus made Himself the gift in the sacrificial offering, He transformed the efficacy of that gift from one of cultic proportion to one of unconditional Love. This is evidenced in Jesus’ use of the word “covenant” (“the covenant in my blood”) which, as will be seen below, implies a bond of love.

In sum, when Jesus proceeded to Jerusalem He planned to complete His mission of being the suffering (messianic) servant of the Lord by becoming a sacrificial gift for all transgressors. In so doing, he hoped to effect an atonement for all sins as a perfect sacrifice (that is, as the self-sacrifice of the beloved innocent one) in place of cultic sin offerings. This atonement went far beyond mechanical cultic sin offerings because it was fundamentally an act of unconditional self-giving (Love) for humankind. This act of unconditional Love was the source and power of perfect atonement and a new covenant which promised eternal life through the God who has loved us so.

=== Jesus as the New Sacrificial Paschal Lamb ===

As noted above, it is likely that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper within the context of a Passover meal – perhaps an adapted Passover meal (without a lamb) on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. So why would Jesus have chosen the Passover celebration to make His sacrifice and institute the Eucharist? Jeremias believes that He wanted to compare Himself to the paschal lamb, or perhaps better, He wanted to be the eschatological paschal lamb – the one who was to initiate the new covenant (which He correlated with the kingdom of God) in His blood:<ref>Jeremias sees Jesus’ identification of Himself with the paschal lamb as correlative with His identification of the bread and wine with His own person. He also notes that the early Pauline community commonly understood Jesus to be the paschal lamb. See Jeremias 1966, p. 222-23.</ref>

<blockquote>With the words ''den biśri'', “this is my (sacrificial) flesh”, and ''den idmi'', “this is my (sacrificial) blood”, Jesus is therefore most probably speaking of himself as the paschal lamb. He is the eschatological paschal lamb, representing the fulfillment of all that of which the Egyptian paschal lamb and all the subsequent sacrificial paschal lambs were the prototype.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 223.</ref></blockquote>

It should not be thought that the absence of a lamb at an adapted Passover meal (on the eve of the 14th of Nisan) militates against Jeremias’ thesis that Jesus associated Himself with the eschatological paschal lamb, for if Jesus did celebrate the Passover on the eve of the 14th of Nisan, His own passion would have begun at the time that the paschal lambs were being slaughtered in preparation for the feast celebrated on the eve of the 15th of Nisan. This would correlate well with the Last Supper’s anticipation of the impending self-sacrifice which might have been Jesus’ very intention.

The lamb is a simile for two essential dimensions of the Eucharist: (1) the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, and (2) the sacrifice initiating the covenant (leading out of slavery into a new life of freedom in the “promised land”). With respect to the forgiveness of sins, Jeremias notes:

<blockquote>By comparing himself with the eschatological paschal lamb Jesus describes his death as a saving death. … [A]t the passover meal the attention was directed…to the one “passover of the exodus” for the sake of which God had mercifully “passed over” the houses of the Israelites. The blood of the lambs slaughtered at the exodus from Egypt had redemptive power…<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 225.</ref></blockquote>

This “redemptive power,” this atonement for sins, protects from death and leads to everlasting life:

<blockquote>As a reward for the Israelites’ obedience to the commandment to spread blood on their doors, God manifested himself and spared them, “passing over” their houses. For the sake of the passover blood God revoked the death sentence against Israel; he said: “I will see the blood of the passover and make atonement for you.” In the same way the people of God of the End time will be redeemed by the merits of the Passover blood.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus sees His blood not only as a protection from death in this world (in imitation of the blood of the lamb at the Passover), but also as an eschatological protection (that is, a protection from death itself) which opens upon an eternal life of communion with Him and the Father:

<blockquote>Jesus describes his death as this eschatological passover sacrifice: his vicarious (''huper'') ''death brings into operation the final deliverance'', the new covenant of God. ''Diathēkē'' (“covenant”) is a correlate of ''basileia tōn ouranōn'' (“kingdom of heaven”). The content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus’ death is perfect communion with God (Jer. 31.33-34a) in his reign, based upon the remission of sins (31.34b).<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, Jesus’ selection of the Passover (whether this was celebrated on the eve of the 14th or 15th of Nisan) as the context for His death was a deliberate attempt to manifest a ''sacrificial''<ref>As noted above, the separation of the word over the bread and the word over the wine by a Passover supper separates Jesus’ flesh from Jesus’ blood which would have been commonly understood by His audience to signify His self-sacrifice (reminiscent of all sacrifices which separate the flesh and blood of the gifts offered).</ref> death, and therefore, His institution of the Eucharist at this time established Him as the new Passover sacrifice for the atonement of sins and the initiation of the new covenant unto eternal communion with Him and His Father.<ref>This is why the tradition used by Matthew which references the forgiveness of sins (“Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” – Mt 26:28), though unique in the texts of the eucharistic words and therefore probably not original, is compatible with Jesus’ intentions at the last supper. This is further confirmed by Jesus’ references to the suffering servant who atones for the sins of many by his self-sacrificial act (see above, II.A).</ref>

There is one more element to be discussed about Jesus’ identification of Himself with the Passover lamb, namely, its correlation with agape. Recall that there is a natural correlation between Jesus’ view of love and the beatitudes (see Unit II-J, Section IV). Love is humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, peace-making, merciful (forgiving), and accepting of persecution for the kingdom of God. Jesus’ identification of Himself with the unblemished (innocent) lamb (correlative with the suffering servant<ref>“He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth” (Is 53:7).</ref>) brings to mind the humility and gentleness of the paschal lamb, as well as the forgiveness, reconciliation, and “endurance of persecution” intrinsic to its sacrifice. By making Himself a self-sacrificial Passover offering, Jesus revealed Himself to be Unconditional Love.

Thus, it is not only the sacrificial aspect of Jesus’ self-offering which has the redemptive power to atone for sins and establish a covenant of eternal communion with God, but also the unconditional Love intrinsic to that sacrifice. Jesus’ first-century audience would have probably noticed the redemptive power in the sacrifice more readily than in His unconditional Love, but subsequent generations, reflecting on Jesus’ words of love, began to realize that the unconditional Love intrinsic to the self-sacrifice is the sacrifice’s redemptive power. Jesus was not using sacrifice in some kind of magical-mystical way to elicit God’s power; neither did He believe that God the Father was demanding that He sacrifice Himself in a mechanical way to atone for sins (“I will put my Son on one side of the scale to balance off all the negatives on your side”); Jesus sacrificed Himself to concretely actualize unconditional self-sacrificial gift (unconditional Love) in the world, which is the redemptive power overcoming all hatred, darkness, emptiness, and evil. Notice that the Son’s self-sacrifice in unconditional Love was also the Father’s self-sacrifice, for the Father had to give His Son as much as the Son had to give Himself.

=== “This is My Body” (''Sōma'') ===

We may now turn to the words of institution within the context of the suffering servant and the paschal lamb. To what does “this” (''touto'' – in Aramaic, “''den''”) refer in “this is my body?” Jeremias notes that it cannot refer to Jesus’ action of breaking the bread, but rather to the bread itself:

<blockquote>This interpretation [that “this” refers to Jesus’ breaking of the bread], which in any case is incompatible with the ''touto estin'' (“this is”), would only be feasible if the actions named coincided with the words of interpretation. But that is not the case. As regards the bread-word, the fact that it is preceded by ''gabete'' (“take”) shows that Jesus said it not as the bread was being broken, but as it was being distributed.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 220.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus identifies the bread (signified by ''touto/den'') with His body (''sōma''). The Semitic background of ''sōma'', according to Jeremias, is incontestably ''zeh baśari'' (Hebrew) and ''den bisri'' (Aramaic).<ref>“…the words of interpretation (if what has just been presented is conclusive) read, according to Mark, in Hebrew ''zeh beśari'' and ''zeh dami'', and in Aramaic ''den biśri'' and ''den idmi''” (Jeremias 1966, p. 201; see also p. 200).</ref> This Hebrew/Aramaic background indicates that Jesus is referring to His physical body, his flesh, given in self-sacrifice.<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept ''baśar wadam'' or ''biśra udema'' … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref> However, the Greek translation for Jesus’ Semitic word (''sōma'') may also indicate that the translators thought that Jesus was referring not only to His flesh (which would have been translated more precisely by ''sarx''), but also His whole person (His whole self).<ref>Note Jeremias’ wording, “…Jesus now interprets both again as he says grace, and this time in reference to his own person” (Jeremias 1966, p. 221).</ref>

This interpretation is compatible with the Semitic mindset which was not dualistic in a platonic way, and therefore, did not view body as mere corporeality; rather it viewed body as the whole corporeal self. According to McKenzie:

<blockquote>[In the Gospels], the body is parallel with life and is conceived almost as the self. … [In Paul, t]he first meaning of body is the concretely existing human being; in some contexts it again appears to be nearly synonymous with self (Rm 6:12f; 8:10?; 1 Co 6:18 f)…<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 100.</ref></blockquote>

Perhaps the Greek translators used ''sōma'' to more accurately convey to non-Jewish converts that Jesus’ Aramaic/Hebrew words were referring not only to His physicality, but to His whole self (which would have included characteristics the Greeks would have attributed to soul, such as the power of thinking and love, and the desire for justice and beauty, etc.).

If this interpretation is correct, then Jesus is making His whole corporeal self present in the words over the bread. The notion of “making a blessing present” in the reliving of an action or even in a substance (e.g., bread) was not uncommon in Semitic and Jewish religious practices. As Jeremias notes:

<blockquote>When at the daily meal the paterfamilias recites the blessing over the bread – which the members of the household make their own by the “Amen” – and breaks it and hands a piece to each member to eat, the meaning of the action is that each of the members is made a recipient of the blessing by this eating…<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 232.</ref></blockquote>

The bread of blessing, as it were, contains the blessing and conveys it to the willing recipient who says, “Amen” and consumes it.

The blessing which Jesus intends to be internalized by believers is certainly His sacrificed corporeal body; it is also His whole corporeal self. But Jesus’ use of “body” here cannot be restricted to this life alone, for He anticipated that His body would rise, that is, that there would be a fundamental continuity between His whole corporeal self and His “self in risen life with the Father”:

<blockquote>…[W]e can see from the simile and from the use of ekchunnomenon that Jesus did expect a violent death. Mark 14.25 par. makes it clear that Jesus was certain that God would vindicate his death by his resurrection and the establishment of the kingdom.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 225.</ref></blockquote>

What is even more striking is Jesus’ probable intention to use the body of His sacrifice (which He views as being in continuity with His future risen state) to be the medium through which communion with God (and consequent unity among believers) would be effected. Paul implies this in 1Cor 10:15-17:

<blockquote>Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body for we partake of the one loaf.</blockquote>

It seems that by “participation” Paul means more than participating in the historical self-sacrificed body of Jesus; He means participation in the presently existing body of Jesus which is capable of effecting unity among believers through unity with God. McKenzie notes in this regard:

<blockquote>The sacrificial element prominent in this passage of 1 Co and implicit in the formulae of institution is communion with the deity in the sacrificial banquet. Through the Eucharist the deity is rendered present in a striking and unique fashion. Communion is achieved only through Jesus Christ, who is man, and as man is body. The body is therefore rendered really present; the language of the four sources…leaves no room for mere symbolism in this respect. … The body which is present is the glorified body; we seem justified in believing that the NT implies that it is through His resurrection and exaltation that the body of Jesus becomes the Church [the unity of believers]. But this is the body “which was delivered for you,” one and the same Lord Jesus who ''died, rose, and sits at the right hand of the Father.'' Communion is achieved through the ''participation'' of the body and the blood of the victim. The salvation of the NT is not directed to the soul, but to the man, and man in Hebrew thought is body; if salvation is to reach man, his communion with the Savior must be a communication of body.</ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 251. Italics mine.</ref></blockquote

Paul’s view of the “body of Christ” cannot be retroactively put into the mind of Christ, for Paul is speaking in the light of having witnessed the risen Jesus. Nevertheless, one cannot altogether delete Paul’s interpretation from the mind of Jesus, for Jesus associated His “body” with His risen life with the Father, and this risen life would have been the vehicle through which the full meaning of the new covenant (which He viewed as “the kingdom of God” or communion with God) would be effected.

Thus, Jesus’ sacrificial words over the bread might be interpreted as, “This is my body to be sacrificed for you, the body which will be risen and will bring the blessing of communion with the Father and with believers through me. This sacrificed – risen – salvific – unifying – mediating body is my gift of self for you.”<ref>Notice that this interpretation is commensurate with John’s later eucharistic discourse: “This bread is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world. … Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood ''remains in me and I in him.'' …[T]he one who feeds on me will live because of me. … He who feeds on this bread will live forever.” The Evangelist is aware of Jesus’ body as efficacious, that is, as a power capable of bestowing both communion with God (“remains in me and I in him”) and eternal life.</ref> Johannes Betz summarizes this as follows:

<blockquote>Hence, the bodily person of Jesus is present in the supper, not however in the static manner of being of a thing, but as the Servant of God who in his sacrificial death effects the salvation of us all and more precisely as the sacrificial offering of the Servant who delivers himself up on the cross. The real presence of the person is there to actualize the presence of the sacrificial deed and is united with this in an organic whole. The Eucharist becomes, then, the abiding presence in the meal of the sacrificially constituted salvific event “Jesus”, in whom person and work form an inseparable unity.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v. 2, p. 260.</ref></blockquote>

Remarkable as these intentions of Jesus may seem, they do not exhaust the meaning and mystery of His words, for He also intends to communicate His unconditional Love through His “gift of self.” Recall that Jesus’ eucharistic words in the context of the suffering Servant Song may be interpreted as a self-sacrifice (gift of self) to “justify many” and to “bear iniquities.” This definition is similar to Jesus’ view of love manifest in the Beatitudes and in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan.

Paul directly associates Jesus’ self-sacrificial death with “gift of self,” and associates “gift of self” with love in several passages. In the Letter to the Romans:

<blockquote>While we were yet helpless, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly. Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man – though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. But God shows his love [agapēn] for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. (5:6-8)</blockquote>

in the letter to the Galatians:

<blockquote>I have been crucified with Christ…; the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. (2:20)</blockquote>

and in Ephesians:

<blockquote>And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (5:2)</blockquote>

It is difficult to miss similar parallels between Jesus’ Eucharistic words, the Suffering Servant song, and the view of agape in the Gospel of John. Jesus indicates that there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life (i.e., “body”) for one’s friends (Jn 15:13), and further that the Father loves the Son precisely in the laying down (“giving”) of His life (“body”).<ref>See Jn 10:17-18: “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.”</ref>

'''Summary.''' If Jesus’ view of love is “gift of self” (as suggested by Paul and John) then the eucharistic words “this is my body” (i.e., “self”) within the context of self-sacrifice (self-gift) would be virtually equivalent to love. Since this love knows no limit (i.e., it is complete self-sacrifice), it seems equivalent to unconditional Love.

Thus, we might interpret Jesus’ words as follows: “This is my body given in sacrifice, my future risen presence with you, and my unconditional Love – atoning for sin, transforming your hearts, unifying the community, and actualizing the new covenant unto eternal life.” If this is truly what Jesus had in mind as He instituted the Eucharist at the time of the Passover, then the Eucharist is not only Jesus’ interpretation of His passion, but also the vehicle for transmitting His gift of unconditional Love to all future generations. This leads to the next point.

=== “This Cup is the Covenant in My Blood” ===

Recall the reconstruction of Jesus’ words and actions with respect to the cup (Section II.A, above): After the completion of a Passover meal, Jesus initiated the ritual of the wine which He identifies with the covenant in His blood. He took a cup of red wine, gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This cup is the covenant in my blood.” Recall further that the cup of red wine is identified with both (1) Jesus’ blood and (2) “the ''covenant'' in His blood.”<ref>See above, Section I. “The tertium comparationis in the case of the bread is the fact that it was broken, and in the case of the wine the red colour. We have already seen…that it was customary to drink red wine at the Passover…. The comparison between red wine and blood was common in the Old Testament (Gen. 49.11; Deut. 32.14; Isa. 63.3,6), further Ecclus 39.26; 50.15; I Macc. 6.34; Rev. 14.20; Sanh. 70a, etc.” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 223-24).</ref> These two concepts, among the richest in Christian history, deserve individual discussion.

With respect to “blood,” the Greek term “''aima''” was probably derived from Jesus’ words of institution: “''zeh dami''” in Hebrew, and “''den idmi''” in Aramaic. Though its meaning within Jesus’ words of institution is in many ways similar to the Old Testament, it is also significantly different. There are three major similarities:

<blockquote>1) blood is the life principle and it is roughly equivalent to life itself;</blockquote>

<blockquote>2) blood (the life principle) was the vehicle through which atonement occurred in sin or guilt offerings (which is most poignantly described in the ceremony of the scapegoat on the day of atonement<ref>McKenzie notes, “The priest, dressed in linen vestments, takes two goats as a sin-offering…. The atoning agent is the blood of the victim, which symbolizes life” (McKenzie 1965, pp. 69-70).</ref>); and</blockquote>

<blockquote>3) blood is the agency through which a covenant is established, restored, and maintained.<ref>As McKenzie notes, “In the covenant ritual the blood of the victims was dashed on the altar, representing God, and on the people, signifying that the covenant partners share a common life (Ex 24:6ff)” (McKenzie 1965, p. 99).</ref></blockquote>

However, Jesus parts ways with the Old Testament tradition by proposing His blood as drink (Mt 26:27ff; Mk 14:23ff; Lk 22:20; Jn 6:53ff; 1 Co 11:25ff). McKenzie notes in this regard that “…the eating of blood is prohibited (Gn 9:4; Lv 17:10ff); life is conferred by God and is under His dominion. This prohibition was retained in the apostolic Church (AA 15:20).”<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 99.</ref>

Recall that Jesus anticipated a violent death to be followed by His resurrection,<ref>“…[W]e can see from the simile and from the use of ekchunnomenon that Jesus did expect a violent death. Mark 14.25 par. makes it clear that Jesus was certain that God would vindicate his death by his resurrection and the establishment of the kingdom” (Jeremias 1966, p. 225).</ref> and that He separated the rituals of the bread and wine indicating a sacrifice (or in this case, a self-sacrifice).<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept [of body-blood] baśar wadam [Hebrew] or biśra udema [Aramaic] … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref>

Thus, the blood He refers to in the eucharistic ritual is His future sacrificial blood (the blood of the passion). Jesus intended this to be a sacrifice of atonement (as implied by His allusions to the suffering servant and the paschal lamb) which was understood and deeply appreciated by the early Church (and reflected in the Pauline epistles and the Letter to the Hebrews). McKenzie notes in this regard that:

<blockquote>[Jesus] is a propitiatory offering in His blood (Rm 3:25), through which we are made righteous (Rm 5:9). We are redeemed through His blood (Eph 1:7) and through it we draw near to God (Eph 2:13), and by His blood He has made peace (between man and God; Col 1:20). The contrast and analogy between the blood of Jesus and the blood of sacrificial victims is drawn out at length in Heb. His blood excels that of animals (Heb 9:12 ff). Blood is the only effective agent of purification (Heb 9:20 ff) and of the remission of sins (9:22). But the blood of animals cannot remove sins (10:4); Christ has effected eternal redemption by His own blood (9:12), through which we have access to the sanctuary (10:19).<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept [of body-blood] baśar wadam [Hebrew] or biśra udema [Aramaic] … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref></blockquote>

Jesus does not ''directly'' advocate violating the Old Testament proscription against drinking blood (because He is not advocating the drinking of physical blood), yet He ''implicitly'' does this when He advocates drinking the red wine which He ''identifies'' with the blood of His impending sacrifice in order to share the ''redemptive power''<ref>“The blood of the lambs slaughtered at the exodus from Egypt had redemptive power…” (Jeremias 1966, p. 225).</ref> of that sacrifice. Recall that the power of the Passover lamb’s blood was protection against death in a specific situation,<ref>“For the sake of the passover blood God revoked the death sentence against Israel; he said: ‘I will see the blood of the passover and make atonement for you.’ In the same way the people of God of the End time will be redeemed by the merits of the passover blood” (Jeremias 1966, p. 226).</ref> but the power of Jesus’ redemptive blood goes far beyond this because it protects against ''every'' manifestation of death unto eternal life and communion with God. The redemptive power of the lamb’s blood was placed on the ''exterior'' (door posts) of every Hebrew house. Jesus’ blood (redemptive power) is taken interiorly and protects from ''interior'' (spiritual) death, making it the transformative power of eternal communion with God. It is difficult to believe that Jesus would have advocated the implicit violation of the Old Testament proscription (against drinking blood) unless He believed that His blood of sacrifice had the ''real power'' to protect against spiritual death.

Jesus also associates His sacrificial blood with the “blood of the new covenant.”<ref>“The blood of the Eucharist is the blood of the new covenant in all the formulae of institution [see above, Section I], an allusion to Ex 24:8…” (McKenzie 1965, p. 99).</ref> A covenant is a solemn promise. McKenzie notes:

<blockquote>In early Hebrew society written documents were employed little or not at all. In their place the spoken word was invested with ritual solemnity which gave it a kind of concrete reality. The spoken word thus uttered could not be annulled or retracted. … The covenant was such a solemn ritual agreement which served the function of a written contract. The covenanting parties bound themselves by a ritual agreement which included terrible imprecations upon the party which should violate the covenant.<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 153.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, a covenant has the effect of an absolutely guaranteed promise. In the case of Jesus (who is representing Abba as His Son and suffering servant) it has the effect of an absolutely guaranteed promise on the part of an absolutely truthful God.

But what is Jesus’ new covenant promising? Four interrelated promises: (1) communion with God, (2) the new covenant of Jeremiah, (3) Isaiah’s servant covenant, and (4) the eschatological (fulfilled) kingdom of God (Jesus’ mission – what He has come to bring in His person).

With respect to the first point, common life was part of any “covenant in blood,”<ref>“In the covenant ritual the blood of the victims was dashed on the altar, representing God, and on the people, signifying that the covenant partners share a common life (Ex 24:6 ff)” (McKenzie 1965, p. 99).</ref> because the sprinkling of blood indicated that the parties were one blood or one family.<ref>Ex. 24:3-8. See also McKenzie 1965, p. 155.</ref> Thus, covenant between God and human beings would indicate common life or communion with Him. It can hardly be doubted that Jesus intended this very basic meaning of “covenant in blood” in His words of institution.

With respect to the second point, Jeremiah promises (presumably at the messianic time) a new covenant which would be written on the hearts of human beings:

<blockquote>“The time is coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers…. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”<ref> Jeremiah 31:31-34.</ref></blockquote>

Presuming that Jesus was as familiar with this common text in Jeremiah as He was with the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, Jesus would have seen His new covenant as embracing the new law of the heart (the law of love) which He came to bring through His sacrificial death, resurrection, and gift of the Spirit. Jesus would have probably seen the blood of the covenant not only as a guaranteed promise of communion with God, but also as the vehicle through which the law of unconditional Love would be infused within the heart of every human being through the Holy Spirit.

With respect to the third point (Isaiah’s “servant covenant”) it seems highly probable that Jesus who identified Himself as the suffering servant in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 would have also been acutely aware of the preceding servant prophecies (Isaiah 42:6ff and 49:8ff). A brief review of these two passages will show that the servant is the covenant, that the covenant is for all peoples, and that it leads to the atonement of sin and new communion with God:

<blockquote>“I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness” (Is 42:6-7).</blockquote>

And also:

<blockquote>This is what the Lord says: “In the time of my favor I will answer you, and in the day of salvation I will help you; I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people, to restore the land and to reassign its desolate inheritances, to say to the captives, ‘Come out,’ and to those in darkness, ‘Be free!’ They will feed beside the roads and find pasture on every barren hill. … See, they will come from afar – some from the north, some from the west…” (Is 49:8-12).</blockquote>

Given Jesus’ familiarity with the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, and the remarkable parallels with the themes surrounding His institution of the Eucharist (the suffering servant, atonement of sin, poured out for the many – for the all) it seems very unlikely that Jesus would not have had this notion of “servant (Himself as covenant)” in mind when speaking of the new covenant (the new communion) with God at the Eucharist. Hence, the new covenant in His blood is filled with the notion of a complete healing of humanity (sight for the blind, liberty for captives, release for those who sit in darkness, etc.).

The above eschatological dimension leads to the fourth and final point, namely, the covenant as definitive bringing of the kingdom. This dimension of covenant is manifest in Isaiah 59:21:

<blockquote>“As for me, this is my covenant with them” says the Lord. “My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,” says the Lord.</blockquote>

The “forever” here indicates that the covenant brings with it the eschatological kingdom through the permanent imparting of the Spirit of God. When this is combined with Jeremiah 31:31 and the eschatological dimensions of Isaiah 42:6-7, 49:8-12, and 59:21, it seems likely that Jesus viewed the new covenant as a “guaranteed promise of the actualization of the kingdom.” Jeremias links Jesus’ “new covenant” to His new Passover sacrifice (see above, Section II.B.2) and concludes to the following:

<blockquote>Jesus describes his death as this eschatological passover sacrifice: his vicarious (huper) death brings into operation the final deliverance, the new covenant of God. Diathēkē (“covenant”) is a correlate of basileia ton ouranōn (“kingdom of heaven”). The content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus’ death is perfect communion with God (Jer. 31.33-34a) in his reign, based upon the remission of sins (31.34b).<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

'''Summary.''' Unconditional Love would seem to be the power of this beautiful and encompassing new covenant. It is Jesus’ total gift of Himself, His taking the place of an animal in the sin-offering, and the offering of His blood in place of an animal’s blood in the covenant sacrifice that enables us all to be “one blood, one family” with God. It is His act of total humility and self-sacrifice (Agape) which unites us together as God’s family. The Holy Spirit is the personal power effecting this unity, and Jesus is its “body.” Jesus intended that His act of self-sacrifice, His gift of self, His unconditional Love, be the creative power of protection from spiritual death and therefore from all death. The new covenant is the absolute bond, the absolute guarantee, the very principle of eternal life in communion with God. It arises out of unconditional Love, it finds its fulfillment in unconditional Love; it is unconditional Love. Though He may not have used these words, one can scarcely interpret His action of taking the place of an animal in a sacrificial offering to mean anything less. Thus, when He said, “This cup is the covenant in my blood,” He intended to bestow on us an eternal communion with one another through His own person/body given in self-sacrifice. This is unquestionably unconditional Love.

=== “Do this in Remembrance of Me” ===

If Jeremias’ extensive study of ''anamnesis'' (remembrance) within Semitic cult is correct, then Jesus’ command of repetition (“Do this in remembrance of me”) has the double function of (1) asking God to recall something of religious significance, and (2) asking God to make that blessing really present (to recreate that blessing in the present).

With respect to the first point, Jeremias shows that in both the Old Testament and New Testament (Mark 14:9, Matt 26:13, and Acts 10:4) a ritual remembrance is not so much directed at the human subject but at God so that He might remember: “…[I]n the Old Testament and Palestinian memorial formulae it is almost always God who remembers. In accordance with this the command for repetition may be translated: ‘This do, that God may remember me’”<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 251-52.</ref>

With respect to the second point, Jeremias notes:

<blockquote>This calling into the presence of God [remembrance – anamnesis], this bringing to life before God, this recalling of the past, this is, on the other side, effective. It has a purpose, it is intended to effect something: that God may remember – mercifully or punishingly. God’s remembrance is, namely (this is an important fact to which O. Michel called attention), never a simple remembering of something, but always and without exception “an effecting and creating event.” When Luke 1.72 says that God remembers his covenant, this means that he is now fulfilling the eschatological covenant promise.<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 248-49. Italics mine on “effecting and creating” and “now fulfilling.”</ref></blockquote>

If we combine all these elements, it would seem that when Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me,” He expected that He and His self-sacrificial action would be presented to God (the Father) to be made present (real) in the blessed and distributed bread whenever the words of institution were repeated. Johannes Betz summarizes the work of Michel, Jeremias, and others as follows:

<blockquote>''Anamnesis'' in the biblical sense means not only the subjective representation of something in the consciousness and as an act of the remembering mind. It is also the objective effectiveness and presence of one reality in another, especially the effectiveness and presence of the salvific actions of God, in the liturgical worship. Even in the OT, the liturgy is the privileged medium in which the covenant attains actuality. The meaning of the logion may perhaps be paraphrased as follows: do this (what I have done) in order to bring about my presence, to make really present the salvation wrought in me.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v. 2, p. 260.</ref></blockquote>

We may here see Jesus’ intention to extend His self-sacrificial gift, His whole self, and the covenant in His blood to all future generations through a ritual which recreates the efficacy of His passion through His real presence. This desire to share in perpetuity is yet another manifestation of the unconditional nature of Jesus’ self-sacrificial covenant love.

=== “Poured Out for Many” ===

As noted above, the notion of ''pollōn'' (many) in Jesus’ logion “poured out for many” is a translation of the Hebrew ''rabbim'' which can have an exclusive or inclusive meaning. When it has the inclusive meaning, it signifies “all.” Jeremias summarizes these linguistic issues as follows:

<blockquote>While “many” in Greek (as in English) stands in opposition to “all”, and therefore has the exclusive sense (“many, but not all”), Hebrew rabbim can have the inclusive sense (“the whole, comprising many individuals”). This inclusive use is connected with the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic possess no word for “all”.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 179.</ref></blockquote>

This inclusive sense of ''rabbim'' was very common in Old Testament and intertestamental literature.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 179-182.</ref> When it is accompanied by the definite article in Talmudic and even New Testament texts, it almost always has an inclusive meaning (“all”); but, as Jeremias points out, it can frequently have an inclusive meaning even without the definite article.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, p. 180.</ref>

In the New Testament (with respect to Jesus’ self-sacrificial passion), Mark 10:45 uses ''pollōn'' in the inclusive sense to refer to Jesus’ “ransom for many.” This passage refers back to the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 53:10-12 which is interpreted in 1Timothy 2:6 by using the Greek word “all” (''pantōn'') instead of “many” (''pollōn''). According to Jeremias:

<blockquote>Of especial importance for our passage is Mark 10.45 par., ''lutron anti pollōn'' “a ransom for many”. That ''polloi'' has here the inclusive meaning “all” is shown by the reference in Mark 10.45 to Isa. 53.10-12, as well as by the parallel in I Tim. 2.6: ''antilutron huper pantōn'', “a ransom for all”. Just as Mark 10.45, so also our passage Mark 14.24 [Jesus’ eucharistic words] is to be interpreted in the inclusive sense. ''Pollōn'' is therefore a Semitism. 14.24 ''to ekchunnomenon huper pollōn'' (“the[blood] poured out for many”). The placing of the prepositional phrase at the end corresponds to Semitic word order. That it is placed between the article and the participle independently of each other in Matthew as well as in Luke shows that the position at the end sounds harsh in Greek.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 181-82.</ref></blockquote>

This remarkable parallel which shows the rabbim in Isaiah 53:10-12 to be translated by both ''pollōn'' (many) and ''pantōn'' (all) in Mark and 1Timothy, respectively, and the very uncharacteristically Greek (but characteristically Semitic) expressions of the eucharistic words in Mark and Matthew offer strong evidence that Jesus’ ''rabbim'' was meant in an inclusive sense, and therefore, as “all” (all human beings).

Once again, the unconditional nature of Jesus’ love emerges. His sacrificial act is not for a chosen few, but rather for all humankind. He offers this not only to His generation, but all future generations. His gift of Himself is total and universal. His love is unconditional.

== Conclusion ==

Given the above interpretation of Jesus’ eucharistic words and actions, one can scarcely deny His intention to give Himself completely to all humankind in the sacrificial act. He not only wanted to give Himself completely in sacrifice (in imitation of the suffering servant, the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and taking the place of an animal in a sin-offering and a covenant sacrifice), but also wanted to be present to us and in us for all generations and all time. This seems to meet the requirements for an unconditional act of love.

Yes, Jesus had a plan, an unconditionally loving plan, as He proceeded toward imminent death in Jerusalem. He planned to atone for the sins of all unconditionally, and to initiate a covenant of unconditional communion with God in everlasting life, through a ritual which would make the blessing of His sacrifice, self, and love really present in perpetuity. Jesus not only wanted the consummation of His mission (His passion) to be an act of total self-sacrifice, He wanted to give it away to everyone for all generations (unconditionally and universally).

If God were Unconditional Love, would He do something like this as Emmanuel (God with us)? Would He give Himself away in self-sacrifice, and then give that self-sacrificial love away forever? If such actions would typify an unconditionally loving God, then Jesus would seem to be His Emmanuel – His Unconditional Love with us.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Eucharist

2015-01-08T15:44:07Z

David Persyn: /* “Do this in Remembrance of Me” */

Magis ChristWiki - Magis Institute

Unit II. L

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Eucharist

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-L_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Eucharist.3F | Return to Table of Contents]]

Saint Paul believed that the clearest demonstration of Jesus’ love was in His passion and death: “But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rm 5:8). Jesus instituted the Eucharist to give the “total gift of Himself in the passion” to all future generations. He deliberately walked into His passion by traveling to Jerusalem before the feast of the Passover when the authorities were evidently seeking to put an end to His ministry and even His life. He did this because He had a plan in mind; a plan to give the blessing and power of His person and passion to all future generations through a ritual arising out of His interpretation of the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. The Beloved One of the Father intended to make us all beloveds in His own image by giving Himself (and the eschatological kingdom of love) to us in a definitive, unconditional act. This consummation of His mission (His raison d’être) reveals His core identity. The question naturally follows, “Would it be typical of an unconditionally loving God who enters into complete empathy with us to have such a self-sacrificial mission and plan?” If so, then this is one of our most profound signs that Jesus is Emmanuel.

== Did Jesus Institute the Eucharist at a Passover Meal? ==

Joachim Jeremias’ classic work, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus is still acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive treatments of this subject with the most extensive analysis of rabbinical traditions.<ref>Meier 1991, p. 395.</ref> Some exegetes feel uneasy about his application of rabbinical traditions and extratestamental material to New Testament texts,<ref>See Meier 1991, p. 395.</ref> and many scholars do not agree with his assignment of the Last Supper to the Passover meal, because it requires that too much activity take place on Passover day (the 15th of Nisan):

<blockquote>Despite Jeremias’ deft command of the material, he cannot really establish the likelihood that, at the time of Jesus, the supreme Jewish authorities in Jerusalem would arrest a person suspected of a capital crime, immediately convene a meeting of the Sanhedrin to hear the case (a case involving the death penalty), hold a formal trial with witnesses, reach a decision that the criminal deserved to die, and hand over the criminal to the Gentile authorities with a request for execution on the same day – all within the night and early day hours of Passover Day, the fifteenth of Nisan!<ref>Meier 1991, p. 396.</ref></blockquote>

For this reason, Meier believes that it is more probable that the Last Supper took place on the day before the Passover meal (on the eve of the 14th of Nisan), which corresponds with John’s dating of it rather than the Synoptics’.<ref>See Meier 1991, p. 396.</ref>

Yet, the placement of the Last Supper on the eve of the 14th of Nisan does not rule out the possibility that Jesus, aware of what was to befall Him, celebrated a Passover supper with His disciples (without a lamb) on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. Since the lambs were slaughtered prior to the meal on the 15th of Nisan, it would not have been possible for Jesus to celebrate the Passover meal with a lamb. This is consistent with New Testament accounts which make multiple references to the Passover meal,<ref>See, for example, Luke 22:15 (“I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer”); Luke 22:13 (“they prepared the Passover”); Luke 22:11 (“tell the householder, ‘the Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I am to eat the Passover with my disciples?”); Mark 14:12 (“Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”); Luke 22:8 (“Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it”); Luke 22:7 (“[it was] the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed”). Even if one ignores the passages which refer to the Marcan dating of the Last Supper on the eve of the 15th of Nisan (such as Luke 22:7), there are five distinct references (without dating) to a Passover meal.</ref> but no references to a lamb.

There are six reasons why a Passover meal should not be ruled out even if it occurred on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. First, as noted above, the Passover is linked to Jesus’ Last Supper multiple times in all three synoptic Gospels. Secondly, there are differences in the chronology of the Synoptic Gospels which indicate that a Passover meal could have been celebrated at different times within the weeklong celebration leading up to Passover. The reference to the “first day” in Mark and Luke, as Harrington suggests, betrays a mixed chronology, for:

<blockquote>the paschal lamb was normally eaten on the first day of the feast. Yet Mark describes the “first day” as the day of preparation when the lambs were slaughtered, corresponding to Wednesday, while the meal would be celebrated that evening.<ref>Harrington 1991, p. 392.</ref></blockquote>

Thirdly, the Passover is mentioned in a unique, ancient formula recounted in Luke’s Gospel, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.”<ref>See the extensive analysis of Jeremias in 1966, pp. 190-92.</ref> Fourthly, Jeremias detects several Semitisms behind the wording in the Gospel passages which are traceable to the Passover ceremony itself (such as the “fruit of the vine” in Luke 22:18).<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 161-62.</ref> Fifthly, Jeremias notes that:

<blockquote>[T]he pre-Pauline Passover haggadah preserved in I Cor. 5.7f. calls Jesus “our passover (lamb)” and that Paul presupposes as self-evident the familiarity of the Corinthian community with this comparison, a comparison widespread in the early Christian literature.<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 222-23.</ref></blockquote>

Sixthly, there are references to the Passover meal within the passages (e.g., the multiple cups, which seems to have come from Luke’s special source [22:17-18], and the Passover haggadah between the word over the bread and the word over the cup<ref>See Jeremias 1966, p. 85 and 221.</ref>). In sum, these distinct ancient sources of the institution of the Eucharist at Passover indicate a common Palestinian source which very probably goes back to Jesus Himself.

Could Jesus have celebrated an adapted Passover meal with His disciples on the eve of the 14th of Nisan to anticipate His impending death which would have occurred near the time of the slaughtering of the lambs? Since Jesus was not unaccustomed to adapting Jewish doctrine and ritual to conform to His own doctrinal and ritual requirements, this possibility cannot be ruled out. Even if Jesus did not celebrate a Passover meal (without a lamb) at the Last Supper, He could have borrowed particular rituals from it or alluded to it during the Last Supper. For this reason, I will include Jeremias’ references to the Passover meal in the forthcoming analysis. The reader may want to bear in mind that these Passover rituals may not have occurred, but may only have been implied in Jesus’ actions during the Last Supper.

The analysis will be carried out in two steps:

1) a brief synopsis of Jeremias’ and others’ exegetical work on the original tradition (Section II.A); and

2) the meaning of Jesus’ eucharistic words and actions (Section II.B).

== Jeremias’ Interpretation of the Original Tradition ==

There are four traditions of Jesus’ Eucharistic words:<ref>There is also a tradition in John (6:25-59), but it is a Eucharistic discourse instead of a recounting of the Last Supper; a specific exegesis of this passage is beyond the objective of this study.</ref>

1) I Corinthians 11:23-26:

<blockquote>For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.</blockquote>

2) Mark 14:22-25:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take; this is my body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” He said to them. “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”</blockquote>

3) Matthew 26:26-29:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”</blockquote>

4) Luke 22:17-20:

<blockquote>After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”</blockquote>

A brief glance at the above four traditions reveals two branches of an original tradition – (1) a Paul-Luke branch (which makes specific reference to remembrance; a new covenant; and, in the case of Luke alone, “poured out for you”), and (2) a Mark-Matthew branch (which makes no reference to remembrance; refers to covenant, but not a new covenant; and makes the objective of Jesus’ outpouring for many). Jeremias has split this project into two parts: (1) the four common areas of these traditions (which, given the different theologies in the two branches, would probably have to have their origin in a common source), and (2) in areas where the branches differ, locating the more primitive tradition through grammatical constructions and the presence of Semitisms. The two analyses will bring us close to an original tradition which may closely resemble Jesus’ own words.

There are four common areas within the four traditions:

<blockquote>(1) Jesus’ action with respect to the bread: “took bread, gave thanks [in the case of Paul, “after he had given thanks”], and broke it,”</blockquote>

<blockquote>(2) Jesus’ words over the bread: “this is my body [soma],”</blockquote>

<blockquote>(3) Jesus’ action with respect to the cup. In Mark-Matthew: “Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them.” In Paul-Luke: “In the same way” (referring to the way in which He gave the bread, i.e., “took bread and gave thanks… and gave it to them”), and</blockquote>

<blockquote>(4) Jesus’ word over the cup: “This is my blood of the covenant.” Evidently, Paul and Luke refer to the new covenant whereas Mark and Matthew refer only to the covenant.<ref>Jeremias shows through a grammatical analysis that, despite surface appearances, the Paul-Luke version is essentially the same as the Mark-Matthew version even though the Paul-Luke version refers to the cup (where Mark-Matthew does not), and Paul-Luke refers to “the covenant in my blood” while Mark-Matthew refers to the “blood of the covenant.” See Jeremias 1966, pp. 168-69.</ref></blockquote>

Jeremias holds that the Marcan version of the word over the bread is the more original tradition while the Pauline version of the word over the cup is the more original:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “Take; this is my body.” (Mark 14:22)</blockquote>

<blockquote>In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (1Cor. 11:25a).</blockquote>

Jeremias believes there is good reason for holding the Pauline version to be the more original formula for the word over the cup on linguistic grounds, because the Mark-Matthew version is far more symmetrical, indicating the need to take a more complex narrative form (in Paul-Luke) and convert it to a more symmetrical liturgical form in Mark-Matthew. Though it may be thought that the Paul-Luke form is more apologetically appealing (because it is less evocative of drinking blood in a pagan ritual which would have been repulsive to Jewish people), and therefore later than the Mark-Matthew version (which may have given rise to these apologetically unappealing misimpressions), Paul’s version is probably the earlier because it reveals a separation in time between the word over the bread and the word over the wine (to account for the consumption of the meal between the two events) which the Mark-Matthew version does not represent. Thus, the Mark-Matthew version seems to be a later formula taken from the liturgy, which did not need to account for the separation of the meal (as a more narrative account would have) and needed to be more symmetrical for the sake of liturgical repetition.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 169-171 and 191-92.</ref>

It now remains to establish which of the other three divergent areas is the more original. As implied above, there are three areas of divergence:

<blockquote>a) “the new covenant” (Paul-Luke) versus “the covenant” (Mark-Matthew),</blockquote>

<blockquote>b) poured out for you (Luke) versus “poured out for many” (Mark-Matthew), and</blockquote>

<blockquote>c) word of remembrance – ''anamnēsis'' (in Paul-Luke, but not mentioned in Mark-Matthew).</blockquote>

I will briefly summarize Jeremias’ judgment on these three matters so that an original tradition (close to the words and actions of Jesus) may be adduced.

With respect to the new covenant, Jeremias holds that the Mark-Matthew version would probably be the earlier because the placement of the adjective “new” prior to “covenant” is Hellenistic (but not Semitic) indicating that it originated “on Hellenistic soil.”<ref>Though the Pauline formula is not the more original of the two, its pre-Pauline origins are indicated by its agreement with Luke. See Jeremias 1966, pp. 171-72.</ref>

With respect to the “poured out for you” (Luke) versus “poured out for many”<ref>As will be discussed below, “for many,” in the Semitic sense of “rabbim” which was probably uttered by Jesus, is inclusive (that is, it does not exclude some in contrast to the totality, as in the common Greek and English uses of it – e.g., “many, but not everybody”). The reason for this is that there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word for “all.” Thus, the inclusive sense of “rabbim” explicitly includes the totality and its individual members. See Jeremias 1966, p. 179.</ref> (Mark-Matthew), Jeremias holds that “for many” is the more original on the basis of linguistic grounds, namely, “for many” is a Semitism while “you” is not. Jeremias attributes the replacement of “many” by “you” as having a liturgical purpose where each worshiper feels him or herself to be individually addressed (by “you”), which would not happen with the indefinite “many.” In view of this, he holds that the replacement of “many” by “you” is not an attempt to limit the atoning work of Jesus arising out of later theological reflection.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 172.</ref>

Finally, with respect to the word of remembrance (which Jeremias terms the command for repetition), Paul mentions it twice (after the word over the bread and the word over the wine), Luke mentions it once (after the word over the bread), but Mark and Matthew omit it altogether. Jeremias holds that this tradition is pre-Pauline but probably not a part of the oldest traditions. Yet it could well have originated with Jesus. There are three reasons for suspecting this. First, the bread and wine rituals took on a high degree of significance apart from the meal (suggesting a command of repetition from Jesus with respect to them, but not with respect to the meal separating them). Secondly, the words over the bread and wine are so often repeated that they quickly become a central Christian ritual (which gives them far more significance than mere parts of a farewell meal or a commemoration of Jesus’ death<ref>Jeremias has an extensive discussion of the contention that the word of remembrance was a later Greek accretion imitating annual celebrations of the dead. One of his reasons for rejecting this thesis is that the Christian ritual was daily or weekly and not merely an annual celebration. See Jeremias 1966, pp. 238-43.</ref>) suggesting once again a command of repetition from Jesus. Thirdly, it would be unusual for early liturgical formulations to contain this command since, as Jeremias notes, “the celebration itself was its fulfillment.”<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 238.</ref> In view of the fact that Jesus said much more during the meal than was recorded, it may be surmised that He gave a command of repetition.

So what can we now conclude about Jesus’ actions and words? If the earliest narratives reflect Jesus’ actions, and if Jeremias’ conjectures about Jesus’ words are correct, we can conclude that Jesus gathered with His disciples before the feast of the Passover and indicated to them that He longed to celebrate this Passover with them, but instead of doing so, fasted while the other disciples celebrated.<ref>See Jeremias’ convincing argument in 1966, pp. 208-09.</ref> After drinking one of the four Passover cups while they were eating the Passover meal (or an adapted Passover ritual),<ref>See the discussion of this topic in the introduction to Section II above.</ref> Jesus initiated the ritual of the bread, identifying it with His body: “Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take; this is my body.’” Then, after the completion of the Passover meal (or adapted Passover ritual), Jesus initiated the ritual of the wine which He identifies with the covenant in His blood. He took a cup of red wine, gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This cup is the covenant in my blood.”<ref>Though Jesus identifies the red wine with the “covenant in His blood,” it is clear from the red wine, the parallelism with the bread, and the use of “this cup” that Jesus is identifying the red wine with both His blood and the covenant in His blood. Jeremias notes that the color of the wine is significant here: “The tertium comparationis in the case of the bread is the fact that it was broken, and in the case of the wine the red colour. We have already seen…that it was customary to drink red wine at the Passover…. The comparison between red wine and blood was common in the Old Testament (Gen. 49.11; Deut. 32.14; Isa. 63.3,6), further Ecclus 39.26; 50.15; I Macc. 6.34; Rev. 14.20; Sanh. 70a, etc.” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 223-24).</ref> Sometime either prior to or after this (perhaps both), Jesus gives a command of repetition similar to “Do this in remembrance of me.”

If this reconstruction is accurate, we may now proceed to a brief summary of Jeremias’ and others’ conclusions about the meaning of these words and the ritual they constitute.

== The Meaning of Jesus’ Eucharistic Words and Actions ==

Six elements of Jesus’ institution of the Eucharist merit interpretation:

(1) His view of Himself as “suffering servant” (Is 52:13-53:12 – see Section II.B.1);

(2) Jesus as the new sacrificial paschal lamb (II.B.2);

(3) “This is my body” (soma – II.B.3);

(4) “This cup is the covenant in my blood” (II.B.4);

(5) “Do this in remembrance of me” (II.B5); and

(6) “poured out for many” (II.B.6).

As will become evident, the synthesis of these six elements (in their proper interpretation) points strongly to Jesus’ action as one of unconditional Love, which reveals a heart of unconditional Love.

=== Jesus as Suffering Servant ===

It may be helpful to here set out the whole Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12, because reference will be made to it throughout this Unit on the Eucharist as well as the forthcoming Unit on the passion of Jesus:

<blockquote>See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as there were many who were appalled at him – his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness – so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand (52:13-15).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him (53:1-2).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not (53:3).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted (53:4).</blockquote>

<blockquote>But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed (53:5).</blockquote>

<blockquote>We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all (53:6).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth (53:7).</blockquote>

<blockquote>By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken (53:8).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth (53:9).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities (53:10-11).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he ''poured'' out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of ''many'', and made intercession for the transgressors (53:12 – italics mine).</blockquote>

The obvious tie-in between the suffering servant song and Jesus’ eucharistic words occurs at 53:12. The phrase “poured out for many,” which is a part of the oldest tradition of the eucharistic words, has a remarkable parallel with Isaiah 53:12 which states:

<blockquote>…because he poured out (he’erah) his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many (rabbim)….”</blockquote>

The Hebrew background of both Jesus’ eucharistic words and Isaiah 53:12 as well as the context of these words (the sacrifice of Jesus and the suffering servant) are so close that it would be difficult to believe that the ancient tradition of Jesus’ eucharistic words was not referring to Isaiah 53:12.<ref>According to Jeremias, [“poured out for many”] “is linked with an Old Testament passage: Isa. 53.12, ‘because he poured out (he’erah) his life to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many (rabbim) and made intercession for the transgressors’ (the reference is to the Hebrew text of this passage, a fact to be kept in mind as evidence of the age of the tradition). This allusion to the Old Testament passage on the suffering servant is supported by the fact that the word rabbim/πολλοί is almost a ''leit-motiv'' in Isa. 52.13-53.12.” Jeremias 1966, pp. 226-7.</ref> Moreover, Jesus seems to have had an intimate acquaintance with the texts of Deutero-Isaiah,<ref>See Betz, 1968-70, v.2, p. 257.</ref> and also seems to have interpreted His life and His mission in terms of this passage which was uncannily similar to the passion He was about to suffer. Hence, it seems likely that Jesus intended the words “poured out for many” in a way that could be interpreted through the lens of the Suffering Servant song. This means that Jesus intends His eucharistic actions and words in an expiatory way, that is, as a “sin offering” or “guilt offering” for the sins of many. Johannes Betz notes in this regard:

<blockquote>Jesus accomplished the decisive purpose of His life, His task as Messiah, in carrying out the mission of the servant of God of Deutero-Isaiah, who as God’s majestic envoy proclaims and inaugurates a new phase in salvation and who as martyr takes upon Himself expiatory sufferings for the sins of the many.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v.2, p. 258.</ref></blockquote>

It would seem, therefore, that Jesus had this Suffering Servant song deeply in mind when He decided to proceed toward Jerusalem with full knowledge that the authorities were seeking to persecute Him (see John 11:8). This makes sense of both His resoluteness toward impending death and His obvious preparation for the eucharistic ritual (with its imbedded passage from Isaiah 53:12), which would, in turn, make sense of Matthew’s additional words (probably reflective of a later tradition): “for the forgiveness of sins.”<ref>This is imbedded within Jesus’ words over the cup: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt. 26:28).</ref>

The logic of this sin offering may seem a bit confusing to a contemporary audience, especially the passage in Isaiah that states, “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see the light of life and be satisfied” (Isaiah 53:10). At first glance, it may seem that the portrayal of the Lord in this passage (and therefore Jesus’ view of God’s will) is sadistic, but this is certainly not the case, for Jesus’ interpretation of the Isaiah passage is set within His view of the Father as “Abba” and Himself as Son and Beloved. Thus, Jesus’ interpretation of this passage must be seen within the context of the logic of love, which makes the Johannine words of Jesus particularly significant, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (Jn 15:13). If this passage represents Jesus’ interpretive principle for both the Isaiah passage and His Eucharistic words, then Jesus would have interpreted “the Lord’s will to crush him” in terms of the Father’s acceptance of Jesus’ love offering (the gift of Himself) for the sins of the world.

Recall for a moment some of the observations about Jesus’ view of love (agape) from the previous Unit. We saw that Jesus viewed love as the highest commandment (Mark 12:30 and par.), and that He elucidated His view of love through the beatitudes (Matt 5:3-12), which included humble-heartedness, gentle-heartedness, hungering and thirsting for the will of God, being merciful (which includes being forgiving), peacemaking, and enduring persecution for the kingdom of God. Ironic as it may seem, Jesus’ self-sacrificial gift for the expiation of sins synthesizes and catalyzes every one of these elements from the beatitudes and concretizes their “synthesis in love” within not only historical but future reality.<ref>Paul did not miss this insight in Colossians 3:12-14: “Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which is the bond of completeness.” See the explanation of this passage in Unit II-J, Section IV.</ref>

The Gospel of John has captured Jesus’ intention well. There is no greater love (the synthesis of the beatitudes) that a person can have than to give his life. In light of Jesus’ view of the Father as Abba (which has embedded within it generative, compassionate, forgiving, restoring, affectionate love – similar to the father’s love in the Prodigal Son parable), it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus would have loosely interpreted the words of Isaiah 53:10 to mean “it would have pleased the Father – despite His pain – to see the self-sacrificial (loving) will of His Son become a reality for all humanity.” Just because Jesus uses Isaiah 52:13-53:12 as an interpretive principle for His self-sacrifice does not mean that He agrees with every theological element in that passage. Indeed, Jesus was known to have loosely interpreted and even reinterpreted many passages from Torah and the prophets. It would seem inconceivable that Jesus could have interpreted Isaiah 53:10 outside the context of His being the beloved Son of Abba.

Therefore, we might look at Jesus’ mindset about the passion and Eucharist (as He approached Jerusalem) as follows. First, He intended to make Himself an expiatory offering much like the one spoken of in Isaiah 53:8ff:

<blockquote>…for the transgression of my people he was stricken…. …and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering…. …my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. …because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.</blockquote>

Secondly, Jesus had a twofold understanding of the efficacy of this “sin offering”: (1) the efficacy of sacrifice, and (2) the efficacy of love. With respect to the efficacy of sacrifice, it seems probable that Jesus organized His Eucharistic words to indicate that He was making a sacrifice of Himself. By separating the words over the body and the blood, Jesus implied that what He was about to endure on the cross was like the separation of flesh and blood in a cultic sacrifice.<ref>“This formula derives from Ex 24:8 and characterizes the content of the cup primarily as the cultic sacrificial element “blood”, which is separated from the flesh, then also the death of Jesus as the separation of flesh and blood after the manner of a cultic sacrifice” (Betz 1968-70, v.2, p. 259). See also Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22: “…[I]t also designates, as already in ancient Hebrew, the two component parts of the body [flesh and blood], especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed.”</ref>

Yet, Jesus was not making Himself a cultic sacrifice in the traditional sense, for He, the Son, the Beloved One, the innocent One, made Himself the sacrificial gift for those who are not innocent, in the certain hope of the resurrection and universal atonement. Betz notes in this regard:

<blockquote>Taking on alien guilt meant taking on also the necessity of death. As his life went on, Jesus thought more frequently of his death and spoke more frequently of it to his disciples…. It was for Jesus not something that merely happened to him, but a conscious and willed deed to which he assented as a necessity in the history of salvation, and on which he freely decided (Lk 12:50). His total readiness for the death which was the mission of the Servant of the Lord is also expressed in the logion of the ransom (Mk 10:45), and the prophecies of the passion (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:32ff). … His death is total dedication and the deepest fulfillment of his being. … Unlike the ''cultic'' sacrifices, there is no separate ''gift'' which stands for the offerer and symbolizes his dedication to God. Here the offerer himself functions as ''gift'' in his own person and accomplishes the sacrificial dedication by the real shedding of his blood. Jesus must have been sure that God would accept this sacrifice, his body, and hence that God would fill it with new life. Thus the death of Jesus brings with it the resurrection as an inner consequence, as an essential part of it, regardless of the difference in time between the two events.<ref>Betz, 1968-70, v.2, p. 258. Italics mine.</ref></blockquote>

The middle term, as it were, between efficacy of sacrifice and efficacy of love is gift. As is clear from the above, a cultic sacrifice finds its efficacy in the gift given to God, and, as is clear from the Johannine passage on love, there is no greater love than to give one’s life. When Jesus made Himself the gift in the sacrificial offering, He transformed the efficacy of that gift from one of cultic proportion to one of unconditional Love. This is evidenced in Jesus’ use of the word “covenant” (“the covenant in my blood”) which, as will be seen below, implies a bond of love.

In sum, when Jesus proceeded to Jerusalem He planned to complete His mission of being the suffering (messianic) servant of the Lord by becoming a sacrificial gift for all transgressors. In so doing, he hoped to effect an atonement for all sins as a perfect sacrifice (that is, as the self-sacrifice of the beloved innocent one) in place of cultic sin offerings. This atonement went far beyond mechanical cultic sin offerings because it was fundamentally an act of unconditional self-giving (Love) for humankind. This act of unconditional Love was the source and power of perfect atonement and a new covenant which promised eternal life through the God who has loved us so.

=== Jesus as the New Sacrificial Paschal Lamb ===

As noted above, it is likely that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper within the context of a Passover meal – perhaps an adapted Passover meal (without a lamb) on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. So why would Jesus have chosen the Passover celebration to make His sacrifice and institute the Eucharist? Jeremias believes that He wanted to compare Himself to the paschal lamb, or perhaps better, He wanted to be the eschatological paschal lamb – the one who was to initiate the new covenant (which He correlated with the kingdom of God) in His blood:<ref>Jeremias sees Jesus’ identification of Himself with the paschal lamb as correlative with His identification of the bread and wine with His own person. He also notes that the early Pauline community commonly understood Jesus to be the paschal lamb. See Jeremias 1966, p. 222-23.</ref>

<blockquote>With the words ''den biśri'', “this is my (sacrificial) flesh”, and ''den idmi'', “this is my (sacrificial) blood”, Jesus is therefore most probably speaking of himself as the paschal lamb. He is the eschatological paschal lamb, representing the fulfillment of all that of which the Egyptian paschal lamb and all the subsequent sacrificial paschal lambs were the prototype.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 223.</ref></blockquote>

It should not be thought that the absence of a lamb at an adapted Passover meal (on the eve of the 14th of Nisan) militates against Jeremias’ thesis that Jesus associated Himself with the eschatological paschal lamb, for if Jesus did celebrate the Passover on the eve of the 14th of Nisan, His own passion would have begun at the time that the paschal lambs were being slaughtered in preparation for the feast celebrated on the eve of the 15th of Nisan. This would correlate well with the Last Supper’s anticipation of the impending self-sacrifice which might have been Jesus’ very intention.

The lamb is a simile for two essential dimensions of the Eucharist: (1) the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, and (2) the sacrifice initiating the covenant (leading out of slavery into a new life of freedom in the “promised land”). With respect to the forgiveness of sins, Jeremias notes:

<blockquote>By comparing himself with the eschatological paschal lamb Jesus describes his death as a saving death. … [A]t the passover meal the attention was directed…to the one “passover of the exodus” for the sake of which God had mercifully “passed over” the houses of the Israelites. The blood of the lambs slaughtered at the exodus from Egypt had redemptive power…<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 225.</ref></blockquote>

This “redemptive power,” this atonement for sins, protects from death and leads to everlasting life:

<blockquote>As a reward for the Israelites’ obedience to the commandment to spread blood on their doors, God manifested himself and spared them, “passing over” their houses. For the sake of the passover blood God revoked the death sentence against Israel; he said: “I will see the blood of the passover and make atonement for you.” In the same way the people of God of the End time will be redeemed by the merits of the Passover blood.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus sees His blood not only as a protection from death in this world (in imitation of the blood of the lamb at the Passover), but also as an eschatological protection (that is, a protection from death itself) which opens upon an eternal life of communion with Him and the Father:

<blockquote>Jesus describes his death as this eschatological passover sacrifice: his vicarious (''huper'') ''death brings into operation the final deliverance'', the new covenant of God. ''Diathēkē'' (“covenant”) is a correlate of ''basileia tōn ouranōn'' (“kingdom of heaven”). The content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus’ death is perfect communion with God (Jer. 31.33-34a) in his reign, based upon the remission of sins (31.34b).<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, Jesus’ selection of the Passover (whether this was celebrated on the eve of the 14th or 15th of Nisan) as the context for His death was a deliberate attempt to manifest a ''sacrificial''<ref>As noted above, the separation of the word over the bread and the word over the wine by a Passover supper separates Jesus’ flesh from Jesus’ blood which would have been commonly understood by His audience to signify His self-sacrifice (reminiscent of all sacrifices which separate the flesh and blood of the gifts offered).</ref> death, and therefore, His institution of the Eucharist at this time established Him as the new Passover sacrifice for the atonement of sins and the initiation of the new covenant unto eternal communion with Him and His Father.<ref>This is why the tradition used by Matthew which references the forgiveness of sins (“Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” – Mt 26:28), though unique in the texts of the eucharistic words and therefore probably not original, is compatible with Jesus’ intentions at the last supper. This is further confirmed by Jesus’ references to the suffering servant who atones for the sins of many by his self-sacrificial act (see above, II.A).</ref>

There is one more element to be discussed about Jesus’ identification of Himself with the Passover lamb, namely, its correlation with agape. Recall that there is a natural correlation between Jesus’ view of love and the beatitudes (see Unit II-J, Section IV). Love is humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, peace-making, merciful (forgiving), and accepting of persecution for the kingdom of God. Jesus’ identification of Himself with the unblemished (innocent) lamb (correlative with the suffering servant<ref>“He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth” (Is 53:7).</ref>) brings to mind the humility and gentleness of the paschal lamb, as well as the forgiveness, reconciliation, and “endurance of persecution” intrinsic to its sacrifice. By making Himself a self-sacrificial Passover offering, Jesus revealed Himself to be Unconditional Love.

Thus, it is not only the sacrificial aspect of Jesus’ self-offering which has the redemptive power to atone for sins and establish a covenant of eternal communion with God, but also the unconditional Love intrinsic to that sacrifice. Jesus’ first-century audience would have probably noticed the redemptive power in the sacrifice more readily than in His unconditional Love, but subsequent generations, reflecting on Jesus’ words of love, began to realize that the unconditional Love intrinsic to the self-sacrifice is the sacrifice’s redemptive power. Jesus was not using sacrifice in some kind of magical-mystical way to elicit God’s power; neither did He believe that God the Father was demanding that He sacrifice Himself in a mechanical way to atone for sins (“I will put my Son on one side of the scale to balance off all the negatives on your side”); Jesus sacrificed Himself to concretely actualize unconditional self-sacrificial gift (unconditional Love) in the world, which is the redemptive power overcoming all hatred, darkness, emptiness, and evil. Notice that the Son’s self-sacrifice in unconditional Love was also the Father’s self-sacrifice, for the Father had to give His Son as much as the Son had to give Himself.

=== “This is My Body” (''Sōma'') ===

We may now turn to the words of institution within the context of the suffering servant and the paschal lamb. To what does “this” (''touto'' – in Aramaic, “''den''”) refer in “this is my body?” Jeremias notes that it cannot refer to Jesus’ action of breaking the bread, but rather to the bread itself:

<blockquote>This interpretation [that “this” refers to Jesus’ breaking of the bread], which in any case is incompatible with the ''touto estin'' (“this is”), would only be feasible if the actions named coincided with the words of interpretation. But that is not the case. As regards the bread-word, the fact that it is preceded by ''gabete'' (“take”) shows that Jesus said it not as the bread was being broken, but as it was being distributed.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 220.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus identifies the bread (signified by ''touto/den'') with His body (''sōma''). The Semitic background of ''sōma'', according to Jeremias, is incontestably ''zeh baśari'' (Hebrew) and ''den bisri'' (Aramaic).<ref>“…the words of interpretation (if what has just been presented is conclusive) read, according to Mark, in Hebrew ''zeh beśari'' and ''zeh dami'', and in Aramaic ''den biśri'' and ''den idmi''” (Jeremias 1966, p. 201; see also p. 200).</ref> This Hebrew/Aramaic background indicates that Jesus is referring to His physical body, his flesh, given in self-sacrifice.<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept ''baśar wadam'' or ''biśra udema'' … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref> However, the Greek translation for Jesus’ Semitic word (''sōma'') may also indicate that the translators thought that Jesus was referring not only to His flesh (which would have been translated more precisely by ''sarx''), but also His whole person (His whole self).<ref>Note Jeremias’ wording, “…Jesus now interprets both again as he says grace, and this time in reference to his own person” (Jeremias 1966, p. 221).</ref>

This interpretation is compatible with the Semitic mindset which was not dualistic in a platonic way, and therefore, did not view body as mere corporeality; rather it viewed body as the whole corporeal self. According to McKenzie:

<blockquote>[In the Gospels], the body is parallel with life and is conceived almost as the self. … [In Paul, t]he first meaning of body is the concretely existing human being; in some contexts it again appears to be nearly synonymous with self (Rm 6:12f; 8:10?; 1 Co 6:18 f)…<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 100.</ref></blockquote>

Perhaps the Greek translators used ''sōma'' to more accurately convey to non-Jewish converts that Jesus’ Aramaic/Hebrew words were referring not only to His physicality, but to His whole self (which would have included characteristics the Greeks would have attributed to soul, such as the power of thinking and love, and the desire for justice and beauty, etc.).

If this interpretation is correct, then Jesus is making His whole corporeal self present in the words over the bread. The notion of “making a blessing present” in the reliving of an action or even in a substance (e.g., bread) was not uncommon in Semitic and Jewish religious practices. As Jeremias notes:

<blockquote>When at the daily meal the paterfamilias recites the blessing over the bread – which the members of the household make their own by the “Amen” – and breaks it and hands a piece to each member to eat, the meaning of the action is that each of the members is made a recipient of the blessing by this eating…<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 232.</ref></blockquote>

The bread of blessing, as it were, contains the blessing and conveys it to the willing recipient who says, “Amen” and consumes it.

The blessing which Jesus intends to be internalized by believers is certainly His sacrificed corporeal body; it is also His whole corporeal self. But Jesus’ use of “body” here cannot be restricted to this life alone, for He anticipated that His body would rise, that is, that there would be a fundamental continuity between His whole corporeal self and His “self in risen life with the Father”:

<blockquote>…[W]e can see from the simile and from the use of ekchunnomenon that Jesus did expect a violent death. Mark 14.25 par. makes it clear that Jesus was certain that God would vindicate his death by his resurrection and the establishment of the kingdom.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 225.</ref></blockquote>

What is even more striking is Jesus’ probable intention to use the body of His sacrifice (which He views as being in continuity with His future risen state) to be the medium through which communion with God (and consequent unity among believers) would be effected. Paul implies this in 1Cor 10:15-17:

<blockquote>Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body for we partake of the one loaf.</blockquote>

It seems that by “participation” Paul means more than participating in the historical self-sacrificed body of Jesus; He means participation in the presently existing body of Jesus which is capable of effecting unity among believers through unity with God. McKenzie notes in this regard:

<blockquote>The sacrificial element prominent in this passage of 1 Co and implicit in the formulae of institution is communion with the deity in the sacrificial banquet. Through the Eucharist the deity is rendered present in a striking and unique fashion. Communion is achieved only through Jesus Christ, who is man, and as man is body. The body is therefore rendered really present; the language of the four sources…leaves no room for mere symbolism in this respect. … The body which is present is the glorified body; we seem justified in believing that the NT implies that it is through His resurrection and exaltation that the body of Jesus becomes the Church [the unity of believers]. But this is the body “which was delivered for you,” one and the same Lord Jesus who ''died, rose, and sits at the right hand of the Father.'' Communion is achieved through the ''participation'' of the body and the blood of the victim. The salvation of the NT is not directed to the soul, but to the man, and man in Hebrew thought is body; if salvation is to reach man, his communion with the Savior must be a communication of body.</ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 251. Italics mine.</ref></blockquote

Paul’s view of the “body of Christ” cannot be retroactively put into the mind of Christ, for Paul is speaking in the light of having witnessed the risen Jesus. Nevertheless, one cannot altogether delete Paul’s interpretation from the mind of Jesus, for Jesus associated His “body” with His risen life with the Father, and this risen life would have been the vehicle through which the full meaning of the new covenant (which He viewed as “the kingdom of God” or communion with God) would be effected.

Thus, Jesus’ sacrificial words over the bread might be interpreted as, “This is my body to be sacrificed for you, the body which will be risen and will bring the blessing of communion with the Father and with believers through me. This sacrificed – risen – salvific – unifying – mediating body is my gift of self for you.”<ref>Notice that this interpretation is commensurate with John’s later eucharistic discourse: “This bread is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world. … Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood ''remains in me and I in him.'' …[T]he one who feeds on me will live because of me. … He who feeds on this bread will live forever.” The Evangelist is aware of Jesus’ body as efficacious, that is, as a power capable of bestowing both communion with God (“remains in me and I in him”) and eternal life.</ref> Johannes Betz summarizes this as follows:

<blockquote>Hence, the bodily person of Jesus is present in the supper, not however in the static manner of being of a thing, but as the Servant of God who in his sacrificial death effects the salvation of us all and more precisely as the sacrificial offering of the Servant who delivers himself up on the cross. The real presence of the person is there to actualize the presence of the sacrificial deed and is united with this in an organic whole. The Eucharist becomes, then, the abiding presence in the meal of the sacrificially constituted salvific event “Jesus”, in whom person and work form an inseparable unity.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v. 2, p. 260.</ref></blockquote>

Remarkable as these intentions of Jesus may seem, they do not exhaust the meaning and mystery of His words, for He also intends to communicate His unconditional Love through His “gift of self.” Recall that Jesus’ eucharistic words in the context of the suffering Servant Song may be interpreted as a self-sacrifice (gift of self) to “justify many” and to “bear iniquities.” This definition is similar to Jesus’ view of love manifest in the Beatitudes and in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan.

Paul directly associates Jesus’ self-sacrificial death with “gift of self,” and associates “gift of self” with love in several passages. In the Letter to the Romans:

<blockquote>While we were yet helpless, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly. Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man – though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. But God shows his love [agapēn] for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. (5:6-8)</blockquote>

in the letter to the Galatians:

<blockquote>I have been crucified with Christ…; the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. (2:20)</blockquote>

and in Ephesians:

<blockquote>And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (5:2)</blockquote>

It is difficult to miss similar parallels between Jesus’ Eucharistic words, the Suffering Servant song, and the view of agape in the Gospel of John. Jesus indicates that there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life (i.e., “body”) for one’s friends (Jn 15:13), and further that the Father loves the Son precisely in the laying down (“giving”) of His life (“body”).<ref>See Jn 10:17-18: “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.”</ref>

'''Summary.''' If Jesus’ view of love is “gift of self” (as suggested by Paul and John) then the eucharistic words “this is my body” (i.e., “self”) within the context of self-sacrifice (self-gift) would be virtually equivalent to love. Since this love knows no limit (i.e., it is complete self-sacrifice), it seems equivalent to unconditional Love.

Thus, we might interpret Jesus’ words as follows: “This is my body given in sacrifice, my future risen presence with you, and my unconditional Love – atoning for sin, transforming your hearts, unifying the community, and actualizing the new covenant unto eternal life.” If this is truly what Jesus had in mind as He instituted the Eucharist at the time of the Passover, then the Eucharist is not only Jesus’ interpretation of His passion, but also the vehicle for transmitting His gift of unconditional Love to all future generations. This leads to the next point.

=== “This Cup is the Covenant in My Blood” ===

Recall the reconstruction of Jesus’ words and actions with respect to the cup (Section II.A, above): After the completion of a Passover meal, Jesus initiated the ritual of the wine which He identifies with the covenant in His blood. He took a cup of red wine, gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This cup is the covenant in my blood.” Recall further that the cup of red wine is identified with both (1) Jesus’ blood and (2) “the ''covenant'' in His blood.”<ref>See above, Section I. “The tertium comparationis in the case of the bread is the fact that it was broken, and in the case of the wine the red colour. We have already seen…that it was customary to drink red wine at the Passover…. The comparison between red wine and blood was common in the Old Testament (Gen. 49.11; Deut. 32.14; Isa. 63.3,6), further Ecclus 39.26; 50.15; I Macc. 6.34; Rev. 14.20; Sanh. 70a, etc.” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 223-24).</ref> These two concepts, among the richest in Christian history, deserve individual discussion.

With respect to “blood,” the Greek term “''aima''” was probably derived from Jesus’ words of institution: “''zeh dami''” in Hebrew, and “''den idmi''” in Aramaic. Though its meaning within Jesus’ words of institution is in many ways similar to the Old Testament, it is also significantly different. There are three major similarities:

<blockquote>1) blood is the life principle and it is roughly equivalent to life itself;</blockquote>

<blockquote>2) blood (the life principle) was the vehicle through which atonement occurred in sin or guilt offerings (which is most poignantly described in the ceremony of the scapegoat on the day of atonement<ref>McKenzie notes, “The priest, dressed in linen vestments, takes two goats as a sin-offering…. The atoning agent is the blood of the victim, which symbolizes life” (McKenzie 1965, pp. 69-70).</ref>); and</blockquote>

<blockquote>3) blood is the agency through which a covenant is established, restored, and maintained.<ref>As McKenzie notes, “In the covenant ritual the blood of the victims was dashed on the altar, representing God, and on the people, signifying that the covenant partners share a common life (Ex 24:6ff)” (McKenzie 1965, p. 99).</ref></blockquote>

However, Jesus parts ways with the Old Testament tradition by proposing His blood as drink (Mt 26:27ff; Mk 14:23ff; Lk 22:20; Jn 6:53ff; 1 Co 11:25ff). McKenzie notes in this regard that “…the eating of blood is prohibited (Gn 9:4; Lv 17:10ff); life is conferred by God and is under His dominion. This prohibition was retained in the apostolic Church (AA 15:20).”<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 99.</ref>

Recall that Jesus anticipated a violent death to be followed by His resurrection,<ref>“…[W]e can see from the simile and from the use of ekchunnomenon that Jesus did expect a violent death. Mark 14.25 par. makes it clear that Jesus was certain that God would vindicate his death by his resurrection and the establishment of the kingdom” (Jeremias 1966, p. 225).</ref> and that He separated the rituals of the bread and wine indicating a sacrifice (or in this case, a self-sacrifice).<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept [of body-blood] baśar wadam [Hebrew] or biśra udema [Aramaic] … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref>

Thus, the blood He refers to in the eucharistic ritual is His future sacrificial blood (the blood of the passion). Jesus intended this to be a sacrifice of atonement (as implied by His allusions to the suffering servant and the paschal lamb) which was understood and deeply appreciated by the early Church (and reflected in the Pauline epistles and the Letter to the Hebrews). McKenzie notes in this regard that:

<blockquote>[Jesus] is a propitiatory offering in His blood (Rm 3:25), through which we are made righteous (Rm 5:9). We are redeemed through His blood (Eph 1:7) and through it we draw near to God (Eph 2:13), and by His blood He has made peace (between man and God; Col 1:20). The contrast and analogy between the blood of Jesus and the blood of sacrificial victims is drawn out at length in Heb. His blood excels that of animals (Heb 9:12 ff). Blood is the only effective agent of purification (Heb 9:20 ff) and of the remission of sins (9:22). But the blood of animals cannot remove sins (10:4); Christ has effected eternal redemption by His own blood (9:12), through which we have access to the sanctuary (10:19).<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept [of body-blood] baśar wadam [Hebrew] or biśra udema [Aramaic] … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref></blockquote>

Jesus does not ''directly'' advocate violating the Old Testament proscription against drinking blood (because He is not advocating the drinking of physical blood), yet He ''implicitly'' does this when He advocates drinking the red wine which He ''identifies'' with the blood of His impending sacrifice in order to share the ''redemptive power''<ref>“The blood of the lambs slaughtered at the exodus from Egypt had redemptive power…” (Jeremias 1966, p. 225).</ref> of that sacrifice. Recall that the power of the Passover lamb’s blood was protection against death in a specific situation,<ref>“For the sake of the passover blood God revoked the death sentence against Israel; he said: ‘I will see the blood of the passover and make atonement for you.’ In the same way the people of God of the End time will be redeemed by the merits of the passover blood” (Jeremias 1966, p. 226).</ref> but the power of Jesus’ redemptive blood goes far beyond this because it protects against ''every'' manifestation of death unto eternal life and communion with God. The redemptive power of the lamb’s blood was placed on the ''exterior'' (door posts) of every Hebrew house. Jesus’ blood (redemptive power) is taken interiorly and protects from ''interior'' (spiritual) death, making it the transformative power of eternal communion with God. It is difficult to believe that Jesus would have advocated the implicit violation of the Old Testament proscription (against drinking blood) unless He believed that His blood of sacrifice had the ''real power'' to protect against spiritual death.

Jesus also associates His sacrificial blood with the “blood of the new covenant.”<ref>“The blood of the Eucharist is the blood of the new covenant in all the formulae of institution [see above, Section I], an allusion to Ex 24:8…” (McKenzie 1965, p. 99).</ref> A covenant is a solemn promise. McKenzie notes:

<blockquote>In early Hebrew society written documents were employed little or not at all. In their place the spoken word was invested with ritual solemnity which gave it a kind of concrete reality. The spoken word thus uttered could not be annulled or retracted. … The covenant was such a solemn ritual agreement which served the function of a written contract. The covenanting parties bound themselves by a ritual agreement which included terrible imprecations upon the party which should violate the covenant.<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 153.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, a covenant has the effect of an absolutely guaranteed promise. In the case of Jesus (who is representing Abba as His Son and suffering servant) it has the effect of an absolutely guaranteed promise on the part of an absolutely truthful God.

But what is Jesus’ new covenant promising? Four interrelated promises: (1) communion with God, (2) the new covenant of Jeremiah, (3) Isaiah’s servant covenant, and (4) the eschatological (fulfilled) kingdom of God (Jesus’ mission – what He has come to bring in His person).

With respect to the first point, common life was part of any “covenant in blood,”<ref>“In the covenant ritual the blood of the victims was dashed on the altar, representing God, and on the people, signifying that the covenant partners share a common life (Ex 24:6 ff)” (McKenzie 1965, p. 99).</ref> because the sprinkling of blood indicated that the parties were one blood or one family.<ref>Ex. 24:3-8. See also McKenzie 1965, p. 155.</ref> Thus, covenant between God and human beings would indicate common life or communion with Him. It can hardly be doubted that Jesus intended this very basic meaning of “covenant in blood” in His words of institution.

With respect to the second point, Jeremiah promises (presumably at the messianic time) a new covenant which would be written on the hearts of human beings:

<blockquote>“The time is coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers…. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”<ref> Jeremiah 31:31-34.</ref></blockquote>

Presuming that Jesus was as familiar with this common text in Jeremiah as He was with the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, Jesus would have seen His new covenant as embracing the new law of the heart (the law of love) which He came to bring through His sacrificial death, resurrection, and gift of the Spirit. Jesus would have probably seen the blood of the covenant not only as a guaranteed promise of communion with God, but also as the vehicle through which the law of unconditional Love would be infused within the heart of every human being through the Holy Spirit.

With respect to the third point (Isaiah’s “servant covenant”) it seems highly probable that Jesus who identified Himself as the suffering servant in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 would have also been acutely aware of the preceding servant prophecies (Isaiah 42:6ff and 49:8ff). A brief review of these two passages will show that the servant is the covenant, that the covenant is for all peoples, and that it leads to the atonement of sin and new communion with God:

<blockquote>“I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness” (Is 42:6-7).</blockquote>

And also:

<blockquote>This is what the Lord says: “In the time of my favor I will answer you, and in the day of salvation I will help you; I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people, to restore the land and to reassign its desolate inheritances, to say to the captives, ‘Come out,’ and to those in darkness, ‘Be free!’ They will feed beside the roads and find pasture on every barren hill. … See, they will come from afar – some from the north, some from the west…” (Is 49:8-12).</blockquote>

Given Jesus’ familiarity with the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, and the remarkable parallels with the themes surrounding His institution of the Eucharist (the suffering servant, atonement of sin, poured out for the many – for the all) it seems very unlikely that Jesus would not have had this notion of “servant (Himself as covenant)” in mind when speaking of the new covenant (the new communion) with God at the Eucharist. Hence, the new covenant in His blood is filled with the notion of a complete healing of humanity (sight for the blind, liberty for captives, release for those who sit in darkness, etc.).

The above eschatological dimension leads to the fourth and final point, namely, the covenant as definitive bringing of the kingdom. This dimension of covenant is manifest in Isaiah 59:21:

<blockquote>“As for me, this is my covenant with them” says the Lord. “My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,” says the Lord.</blockquote>

The “forever” here indicates that the covenant brings with it the eschatological kingdom through the permanent imparting of the Spirit of God. When this is combined with Jeremiah 31:31 and the eschatological dimensions of Isaiah 42:6-7, 49:8-12, and 59:21, it seems likely that Jesus viewed the new covenant as a “guaranteed promise of the actualization of the kingdom.” Jeremias links Jesus’ “new covenant” to His new Passover sacrifice (see above, Section II.B.2) and concludes to the following:

<blockquote>Jesus describes his death as this eschatological passover sacrifice: his vicarious (huper) death brings into operation the final deliverance, the new covenant of God. Diathēkē (“covenant”) is a correlate of basileia ton ouranōn (“kingdom of heaven”). The content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus’ death is perfect communion with God (Jer. 31.33-34a) in his reign, based upon the remission of sins (31.34b).<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

'''Summary.''' Unconditional Love would seem to be the power of this beautiful and encompassing new covenant. It is Jesus’ total gift of Himself, His taking the place of an animal in the sin-offering, and the offering of His blood in place of an animal’s blood in the covenant sacrifice that enables us all to be “one blood, one family” with God. It is His act of total humility and self-sacrifice (Agape) which unites us together as God’s family. The Holy Spirit is the personal power effecting this unity, and Jesus is its “body.” Jesus intended that His act of self-sacrifice, His gift of self, His unconditional Love, be the creative power of protection from spiritual death and therefore from all death. The new covenant is the absolute bond, the absolute guarantee, the very principle of eternal life in communion with God. It arises out of unconditional Love, it finds its fulfillment in unconditional Love; it is unconditional Love. Though He may not have used these words, one can scarcely interpret His action of taking the place of an animal in a sacrificial offering to mean anything less. Thus, when He said, “This cup is the covenant in my blood,” He intended to bestow on us an eternal communion with one another through His own person/body given in self-sacrifice. This is unquestionably unconditional Love.

=== “Do this in Remembrance of Me” ===

If Jeremias’ extensive study of ''anamnesis'' (remembrance) within Semitic cult is correct, then Jesus’ command of repetition (“Do this in remembrance of me”) has the double function of (1) asking God to recall something of religious significance, and (2) asking God to make that blessing really present (to recreate that blessing in the present).

With respect to the first point, Jeremias shows that in both the Old Testament and New Testament (Mark 14:9, Matt 26:13, and Acts 10:4) a ritual remembrance is not so much directed at the human subject but at God so that He might remember: “…[I]n the Old Testament and Palestinian memorial formulae it is almost always God who remembers. In accordance with this the command for repetition may be translated: ‘This do, that God may remember me’”<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 251-52.</ref>

With respect to the second point, Jeremias notes:

<blockquote>This calling into the presence of God [remembrance – anamnesis], this bringing to life before God, this recalling of the past, this is, on the other side, effective. It has a purpose, it is intended to effect something: that God may remember – mercifully or punishingly. God’s remembrance is, namely (this is an important fact to which O. Michel called attention), never a simple remembering of something, but always and without exception “an effecting and creating event.” When Luke 1.72 says that God remembers his covenant, this means that he is now fulfilling the eschatological covenant promise.<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 248-49. Italics mine on “effecting and creating” and “now fulfilling.”</ref></blockquote>

If we combine all these elements, it would seem that when Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me,” He expected that He and His self-sacrificial action would be presented to God (the Father) to be made present (real) in the blessed and distributed bread whenever the words of institution were repeated. Johannes Betz summarizes the work of Michel, Jeremias, and others as follows:

<blockquote>''Anamnesis'' in the biblical sense means not only the subjective representation of something in the consciousness and as an act of the remembering mind. It is also the objective effectiveness and presence of one reality in another, especially the effectiveness and presence of the salvific actions of God, in the liturgical worship. Even in the OT, the liturgy is the privileged medium in which the covenant attains actuality. The meaning of the logion may perhaps be paraphrased as follows: do this (what I have done) in order to bring about my presence, to make really present the salvation wrought in me.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v. 2, p. 260.</ref></blockquote>

We may here see Jesus’ intention to extend His self-sacrificial gift, His whole self, and the covenant in His blood to all future generations through a ritual which recreates the efficacy of His passion through His real presence. This desire to share in perpetuity is yet another manifestation of the unconditional nature of Jesus’ self-sacrificial covenant love.

=== “Poured Out for Many” ===

As noted above, the notion of pollōn (many) in Jesus’ logion “poured out for many” is a translation of the Hebrew rabbim which can have an exclusive or inclusive meaning. When it has the inclusive meaning, it signifies “all.” Jeremias summarizes these linguistic issues as follows:

While “many” in Greek (as in English) stands in opposition to “all”, and therefore has the exclusive sense (“many, but not all”), Hebrew rabbim can have the inclusive sense (“the whole, comprising many individuals”). This inclusive use is connected with the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic possess no word for “all”.

This inclusive sense of rabbim was very common in Old Testament and intertestamental literature. When it is accompanied by the definite article in Talmudic and even New Testament texts, it almost always has an inclusive meaning (“all”); but, as Jeremias points out, it can frequently have an inclusive meaning even without the definite article.

In the New Testament (with respect to Jesus’ self-sacrificial passion), Mark 10:45 uses pollōn in the inclusive sense to refer to Jesus’ “ransom for many.” This passage refers back to the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 53:10-12 which is interpreted in 1Timothy 2:6 by using the Greek word “all” (pantōn) instead of “many” (pollōn). According to Jeremias:

Of especial importance for our passage is Mark 10.45 par., lutron anti pollōn “a ransom for many”. That polloi has here the inclusive meaning “all” is shown by the reference in Mark 10.45 to Isa. 53.10-12, as well as by the parallel in I Tim. 2.6: antilutron huper pantōn, “a ransom for all”. Just as Mark 10.45, so also our passage Mark 14.24 [Jesus’ eucharistic words] is to be interpreted in the inclusive sense. Pollōn is therefore a Semitism. ¶ 14.24 to ekchunnomenon huper pollōn (“the[blood] poured out for many”). The placing of the prepositional phrase at the end corresponds to Semitic word order. That it is placed between the article and the participle independently of each other in Matthew as well as in Luke shows that the position at the end sounds harsh in Greek.

This remarkable parallel which shows the rabbim in Isaiah 53:10-12 to be translated by both pollōn (many) and pantōn (all) in Mark and 1Timothy, respectively, and the very uncharacteristically Greek (but characteristically Semitic) expressions of the eucharistic words in Mark and Matthew offer strong evidence that Jesus’ rabbim was meant in an inclusive sense, and therefore, as “all” (all human beings).

Once again, the unconditional nature of Jesus’ love emerges. His sacrificial act is not for a chosen few, but rather for all humankind. He offers this not only to His generation, but all future generations. His gift of Himself is total and universal. His love is unconditional.

== Conclusion ==

Given the above interpretation of Jesus’ eucharistic words and actions, one can scarcely deny His intention to give Himself completely to all humankind in the sacrificial act. He not only wanted to give Himself completely in sacrifice (in imitation of the suffering servant, the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and taking the place of an animal in a sin-offering and a covenant sacrifice), but also wanted to be present to us and in us for all generations and all time. This seems to meet the requirements for an unconditional act of love.

Yes, Jesus had a plan, an unconditionally loving plan, as He proceeded toward imminent death in Jerusalem. He planned to atone for the sins of all unconditionally, and to initiate a covenant of unconditional communion with God in everlasting life, through a ritual which would make the blessing of His sacrifice, self, and love really present in perpetuity. Jesus not only wanted the consummation of His mission (His passion) to be an act of total self-sacrifice, He wanted to give it away to everyone for all generations (unconditionally and universally).

If God were Unconditional Love, would He do something like this as Emmanuel (God with us)? Would He give Himself away in self-sacrifice, and then give that self-sacrificial love away forever? If such actions would typify an unconditionally loving God, then Jesus would seem to be His Emmanuel – His Unconditional Love with us.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Eucharist

2015-01-08T15:43:28Z

David Persyn: /* “Do this in Remembrance of Me” */ Formats and Footnotes

Magis ChristWiki - Magis Institute

Unit II. L

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Eucharist

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-L_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Eucharist.3F | Return to Table of Contents]]

Saint Paul believed that the clearest demonstration of Jesus’ love was in His passion and death: “But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rm 5:8). Jesus instituted the Eucharist to give the “total gift of Himself in the passion” to all future generations. He deliberately walked into His passion by traveling to Jerusalem before the feast of the Passover when the authorities were evidently seeking to put an end to His ministry and even His life. He did this because He had a plan in mind; a plan to give the blessing and power of His person and passion to all future generations through a ritual arising out of His interpretation of the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. The Beloved One of the Father intended to make us all beloveds in His own image by giving Himself (and the eschatological kingdom of love) to us in a definitive, unconditional act. This consummation of His mission (His raison d’être) reveals His core identity. The question naturally follows, “Would it be typical of an unconditionally loving God who enters into complete empathy with us to have such a self-sacrificial mission and plan?” If so, then this is one of our most profound signs that Jesus is Emmanuel.

== Did Jesus Institute the Eucharist at a Passover Meal? ==

Joachim Jeremias’ classic work, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus is still acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive treatments of this subject with the most extensive analysis of rabbinical traditions.<ref>Meier 1991, p. 395.</ref> Some exegetes feel uneasy about his application of rabbinical traditions and extratestamental material to New Testament texts,<ref>See Meier 1991, p. 395.</ref> and many scholars do not agree with his assignment of the Last Supper to the Passover meal, because it requires that too much activity take place on Passover day (the 15th of Nisan):

<blockquote>Despite Jeremias’ deft command of the material, he cannot really establish the likelihood that, at the time of Jesus, the supreme Jewish authorities in Jerusalem would arrest a person suspected of a capital crime, immediately convene a meeting of the Sanhedrin to hear the case (a case involving the death penalty), hold a formal trial with witnesses, reach a decision that the criminal deserved to die, and hand over the criminal to the Gentile authorities with a request for execution on the same day – all within the night and early day hours of Passover Day, the fifteenth of Nisan!<ref>Meier 1991, p. 396.</ref></blockquote>

For this reason, Meier believes that it is more probable that the Last Supper took place on the day before the Passover meal (on the eve of the 14th of Nisan), which corresponds with John’s dating of it rather than the Synoptics’.<ref>See Meier 1991, p. 396.</ref>

Yet, the placement of the Last Supper on the eve of the 14th of Nisan does not rule out the possibility that Jesus, aware of what was to befall Him, celebrated a Passover supper with His disciples (without a lamb) on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. Since the lambs were slaughtered prior to the meal on the 15th of Nisan, it would not have been possible for Jesus to celebrate the Passover meal with a lamb. This is consistent with New Testament accounts which make multiple references to the Passover meal,<ref>See, for example, Luke 22:15 (“I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer”); Luke 22:13 (“they prepared the Passover”); Luke 22:11 (“tell the householder, ‘the Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I am to eat the Passover with my disciples?”); Mark 14:12 (“Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”); Luke 22:8 (“Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it”); Luke 22:7 (“[it was] the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed”). Even if one ignores the passages which refer to the Marcan dating of the Last Supper on the eve of the 15th of Nisan (such as Luke 22:7), there are five distinct references (without dating) to a Passover meal.</ref> but no references to a lamb.

There are six reasons why a Passover meal should not be ruled out even if it occurred on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. First, as noted above, the Passover is linked to Jesus’ Last Supper multiple times in all three synoptic Gospels. Secondly, there are differences in the chronology of the Synoptic Gospels which indicate that a Passover meal could have been celebrated at different times within the weeklong celebration leading up to Passover. The reference to the “first day” in Mark and Luke, as Harrington suggests, betrays a mixed chronology, for:

<blockquote>the paschal lamb was normally eaten on the first day of the feast. Yet Mark describes the “first day” as the day of preparation when the lambs were slaughtered, corresponding to Wednesday, while the meal would be celebrated that evening.<ref>Harrington 1991, p. 392.</ref></blockquote>

Thirdly, the Passover is mentioned in a unique, ancient formula recounted in Luke’s Gospel, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.”<ref>See the extensive analysis of Jeremias in 1966, pp. 190-92.</ref> Fourthly, Jeremias detects several Semitisms behind the wording in the Gospel passages which are traceable to the Passover ceremony itself (such as the “fruit of the vine” in Luke 22:18).<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 161-62.</ref> Fifthly, Jeremias notes that:

<blockquote>[T]he pre-Pauline Passover haggadah preserved in I Cor. 5.7f. calls Jesus “our passover (lamb)” and that Paul presupposes as self-evident the familiarity of the Corinthian community with this comparison, a comparison widespread in the early Christian literature.<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 222-23.</ref></blockquote>

Sixthly, there are references to the Passover meal within the passages (e.g., the multiple cups, which seems to have come from Luke’s special source [22:17-18], and the Passover haggadah between the word over the bread and the word over the cup<ref>See Jeremias 1966, p. 85 and 221.</ref>). In sum, these distinct ancient sources of the institution of the Eucharist at Passover indicate a common Palestinian source which very probably goes back to Jesus Himself.

Could Jesus have celebrated an adapted Passover meal with His disciples on the eve of the 14th of Nisan to anticipate His impending death which would have occurred near the time of the slaughtering of the lambs? Since Jesus was not unaccustomed to adapting Jewish doctrine and ritual to conform to His own doctrinal and ritual requirements, this possibility cannot be ruled out. Even if Jesus did not celebrate a Passover meal (without a lamb) at the Last Supper, He could have borrowed particular rituals from it or alluded to it during the Last Supper. For this reason, I will include Jeremias’ references to the Passover meal in the forthcoming analysis. The reader may want to bear in mind that these Passover rituals may not have occurred, but may only have been implied in Jesus’ actions during the Last Supper.

The analysis will be carried out in two steps:

1) a brief synopsis of Jeremias’ and others’ exegetical work on the original tradition (Section II.A); and

2) the meaning of Jesus’ eucharistic words and actions (Section II.B).

== Jeremias’ Interpretation of the Original Tradition ==

There are four traditions of Jesus’ Eucharistic words:<ref>There is also a tradition in John (6:25-59), but it is a Eucharistic discourse instead of a recounting of the Last Supper; a specific exegesis of this passage is beyond the objective of this study.</ref>

1) I Corinthians 11:23-26:

<blockquote>For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.</blockquote>

2) Mark 14:22-25:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take; this is my body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” He said to them. “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”</blockquote>

3) Matthew 26:26-29:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”</blockquote>

4) Luke 22:17-20:

<blockquote>After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”</blockquote>

A brief glance at the above four traditions reveals two branches of an original tradition – (1) a Paul-Luke branch (which makes specific reference to remembrance; a new covenant; and, in the case of Luke alone, “poured out for you”), and (2) a Mark-Matthew branch (which makes no reference to remembrance; refers to covenant, but not a new covenant; and makes the objective of Jesus’ outpouring for many). Jeremias has split this project into two parts: (1) the four common areas of these traditions (which, given the different theologies in the two branches, would probably have to have their origin in a common source), and (2) in areas where the branches differ, locating the more primitive tradition through grammatical constructions and the presence of Semitisms. The two analyses will bring us close to an original tradition which may closely resemble Jesus’ own words.

There are four common areas within the four traditions:

<blockquote>(1) Jesus’ action with respect to the bread: “took bread, gave thanks [in the case of Paul, “after he had given thanks”], and broke it,”</blockquote>

<blockquote>(2) Jesus’ words over the bread: “this is my body [soma],”</blockquote>

<blockquote>(3) Jesus’ action with respect to the cup. In Mark-Matthew: “Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them.” In Paul-Luke: “In the same way” (referring to the way in which He gave the bread, i.e., “took bread and gave thanks… and gave it to them”), and</blockquote>

<blockquote>(4) Jesus’ word over the cup: “This is my blood of the covenant.” Evidently, Paul and Luke refer to the new covenant whereas Mark and Matthew refer only to the covenant.<ref>Jeremias shows through a grammatical analysis that, despite surface appearances, the Paul-Luke version is essentially the same as the Mark-Matthew version even though the Paul-Luke version refers to the cup (where Mark-Matthew does not), and Paul-Luke refers to “the covenant in my blood” while Mark-Matthew refers to the “blood of the covenant.” See Jeremias 1966, pp. 168-69.</ref></blockquote>

Jeremias holds that the Marcan version of the word over the bread is the more original tradition while the Pauline version of the word over the cup is the more original:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “Take; this is my body.” (Mark 14:22)</blockquote>

<blockquote>In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (1Cor. 11:25a).</blockquote>

Jeremias believes there is good reason for holding the Pauline version to be the more original formula for the word over the cup on linguistic grounds, because the Mark-Matthew version is far more symmetrical, indicating the need to take a more complex narrative form (in Paul-Luke) and convert it to a more symmetrical liturgical form in Mark-Matthew. Though it may be thought that the Paul-Luke form is more apologetically appealing (because it is less evocative of drinking blood in a pagan ritual which would have been repulsive to Jewish people), and therefore later than the Mark-Matthew version (which may have given rise to these apologetically unappealing misimpressions), Paul’s version is probably the earlier because it reveals a separation in time between the word over the bread and the word over the wine (to account for the consumption of the meal between the two events) which the Mark-Matthew version does not represent. Thus, the Mark-Matthew version seems to be a later formula taken from the liturgy, which did not need to account for the separation of the meal (as a more narrative account would have) and needed to be more symmetrical for the sake of liturgical repetition.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 169-171 and 191-92.</ref>

It now remains to establish which of the other three divergent areas is the more original. As implied above, there are three areas of divergence:

<blockquote>a) “the new covenant” (Paul-Luke) versus “the covenant” (Mark-Matthew),</blockquote>

<blockquote>b) poured out for you (Luke) versus “poured out for many” (Mark-Matthew), and</blockquote>

<blockquote>c) word of remembrance – ''anamnēsis'' (in Paul-Luke, but not mentioned in Mark-Matthew).</blockquote>

I will briefly summarize Jeremias’ judgment on these three matters so that an original tradition (close to the words and actions of Jesus) may be adduced.

With respect to the new covenant, Jeremias holds that the Mark-Matthew version would probably be the earlier because the placement of the adjective “new” prior to “covenant” is Hellenistic (but not Semitic) indicating that it originated “on Hellenistic soil.”<ref>Though the Pauline formula is not the more original of the two, its pre-Pauline origins are indicated by its agreement with Luke. See Jeremias 1966, pp. 171-72.</ref>

With respect to the “poured out for you” (Luke) versus “poured out for many”<ref>As will be discussed below, “for many,” in the Semitic sense of “rabbim” which was probably uttered by Jesus, is inclusive (that is, it does not exclude some in contrast to the totality, as in the common Greek and English uses of it – e.g., “many, but not everybody”). The reason for this is that there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word for “all.” Thus, the inclusive sense of “rabbim” explicitly includes the totality and its individual members. See Jeremias 1966, p. 179.</ref> (Mark-Matthew), Jeremias holds that “for many” is the more original on the basis of linguistic grounds, namely, “for many” is a Semitism while “you” is not. Jeremias attributes the replacement of “many” by “you” as having a liturgical purpose where each worshiper feels him or herself to be individually addressed (by “you”), which would not happen with the indefinite “many.” In view of this, he holds that the replacement of “many” by “you” is not an attempt to limit the atoning work of Jesus arising out of later theological reflection.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 172.</ref>

Finally, with respect to the word of remembrance (which Jeremias terms the command for repetition), Paul mentions it twice (after the word over the bread and the word over the wine), Luke mentions it once (after the word over the bread), but Mark and Matthew omit it altogether. Jeremias holds that this tradition is pre-Pauline but probably not a part of the oldest traditions. Yet it could well have originated with Jesus. There are three reasons for suspecting this. First, the bread and wine rituals took on a high degree of significance apart from the meal (suggesting a command of repetition from Jesus with respect to them, but not with respect to the meal separating them). Secondly, the words over the bread and wine are so often repeated that they quickly become a central Christian ritual (which gives them far more significance than mere parts of a farewell meal or a commemoration of Jesus’ death<ref>Jeremias has an extensive discussion of the contention that the word of remembrance was a later Greek accretion imitating annual celebrations of the dead. One of his reasons for rejecting this thesis is that the Christian ritual was daily or weekly and not merely an annual celebration. See Jeremias 1966, pp. 238-43.</ref>) suggesting once again a command of repetition from Jesus. Thirdly, it would be unusual for early liturgical formulations to contain this command since, as Jeremias notes, “the celebration itself was its fulfillment.”<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 238.</ref> In view of the fact that Jesus said much more during the meal than was recorded, it may be surmised that He gave a command of repetition.

So what can we now conclude about Jesus’ actions and words? If the earliest narratives reflect Jesus’ actions, and if Jeremias’ conjectures about Jesus’ words are correct, we can conclude that Jesus gathered with His disciples before the feast of the Passover and indicated to them that He longed to celebrate this Passover with them, but instead of doing so, fasted while the other disciples celebrated.<ref>See Jeremias’ convincing argument in 1966, pp. 208-09.</ref> After drinking one of the four Passover cups while they were eating the Passover meal (or an adapted Passover ritual),<ref>See the discussion of this topic in the introduction to Section II above.</ref> Jesus initiated the ritual of the bread, identifying it with His body: “Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take; this is my body.’” Then, after the completion of the Passover meal (or adapted Passover ritual), Jesus initiated the ritual of the wine which He identifies with the covenant in His blood. He took a cup of red wine, gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This cup is the covenant in my blood.”<ref>Though Jesus identifies the red wine with the “covenant in His blood,” it is clear from the red wine, the parallelism with the bread, and the use of “this cup” that Jesus is identifying the red wine with both His blood and the covenant in His blood. Jeremias notes that the color of the wine is significant here: “The tertium comparationis in the case of the bread is the fact that it was broken, and in the case of the wine the red colour. We have already seen…that it was customary to drink red wine at the Passover…. The comparison between red wine and blood was common in the Old Testament (Gen. 49.11; Deut. 32.14; Isa. 63.3,6), further Ecclus 39.26; 50.15; I Macc. 6.34; Rev. 14.20; Sanh. 70a, etc.” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 223-24).</ref> Sometime either prior to or after this (perhaps both), Jesus gives a command of repetition similar to “Do this in remembrance of me.”

If this reconstruction is accurate, we may now proceed to a brief summary of Jeremias’ and others’ conclusions about the meaning of these words and the ritual they constitute.

== The Meaning of Jesus’ Eucharistic Words and Actions ==

Six elements of Jesus’ institution of the Eucharist merit interpretation:

(1) His view of Himself as “suffering servant” (Is 52:13-53:12 – see Section II.B.1);

(2) Jesus as the new sacrificial paschal lamb (II.B.2);

(3) “This is my body” (soma – II.B.3);

(4) “This cup is the covenant in my blood” (II.B.4);

(5) “Do this in remembrance of me” (II.B5); and

(6) “poured out for many” (II.B.6).

As will become evident, the synthesis of these six elements (in their proper interpretation) points strongly to Jesus’ action as one of unconditional Love, which reveals a heart of unconditional Love.

=== Jesus as Suffering Servant ===

It may be helpful to here set out the whole Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12, because reference will be made to it throughout this Unit on the Eucharist as well as the forthcoming Unit on the passion of Jesus:

<blockquote>See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as there were many who were appalled at him – his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness – so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand (52:13-15).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him (53:1-2).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not (53:3).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted (53:4).</blockquote>

<blockquote>But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed (53:5).</blockquote>

<blockquote>We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all (53:6).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth (53:7).</blockquote>

<blockquote>By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken (53:8).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth (53:9).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities (53:10-11).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he ''poured'' out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of ''many'', and made intercession for the transgressors (53:12 – italics mine).</blockquote>

The obvious tie-in between the suffering servant song and Jesus’ eucharistic words occurs at 53:12. The phrase “poured out for many,” which is a part of the oldest tradition of the eucharistic words, has a remarkable parallel with Isaiah 53:12 which states:

<blockquote>…because he poured out (he’erah) his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many (rabbim)….”</blockquote>

The Hebrew background of both Jesus’ eucharistic words and Isaiah 53:12 as well as the context of these words (the sacrifice of Jesus and the suffering servant) are so close that it would be difficult to believe that the ancient tradition of Jesus’ eucharistic words was not referring to Isaiah 53:12.<ref>According to Jeremias, [“poured out for many”] “is linked with an Old Testament passage: Isa. 53.12, ‘because he poured out (he’erah) his life to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many (rabbim) and made intercession for the transgressors’ (the reference is to the Hebrew text of this passage, a fact to be kept in mind as evidence of the age of the tradition). This allusion to the Old Testament passage on the suffering servant is supported by the fact that the word rabbim/πολλοί is almost a ''leit-motiv'' in Isa. 52.13-53.12.” Jeremias 1966, pp. 226-7.</ref> Moreover, Jesus seems to have had an intimate acquaintance with the texts of Deutero-Isaiah,<ref>See Betz, 1968-70, v.2, p. 257.</ref> and also seems to have interpreted His life and His mission in terms of this passage which was uncannily similar to the passion He was about to suffer. Hence, it seems likely that Jesus intended the words “poured out for many” in a way that could be interpreted through the lens of the Suffering Servant song. This means that Jesus intends His eucharistic actions and words in an expiatory way, that is, as a “sin offering” or “guilt offering” for the sins of many. Johannes Betz notes in this regard:

<blockquote>Jesus accomplished the decisive purpose of His life, His task as Messiah, in carrying out the mission of the servant of God of Deutero-Isaiah, who as God’s majestic envoy proclaims and inaugurates a new phase in salvation and who as martyr takes upon Himself expiatory sufferings for the sins of the many.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v.2, p. 258.</ref></blockquote>

It would seem, therefore, that Jesus had this Suffering Servant song deeply in mind when He decided to proceed toward Jerusalem with full knowledge that the authorities were seeking to persecute Him (see John 11:8). This makes sense of both His resoluteness toward impending death and His obvious preparation for the eucharistic ritual (with its imbedded passage from Isaiah 53:12), which would, in turn, make sense of Matthew’s additional words (probably reflective of a later tradition): “for the forgiveness of sins.”<ref>This is imbedded within Jesus’ words over the cup: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt. 26:28).</ref>

The logic of this sin offering may seem a bit confusing to a contemporary audience, especially the passage in Isaiah that states, “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see the light of life and be satisfied” (Isaiah 53:10). At first glance, it may seem that the portrayal of the Lord in this passage (and therefore Jesus’ view of God’s will) is sadistic, but this is certainly not the case, for Jesus’ interpretation of the Isaiah passage is set within His view of the Father as “Abba” and Himself as Son and Beloved. Thus, Jesus’ interpretation of this passage must be seen within the context of the logic of love, which makes the Johannine words of Jesus particularly significant, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (Jn 15:13). If this passage represents Jesus’ interpretive principle for both the Isaiah passage and His Eucharistic words, then Jesus would have interpreted “the Lord’s will to crush him” in terms of the Father’s acceptance of Jesus’ love offering (the gift of Himself) for the sins of the world.

Recall for a moment some of the observations about Jesus’ view of love (agape) from the previous Unit. We saw that Jesus viewed love as the highest commandment (Mark 12:30 and par.), and that He elucidated His view of love through the beatitudes (Matt 5:3-12), which included humble-heartedness, gentle-heartedness, hungering and thirsting for the will of God, being merciful (which includes being forgiving), peacemaking, and enduring persecution for the kingdom of God. Ironic as it may seem, Jesus’ self-sacrificial gift for the expiation of sins synthesizes and catalyzes every one of these elements from the beatitudes and concretizes their “synthesis in love” within not only historical but future reality.<ref>Paul did not miss this insight in Colossians 3:12-14: “Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which is the bond of completeness.” See the explanation of this passage in Unit II-J, Section IV.</ref>

The Gospel of John has captured Jesus’ intention well. There is no greater love (the synthesis of the beatitudes) that a person can have than to give his life. In light of Jesus’ view of the Father as Abba (which has embedded within it generative, compassionate, forgiving, restoring, affectionate love – similar to the father’s love in the Prodigal Son parable), it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus would have loosely interpreted the words of Isaiah 53:10 to mean “it would have pleased the Father – despite His pain – to see the self-sacrificial (loving) will of His Son become a reality for all humanity.” Just because Jesus uses Isaiah 52:13-53:12 as an interpretive principle for His self-sacrifice does not mean that He agrees with every theological element in that passage. Indeed, Jesus was known to have loosely interpreted and even reinterpreted many passages from Torah and the prophets. It would seem inconceivable that Jesus could have interpreted Isaiah 53:10 outside the context of His being the beloved Son of Abba.

Therefore, we might look at Jesus’ mindset about the passion and Eucharist (as He approached Jerusalem) as follows. First, He intended to make Himself an expiatory offering much like the one spoken of in Isaiah 53:8ff:

<blockquote>…for the transgression of my people he was stricken…. …and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering…. …my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. …because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.</blockquote>

Secondly, Jesus had a twofold understanding of the efficacy of this “sin offering”: (1) the efficacy of sacrifice, and (2) the efficacy of love. With respect to the efficacy of sacrifice, it seems probable that Jesus organized His Eucharistic words to indicate that He was making a sacrifice of Himself. By separating the words over the body and the blood, Jesus implied that what He was about to endure on the cross was like the separation of flesh and blood in a cultic sacrifice.<ref>“This formula derives from Ex 24:8 and characterizes the content of the cup primarily as the cultic sacrificial element “blood”, which is separated from the flesh, then also the death of Jesus as the separation of flesh and blood after the manner of a cultic sacrifice” (Betz 1968-70, v.2, p. 259). See also Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22: “…[I]t also designates, as already in ancient Hebrew, the two component parts of the body [flesh and blood], especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed.”</ref>

Yet, Jesus was not making Himself a cultic sacrifice in the traditional sense, for He, the Son, the Beloved One, the innocent One, made Himself the sacrificial gift for those who are not innocent, in the certain hope of the resurrection and universal atonement. Betz notes in this regard:

<blockquote>Taking on alien guilt meant taking on also the necessity of death. As his life went on, Jesus thought more frequently of his death and spoke more frequently of it to his disciples…. It was for Jesus not something that merely happened to him, but a conscious and willed deed to which he assented as a necessity in the history of salvation, and on which he freely decided (Lk 12:50). His total readiness for the death which was the mission of the Servant of the Lord is also expressed in the logion of the ransom (Mk 10:45), and the prophecies of the passion (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:32ff). … His death is total dedication and the deepest fulfillment of his being. … Unlike the ''cultic'' sacrifices, there is no separate ''gift'' which stands for the offerer and symbolizes his dedication to God. Here the offerer himself functions as ''gift'' in his own person and accomplishes the sacrificial dedication by the real shedding of his blood. Jesus must have been sure that God would accept this sacrifice, his body, and hence that God would fill it with new life. Thus the death of Jesus brings with it the resurrection as an inner consequence, as an essential part of it, regardless of the difference in time between the two events.<ref>Betz, 1968-70, v.2, p. 258. Italics mine.</ref></blockquote>

The middle term, as it were, between efficacy of sacrifice and efficacy of love is gift. As is clear from the above, a cultic sacrifice finds its efficacy in the gift given to God, and, as is clear from the Johannine passage on love, there is no greater love than to give one’s life. When Jesus made Himself the gift in the sacrificial offering, He transformed the efficacy of that gift from one of cultic proportion to one of unconditional Love. This is evidenced in Jesus’ use of the word “covenant” (“the covenant in my blood”) which, as will be seen below, implies a bond of love.

In sum, when Jesus proceeded to Jerusalem He planned to complete His mission of being the suffering (messianic) servant of the Lord by becoming a sacrificial gift for all transgressors. In so doing, he hoped to effect an atonement for all sins as a perfect sacrifice (that is, as the self-sacrifice of the beloved innocent one) in place of cultic sin offerings. This atonement went far beyond mechanical cultic sin offerings because it was fundamentally an act of unconditional self-giving (Love) for humankind. This act of unconditional Love was the source and power of perfect atonement and a new covenant which promised eternal life through the God who has loved us so.

=== Jesus as the New Sacrificial Paschal Lamb ===

As noted above, it is likely that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper within the context of a Passover meal – perhaps an adapted Passover meal (without a lamb) on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. So why would Jesus have chosen the Passover celebration to make His sacrifice and institute the Eucharist? Jeremias believes that He wanted to compare Himself to the paschal lamb, or perhaps better, He wanted to be the eschatological paschal lamb – the one who was to initiate the new covenant (which He correlated with the kingdom of God) in His blood:<ref>Jeremias sees Jesus’ identification of Himself with the paschal lamb as correlative with His identification of the bread and wine with His own person. He also notes that the early Pauline community commonly understood Jesus to be the paschal lamb. See Jeremias 1966, p. 222-23.</ref>

<blockquote>With the words ''den biśri'', “this is my (sacrificial) flesh”, and ''den idmi'', “this is my (sacrificial) blood”, Jesus is therefore most probably speaking of himself as the paschal lamb. He is the eschatological paschal lamb, representing the fulfillment of all that of which the Egyptian paschal lamb and all the subsequent sacrificial paschal lambs were the prototype.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 223.</ref></blockquote>

It should not be thought that the absence of a lamb at an adapted Passover meal (on the eve of the 14th of Nisan) militates against Jeremias’ thesis that Jesus associated Himself with the eschatological paschal lamb, for if Jesus did celebrate the Passover on the eve of the 14th of Nisan, His own passion would have begun at the time that the paschal lambs were being slaughtered in preparation for the feast celebrated on the eve of the 15th of Nisan. This would correlate well with the Last Supper’s anticipation of the impending self-sacrifice which might have been Jesus’ very intention.

The lamb is a simile for two essential dimensions of the Eucharist: (1) the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, and (2) the sacrifice initiating the covenant (leading out of slavery into a new life of freedom in the “promised land”). With respect to the forgiveness of sins, Jeremias notes:

<blockquote>By comparing himself with the eschatological paschal lamb Jesus describes his death as a saving death. … [A]t the passover meal the attention was directed…to the one “passover of the exodus” for the sake of which God had mercifully “passed over” the houses of the Israelites. The blood of the lambs slaughtered at the exodus from Egypt had redemptive power…<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 225.</ref></blockquote>

This “redemptive power,” this atonement for sins, protects from death and leads to everlasting life:

<blockquote>As a reward for the Israelites’ obedience to the commandment to spread blood on their doors, God manifested himself and spared them, “passing over” their houses. For the sake of the passover blood God revoked the death sentence against Israel; he said: “I will see the blood of the passover and make atonement for you.” In the same way the people of God of the End time will be redeemed by the merits of the Passover blood.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus sees His blood not only as a protection from death in this world (in imitation of the blood of the lamb at the Passover), but also as an eschatological protection (that is, a protection from death itself) which opens upon an eternal life of communion with Him and the Father:

<blockquote>Jesus describes his death as this eschatological passover sacrifice: his vicarious (''huper'') ''death brings into operation the final deliverance'', the new covenant of God. ''Diathēkē'' (“covenant”) is a correlate of ''basileia tōn ouranōn'' (“kingdom of heaven”). The content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus’ death is perfect communion with God (Jer. 31.33-34a) in his reign, based upon the remission of sins (31.34b).<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, Jesus’ selection of the Passover (whether this was celebrated on the eve of the 14th or 15th of Nisan) as the context for His death was a deliberate attempt to manifest a ''sacrificial''<ref>As noted above, the separation of the word over the bread and the word over the wine by a Passover supper separates Jesus’ flesh from Jesus’ blood which would have been commonly understood by His audience to signify His self-sacrifice (reminiscent of all sacrifices which separate the flesh and blood of the gifts offered).</ref> death, and therefore, His institution of the Eucharist at this time established Him as the new Passover sacrifice for the atonement of sins and the initiation of the new covenant unto eternal communion with Him and His Father.<ref>This is why the tradition used by Matthew which references the forgiveness of sins (“Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” – Mt 26:28), though unique in the texts of the eucharistic words and therefore probably not original, is compatible with Jesus’ intentions at the last supper. This is further confirmed by Jesus’ references to the suffering servant who atones for the sins of many by his self-sacrificial act (see above, II.A).</ref>

There is one more element to be discussed about Jesus’ identification of Himself with the Passover lamb, namely, its correlation with agape. Recall that there is a natural correlation between Jesus’ view of love and the beatitudes (see Unit II-J, Section IV). Love is humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, peace-making, merciful (forgiving), and accepting of persecution for the kingdom of God. Jesus’ identification of Himself with the unblemished (innocent) lamb (correlative with the suffering servant<ref>“He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth” (Is 53:7).</ref>) brings to mind the humility and gentleness of the paschal lamb, as well as the forgiveness, reconciliation, and “endurance of persecution” intrinsic to its sacrifice. By making Himself a self-sacrificial Passover offering, Jesus revealed Himself to be Unconditional Love.

Thus, it is not only the sacrificial aspect of Jesus’ self-offering which has the redemptive power to atone for sins and establish a covenant of eternal communion with God, but also the unconditional Love intrinsic to that sacrifice. Jesus’ first-century audience would have probably noticed the redemptive power in the sacrifice more readily than in His unconditional Love, but subsequent generations, reflecting on Jesus’ words of love, began to realize that the unconditional Love intrinsic to the self-sacrifice is the sacrifice’s redemptive power. Jesus was not using sacrifice in some kind of magical-mystical way to elicit God’s power; neither did He believe that God the Father was demanding that He sacrifice Himself in a mechanical way to atone for sins (“I will put my Son on one side of the scale to balance off all the negatives on your side”); Jesus sacrificed Himself to concretely actualize unconditional self-sacrificial gift (unconditional Love) in the world, which is the redemptive power overcoming all hatred, darkness, emptiness, and evil. Notice that the Son’s self-sacrifice in unconditional Love was also the Father’s self-sacrifice, for the Father had to give His Son as much as the Son had to give Himself.

=== “This is My Body” (''Sōma'') ===

We may now turn to the words of institution within the context of the suffering servant and the paschal lamb. To what does “this” (''touto'' – in Aramaic, “''den''”) refer in “this is my body?” Jeremias notes that it cannot refer to Jesus’ action of breaking the bread, but rather to the bread itself:

<blockquote>This interpretation [that “this” refers to Jesus’ breaking of the bread], which in any case is incompatible with the ''touto estin'' (“this is”), would only be feasible if the actions named coincided with the words of interpretation. But that is not the case. As regards the bread-word, the fact that it is preceded by ''gabete'' (“take”) shows that Jesus said it not as the bread was being broken, but as it was being distributed.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 220.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus identifies the bread (signified by ''touto/den'') with His body (''sōma''). The Semitic background of ''sōma'', according to Jeremias, is incontestably ''zeh baśari'' (Hebrew) and ''den bisri'' (Aramaic).<ref>“…the words of interpretation (if what has just been presented is conclusive) read, according to Mark, in Hebrew ''zeh beśari'' and ''zeh dami'', and in Aramaic ''den biśri'' and ''den idmi''” (Jeremias 1966, p. 201; see also p. 200).</ref> This Hebrew/Aramaic background indicates that Jesus is referring to His physical body, his flesh, given in self-sacrifice.<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept ''baśar wadam'' or ''biśra udema'' … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref> However, the Greek translation for Jesus’ Semitic word (''sōma'') may also indicate that the translators thought that Jesus was referring not only to His flesh (which would have been translated more precisely by ''sarx''), but also His whole person (His whole self).<ref>Note Jeremias’ wording, “…Jesus now interprets both again as he says grace, and this time in reference to his own person” (Jeremias 1966, p. 221).</ref>

This interpretation is compatible with the Semitic mindset which was not dualistic in a platonic way, and therefore, did not view body as mere corporeality; rather it viewed body as the whole corporeal self. According to McKenzie:

<blockquote>[In the Gospels], the body is parallel with life and is conceived almost as the self. … [In Paul, t]he first meaning of body is the concretely existing human being; in some contexts it again appears to be nearly synonymous with self (Rm 6:12f; 8:10?; 1 Co 6:18 f)…<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 100.</ref></blockquote>

Perhaps the Greek translators used ''sōma'' to more accurately convey to non-Jewish converts that Jesus’ Aramaic/Hebrew words were referring not only to His physicality, but to His whole self (which would have included characteristics the Greeks would have attributed to soul, such as the power of thinking and love, and the desire for justice and beauty, etc.).

If this interpretation is correct, then Jesus is making His whole corporeal self present in the words over the bread. The notion of “making a blessing present” in the reliving of an action or even in a substance (e.g., bread) was not uncommon in Semitic and Jewish religious practices. As Jeremias notes:

<blockquote>When at the daily meal the paterfamilias recites the blessing over the bread – which the members of the household make their own by the “Amen” – and breaks it and hands a piece to each member to eat, the meaning of the action is that each of the members is made a recipient of the blessing by this eating…<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 232.</ref></blockquote>

The bread of blessing, as it were, contains the blessing and conveys it to the willing recipient who says, “Amen” and consumes it.

The blessing which Jesus intends to be internalized by believers is certainly His sacrificed corporeal body; it is also His whole corporeal self. But Jesus’ use of “body” here cannot be restricted to this life alone, for He anticipated that His body would rise, that is, that there would be a fundamental continuity between His whole corporeal self and His “self in risen life with the Father”:

<blockquote>…[W]e can see from the simile and from the use of ekchunnomenon that Jesus did expect a violent death. Mark 14.25 par. makes it clear that Jesus was certain that God would vindicate his death by his resurrection and the establishment of the kingdom.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 225.</ref></blockquote>

What is even more striking is Jesus’ probable intention to use the body of His sacrifice (which He views as being in continuity with His future risen state) to be the medium through which communion with God (and consequent unity among believers) would be effected. Paul implies this in 1Cor 10:15-17:

<blockquote>Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body for we partake of the one loaf.</blockquote>

It seems that by “participation” Paul means more than participating in the historical self-sacrificed body of Jesus; He means participation in the presently existing body of Jesus which is capable of effecting unity among believers through unity with God. McKenzie notes in this regard:

<blockquote>The sacrificial element prominent in this passage of 1 Co and implicit in the formulae of institution is communion with the deity in the sacrificial banquet. Through the Eucharist the deity is rendered present in a striking and unique fashion. Communion is achieved only through Jesus Christ, who is man, and as man is body. The body is therefore rendered really present; the language of the four sources…leaves no room for mere symbolism in this respect. … The body which is present is the glorified body; we seem justified in believing that the NT implies that it is through His resurrection and exaltation that the body of Jesus becomes the Church [the unity of believers]. But this is the body “which was delivered for you,” one and the same Lord Jesus who ''died, rose, and sits at the right hand of the Father.'' Communion is achieved through the ''participation'' of the body and the blood of the victim. The salvation of the NT is not directed to the soul, but to the man, and man in Hebrew thought is body; if salvation is to reach man, his communion with the Savior must be a communication of body.</ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 251. Italics mine.</ref></blockquote

Paul’s view of the “body of Christ” cannot be retroactively put into the mind of Christ, for Paul is speaking in the light of having witnessed the risen Jesus. Nevertheless, one cannot altogether delete Paul’s interpretation from the mind of Jesus, for Jesus associated His “body” with His risen life with the Father, and this risen life would have been the vehicle through which the full meaning of the new covenant (which He viewed as “the kingdom of God” or communion with God) would be effected.

Thus, Jesus’ sacrificial words over the bread might be interpreted as, “This is my body to be sacrificed for you, the body which will be risen and will bring the blessing of communion with the Father and with believers through me. This sacrificed – risen – salvific – unifying – mediating body is my gift of self for you.”<ref>Notice that this interpretation is commensurate with John’s later eucharistic discourse: “This bread is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world. … Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood ''remains in me and I in him.'' …[T]he one who feeds on me will live because of me. … He who feeds on this bread will live forever.” The Evangelist is aware of Jesus’ body as efficacious, that is, as a power capable of bestowing both communion with God (“remains in me and I in him”) and eternal life.</ref> Johannes Betz summarizes this as follows:

<blockquote>Hence, the bodily person of Jesus is present in the supper, not however in the static manner of being of a thing, but as the Servant of God who in his sacrificial death effects the salvation of us all and more precisely as the sacrificial offering of the Servant who delivers himself up on the cross. The real presence of the person is there to actualize the presence of the sacrificial deed and is united with this in an organic whole. The Eucharist becomes, then, the abiding presence in the meal of the sacrificially constituted salvific event “Jesus”, in whom person and work form an inseparable unity.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v. 2, p. 260.</ref></blockquote>

Remarkable as these intentions of Jesus may seem, they do not exhaust the meaning and mystery of His words, for He also intends to communicate His unconditional Love through His “gift of self.” Recall that Jesus’ eucharistic words in the context of the suffering Servant Song may be interpreted as a self-sacrifice (gift of self) to “justify many” and to “bear iniquities.” This definition is similar to Jesus’ view of love manifest in the Beatitudes and in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan.

Paul directly associates Jesus’ self-sacrificial death with “gift of self,” and associates “gift of self” with love in several passages. In the Letter to the Romans:

<blockquote>While we were yet helpless, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly. Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man – though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. But God shows his love [agapēn] for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. (5:6-8)</blockquote>

in the letter to the Galatians:

<blockquote>I have been crucified with Christ…; the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. (2:20)</blockquote>

and in Ephesians:

<blockquote>And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (5:2)</blockquote>

It is difficult to miss similar parallels between Jesus’ Eucharistic words, the Suffering Servant song, and the view of agape in the Gospel of John. Jesus indicates that there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life (i.e., “body”) for one’s friends (Jn 15:13), and further that the Father loves the Son precisely in the laying down (“giving”) of His life (“body”).<ref>See Jn 10:17-18: “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.”</ref>

'''Summary.''' If Jesus’ view of love is “gift of self” (as suggested by Paul and John) then the eucharistic words “this is my body” (i.e., “self”) within the context of self-sacrifice (self-gift) would be virtually equivalent to love. Since this love knows no limit (i.e., it is complete self-sacrifice), it seems equivalent to unconditional Love.

Thus, we might interpret Jesus’ words as follows: “This is my body given in sacrifice, my future risen presence with you, and my unconditional Love – atoning for sin, transforming your hearts, unifying the community, and actualizing the new covenant unto eternal life.” If this is truly what Jesus had in mind as He instituted the Eucharist at the time of the Passover, then the Eucharist is not only Jesus’ interpretation of His passion, but also the vehicle for transmitting His gift of unconditional Love to all future generations. This leads to the next point.

=== “This Cup is the Covenant in My Blood” ===

Recall the reconstruction of Jesus’ words and actions with respect to the cup (Section II.A, above): After the completion of a Passover meal, Jesus initiated the ritual of the wine which He identifies with the covenant in His blood. He took a cup of red wine, gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This cup is the covenant in my blood.” Recall further that the cup of red wine is identified with both (1) Jesus’ blood and (2) “the ''covenant'' in His blood.”<ref>See above, Section I. “The tertium comparationis in the case of the bread is the fact that it was broken, and in the case of the wine the red colour. We have already seen…that it was customary to drink red wine at the Passover…. The comparison between red wine and blood was common in the Old Testament (Gen. 49.11; Deut. 32.14; Isa. 63.3,6), further Ecclus 39.26; 50.15; I Macc. 6.34; Rev. 14.20; Sanh. 70a, etc.” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 223-24).</ref> These two concepts, among the richest in Christian history, deserve individual discussion.

With respect to “blood,” the Greek term “''aima''” was probably derived from Jesus’ words of institution: “''zeh dami''” in Hebrew, and “''den idmi''” in Aramaic. Though its meaning within Jesus’ words of institution is in many ways similar to the Old Testament, it is also significantly different. There are three major similarities:

<blockquote>1) blood is the life principle and it is roughly equivalent to life itself;</blockquote>

<blockquote>2) blood (the life principle) was the vehicle through which atonement occurred in sin or guilt offerings (which is most poignantly described in the ceremony of the scapegoat on the day of atonement<ref>McKenzie notes, “The priest, dressed in linen vestments, takes two goats as a sin-offering…. The atoning agent is the blood of the victim, which symbolizes life” (McKenzie 1965, pp. 69-70).</ref>); and</blockquote>

<blockquote>3) blood is the agency through which a covenant is established, restored, and maintained.<ref>As McKenzie notes, “In the covenant ritual the blood of the victims was dashed on the altar, representing God, and on the people, signifying that the covenant partners share a common life (Ex 24:6ff)” (McKenzie 1965, p. 99).</ref></blockquote>

However, Jesus parts ways with the Old Testament tradition by proposing His blood as drink (Mt 26:27ff; Mk 14:23ff; Lk 22:20; Jn 6:53ff; 1 Co 11:25ff). McKenzie notes in this regard that “…the eating of blood is prohibited (Gn 9:4; Lv 17:10ff); life is conferred by God and is under His dominion. This prohibition was retained in the apostolic Church (AA 15:20).”<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 99.</ref>

Recall that Jesus anticipated a violent death to be followed by His resurrection,<ref>“…[W]e can see from the simile and from the use of ekchunnomenon that Jesus did expect a violent death. Mark 14.25 par. makes it clear that Jesus was certain that God would vindicate his death by his resurrection and the establishment of the kingdom” (Jeremias 1966, p. 225).</ref> and that He separated the rituals of the bread and wine indicating a sacrifice (or in this case, a self-sacrifice).<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept [of body-blood] baśar wadam [Hebrew] or biśra udema [Aramaic] … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref>

Thus, the blood He refers to in the eucharistic ritual is His future sacrificial blood (the blood of the passion). Jesus intended this to be a sacrifice of atonement (as implied by His allusions to the suffering servant and the paschal lamb) which was understood and deeply appreciated by the early Church (and reflected in the Pauline epistles and the Letter to the Hebrews). McKenzie notes in this regard that:

<blockquote>[Jesus] is a propitiatory offering in His blood (Rm 3:25), through which we are made righteous (Rm 5:9). We are redeemed through His blood (Eph 1:7) and through it we draw near to God (Eph 2:13), and by His blood He has made peace (between man and God; Col 1:20). The contrast and analogy between the blood of Jesus and the blood of sacrificial victims is drawn out at length in Heb. His blood excels that of animals (Heb 9:12 ff). Blood is the only effective agent of purification (Heb 9:20 ff) and of the remission of sins (9:22). But the blood of animals cannot remove sins (10:4); Christ has effected eternal redemption by His own blood (9:12), through which we have access to the sanctuary (10:19).<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept [of body-blood] baśar wadam [Hebrew] or biśra udema [Aramaic] … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref></blockquote>

Jesus does not ''directly'' advocate violating the Old Testament proscription against drinking blood (because He is not advocating the drinking of physical blood), yet He ''implicitly'' does this when He advocates drinking the red wine which He ''identifies'' with the blood of His impending sacrifice in order to share the ''redemptive power''<ref>“The blood of the lambs slaughtered at the exodus from Egypt had redemptive power…” (Jeremias 1966, p. 225).</ref> of that sacrifice. Recall that the power of the Passover lamb’s blood was protection against death in a specific situation,<ref>“For the sake of the passover blood God revoked the death sentence against Israel; he said: ‘I will see the blood of the passover and make atonement for you.’ In the same way the people of God of the End time will be redeemed by the merits of the passover blood” (Jeremias 1966, p. 226).</ref> but the power of Jesus’ redemptive blood goes far beyond this because it protects against ''every'' manifestation of death unto eternal life and communion with God. The redemptive power of the lamb’s blood was placed on the ''exterior'' (door posts) of every Hebrew house. Jesus’ blood (redemptive power) is taken interiorly and protects from ''interior'' (spiritual) death, making it the transformative power of eternal communion with God. It is difficult to believe that Jesus would have advocated the implicit violation of the Old Testament proscription (against drinking blood) unless He believed that His blood of sacrifice had the ''real power'' to protect against spiritual death.

Jesus also associates His sacrificial blood with the “blood of the new covenant.”<ref>“The blood of the Eucharist is the blood of the new covenant in all the formulae of institution [see above, Section I], an allusion to Ex 24:8…” (McKenzie 1965, p. 99).</ref> A covenant is a solemn promise. McKenzie notes:

<blockquote>In early Hebrew society written documents were employed little or not at all. In their place the spoken word was invested with ritual solemnity which gave it a kind of concrete reality. The spoken word thus uttered could not be annulled or retracted. … The covenant was such a solemn ritual agreement which served the function of a written contract. The covenanting parties bound themselves by a ritual agreement which included terrible imprecations upon the party which should violate the covenant.<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 153.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, a covenant has the effect of an absolutely guaranteed promise. In the case of Jesus (who is representing Abba as His Son and suffering servant) it has the effect of an absolutely guaranteed promise on the part of an absolutely truthful God.

But what is Jesus’ new covenant promising? Four interrelated promises: (1) communion with God, (2) the new covenant of Jeremiah, (3) Isaiah’s servant covenant, and (4) the eschatological (fulfilled) kingdom of God (Jesus’ mission – what He has come to bring in His person).

With respect to the first point, common life was part of any “covenant in blood,”<ref>“In the covenant ritual the blood of the victims was dashed on the altar, representing God, and on the people, signifying that the covenant partners share a common life (Ex 24:6 ff)” (McKenzie 1965, p. 99).</ref> because the sprinkling of blood indicated that the parties were one blood or one family.<ref>Ex. 24:3-8. See also McKenzie 1965, p. 155.</ref> Thus, covenant between God and human beings would indicate common life or communion with Him. It can hardly be doubted that Jesus intended this very basic meaning of “covenant in blood” in His words of institution.

With respect to the second point, Jeremiah promises (presumably at the messianic time) a new covenant which would be written on the hearts of human beings:

<blockquote>“The time is coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers…. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”<ref> Jeremiah 31:31-34.</ref></blockquote>

Presuming that Jesus was as familiar with this common text in Jeremiah as He was with the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, Jesus would have seen His new covenant as embracing the new law of the heart (the law of love) which He came to bring through His sacrificial death, resurrection, and gift of the Spirit. Jesus would have probably seen the blood of the covenant not only as a guaranteed promise of communion with God, but also as the vehicle through which the law of unconditional Love would be infused within the heart of every human being through the Holy Spirit.

With respect to the third point (Isaiah’s “servant covenant”) it seems highly probable that Jesus who identified Himself as the suffering servant in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 would have also been acutely aware of the preceding servant prophecies (Isaiah 42:6ff and 49:8ff). A brief review of these two passages will show that the servant is the covenant, that the covenant is for all peoples, and that it leads to the atonement of sin and new communion with God:

<blockquote>“I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness” (Is 42:6-7).</blockquote>

And also:

<blockquote>This is what the Lord says: “In the time of my favor I will answer you, and in the day of salvation I will help you; I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people, to restore the land and to reassign its desolate inheritances, to say to the captives, ‘Come out,’ and to those in darkness, ‘Be free!’ They will feed beside the roads and find pasture on every barren hill. … See, they will come from afar – some from the north, some from the west…” (Is 49:8-12).</blockquote>

Given Jesus’ familiarity with the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, and the remarkable parallels with the themes surrounding His institution of the Eucharist (the suffering servant, atonement of sin, poured out for the many – for the all) it seems very unlikely that Jesus would not have had this notion of “servant (Himself as covenant)” in mind when speaking of the new covenant (the new communion) with God at the Eucharist. Hence, the new covenant in His blood is filled with the notion of a complete healing of humanity (sight for the blind, liberty for captives, release for those who sit in darkness, etc.).

The above eschatological dimension leads to the fourth and final point, namely, the covenant as definitive bringing of the kingdom. This dimension of covenant is manifest in Isaiah 59:21:

<blockquote>“As for me, this is my covenant with them” says the Lord. “My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,” says the Lord.</blockquote>

The “forever” here indicates that the covenant brings with it the eschatological kingdom through the permanent imparting of the Spirit of God. When this is combined with Jeremiah 31:31 and the eschatological dimensions of Isaiah 42:6-7, 49:8-12, and 59:21, it seems likely that Jesus viewed the new covenant as a “guaranteed promise of the actualization of the kingdom.” Jeremias links Jesus’ “new covenant” to His new Passover sacrifice (see above, Section II.B.2) and concludes to the following:

<blockquote>Jesus describes his death as this eschatological passover sacrifice: his vicarious (huper) death brings into operation the final deliverance, the new covenant of God. Diathēkē (“covenant”) is a correlate of basileia ton ouranōn (“kingdom of heaven”). The content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus’ death is perfect communion with God (Jer. 31.33-34a) in his reign, based upon the remission of sins (31.34b).<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

'''Summary.''' Unconditional Love would seem to be the power of this beautiful and encompassing new covenant. It is Jesus’ total gift of Himself, His taking the place of an animal in the sin-offering, and the offering of His blood in place of an animal’s blood in the covenant sacrifice that enables us all to be “one blood, one family” with God. It is His act of total humility and self-sacrifice (Agape) which unites us together as God’s family. The Holy Spirit is the personal power effecting this unity, and Jesus is its “body.” Jesus intended that His act of self-sacrifice, His gift of self, His unconditional Love, be the creative power of protection from spiritual death and therefore from all death. The new covenant is the absolute bond, the absolute guarantee, the very principle of eternal life in communion with God. It arises out of unconditional Love, it finds its fulfillment in unconditional Love; it is unconditional Love. Though He may not have used these words, one can scarcely interpret His action of taking the place of an animal in a sacrificial offering to mean anything less. Thus, when He said, “This cup is the covenant in my blood,” He intended to bestow on us an eternal communion with one another through His own person/body given in self-sacrifice. This is unquestionably unconditional Love.

=== “Do this in Remembrance of Me” ===

If Jeremias’ extensive study of ''anamnesis'' (remembrance) within Semitic cult is correct, then Jesus’ command of repetition (“Do this in remembrance of me”) has the double function of (1) asking God to recall something of religious significance, and (2) asking God to make that blessing really present (to recreate that blessing in the present).

With respect to the first point, Jeremias shows that in both the Old Testament and New Testament (Mark 14:9, Matt 26:13, and Acts 10:4) a ritual remembrance is not so much directed at the human subject but at God so that He might remember: “…[I]n the Old Testament and Palestinian memorial formulae it is almost always God who remembers. In accordance with this the command for repetition may be translated: ‘This do, that God may remember me’”<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 251-52.</ref>

With respect to the second point, Jeremias notes:

<blockquote>This calling into the presence of God [remembrance – anamnesis], this bringing to life before God, this recalling of the past, this is, on the other side, effective. It has a purpose, it is intended to effect something: that God may remember – mercifully or punishingly. God’s remembrance is, namely (this is an important fact to which O. Michel called attention), never a simple remembering of something, but always and without exception “an effecting and creating event.” When Luke 1.72 says that God remembers his covenant, this means that he is now fulfilling the eschatological covenant promise.<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 248-49. Italics mine on “effecting and creating” and “now fulfilling.”</ref></blockquote>

If we combine all these elements, it would seem that when Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me,” He expected that He and His self-sacrificial action would be presented to God (the Father) to be made present (real) in the blessed and distributed bread whenever the words of institution were repeated. Johannes Betz summarizes the work of Michel, Jeremias, and others as follows:

<blockquote>''Anamnesis'' in the biblical sense means not only the subjective representation of something in the consciousness and as an act of the remembering mind. It is also the objective effectiveness and presence of one reality in another, especially the effectiveness and presence of the salvific actions of God, in the liturgical worship. Even in the OT, the liturgy is the privileged medium in which the covenant attains actuality. The meaning of the logion may perhaps be paraphrased as follows: do this (what I have done) in order to bring about my presence, to make really present the salvation wrought in me.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v. 2, p. 260.</ref>

We may here see Jesus’ intention to extend His self-sacrificial gift, His whole self, and the covenant in His blood to all future generations through a ritual which recreates the efficacy of His passion through His real presence. This desire to share in perpetuity is yet another manifestation of the unconditional nature of Jesus’ self-sacrificial covenant love.

=== “Poured Out for Many” ===

As noted above, the notion of pollōn (many) in Jesus’ logion “poured out for many” is a translation of the Hebrew rabbim which can have an exclusive or inclusive meaning. When it has the inclusive meaning, it signifies “all.” Jeremias summarizes these linguistic issues as follows:

While “many” in Greek (as in English) stands in opposition to “all”, and therefore has the exclusive sense (“many, but not all”), Hebrew rabbim can have the inclusive sense (“the whole, comprising many individuals”). This inclusive use is connected with the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic possess no word for “all”.

This inclusive sense of rabbim was very common in Old Testament and intertestamental literature. When it is accompanied by the definite article in Talmudic and even New Testament texts, it almost always has an inclusive meaning (“all”); but, as Jeremias points out, it can frequently have an inclusive meaning even without the definite article.

In the New Testament (with respect to Jesus’ self-sacrificial passion), Mark 10:45 uses pollōn in the inclusive sense to refer to Jesus’ “ransom for many.” This passage refers back to the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 53:10-12 which is interpreted in 1Timothy 2:6 by using the Greek word “all” (pantōn) instead of “many” (pollōn). According to Jeremias:

Of especial importance for our passage is Mark 10.45 par., lutron anti pollōn “a ransom for many”. That polloi has here the inclusive meaning “all” is shown by the reference in Mark 10.45 to Isa. 53.10-12, as well as by the parallel in I Tim. 2.6: antilutron huper pantōn, “a ransom for all”. Just as Mark 10.45, so also our passage Mark 14.24 [Jesus’ eucharistic words] is to be interpreted in the inclusive sense. Pollōn is therefore a Semitism. ¶ 14.24 to ekchunnomenon huper pollōn (“the[blood] poured out for many”). The placing of the prepositional phrase at the end corresponds to Semitic word order. That it is placed between the article and the participle independently of each other in Matthew as well as in Luke shows that the position at the end sounds harsh in Greek.

This remarkable parallel which shows the rabbim in Isaiah 53:10-12 to be translated by both pollōn (many) and pantōn (all) in Mark and 1Timothy, respectively, and the very uncharacteristically Greek (but characteristically Semitic) expressions of the eucharistic words in Mark and Matthew offer strong evidence that Jesus’ rabbim was meant in an inclusive sense, and therefore, as “all” (all human beings).

Once again, the unconditional nature of Jesus’ love emerges. His sacrificial act is not for a chosen few, but rather for all humankind. He offers this not only to His generation, but all future generations. His gift of Himself is total and universal. His love is unconditional.

== Conclusion ==

Given the above interpretation of Jesus’ eucharistic words and actions, one can scarcely deny His intention to give Himself completely to all humankind in the sacrificial act. He not only wanted to give Himself completely in sacrifice (in imitation of the suffering servant, the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and taking the place of an animal in a sin-offering and a covenant sacrifice), but also wanted to be present to us and in us for all generations and all time. This seems to meet the requirements for an unconditional act of love.

Yes, Jesus had a plan, an unconditionally loving plan, as He proceeded toward imminent death in Jerusalem. He planned to atone for the sins of all unconditionally, and to initiate a covenant of unconditional communion with God in everlasting life, through a ritual which would make the blessing of His sacrifice, self, and love really present in perpetuity. Jesus not only wanted the consummation of His mission (His passion) to be an act of total self-sacrifice, He wanted to give it away to everyone for all generations (unconditionally and universally).

If God were Unconditional Love, would He do something like this as Emmanuel (God with us)? Would He give Himself away in self-sacrifice, and then give that self-sacrificial love away forever? If such actions would typify an unconditionally loving God, then Jesus would seem to be His Emmanuel – His Unconditional Love with us.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Eucharist

2015-01-08T15:39:18Z

David Persyn: /* “This Cup is the Covenant in My Blood” */ Format

Magis ChristWiki - Magis Institute

Unit II. L

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Eucharist

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-L_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Eucharist.3F | Return to Table of Contents]]

Saint Paul believed that the clearest demonstration of Jesus’ love was in His passion and death: “But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rm 5:8). Jesus instituted the Eucharist to give the “total gift of Himself in the passion” to all future generations. He deliberately walked into His passion by traveling to Jerusalem before the feast of the Passover when the authorities were evidently seeking to put an end to His ministry and even His life. He did this because He had a plan in mind; a plan to give the blessing and power of His person and passion to all future generations through a ritual arising out of His interpretation of the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. The Beloved One of the Father intended to make us all beloveds in His own image by giving Himself (and the eschatological kingdom of love) to us in a definitive, unconditional act. This consummation of His mission (His raison d’être) reveals His core identity. The question naturally follows, “Would it be typical of an unconditionally loving God who enters into complete empathy with us to have such a self-sacrificial mission and plan?” If so, then this is one of our most profound signs that Jesus is Emmanuel.

== Did Jesus Institute the Eucharist at a Passover Meal? ==

Joachim Jeremias’ classic work, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus is still acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive treatments of this subject with the most extensive analysis of rabbinical traditions.<ref>Meier 1991, p. 395.</ref> Some exegetes feel uneasy about his application of rabbinical traditions and extratestamental material to New Testament texts,<ref>See Meier 1991, p. 395.</ref> and many scholars do not agree with his assignment of the Last Supper to the Passover meal, because it requires that too much activity take place on Passover day (the 15th of Nisan):

<blockquote>Despite Jeremias’ deft command of the material, he cannot really establish the likelihood that, at the time of Jesus, the supreme Jewish authorities in Jerusalem would arrest a person suspected of a capital crime, immediately convene a meeting of the Sanhedrin to hear the case (a case involving the death penalty), hold a formal trial with witnesses, reach a decision that the criminal deserved to die, and hand over the criminal to the Gentile authorities with a request for execution on the same day – all within the night and early day hours of Passover Day, the fifteenth of Nisan!<ref>Meier 1991, p. 396.</ref></blockquote>

For this reason, Meier believes that it is more probable that the Last Supper took place on the day before the Passover meal (on the eve of the 14th of Nisan), which corresponds with John’s dating of it rather than the Synoptics’.<ref>See Meier 1991, p. 396.</ref>

Yet, the placement of the Last Supper on the eve of the 14th of Nisan does not rule out the possibility that Jesus, aware of what was to befall Him, celebrated a Passover supper with His disciples (without a lamb) on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. Since the lambs were slaughtered prior to the meal on the 15th of Nisan, it would not have been possible for Jesus to celebrate the Passover meal with a lamb. This is consistent with New Testament accounts which make multiple references to the Passover meal,<ref>See, for example, Luke 22:15 (“I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer”); Luke 22:13 (“they prepared the Passover”); Luke 22:11 (“tell the householder, ‘the Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I am to eat the Passover with my disciples?”); Mark 14:12 (“Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”); Luke 22:8 (“Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it”); Luke 22:7 (“[it was] the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed”). Even if one ignores the passages which refer to the Marcan dating of the Last Supper on the eve of the 15th of Nisan (such as Luke 22:7), there are five distinct references (without dating) to a Passover meal.</ref> but no references to a lamb.

There are six reasons why a Passover meal should not be ruled out even if it occurred on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. First, as noted above, the Passover is linked to Jesus’ Last Supper multiple times in all three synoptic Gospels. Secondly, there are differences in the chronology of the Synoptic Gospels which indicate that a Passover meal could have been celebrated at different times within the weeklong celebration leading up to Passover. The reference to the “first day” in Mark and Luke, as Harrington suggests, betrays a mixed chronology, for:

<blockquote>the paschal lamb was normally eaten on the first day of the feast. Yet Mark describes the “first day” as the day of preparation when the lambs were slaughtered, corresponding to Wednesday, while the meal would be celebrated that evening.<ref>Harrington 1991, p. 392.</ref></blockquote>

Thirdly, the Passover is mentioned in a unique, ancient formula recounted in Luke’s Gospel, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.”<ref>See the extensive analysis of Jeremias in 1966, pp. 190-92.</ref> Fourthly, Jeremias detects several Semitisms behind the wording in the Gospel passages which are traceable to the Passover ceremony itself (such as the “fruit of the vine” in Luke 22:18).<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 161-62.</ref> Fifthly, Jeremias notes that:

<blockquote>[T]he pre-Pauline Passover haggadah preserved in I Cor. 5.7f. calls Jesus “our passover (lamb)” and that Paul presupposes as self-evident the familiarity of the Corinthian community with this comparison, a comparison widespread in the early Christian literature.<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 222-23.</ref></blockquote>

Sixthly, there are references to the Passover meal within the passages (e.g., the multiple cups, which seems to have come from Luke’s special source [22:17-18], and the Passover haggadah between the word over the bread and the word over the cup<ref>See Jeremias 1966, p. 85 and 221.</ref>). In sum, these distinct ancient sources of the institution of the Eucharist at Passover indicate a common Palestinian source which very probably goes back to Jesus Himself.

Could Jesus have celebrated an adapted Passover meal with His disciples on the eve of the 14th of Nisan to anticipate His impending death which would have occurred near the time of the slaughtering of the lambs? Since Jesus was not unaccustomed to adapting Jewish doctrine and ritual to conform to His own doctrinal and ritual requirements, this possibility cannot be ruled out. Even if Jesus did not celebrate a Passover meal (without a lamb) at the Last Supper, He could have borrowed particular rituals from it or alluded to it during the Last Supper. For this reason, I will include Jeremias’ references to the Passover meal in the forthcoming analysis. The reader may want to bear in mind that these Passover rituals may not have occurred, but may only have been implied in Jesus’ actions during the Last Supper.

The analysis will be carried out in two steps:

1) a brief synopsis of Jeremias’ and others’ exegetical work on the original tradition (Section II.A); and

2) the meaning of Jesus’ eucharistic words and actions (Section II.B).

== Jeremias’ Interpretation of the Original Tradition ==

There are four traditions of Jesus’ Eucharistic words:<ref>There is also a tradition in John (6:25-59), but it is a Eucharistic discourse instead of a recounting of the Last Supper; a specific exegesis of this passage is beyond the objective of this study.</ref>

1) I Corinthians 11:23-26:

<blockquote>For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.</blockquote>

2) Mark 14:22-25:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take; this is my body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” He said to them. “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”</blockquote>

3) Matthew 26:26-29:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”</blockquote>

4) Luke 22:17-20:

<blockquote>After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”</blockquote>

A brief glance at the above four traditions reveals two branches of an original tradition – (1) a Paul-Luke branch (which makes specific reference to remembrance; a new covenant; and, in the case of Luke alone, “poured out for you”), and (2) a Mark-Matthew branch (which makes no reference to remembrance; refers to covenant, but not a new covenant; and makes the objective of Jesus’ outpouring for many). Jeremias has split this project into two parts: (1) the four common areas of these traditions (which, given the different theologies in the two branches, would probably have to have their origin in a common source), and (2) in areas where the branches differ, locating the more primitive tradition through grammatical constructions and the presence of Semitisms. The two analyses will bring us close to an original tradition which may closely resemble Jesus’ own words.

There are four common areas within the four traditions:

<blockquote>(1) Jesus’ action with respect to the bread: “took bread, gave thanks [in the case of Paul, “after he had given thanks”], and broke it,”</blockquote>

<blockquote>(2) Jesus’ words over the bread: “this is my body [soma],”</blockquote>

<blockquote>(3) Jesus’ action with respect to the cup. In Mark-Matthew: “Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them.” In Paul-Luke: “In the same way” (referring to the way in which He gave the bread, i.e., “took bread and gave thanks… and gave it to them”), and</blockquote>

<blockquote>(4) Jesus’ word over the cup: “This is my blood of the covenant.” Evidently, Paul and Luke refer to the new covenant whereas Mark and Matthew refer only to the covenant.<ref>Jeremias shows through a grammatical analysis that, despite surface appearances, the Paul-Luke version is essentially the same as the Mark-Matthew version even though the Paul-Luke version refers to the cup (where Mark-Matthew does not), and Paul-Luke refers to “the covenant in my blood” while Mark-Matthew refers to the “blood of the covenant.” See Jeremias 1966, pp. 168-69.</ref></blockquote>

Jeremias holds that the Marcan version of the word over the bread is the more original tradition while the Pauline version of the word over the cup is the more original:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “Take; this is my body.” (Mark 14:22)</blockquote>

<blockquote>In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (1Cor. 11:25a).</blockquote>

Jeremias believes there is good reason for holding the Pauline version to be the more original formula for the word over the cup on linguistic grounds, because the Mark-Matthew version is far more symmetrical, indicating the need to take a more complex narrative form (in Paul-Luke) and convert it to a more symmetrical liturgical form in Mark-Matthew. Though it may be thought that the Paul-Luke form is more apologetically appealing (because it is less evocative of drinking blood in a pagan ritual which would have been repulsive to Jewish people), and therefore later than the Mark-Matthew version (which may have given rise to these apologetically unappealing misimpressions), Paul’s version is probably the earlier because it reveals a separation in time between the word over the bread and the word over the wine (to account for the consumption of the meal between the two events) which the Mark-Matthew version does not represent. Thus, the Mark-Matthew version seems to be a later formula taken from the liturgy, which did not need to account for the separation of the meal (as a more narrative account would have) and needed to be more symmetrical for the sake of liturgical repetition.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 169-171 and 191-92.</ref>

It now remains to establish which of the other three divergent areas is the more original. As implied above, there are three areas of divergence:

<blockquote>a) “the new covenant” (Paul-Luke) versus “the covenant” (Mark-Matthew),</blockquote>

<blockquote>b) poured out for you (Luke) versus “poured out for many” (Mark-Matthew), and</blockquote>

<blockquote>c) word of remembrance – ''anamnēsis'' (in Paul-Luke, but not mentioned in Mark-Matthew).</blockquote>

I will briefly summarize Jeremias’ judgment on these three matters so that an original tradition (close to the words and actions of Jesus) may be adduced.

With respect to the new covenant, Jeremias holds that the Mark-Matthew version would probably be the earlier because the placement of the adjective “new” prior to “covenant” is Hellenistic (but not Semitic) indicating that it originated “on Hellenistic soil.”<ref>Though the Pauline formula is not the more original of the two, its pre-Pauline origins are indicated by its agreement with Luke. See Jeremias 1966, pp. 171-72.</ref>

With respect to the “poured out for you” (Luke) versus “poured out for many”<ref>As will be discussed below, “for many,” in the Semitic sense of “rabbim” which was probably uttered by Jesus, is inclusive (that is, it does not exclude some in contrast to the totality, as in the common Greek and English uses of it – e.g., “many, but not everybody”). The reason for this is that there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word for “all.” Thus, the inclusive sense of “rabbim” explicitly includes the totality and its individual members. See Jeremias 1966, p. 179.</ref> (Mark-Matthew), Jeremias holds that “for many” is the more original on the basis of linguistic grounds, namely, “for many” is a Semitism while “you” is not. Jeremias attributes the replacement of “many” by “you” as having a liturgical purpose where each worshiper feels him or herself to be individually addressed (by “you”), which would not happen with the indefinite “many.” In view of this, he holds that the replacement of “many” by “you” is not an attempt to limit the atoning work of Jesus arising out of later theological reflection.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 172.</ref>

Finally, with respect to the word of remembrance (which Jeremias terms the command for repetition), Paul mentions it twice (after the word over the bread and the word over the wine), Luke mentions it once (after the word over the bread), but Mark and Matthew omit it altogether. Jeremias holds that this tradition is pre-Pauline but probably not a part of the oldest traditions. Yet it could well have originated with Jesus. There are three reasons for suspecting this. First, the bread and wine rituals took on a high degree of significance apart from the meal (suggesting a command of repetition from Jesus with respect to them, but not with respect to the meal separating them). Secondly, the words over the bread and wine are so often repeated that they quickly become a central Christian ritual (which gives them far more significance than mere parts of a farewell meal or a commemoration of Jesus’ death<ref>Jeremias has an extensive discussion of the contention that the word of remembrance was a later Greek accretion imitating annual celebrations of the dead. One of his reasons for rejecting this thesis is that the Christian ritual was daily or weekly and not merely an annual celebration. See Jeremias 1966, pp. 238-43.</ref>) suggesting once again a command of repetition from Jesus. Thirdly, it would be unusual for early liturgical formulations to contain this command since, as Jeremias notes, “the celebration itself was its fulfillment.”<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 238.</ref> In view of the fact that Jesus said much more during the meal than was recorded, it may be surmised that He gave a command of repetition.

So what can we now conclude about Jesus’ actions and words? If the earliest narratives reflect Jesus’ actions, and if Jeremias’ conjectures about Jesus’ words are correct, we can conclude that Jesus gathered with His disciples before the feast of the Passover and indicated to them that He longed to celebrate this Passover with them, but instead of doing so, fasted while the other disciples celebrated.<ref>See Jeremias’ convincing argument in 1966, pp. 208-09.</ref> After drinking one of the four Passover cups while they were eating the Passover meal (or an adapted Passover ritual),<ref>See the discussion of this topic in the introduction to Section II above.</ref> Jesus initiated the ritual of the bread, identifying it with His body: “Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take; this is my body.’” Then, after the completion of the Passover meal (or adapted Passover ritual), Jesus initiated the ritual of the wine which He identifies with the covenant in His blood. He took a cup of red wine, gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This cup is the covenant in my blood.”<ref>Though Jesus identifies the red wine with the “covenant in His blood,” it is clear from the red wine, the parallelism with the bread, and the use of “this cup” that Jesus is identifying the red wine with both His blood and the covenant in His blood. Jeremias notes that the color of the wine is significant here: “The tertium comparationis in the case of the bread is the fact that it was broken, and in the case of the wine the red colour. We have already seen…that it was customary to drink red wine at the Passover…. The comparison between red wine and blood was common in the Old Testament (Gen. 49.11; Deut. 32.14; Isa. 63.3,6), further Ecclus 39.26; 50.15; I Macc. 6.34; Rev. 14.20; Sanh. 70a, etc.” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 223-24).</ref> Sometime either prior to or after this (perhaps both), Jesus gives a command of repetition similar to “Do this in remembrance of me.”

If this reconstruction is accurate, we may now proceed to a brief summary of Jeremias’ and others’ conclusions about the meaning of these words and the ritual they constitute.

== The Meaning of Jesus’ Eucharistic Words and Actions ==

Six elements of Jesus’ institution of the Eucharist merit interpretation:

(1) His view of Himself as “suffering servant” (Is 52:13-53:12 – see Section II.B.1);

(2) Jesus as the new sacrificial paschal lamb (II.B.2);

(3) “This is my body” (soma – II.B.3);

(4) “This cup is the covenant in my blood” (II.B.4);

(5) “Do this in remembrance of me” (II.B5); and

(6) “poured out for many” (II.B.6).

As will become evident, the synthesis of these six elements (in their proper interpretation) points strongly to Jesus’ action as one of unconditional Love, which reveals a heart of unconditional Love.

=== Jesus as Suffering Servant ===

It may be helpful to here set out the whole Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12, because reference will be made to it throughout this Unit on the Eucharist as well as the forthcoming Unit on the passion of Jesus:

<blockquote>See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as there were many who were appalled at him – his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness – so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand (52:13-15).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him (53:1-2).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not (53:3).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted (53:4).</blockquote>

<blockquote>But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed (53:5).</blockquote>

<blockquote>We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all (53:6).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth (53:7).</blockquote>

<blockquote>By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken (53:8).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth (53:9).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities (53:10-11).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he ''poured'' out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of ''many'', and made intercession for the transgressors (53:12 – italics mine).</blockquote>

The obvious tie-in between the suffering servant song and Jesus’ eucharistic words occurs at 53:12. The phrase “poured out for many,” which is a part of the oldest tradition of the eucharistic words, has a remarkable parallel with Isaiah 53:12 which states:

<blockquote>…because he poured out (he’erah) his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many (rabbim)….”</blockquote>

The Hebrew background of both Jesus’ eucharistic words and Isaiah 53:12 as well as the context of these words (the sacrifice of Jesus and the suffering servant) are so close that it would be difficult to believe that the ancient tradition of Jesus’ eucharistic words was not referring to Isaiah 53:12.<ref>According to Jeremias, [“poured out for many”] “is linked with an Old Testament passage: Isa. 53.12, ‘because he poured out (he’erah) his life to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many (rabbim) and made intercession for the transgressors’ (the reference is to the Hebrew text of this passage, a fact to be kept in mind as evidence of the age of the tradition). This allusion to the Old Testament passage on the suffering servant is supported by the fact that the word rabbim/πολλοί is almost a ''leit-motiv'' in Isa. 52.13-53.12.” Jeremias 1966, pp. 226-7.</ref> Moreover, Jesus seems to have had an intimate acquaintance with the texts of Deutero-Isaiah,<ref>See Betz, 1968-70, v.2, p. 257.</ref> and also seems to have interpreted His life and His mission in terms of this passage which was uncannily similar to the passion He was about to suffer. Hence, it seems likely that Jesus intended the words “poured out for many” in a way that could be interpreted through the lens of the Suffering Servant song. This means that Jesus intends His eucharistic actions and words in an expiatory way, that is, as a “sin offering” or “guilt offering” for the sins of many. Johannes Betz notes in this regard:

<blockquote>Jesus accomplished the decisive purpose of His life, His task as Messiah, in carrying out the mission of the servant of God of Deutero-Isaiah, who as God’s majestic envoy proclaims and inaugurates a new phase in salvation and who as martyr takes upon Himself expiatory sufferings for the sins of the many.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v.2, p. 258.</ref></blockquote>

It would seem, therefore, that Jesus had this Suffering Servant song deeply in mind when He decided to proceed toward Jerusalem with full knowledge that the authorities were seeking to persecute Him (see John 11:8). This makes sense of both His resoluteness toward impending death and His obvious preparation for the eucharistic ritual (with its imbedded passage from Isaiah 53:12), which would, in turn, make sense of Matthew’s additional words (probably reflective of a later tradition): “for the forgiveness of sins.”<ref>This is imbedded within Jesus’ words over the cup: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt. 26:28).</ref>

The logic of this sin offering may seem a bit confusing to a contemporary audience, especially the passage in Isaiah that states, “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see the light of life and be satisfied” (Isaiah 53:10). At first glance, it may seem that the portrayal of the Lord in this passage (and therefore Jesus’ view of God’s will) is sadistic, but this is certainly not the case, for Jesus’ interpretation of the Isaiah passage is set within His view of the Father as “Abba” and Himself as Son and Beloved. Thus, Jesus’ interpretation of this passage must be seen within the context of the logic of love, which makes the Johannine words of Jesus particularly significant, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (Jn 15:13). If this passage represents Jesus’ interpretive principle for both the Isaiah passage and His Eucharistic words, then Jesus would have interpreted “the Lord’s will to crush him” in terms of the Father’s acceptance of Jesus’ love offering (the gift of Himself) for the sins of the world.

Recall for a moment some of the observations about Jesus’ view of love (agape) from the previous Unit. We saw that Jesus viewed love as the highest commandment (Mark 12:30 and par.), and that He elucidated His view of love through the beatitudes (Matt 5:3-12), which included humble-heartedness, gentle-heartedness, hungering and thirsting for the will of God, being merciful (which includes being forgiving), peacemaking, and enduring persecution for the kingdom of God. Ironic as it may seem, Jesus’ self-sacrificial gift for the expiation of sins synthesizes and catalyzes every one of these elements from the beatitudes and concretizes their “synthesis in love” within not only historical but future reality.<ref>Paul did not miss this insight in Colossians 3:12-14: “Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which is the bond of completeness.” See the explanation of this passage in Unit II-J, Section IV.</ref>

The Gospel of John has captured Jesus’ intention well. There is no greater love (the synthesis of the beatitudes) that a person can have than to give his life. In light of Jesus’ view of the Father as Abba (which has embedded within it generative, compassionate, forgiving, restoring, affectionate love – similar to the father’s love in the Prodigal Son parable), it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus would have loosely interpreted the words of Isaiah 53:10 to mean “it would have pleased the Father – despite His pain – to see the self-sacrificial (loving) will of His Son become a reality for all humanity.” Just because Jesus uses Isaiah 52:13-53:12 as an interpretive principle for His self-sacrifice does not mean that He agrees with every theological element in that passage. Indeed, Jesus was known to have loosely interpreted and even reinterpreted many passages from Torah and the prophets. It would seem inconceivable that Jesus could have interpreted Isaiah 53:10 outside the context of His being the beloved Son of Abba.

Therefore, we might look at Jesus’ mindset about the passion and Eucharist (as He approached Jerusalem) as follows. First, He intended to make Himself an expiatory offering much like the one spoken of in Isaiah 53:8ff:

<blockquote>…for the transgression of my people he was stricken…. …and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering…. …my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. …because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.</blockquote>

Secondly, Jesus had a twofold understanding of the efficacy of this “sin offering”: (1) the efficacy of sacrifice, and (2) the efficacy of love. With respect to the efficacy of sacrifice, it seems probable that Jesus organized His Eucharistic words to indicate that He was making a sacrifice of Himself. By separating the words over the body and the blood, Jesus implied that what He was about to endure on the cross was like the separation of flesh and blood in a cultic sacrifice.<ref>“This formula derives from Ex 24:8 and characterizes the content of the cup primarily as the cultic sacrificial element “blood”, which is separated from the flesh, then also the death of Jesus as the separation of flesh and blood after the manner of a cultic sacrifice” (Betz 1968-70, v.2, p. 259). See also Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22: “…[I]t also designates, as already in ancient Hebrew, the two component parts of the body [flesh and blood], especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed.”</ref>

Yet, Jesus was not making Himself a cultic sacrifice in the traditional sense, for He, the Son, the Beloved One, the innocent One, made Himself the sacrificial gift for those who are not innocent, in the certain hope of the resurrection and universal atonement. Betz notes in this regard:

<blockquote>Taking on alien guilt meant taking on also the necessity of death. As his life went on, Jesus thought more frequently of his death and spoke more frequently of it to his disciples…. It was for Jesus not something that merely happened to him, but a conscious and willed deed to which he assented as a necessity in the history of salvation, and on which he freely decided (Lk 12:50). His total readiness for the death which was the mission of the Servant of the Lord is also expressed in the logion of the ransom (Mk 10:45), and the prophecies of the passion (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:32ff). … His death is total dedication and the deepest fulfillment of his being. … Unlike the ''cultic'' sacrifices, there is no separate ''gift'' which stands for the offerer and symbolizes his dedication to God. Here the offerer himself functions as ''gift'' in his own person and accomplishes the sacrificial dedication by the real shedding of his blood. Jesus must have been sure that God would accept this sacrifice, his body, and hence that God would fill it with new life. Thus the death of Jesus brings with it the resurrection as an inner consequence, as an essential part of it, regardless of the difference in time between the two events.<ref>Betz, 1968-70, v.2, p. 258. Italics mine.</ref></blockquote>

The middle term, as it were, between efficacy of sacrifice and efficacy of love is gift. As is clear from the above, a cultic sacrifice finds its efficacy in the gift given to God, and, as is clear from the Johannine passage on love, there is no greater love than to give one’s life. When Jesus made Himself the gift in the sacrificial offering, He transformed the efficacy of that gift from one of cultic proportion to one of unconditional Love. This is evidenced in Jesus’ use of the word “covenant” (“the covenant in my blood”) which, as will be seen below, implies a bond of love.

In sum, when Jesus proceeded to Jerusalem He planned to complete His mission of being the suffering (messianic) servant of the Lord by becoming a sacrificial gift for all transgressors. In so doing, he hoped to effect an atonement for all sins as a perfect sacrifice (that is, as the self-sacrifice of the beloved innocent one) in place of cultic sin offerings. This atonement went far beyond mechanical cultic sin offerings because it was fundamentally an act of unconditional self-giving (Love) for humankind. This act of unconditional Love was the source and power of perfect atonement and a new covenant which promised eternal life through the God who has loved us so.

=== Jesus as the New Sacrificial Paschal Lamb ===

As noted above, it is likely that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper within the context of a Passover meal – perhaps an adapted Passover meal (without a lamb) on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. So why would Jesus have chosen the Passover celebration to make His sacrifice and institute the Eucharist? Jeremias believes that He wanted to compare Himself to the paschal lamb, or perhaps better, He wanted to be the eschatological paschal lamb – the one who was to initiate the new covenant (which He correlated with the kingdom of God) in His blood:<ref>Jeremias sees Jesus’ identification of Himself with the paschal lamb as correlative with His identification of the bread and wine with His own person. He also notes that the early Pauline community commonly understood Jesus to be the paschal lamb. See Jeremias 1966, p. 222-23.</ref>

<blockquote>With the words ''den biśri'', “this is my (sacrificial) flesh”, and ''den idmi'', “this is my (sacrificial) blood”, Jesus is therefore most probably speaking of himself as the paschal lamb. He is the eschatological paschal lamb, representing the fulfillment of all that of which the Egyptian paschal lamb and all the subsequent sacrificial paschal lambs were the prototype.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 223.</ref></blockquote>

It should not be thought that the absence of a lamb at an adapted Passover meal (on the eve of the 14th of Nisan) militates against Jeremias’ thesis that Jesus associated Himself with the eschatological paschal lamb, for if Jesus did celebrate the Passover on the eve of the 14th of Nisan, His own passion would have begun at the time that the paschal lambs were being slaughtered in preparation for the feast celebrated on the eve of the 15th of Nisan. This would correlate well with the Last Supper’s anticipation of the impending self-sacrifice which might have been Jesus’ very intention.

The lamb is a simile for two essential dimensions of the Eucharist: (1) the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, and (2) the sacrifice initiating the covenant (leading out of slavery into a new life of freedom in the “promised land”). With respect to the forgiveness of sins, Jeremias notes:

<blockquote>By comparing himself with the eschatological paschal lamb Jesus describes his death as a saving death. … [A]t the passover meal the attention was directed…to the one “passover of the exodus” for the sake of which God had mercifully “passed over” the houses of the Israelites. The blood of the lambs slaughtered at the exodus from Egypt had redemptive power…<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 225.</ref></blockquote>

This “redemptive power,” this atonement for sins, protects from death and leads to everlasting life:

<blockquote>As a reward for the Israelites’ obedience to the commandment to spread blood on their doors, God manifested himself and spared them, “passing over” their houses. For the sake of the passover blood God revoked the death sentence against Israel; he said: “I will see the blood of the passover and make atonement for you.” In the same way the people of God of the End time will be redeemed by the merits of the Passover blood.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus sees His blood not only as a protection from death in this world (in imitation of the blood of the lamb at the Passover), but also as an eschatological protection (that is, a protection from death itself) which opens upon an eternal life of communion with Him and the Father:

<blockquote>Jesus describes his death as this eschatological passover sacrifice: his vicarious (''huper'') ''death brings into operation the final deliverance'', the new covenant of God. ''Diathēkē'' (“covenant”) is a correlate of ''basileia tōn ouranōn'' (“kingdom of heaven”). The content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus’ death is perfect communion with God (Jer. 31.33-34a) in his reign, based upon the remission of sins (31.34b).<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, Jesus’ selection of the Passover (whether this was celebrated on the eve of the 14th or 15th of Nisan) as the context for His death was a deliberate attempt to manifest a ''sacrificial''<ref>As noted above, the separation of the word over the bread and the word over the wine by a Passover supper separates Jesus’ flesh from Jesus’ blood which would have been commonly understood by His audience to signify His self-sacrifice (reminiscent of all sacrifices which separate the flesh and blood of the gifts offered).</ref> death, and therefore, His institution of the Eucharist at this time established Him as the new Passover sacrifice for the atonement of sins and the initiation of the new covenant unto eternal communion with Him and His Father.<ref>This is why the tradition used by Matthew which references the forgiveness of sins (“Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” – Mt 26:28), though unique in the texts of the eucharistic words and therefore probably not original, is compatible with Jesus’ intentions at the last supper. This is further confirmed by Jesus’ references to the suffering servant who atones for the sins of many by his self-sacrificial act (see above, II.A).</ref>

There is one more element to be discussed about Jesus’ identification of Himself with the Passover lamb, namely, its correlation with agape. Recall that there is a natural correlation between Jesus’ view of love and the beatitudes (see Unit II-J, Section IV). Love is humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, peace-making, merciful (forgiving), and accepting of persecution for the kingdom of God. Jesus’ identification of Himself with the unblemished (innocent) lamb (correlative with the suffering servant<ref>“He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth” (Is 53:7).</ref>) brings to mind the humility and gentleness of the paschal lamb, as well as the forgiveness, reconciliation, and “endurance of persecution” intrinsic to its sacrifice. By making Himself a self-sacrificial Passover offering, Jesus revealed Himself to be Unconditional Love.

Thus, it is not only the sacrificial aspect of Jesus’ self-offering which has the redemptive power to atone for sins and establish a covenant of eternal communion with God, but also the unconditional Love intrinsic to that sacrifice. Jesus’ first-century audience would have probably noticed the redemptive power in the sacrifice more readily than in His unconditional Love, but subsequent generations, reflecting on Jesus’ words of love, began to realize that the unconditional Love intrinsic to the self-sacrifice is the sacrifice’s redemptive power. Jesus was not using sacrifice in some kind of magical-mystical way to elicit God’s power; neither did He believe that God the Father was demanding that He sacrifice Himself in a mechanical way to atone for sins (“I will put my Son on one side of the scale to balance off all the negatives on your side”); Jesus sacrificed Himself to concretely actualize unconditional self-sacrificial gift (unconditional Love) in the world, which is the redemptive power overcoming all hatred, darkness, emptiness, and evil. Notice that the Son’s self-sacrifice in unconditional Love was also the Father’s self-sacrifice, for the Father had to give His Son as much as the Son had to give Himself.

=== “This is My Body” (''Sōma'') ===

We may now turn to the words of institution within the context of the suffering servant and the paschal lamb. To what does “this” (''touto'' – in Aramaic, “''den''”) refer in “this is my body?” Jeremias notes that it cannot refer to Jesus’ action of breaking the bread, but rather to the bread itself:

<blockquote>This interpretation [that “this” refers to Jesus’ breaking of the bread], which in any case is incompatible with the ''touto estin'' (“this is”), would only be feasible if the actions named coincided with the words of interpretation. But that is not the case. As regards the bread-word, the fact that it is preceded by ''gabete'' (“take”) shows that Jesus said it not as the bread was being broken, but as it was being distributed.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 220.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus identifies the bread (signified by ''touto/den'') with His body (''sōma''). The Semitic background of ''sōma'', according to Jeremias, is incontestably ''zeh baśari'' (Hebrew) and ''den bisri'' (Aramaic).<ref>“…the words of interpretation (if what has just been presented is conclusive) read, according to Mark, in Hebrew ''zeh beśari'' and ''zeh dami'', and in Aramaic ''den biśri'' and ''den idmi''” (Jeremias 1966, p. 201; see also p. 200).</ref> This Hebrew/Aramaic background indicates that Jesus is referring to His physical body, his flesh, given in self-sacrifice.<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept ''baśar wadam'' or ''biśra udema'' … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref> However, the Greek translation for Jesus’ Semitic word (''sōma'') may also indicate that the translators thought that Jesus was referring not only to His flesh (which would have been translated more precisely by ''sarx''), but also His whole person (His whole self).<ref>Note Jeremias’ wording, “…Jesus now interprets both again as he says grace, and this time in reference to his own person” (Jeremias 1966, p. 221).</ref>

This interpretation is compatible with the Semitic mindset which was not dualistic in a platonic way, and therefore, did not view body as mere corporeality; rather it viewed body as the whole corporeal self. According to McKenzie:

<blockquote>[In the Gospels], the body is parallel with life and is conceived almost as the self. … [In Paul, t]he first meaning of body is the concretely existing human being; in some contexts it again appears to be nearly synonymous with self (Rm 6:12f; 8:10?; 1 Co 6:18 f)…<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 100.</ref></blockquote>

Perhaps the Greek translators used ''sōma'' to more accurately convey to non-Jewish converts that Jesus’ Aramaic/Hebrew words were referring not only to His physicality, but to His whole self (which would have included characteristics the Greeks would have attributed to soul, such as the power of thinking and love, and the desire for justice and beauty, etc.).

If this interpretation is correct, then Jesus is making His whole corporeal self present in the words over the bread. The notion of “making a blessing present” in the reliving of an action or even in a substance (e.g., bread) was not uncommon in Semitic and Jewish religious practices. As Jeremias notes:

<blockquote>When at the daily meal the paterfamilias recites the blessing over the bread – which the members of the household make their own by the “Amen” – and breaks it and hands a piece to each member to eat, the meaning of the action is that each of the members is made a recipient of the blessing by this eating…<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 232.</ref></blockquote>

The bread of blessing, as it were, contains the blessing and conveys it to the willing recipient who says, “Amen” and consumes it.

The blessing which Jesus intends to be internalized by believers is certainly His sacrificed corporeal body; it is also His whole corporeal self. But Jesus’ use of “body” here cannot be restricted to this life alone, for He anticipated that His body would rise, that is, that there would be a fundamental continuity between His whole corporeal self and His “self in risen life with the Father”:

<blockquote>…[W]e can see from the simile and from the use of ekchunnomenon that Jesus did expect a violent death. Mark 14.25 par. makes it clear that Jesus was certain that God would vindicate his death by his resurrection and the establishment of the kingdom.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 225.</ref></blockquote>

What is even more striking is Jesus’ probable intention to use the body of His sacrifice (which He views as being in continuity with His future risen state) to be the medium through which communion with God (and consequent unity among believers) would be effected. Paul implies this in 1Cor 10:15-17:

<blockquote>Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body for we partake of the one loaf.</blockquote>

It seems that by “participation” Paul means more than participating in the historical self-sacrificed body of Jesus; He means participation in the presently existing body of Jesus which is capable of effecting unity among believers through unity with God. McKenzie notes in this regard:

<blockquote>The sacrificial element prominent in this passage of 1 Co and implicit in the formulae of institution is communion with the deity in the sacrificial banquet. Through the Eucharist the deity is rendered present in a striking and unique fashion. Communion is achieved only through Jesus Christ, who is man, and as man is body. The body is therefore rendered really present; the language of the four sources…leaves no room for mere symbolism in this respect. … The body which is present is the glorified body; we seem justified in believing that the NT implies that it is through His resurrection and exaltation that the body of Jesus becomes the Church [the unity of believers]. But this is the body “which was delivered for you,” one and the same Lord Jesus who ''died, rose, and sits at the right hand of the Father.'' Communion is achieved through the ''participation'' of the body and the blood of the victim. The salvation of the NT is not directed to the soul, but to the man, and man in Hebrew thought is body; if salvation is to reach man, his communion with the Savior must be a communication of body.</ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 251. Italics mine.</ref></blockquote

Paul’s view of the “body of Christ” cannot be retroactively put into the mind of Christ, for Paul is speaking in the light of having witnessed the risen Jesus. Nevertheless, one cannot altogether delete Paul’s interpretation from the mind of Jesus, for Jesus associated His “body” with His risen life with the Father, and this risen life would have been the vehicle through which the full meaning of the new covenant (which He viewed as “the kingdom of God” or communion with God) would be effected.

Thus, Jesus’ sacrificial words over the bread might be interpreted as, “This is my body to be sacrificed for you, the body which will be risen and will bring the blessing of communion with the Father and with believers through me. This sacrificed – risen – salvific – unifying – mediating body is my gift of self for you.”<ref>Notice that this interpretation is commensurate with John’s later eucharistic discourse: “This bread is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world. … Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood ''remains in me and I in him.'' …[T]he one who feeds on me will live because of me. … He who feeds on this bread will live forever.” The Evangelist is aware of Jesus’ body as efficacious, that is, as a power capable of bestowing both communion with God (“remains in me and I in him”) and eternal life.</ref> Johannes Betz summarizes this as follows:

<blockquote>Hence, the bodily person of Jesus is present in the supper, not however in the static manner of being of a thing, but as the Servant of God who in his sacrificial death effects the salvation of us all and more precisely as the sacrificial offering of the Servant who delivers himself up on the cross. The real presence of the person is there to actualize the presence of the sacrificial deed and is united with this in an organic whole. The Eucharist becomes, then, the abiding presence in the meal of the sacrificially constituted salvific event “Jesus”, in whom person and work form an inseparable unity.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v. 2, p. 260.</ref></blockquote>

Remarkable as these intentions of Jesus may seem, they do not exhaust the meaning and mystery of His words, for He also intends to communicate His unconditional Love through His “gift of self.” Recall that Jesus’ eucharistic words in the context of the suffering Servant Song may be interpreted as a self-sacrifice (gift of self) to “justify many” and to “bear iniquities.” This definition is similar to Jesus’ view of love manifest in the Beatitudes and in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan.

Paul directly associates Jesus’ self-sacrificial death with “gift of self,” and associates “gift of self” with love in several passages. In the Letter to the Romans:

<blockquote>While we were yet helpless, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly. Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man – though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. But God shows his love [agapēn] for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. (5:6-8)</blockquote>

in the letter to the Galatians:

<blockquote>I have been crucified with Christ…; the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. (2:20)</blockquote>

and in Ephesians:

<blockquote>And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (5:2)</blockquote>

It is difficult to miss similar parallels between Jesus’ Eucharistic words, the Suffering Servant song, and the view of agape in the Gospel of John. Jesus indicates that there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life (i.e., “body”) for one’s friends (Jn 15:13), and further that the Father loves the Son precisely in the laying down (“giving”) of His life (“body”).<ref>See Jn 10:17-18: “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.”</ref>

'''Summary.''' If Jesus’ view of love is “gift of self” (as suggested by Paul and John) then the eucharistic words “this is my body” (i.e., “self”) within the context of self-sacrifice (self-gift) would be virtually equivalent to love. Since this love knows no limit (i.e., it is complete self-sacrifice), it seems equivalent to unconditional Love.

Thus, we might interpret Jesus’ words as follows: “This is my body given in sacrifice, my future risen presence with you, and my unconditional Love – atoning for sin, transforming your hearts, unifying the community, and actualizing the new covenant unto eternal life.” If this is truly what Jesus had in mind as He instituted the Eucharist at the time of the Passover, then the Eucharist is not only Jesus’ interpretation of His passion, but also the vehicle for transmitting His gift of unconditional Love to all future generations. This leads to the next point.

=== “This Cup is the Covenant in My Blood” ===

Recall the reconstruction of Jesus’ words and actions with respect to the cup (Section II.A, above): After the completion of a Passover meal, Jesus initiated the ritual of the wine which He identifies with the covenant in His blood. He took a cup of red wine, gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This cup is the covenant in my blood.” Recall further that the cup of red wine is identified with both (1) Jesus’ blood and (2) “the ''covenant'' in His blood.”<ref>See above, Section I. “The tertium comparationis in the case of the bread is the fact that it was broken, and in the case of the wine the red colour. We have already seen…that it was customary to drink red wine at the Passover…. The comparison between red wine and blood was common in the Old Testament (Gen. 49.11; Deut. 32.14; Isa. 63.3,6), further Ecclus 39.26; 50.15; I Macc. 6.34; Rev. 14.20; Sanh. 70a, etc.” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 223-24).</ref> These two concepts, among the richest in Christian history, deserve individual discussion.

With respect to “blood,” the Greek term “''aima''” was probably derived from Jesus’ words of institution: “''zeh dami''” in Hebrew, and “''den idmi''” in Aramaic. Though its meaning within Jesus’ words of institution is in many ways similar to the Old Testament, it is also significantly different. There are three major similarities:

<blockquote>1) blood is the life principle and it is roughly equivalent to life itself;</blockquote>

<blockquote>2) blood (the life principle) was the vehicle through which atonement occurred in sin or guilt offerings (which is most poignantly described in the ceremony of the scapegoat on the day of atonement<ref>McKenzie notes, “The priest, dressed in linen vestments, takes two goats as a sin-offering…. The atoning agent is the blood of the victim, which symbolizes life” (McKenzie 1965, pp. 69-70).</ref>); and</blockquote>

<blockquote>3) blood is the agency through which a covenant is established, restored, and maintained.<ref>As McKenzie notes, “In the covenant ritual the blood of the victims was dashed on the altar, representing God, and on the people, signifying that the covenant partners share a common life (Ex 24:6ff)” (McKenzie 1965, p. 99).</ref></blockquote>

However, Jesus parts ways with the Old Testament tradition by proposing His blood as drink (Mt 26:27ff; Mk 14:23ff; Lk 22:20; Jn 6:53ff; 1 Co 11:25ff). McKenzie notes in this regard that “…the eating of blood is prohibited (Gn 9:4; Lv 17:10ff); life is conferred by God and is under His dominion. This prohibition was retained in the apostolic Church (AA 15:20).”<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 99.</ref>

Recall that Jesus anticipated a violent death to be followed by His resurrection,<ref>“…[W]e can see from the simile and from the use of ekchunnomenon that Jesus did expect a violent death. Mark 14.25 par. makes it clear that Jesus was certain that God would vindicate his death by his resurrection and the establishment of the kingdom” (Jeremias 1966, p. 225).</ref> and that He separated the rituals of the bread and wine indicating a sacrifice (or in this case, a self-sacrifice).<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept [of body-blood] baśar wadam [Hebrew] or biśra udema [Aramaic] … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref>

Thus, the blood He refers to in the eucharistic ritual is His future sacrificial blood (the blood of the passion). Jesus intended this to be a sacrifice of atonement (as implied by His allusions to the suffering servant and the paschal lamb) which was understood and deeply appreciated by the early Church (and reflected in the Pauline epistles and the Letter to the Hebrews). McKenzie notes in this regard that:

<blockquote>[Jesus] is a propitiatory offering in His blood (Rm 3:25), through which we are made righteous (Rm 5:9). We are redeemed through His blood (Eph 1:7) and through it we draw near to God (Eph 2:13), and by His blood He has made peace (between man and God; Col 1:20). The contrast and analogy between the blood of Jesus and the blood of sacrificial victims is drawn out at length in Heb. His blood excels that of animals (Heb 9:12 ff). Blood is the only effective agent of purification (Heb 9:20 ff) and of the remission of sins (9:22). But the blood of animals cannot remove sins (10:4); Christ has effected eternal redemption by His own blood (9:12), through which we have access to the sanctuary (10:19).<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept [of body-blood] baśar wadam [Hebrew] or biśra udema [Aramaic] … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref></blockquote>

Jesus does not ''directly'' advocate violating the Old Testament proscription against drinking blood (because He is not advocating the drinking of physical blood), yet He ''implicitly'' does this when He advocates drinking the red wine which He ''identifies'' with the blood of His impending sacrifice in order to share the ''redemptive power''<ref>“The blood of the lambs slaughtered at the exodus from Egypt had redemptive power…” (Jeremias 1966, p. 225).</ref> of that sacrifice. Recall that the power of the Passover lamb’s blood was protection against death in a specific situation,<ref>“For the sake of the passover blood God revoked the death sentence against Israel; he said: ‘I will see the blood of the passover and make atonement for you.’ In the same way the people of God of the End time will be redeemed by the merits of the passover blood” (Jeremias 1966, p. 226).</ref> but the power of Jesus’ redemptive blood goes far beyond this because it protects against ''every'' manifestation of death unto eternal life and communion with God. The redemptive power of the lamb’s blood was placed on the ''exterior'' (door posts) of every Hebrew house. Jesus’ blood (redemptive power) is taken interiorly and protects from ''interior'' (spiritual) death, making it the transformative power of eternal communion with God. It is difficult to believe that Jesus would have advocated the implicit violation of the Old Testament proscription (against drinking blood) unless He believed that His blood of sacrifice had the ''real power'' to protect against spiritual death.

Jesus also associates His sacrificial blood with the “blood of the new covenant.”<ref>“The blood of the Eucharist is the blood of the new covenant in all the formulae of institution [see above, Section I], an allusion to Ex 24:8…” (McKenzie 1965, p. 99).</ref> A covenant is a solemn promise. McKenzie notes:

<blockquote>In early Hebrew society written documents were employed little or not at all. In their place the spoken word was invested with ritual solemnity which gave it a kind of concrete reality. The spoken word thus uttered could not be annulled or retracted. … The covenant was such a solemn ritual agreement which served the function of a written contract. The covenanting parties bound themselves by a ritual agreement which included terrible imprecations upon the party which should violate the covenant.<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 153.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, a covenant has the effect of an absolutely guaranteed promise. In the case of Jesus (who is representing Abba as His Son and suffering servant) it has the effect of an absolutely guaranteed promise on the part of an absolutely truthful God.

But what is Jesus’ new covenant promising? Four interrelated promises: (1) communion with God, (2) the new covenant of Jeremiah, (3) Isaiah’s servant covenant, and (4) the eschatological (fulfilled) kingdom of God (Jesus’ mission – what He has come to bring in His person).

With respect to the first point, common life was part of any “covenant in blood,”<ref>“In the covenant ritual the blood of the victims was dashed on the altar, representing God, and on the people, signifying that the covenant partners share a common life (Ex 24:6 ff)” (McKenzie 1965, p. 99).</ref> because the sprinkling of blood indicated that the parties were one blood or one family.<ref>Ex. 24:3-8. See also McKenzie 1965, p. 155.</ref> Thus, covenant between God and human beings would indicate common life or communion with Him. It can hardly be doubted that Jesus intended this very basic meaning of “covenant in blood” in His words of institution.

With respect to the second point, Jeremiah promises (presumably at the messianic time) a new covenant which would be written on the hearts of human beings:

<blockquote>“The time is coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers…. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”<ref> Jeremiah 31:31-34.</ref></blockquote>

Presuming that Jesus was as familiar with this common text in Jeremiah as He was with the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, Jesus would have seen His new covenant as embracing the new law of the heart (the law of love) which He came to bring through His sacrificial death, resurrection, and gift of the Spirit. Jesus would have probably seen the blood of the covenant not only as a guaranteed promise of communion with God, but also as the vehicle through which the law of unconditional Love would be infused within the heart of every human being through the Holy Spirit.

With respect to the third point (Isaiah’s “servant covenant”) it seems highly probable that Jesus who identified Himself as the suffering servant in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 would have also been acutely aware of the preceding servant prophecies (Isaiah 42:6ff and 49:8ff). A brief review of these two passages will show that the servant is the covenant, that the covenant is for all peoples, and that it leads to the atonement of sin and new communion with God:

<blockquote>“I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness” (Is 42:6-7).</blockquote>

And also:

<blockquote>This is what the Lord says: “In the time of my favor I will answer you, and in the day of salvation I will help you; I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people, to restore the land and to reassign its desolate inheritances, to say to the captives, ‘Come out,’ and to those in darkness, ‘Be free!’ They will feed beside the roads and find pasture on every barren hill. … See, they will come from afar – some from the north, some from the west…” (Is 49:8-12).</blockquote>

Given Jesus’ familiarity with the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, and the remarkable parallels with the themes surrounding His institution of the Eucharist (the suffering servant, atonement of sin, poured out for the many – for the all) it seems very unlikely that Jesus would not have had this notion of “servant (Himself as covenant)” in mind when speaking of the new covenant (the new communion) with God at the Eucharist. Hence, the new covenant in His blood is filled with the notion of a complete healing of humanity (sight for the blind, liberty for captives, release for those who sit in darkness, etc.).

The above eschatological dimension leads to the fourth and final point, namely, the covenant as definitive bringing of the kingdom. This dimension of covenant is manifest in Isaiah 59:21:

<blockquote>“As for me, this is my covenant with them” says the Lord. “My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,” says the Lord.</blockquote>

The “forever” here indicates that the covenant brings with it the eschatological kingdom through the permanent imparting of the Spirit of God. When this is combined with Jeremiah 31:31 and the eschatological dimensions of Isaiah 42:6-7, 49:8-12, and 59:21, it seems likely that Jesus viewed the new covenant as a “guaranteed promise of the actualization of the kingdom.” Jeremias links Jesus’ “new covenant” to His new Passover sacrifice (see above, Section II.B.2) and concludes to the following:

<blockquote>Jesus describes his death as this eschatological passover sacrifice: his vicarious (huper) death brings into operation the final deliverance, the new covenant of God. Diathēkē (“covenant”) is a correlate of basileia ton ouranōn (“kingdom of heaven”). The content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus’ death is perfect communion with God (Jer. 31.33-34a) in his reign, based upon the remission of sins (31.34b).<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

'''Summary.''' Unconditional Love would seem to be the power of this beautiful and encompassing new covenant. It is Jesus’ total gift of Himself, His taking the place of an animal in the sin-offering, and the offering of His blood in place of an animal’s blood in the covenant sacrifice that enables us all to be “one blood, one family” with God. It is His act of total humility and self-sacrifice (Agape) which unites us together as God’s family. The Holy Spirit is the personal power effecting this unity, and Jesus is its “body.” Jesus intended that His act of self-sacrifice, His gift of self, His unconditional Love, be the creative power of protection from spiritual death and therefore from all death. The new covenant is the absolute bond, the absolute guarantee, the very principle of eternal life in communion with God. It arises out of unconditional Love, it finds its fulfillment in unconditional Love; it is unconditional Love. Though He may not have used these words, one can scarcely interpret His action of taking the place of an animal in a sacrificial offering to mean anything less. Thus, when He said, “This cup is the covenant in my blood,” He intended to bestow on us an eternal communion with one another through His own person/body given in self-sacrifice. This is unquestionably unconditional Love.

=== “Do this in Remembrance of Me” ===

If Jeremias’ extensive study of ''anamnesis'' (remembrance) within Semitic cult is correct, then Jesus’ command of repetition (“Do this in remembrance of me”) has the double function of (1) asking God to recall something of religious significance, and (2) asking God to make that blessing really present (to recreate that blessing in the present).

With respect to the first point, Jeremias shows that in both the Old Testament and New Testament (Mark 14:9, Matt 26:13, and Acts 10:4) a ritual remembrance is not so much directed at the human subject but at God so that He might remember: “…[I]n the Old Testament and Palestinian memorial formulae it is almost always God who remembers. In accordance with this the command for repetition may be translated: ‘This do, that God may remember me’”

With respect to the second point, Jeremias notes:

This calling into the presence of God [remembrance – anamnesis], this bringing to life before God, this recalling of the past, this is, on the other side, effective. It has a purpose, it is intended to effect something: that God may remember – mercifully or punishingly. God’s remembrance is, namely (this is an important fact to which O. Michel called attention), never a simple remembering of something, but always and without exception “an effecting and creating event.” When Luke 1.72 says that God remembers his covenant, this means that he is now fulfilling the eschatological covenant promise.

If we combine all these elements, it would seem that when Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me,” He expected that He and His self-sacrificial action would be presented to God (the Father) to be made present (real) in the blessed and distributed bread whenever the words of institution were repeated. Johannes Betz summarizes the work of Michel, Jeremias, and others as follows:

Anamnesis in the biblical sense means not only the subjective representation of something in the consciousness and as an act of the remembering mind. It is also the objective effectiveness and presence of one reality in another, especially the effectiveness and presence of the salvific actions of God, in the liturgical worship. Even in the OT, the liturgy is the privileged medium in which the covenant attains actuality. ¶ The meaning of the logion may perhaps be paraphrased as follows: do this (what I have done) in order to bring about my presence, to make really present the salvation wrought in me.

We may here see Jesus’ intention to extend His self-sacrificial gift, His whole self, and the covenant in His blood to all future generations through a ritual which recreates the efficacy of His passion through His real presence. This desire to share in perpetuity is yet another manifestation of the unconditional nature of Jesus’ self-sacrificial covenant love.

=== “Poured Out for Many” ===

As noted above, the notion of pollōn (many) in Jesus’ logion “poured out for many” is a translation of the Hebrew rabbim which can have an exclusive or inclusive meaning. When it has the inclusive meaning, it signifies “all.” Jeremias summarizes these linguistic issues as follows:

While “many” in Greek (as in English) stands in opposition to “all”, and therefore has the exclusive sense (“many, but not all”), Hebrew rabbim can have the inclusive sense (“the whole, comprising many individuals”). This inclusive use is connected with the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic possess no word for “all”.

This inclusive sense of rabbim was very common in Old Testament and intertestamental literature. When it is accompanied by the definite article in Talmudic and even New Testament texts, it almost always has an inclusive meaning (“all”); but, as Jeremias points out, it can frequently have an inclusive meaning even without the definite article.

In the New Testament (with respect to Jesus’ self-sacrificial passion), Mark 10:45 uses pollōn in the inclusive sense to refer to Jesus’ “ransom for many.” This passage refers back to the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 53:10-12 which is interpreted in 1Timothy 2:6 by using the Greek word “all” (pantōn) instead of “many” (pollōn). According to Jeremias:

Of especial importance for our passage is Mark 10.45 par., lutron anti pollōn “a ransom for many”. That polloi has here the inclusive meaning “all” is shown by the reference in Mark 10.45 to Isa. 53.10-12, as well as by the parallel in I Tim. 2.6: antilutron huper pantōn, “a ransom for all”. Just as Mark 10.45, so also our passage Mark 14.24 [Jesus’ eucharistic words] is to be interpreted in the inclusive sense. Pollōn is therefore a Semitism. ¶ 14.24 to ekchunnomenon huper pollōn (“the[blood] poured out for many”). The placing of the prepositional phrase at the end corresponds to Semitic word order. That it is placed between the article and the participle independently of each other in Matthew as well as in Luke shows that the position at the end sounds harsh in Greek.

This remarkable parallel which shows the rabbim in Isaiah 53:10-12 to be translated by both pollōn (many) and pantōn (all) in Mark and 1Timothy, respectively, and the very uncharacteristically Greek (but characteristically Semitic) expressions of the eucharistic words in Mark and Matthew offer strong evidence that Jesus’ rabbim was meant in an inclusive sense, and therefore, as “all” (all human beings).

Once again, the unconditional nature of Jesus’ love emerges. His sacrificial act is not for a chosen few, but rather for all humankind. He offers this not only to His generation, but all future generations. His gift of Himself is total and universal. His love is unconditional.

== Conclusion ==

Given the above interpretation of Jesus’ eucharistic words and actions, one can scarcely deny His intention to give Himself completely to all humankind in the sacrificial act. He not only wanted to give Himself completely in sacrifice (in imitation of the suffering servant, the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and taking the place of an animal in a sin-offering and a covenant sacrifice), but also wanted to be present to us and in us for all generations and all time. This seems to meet the requirements for an unconditional act of love.

Yes, Jesus had a plan, an unconditionally loving plan, as He proceeded toward imminent death in Jerusalem. He planned to atone for the sins of all unconditionally, and to initiate a covenant of unconditional communion with God in everlasting life, through a ritual which would make the blessing of His sacrifice, self, and love really present in perpetuity. Jesus not only wanted the consummation of His mission (His passion) to be an act of total self-sacrifice, He wanted to give it away to everyone for all generations (unconditionally and universally).

If God were Unconditional Love, would He do something like this as Emmanuel (God with us)? Would He give Himself away in self-sacrifice, and then give that self-sacrificial love away forever? If such actions would typify an unconditionally loving God, then Jesus would seem to be His Emmanuel – His Unconditional Love with us.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Eucharist

2015-01-08T15:38:15Z

David Persyn: /* “This Cup is the Covenant in My Blood” */ Footnotes and Formats

Magis ChristWiki - Magis Institute

Unit II. L

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Eucharist

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-L_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Eucharist.3F | Return to Table of Contents]]

Saint Paul believed that the clearest demonstration of Jesus’ love was in His passion and death: “But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rm 5:8). Jesus instituted the Eucharist to give the “total gift of Himself in the passion” to all future generations. He deliberately walked into His passion by traveling to Jerusalem before the feast of the Passover when the authorities were evidently seeking to put an end to His ministry and even His life. He did this because He had a plan in mind; a plan to give the blessing and power of His person and passion to all future generations through a ritual arising out of His interpretation of the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. The Beloved One of the Father intended to make us all beloveds in His own image by giving Himself (and the eschatological kingdom of love) to us in a definitive, unconditional act. This consummation of His mission (His raison d’être) reveals His core identity. The question naturally follows, “Would it be typical of an unconditionally loving God who enters into complete empathy with us to have such a self-sacrificial mission and plan?” If so, then this is one of our most profound signs that Jesus is Emmanuel.

== Did Jesus Institute the Eucharist at a Passover Meal? ==

Joachim Jeremias’ classic work, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus is still acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive treatments of this subject with the most extensive analysis of rabbinical traditions.<ref>Meier 1991, p. 395.</ref> Some exegetes feel uneasy about his application of rabbinical traditions and extratestamental material to New Testament texts,<ref>See Meier 1991, p. 395.</ref> and many scholars do not agree with his assignment of the Last Supper to the Passover meal, because it requires that too much activity take place on Passover day (the 15th of Nisan):

<blockquote>Despite Jeremias’ deft command of the material, he cannot really establish the likelihood that, at the time of Jesus, the supreme Jewish authorities in Jerusalem would arrest a person suspected of a capital crime, immediately convene a meeting of the Sanhedrin to hear the case (a case involving the death penalty), hold a formal trial with witnesses, reach a decision that the criminal deserved to die, and hand over the criminal to the Gentile authorities with a request for execution on the same day – all within the night and early day hours of Passover Day, the fifteenth of Nisan!<ref>Meier 1991, p. 396.</ref></blockquote>

For this reason, Meier believes that it is more probable that the Last Supper took place on the day before the Passover meal (on the eve of the 14th of Nisan), which corresponds with John’s dating of it rather than the Synoptics’.<ref>See Meier 1991, p. 396.</ref>

Yet, the placement of the Last Supper on the eve of the 14th of Nisan does not rule out the possibility that Jesus, aware of what was to befall Him, celebrated a Passover supper with His disciples (without a lamb) on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. Since the lambs were slaughtered prior to the meal on the 15th of Nisan, it would not have been possible for Jesus to celebrate the Passover meal with a lamb. This is consistent with New Testament accounts which make multiple references to the Passover meal,<ref>See, for example, Luke 22:15 (“I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer”); Luke 22:13 (“they prepared the Passover”); Luke 22:11 (“tell the householder, ‘the Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I am to eat the Passover with my disciples?”); Mark 14:12 (“Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”); Luke 22:8 (“Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it”); Luke 22:7 (“[it was] the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed”). Even if one ignores the passages which refer to the Marcan dating of the Last Supper on the eve of the 15th of Nisan (such as Luke 22:7), there are five distinct references (without dating) to a Passover meal.</ref> but no references to a lamb.

There are six reasons why a Passover meal should not be ruled out even if it occurred on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. First, as noted above, the Passover is linked to Jesus’ Last Supper multiple times in all three synoptic Gospels. Secondly, there are differences in the chronology of the Synoptic Gospels which indicate that a Passover meal could have been celebrated at different times within the weeklong celebration leading up to Passover. The reference to the “first day” in Mark and Luke, as Harrington suggests, betrays a mixed chronology, for:

<blockquote>the paschal lamb was normally eaten on the first day of the feast. Yet Mark describes the “first day” as the day of preparation when the lambs were slaughtered, corresponding to Wednesday, while the meal would be celebrated that evening.<ref>Harrington 1991, p. 392.</ref></blockquote>

Thirdly, the Passover is mentioned in a unique, ancient formula recounted in Luke’s Gospel, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.”<ref>See the extensive analysis of Jeremias in 1966, pp. 190-92.</ref> Fourthly, Jeremias detects several Semitisms behind the wording in the Gospel passages which are traceable to the Passover ceremony itself (such as the “fruit of the vine” in Luke 22:18).<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 161-62.</ref> Fifthly, Jeremias notes that:

<blockquote>[T]he pre-Pauline Passover haggadah preserved in I Cor. 5.7f. calls Jesus “our passover (lamb)” and that Paul presupposes as self-evident the familiarity of the Corinthian community with this comparison, a comparison widespread in the early Christian literature.<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 222-23.</ref></blockquote>

Sixthly, there are references to the Passover meal within the passages (e.g., the multiple cups, which seems to have come from Luke’s special source [22:17-18], and the Passover haggadah between the word over the bread and the word over the cup<ref>See Jeremias 1966, p. 85 and 221.</ref>). In sum, these distinct ancient sources of the institution of the Eucharist at Passover indicate a common Palestinian source which very probably goes back to Jesus Himself.

Could Jesus have celebrated an adapted Passover meal with His disciples on the eve of the 14th of Nisan to anticipate His impending death which would have occurred near the time of the slaughtering of the lambs? Since Jesus was not unaccustomed to adapting Jewish doctrine and ritual to conform to His own doctrinal and ritual requirements, this possibility cannot be ruled out. Even if Jesus did not celebrate a Passover meal (without a lamb) at the Last Supper, He could have borrowed particular rituals from it or alluded to it during the Last Supper. For this reason, I will include Jeremias’ references to the Passover meal in the forthcoming analysis. The reader may want to bear in mind that these Passover rituals may not have occurred, but may only have been implied in Jesus’ actions during the Last Supper.

The analysis will be carried out in two steps:

1) a brief synopsis of Jeremias’ and others’ exegetical work on the original tradition (Section II.A); and

2) the meaning of Jesus’ eucharistic words and actions (Section II.B).

== Jeremias’ Interpretation of the Original Tradition ==

There are four traditions of Jesus’ Eucharistic words:<ref>There is also a tradition in John (6:25-59), but it is a Eucharistic discourse instead of a recounting of the Last Supper; a specific exegesis of this passage is beyond the objective of this study.</ref>

1) I Corinthians 11:23-26:

<blockquote>For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.</blockquote>

2) Mark 14:22-25:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take; this is my body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” He said to them. “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”</blockquote>

3) Matthew 26:26-29:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”</blockquote>

4) Luke 22:17-20:

<blockquote>After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”</blockquote>

A brief glance at the above four traditions reveals two branches of an original tradition – (1) a Paul-Luke branch (which makes specific reference to remembrance; a new covenant; and, in the case of Luke alone, “poured out for you”), and (2) a Mark-Matthew branch (which makes no reference to remembrance; refers to covenant, but not a new covenant; and makes the objective of Jesus’ outpouring for many). Jeremias has split this project into two parts: (1) the four common areas of these traditions (which, given the different theologies in the two branches, would probably have to have their origin in a common source), and (2) in areas where the branches differ, locating the more primitive tradition through grammatical constructions and the presence of Semitisms. The two analyses will bring us close to an original tradition which may closely resemble Jesus’ own words.

There are four common areas within the four traditions:

<blockquote>(1) Jesus’ action with respect to the bread: “took bread, gave thanks [in the case of Paul, “after he had given thanks”], and broke it,”</blockquote>

<blockquote>(2) Jesus’ words over the bread: “this is my body [soma],”</blockquote>

<blockquote>(3) Jesus’ action with respect to the cup. In Mark-Matthew: “Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them.” In Paul-Luke: “In the same way” (referring to the way in which He gave the bread, i.e., “took bread and gave thanks… and gave it to them”), and</blockquote>

<blockquote>(4) Jesus’ word over the cup: “This is my blood of the covenant.” Evidently, Paul and Luke refer to the new covenant whereas Mark and Matthew refer only to the covenant.<ref>Jeremias shows through a grammatical analysis that, despite surface appearances, the Paul-Luke version is essentially the same as the Mark-Matthew version even though the Paul-Luke version refers to the cup (where Mark-Matthew does not), and Paul-Luke refers to “the covenant in my blood” while Mark-Matthew refers to the “blood of the covenant.” See Jeremias 1966, pp. 168-69.</ref></blockquote>

Jeremias holds that the Marcan version of the word over the bread is the more original tradition while the Pauline version of the word over the cup is the more original:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “Take; this is my body.” (Mark 14:22)</blockquote>

<blockquote>In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (1Cor. 11:25a).</blockquote>

Jeremias believes there is good reason for holding the Pauline version to be the more original formula for the word over the cup on linguistic grounds, because the Mark-Matthew version is far more symmetrical, indicating the need to take a more complex narrative form (in Paul-Luke) and convert it to a more symmetrical liturgical form in Mark-Matthew. Though it may be thought that the Paul-Luke form is more apologetically appealing (because it is less evocative of drinking blood in a pagan ritual which would have been repulsive to Jewish people), and therefore later than the Mark-Matthew version (which may have given rise to these apologetically unappealing misimpressions), Paul’s version is probably the earlier because it reveals a separation in time between the word over the bread and the word over the wine (to account for the consumption of the meal between the two events) which the Mark-Matthew version does not represent. Thus, the Mark-Matthew version seems to be a later formula taken from the liturgy, which did not need to account for the separation of the meal (as a more narrative account would have) and needed to be more symmetrical for the sake of liturgical repetition.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 169-171 and 191-92.</ref>

It now remains to establish which of the other three divergent areas is the more original. As implied above, there are three areas of divergence:

<blockquote>a) “the new covenant” (Paul-Luke) versus “the covenant” (Mark-Matthew),</blockquote>

<blockquote>b) poured out for you (Luke) versus “poured out for many” (Mark-Matthew), and</blockquote>

<blockquote>c) word of remembrance – ''anamnēsis'' (in Paul-Luke, but not mentioned in Mark-Matthew).</blockquote>

I will briefly summarize Jeremias’ judgment on these three matters so that an original tradition (close to the words and actions of Jesus) may be adduced.

With respect to the new covenant, Jeremias holds that the Mark-Matthew version would probably be the earlier because the placement of the adjective “new” prior to “covenant” is Hellenistic (but not Semitic) indicating that it originated “on Hellenistic soil.”<ref>Though the Pauline formula is not the more original of the two, its pre-Pauline origins are indicated by its agreement with Luke. See Jeremias 1966, pp. 171-72.</ref>

With respect to the “poured out for you” (Luke) versus “poured out for many”<ref>As will be discussed below, “for many,” in the Semitic sense of “rabbim” which was probably uttered by Jesus, is inclusive (that is, it does not exclude some in contrast to the totality, as in the common Greek and English uses of it – e.g., “many, but not everybody”). The reason for this is that there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word for “all.” Thus, the inclusive sense of “rabbim” explicitly includes the totality and its individual members. See Jeremias 1966, p. 179.</ref> (Mark-Matthew), Jeremias holds that “for many” is the more original on the basis of linguistic grounds, namely, “for many” is a Semitism while “you” is not. Jeremias attributes the replacement of “many” by “you” as having a liturgical purpose where each worshiper feels him or herself to be individually addressed (by “you”), which would not happen with the indefinite “many.” In view of this, he holds that the replacement of “many” by “you” is not an attempt to limit the atoning work of Jesus arising out of later theological reflection.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 172.</ref>

Finally, with respect to the word of remembrance (which Jeremias terms the command for repetition), Paul mentions it twice (after the word over the bread and the word over the wine), Luke mentions it once (after the word over the bread), but Mark and Matthew omit it altogether. Jeremias holds that this tradition is pre-Pauline but probably not a part of the oldest traditions. Yet it could well have originated with Jesus. There are three reasons for suspecting this. First, the bread and wine rituals took on a high degree of significance apart from the meal (suggesting a command of repetition from Jesus with respect to them, but not with respect to the meal separating them). Secondly, the words over the bread and wine are so often repeated that they quickly become a central Christian ritual (which gives them far more significance than mere parts of a farewell meal or a commemoration of Jesus’ death<ref>Jeremias has an extensive discussion of the contention that the word of remembrance was a later Greek accretion imitating annual celebrations of the dead. One of his reasons for rejecting this thesis is that the Christian ritual was daily or weekly and not merely an annual celebration. See Jeremias 1966, pp. 238-43.</ref>) suggesting once again a command of repetition from Jesus. Thirdly, it would be unusual for early liturgical formulations to contain this command since, as Jeremias notes, “the celebration itself was its fulfillment.”<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 238.</ref> In view of the fact that Jesus said much more during the meal than was recorded, it may be surmised that He gave a command of repetition.

So what can we now conclude about Jesus’ actions and words? If the earliest narratives reflect Jesus’ actions, and if Jeremias’ conjectures about Jesus’ words are correct, we can conclude that Jesus gathered with His disciples before the feast of the Passover and indicated to them that He longed to celebrate this Passover with them, but instead of doing so, fasted while the other disciples celebrated.<ref>See Jeremias’ convincing argument in 1966, pp. 208-09.</ref> After drinking one of the four Passover cups while they were eating the Passover meal (or an adapted Passover ritual),<ref>See the discussion of this topic in the introduction to Section II above.</ref> Jesus initiated the ritual of the bread, identifying it with His body: “Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take; this is my body.’” Then, after the completion of the Passover meal (or adapted Passover ritual), Jesus initiated the ritual of the wine which He identifies with the covenant in His blood. He took a cup of red wine, gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This cup is the covenant in my blood.”<ref>Though Jesus identifies the red wine with the “covenant in His blood,” it is clear from the red wine, the parallelism with the bread, and the use of “this cup” that Jesus is identifying the red wine with both His blood and the covenant in His blood. Jeremias notes that the color of the wine is significant here: “The tertium comparationis in the case of the bread is the fact that it was broken, and in the case of the wine the red colour. We have already seen…that it was customary to drink red wine at the Passover…. The comparison between red wine and blood was common in the Old Testament (Gen. 49.11; Deut. 32.14; Isa. 63.3,6), further Ecclus 39.26; 50.15; I Macc. 6.34; Rev. 14.20; Sanh. 70a, etc.” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 223-24).</ref> Sometime either prior to or after this (perhaps both), Jesus gives a command of repetition similar to “Do this in remembrance of me.”

If this reconstruction is accurate, we may now proceed to a brief summary of Jeremias’ and others’ conclusions about the meaning of these words and the ritual they constitute.

== The Meaning of Jesus’ Eucharistic Words and Actions ==

Six elements of Jesus’ institution of the Eucharist merit interpretation:

(1) His view of Himself as “suffering servant” (Is 52:13-53:12 – see Section II.B.1);

(2) Jesus as the new sacrificial paschal lamb (II.B.2);

(3) “This is my body” (soma – II.B.3);

(4) “This cup is the covenant in my blood” (II.B.4);

(5) “Do this in remembrance of me” (II.B5); and

(6) “poured out for many” (II.B.6).

As will become evident, the synthesis of these six elements (in their proper interpretation) points strongly to Jesus’ action as one of unconditional Love, which reveals a heart of unconditional Love.

=== Jesus as Suffering Servant ===

It may be helpful to here set out the whole Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12, because reference will be made to it throughout this Unit on the Eucharist as well as the forthcoming Unit on the passion of Jesus:

<blockquote>See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as there were many who were appalled at him – his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness – so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand (52:13-15).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him (53:1-2).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not (53:3).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted (53:4).</blockquote>

<blockquote>But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed (53:5).</blockquote>

<blockquote>We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all (53:6).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth (53:7).</blockquote>

<blockquote>By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken (53:8).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth (53:9).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities (53:10-11).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he ''poured'' out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of ''many'', and made intercession for the transgressors (53:12 – italics mine).</blockquote>

The obvious tie-in between the suffering servant song and Jesus’ eucharistic words occurs at 53:12. The phrase “poured out for many,” which is a part of the oldest tradition of the eucharistic words, has a remarkable parallel with Isaiah 53:12 which states:

<blockquote>…because he poured out (he’erah) his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many (rabbim)….”</blockquote>

The Hebrew background of both Jesus’ eucharistic words and Isaiah 53:12 as well as the context of these words (the sacrifice of Jesus and the suffering servant) are so close that it would be difficult to believe that the ancient tradition of Jesus’ eucharistic words was not referring to Isaiah 53:12.<ref>According to Jeremias, [“poured out for many”] “is linked with an Old Testament passage: Isa. 53.12, ‘because he poured out (he’erah) his life to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many (rabbim) and made intercession for the transgressors’ (the reference is to the Hebrew text of this passage, a fact to be kept in mind as evidence of the age of the tradition). This allusion to the Old Testament passage on the suffering servant is supported by the fact that the word rabbim/πολλοί is almost a ''leit-motiv'' in Isa. 52.13-53.12.” Jeremias 1966, pp. 226-7.</ref> Moreover, Jesus seems to have had an intimate acquaintance with the texts of Deutero-Isaiah,<ref>See Betz, 1968-70, v.2, p. 257.</ref> and also seems to have interpreted His life and His mission in terms of this passage which was uncannily similar to the passion He was about to suffer. Hence, it seems likely that Jesus intended the words “poured out for many” in a way that could be interpreted through the lens of the Suffering Servant song. This means that Jesus intends His eucharistic actions and words in an expiatory way, that is, as a “sin offering” or “guilt offering” for the sins of many. Johannes Betz notes in this regard:

<blockquote>Jesus accomplished the decisive purpose of His life, His task as Messiah, in carrying out the mission of the servant of God of Deutero-Isaiah, who as God’s majestic envoy proclaims and inaugurates a new phase in salvation and who as martyr takes upon Himself expiatory sufferings for the sins of the many.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v.2, p. 258.</ref></blockquote>

It would seem, therefore, that Jesus had this Suffering Servant song deeply in mind when He decided to proceed toward Jerusalem with full knowledge that the authorities were seeking to persecute Him (see John 11:8). This makes sense of both His resoluteness toward impending death and His obvious preparation for the eucharistic ritual (with its imbedded passage from Isaiah 53:12), which would, in turn, make sense of Matthew’s additional words (probably reflective of a later tradition): “for the forgiveness of sins.”<ref>This is imbedded within Jesus’ words over the cup: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt. 26:28).</ref>

The logic of this sin offering may seem a bit confusing to a contemporary audience, especially the passage in Isaiah that states, “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see the light of life and be satisfied” (Isaiah 53:10). At first glance, it may seem that the portrayal of the Lord in this passage (and therefore Jesus’ view of God’s will) is sadistic, but this is certainly not the case, for Jesus’ interpretation of the Isaiah passage is set within His view of the Father as “Abba” and Himself as Son and Beloved. Thus, Jesus’ interpretation of this passage must be seen within the context of the logic of love, which makes the Johannine words of Jesus particularly significant, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (Jn 15:13). If this passage represents Jesus’ interpretive principle for both the Isaiah passage and His Eucharistic words, then Jesus would have interpreted “the Lord’s will to crush him” in terms of the Father’s acceptance of Jesus’ love offering (the gift of Himself) for the sins of the world.

Recall for a moment some of the observations about Jesus’ view of love (agape) from the previous Unit. We saw that Jesus viewed love as the highest commandment (Mark 12:30 and par.), and that He elucidated His view of love through the beatitudes (Matt 5:3-12), which included humble-heartedness, gentle-heartedness, hungering and thirsting for the will of God, being merciful (which includes being forgiving), peacemaking, and enduring persecution for the kingdom of God. Ironic as it may seem, Jesus’ self-sacrificial gift for the expiation of sins synthesizes and catalyzes every one of these elements from the beatitudes and concretizes their “synthesis in love” within not only historical but future reality.<ref>Paul did not miss this insight in Colossians 3:12-14: “Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which is the bond of completeness.” See the explanation of this passage in Unit II-J, Section IV.</ref>

The Gospel of John has captured Jesus’ intention well. There is no greater love (the synthesis of the beatitudes) that a person can have than to give his life. In light of Jesus’ view of the Father as Abba (which has embedded within it generative, compassionate, forgiving, restoring, affectionate love – similar to the father’s love in the Prodigal Son parable), it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus would have loosely interpreted the words of Isaiah 53:10 to mean “it would have pleased the Father – despite His pain – to see the self-sacrificial (loving) will of His Son become a reality for all humanity.” Just because Jesus uses Isaiah 52:13-53:12 as an interpretive principle for His self-sacrifice does not mean that He agrees with every theological element in that passage. Indeed, Jesus was known to have loosely interpreted and even reinterpreted many passages from Torah and the prophets. It would seem inconceivable that Jesus could have interpreted Isaiah 53:10 outside the context of His being the beloved Son of Abba.

Therefore, we might look at Jesus’ mindset about the passion and Eucharist (as He approached Jerusalem) as follows. First, He intended to make Himself an expiatory offering much like the one spoken of in Isaiah 53:8ff:

<blockquote>…for the transgression of my people he was stricken…. …and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering…. …my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. …because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.</blockquote>

Secondly, Jesus had a twofold understanding of the efficacy of this “sin offering”: (1) the efficacy of sacrifice, and (2) the efficacy of love. With respect to the efficacy of sacrifice, it seems probable that Jesus organized His Eucharistic words to indicate that He was making a sacrifice of Himself. By separating the words over the body and the blood, Jesus implied that what He was about to endure on the cross was like the separation of flesh and blood in a cultic sacrifice.<ref>“This formula derives from Ex 24:8 and characterizes the content of the cup primarily as the cultic sacrificial element “blood”, which is separated from the flesh, then also the death of Jesus as the separation of flesh and blood after the manner of a cultic sacrifice” (Betz 1968-70, v.2, p. 259). See also Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22: “…[I]t also designates, as already in ancient Hebrew, the two component parts of the body [flesh and blood], especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed.”</ref>

Yet, Jesus was not making Himself a cultic sacrifice in the traditional sense, for He, the Son, the Beloved One, the innocent One, made Himself the sacrificial gift for those who are not innocent, in the certain hope of the resurrection and universal atonement. Betz notes in this regard:

<blockquote>Taking on alien guilt meant taking on also the necessity of death. As his life went on, Jesus thought more frequently of his death and spoke more frequently of it to his disciples…. It was for Jesus not something that merely happened to him, but a conscious and willed deed to which he assented as a necessity in the history of salvation, and on which he freely decided (Lk 12:50). His total readiness for the death which was the mission of the Servant of the Lord is also expressed in the logion of the ransom (Mk 10:45), and the prophecies of the passion (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:32ff). … His death is total dedication and the deepest fulfillment of his being. … Unlike the ''cultic'' sacrifices, there is no separate ''gift'' which stands for the offerer and symbolizes his dedication to God. Here the offerer himself functions as ''gift'' in his own person and accomplishes the sacrificial dedication by the real shedding of his blood. Jesus must have been sure that God would accept this sacrifice, his body, and hence that God would fill it with new life. Thus the death of Jesus brings with it the resurrection as an inner consequence, as an essential part of it, regardless of the difference in time between the two events.<ref>Betz, 1968-70, v.2, p. 258. Italics mine.</ref></blockquote>

The middle term, as it were, between efficacy of sacrifice and efficacy of love is gift. As is clear from the above, a cultic sacrifice finds its efficacy in the gift given to God, and, as is clear from the Johannine passage on love, there is no greater love than to give one’s life. When Jesus made Himself the gift in the sacrificial offering, He transformed the efficacy of that gift from one of cultic proportion to one of unconditional Love. This is evidenced in Jesus’ use of the word “covenant” (“the covenant in my blood”) which, as will be seen below, implies a bond of love.

In sum, when Jesus proceeded to Jerusalem He planned to complete His mission of being the suffering (messianic) servant of the Lord by becoming a sacrificial gift for all transgressors. In so doing, he hoped to effect an atonement for all sins as a perfect sacrifice (that is, as the self-sacrifice of the beloved innocent one) in place of cultic sin offerings. This atonement went far beyond mechanical cultic sin offerings because it was fundamentally an act of unconditional self-giving (Love) for humankind. This act of unconditional Love was the source and power of perfect atonement and a new covenant which promised eternal life through the God who has loved us so.

=== Jesus as the New Sacrificial Paschal Lamb ===

As noted above, it is likely that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper within the context of a Passover meal – perhaps an adapted Passover meal (without a lamb) on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. So why would Jesus have chosen the Passover celebration to make His sacrifice and institute the Eucharist? Jeremias believes that He wanted to compare Himself to the paschal lamb, or perhaps better, He wanted to be the eschatological paschal lamb – the one who was to initiate the new covenant (which He correlated with the kingdom of God) in His blood:<ref>Jeremias sees Jesus’ identification of Himself with the paschal lamb as correlative with His identification of the bread and wine with His own person. He also notes that the early Pauline community commonly understood Jesus to be the paschal lamb. See Jeremias 1966, p. 222-23.</ref>

<blockquote>With the words ''den biśri'', “this is my (sacrificial) flesh”, and ''den idmi'', “this is my (sacrificial) blood”, Jesus is therefore most probably speaking of himself as the paschal lamb. He is the eschatological paschal lamb, representing the fulfillment of all that of which the Egyptian paschal lamb and all the subsequent sacrificial paschal lambs were the prototype.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 223.</ref></blockquote>

It should not be thought that the absence of a lamb at an adapted Passover meal (on the eve of the 14th of Nisan) militates against Jeremias’ thesis that Jesus associated Himself with the eschatological paschal lamb, for if Jesus did celebrate the Passover on the eve of the 14th of Nisan, His own passion would have begun at the time that the paschal lambs were being slaughtered in preparation for the feast celebrated on the eve of the 15th of Nisan. This would correlate well with the Last Supper’s anticipation of the impending self-sacrifice which might have been Jesus’ very intention.

The lamb is a simile for two essential dimensions of the Eucharist: (1) the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, and (2) the sacrifice initiating the covenant (leading out of slavery into a new life of freedom in the “promised land”). With respect to the forgiveness of sins, Jeremias notes:

<blockquote>By comparing himself with the eschatological paschal lamb Jesus describes his death as a saving death. … [A]t the passover meal the attention was directed…to the one “passover of the exodus” for the sake of which God had mercifully “passed over” the houses of the Israelites. The blood of the lambs slaughtered at the exodus from Egypt had redemptive power…<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 225.</ref></blockquote>

This “redemptive power,” this atonement for sins, protects from death and leads to everlasting life:

<blockquote>As a reward for the Israelites’ obedience to the commandment to spread blood on their doors, God manifested himself and spared them, “passing over” their houses. For the sake of the passover blood God revoked the death sentence against Israel; he said: “I will see the blood of the passover and make atonement for you.” In the same way the people of God of the End time will be redeemed by the merits of the Passover blood.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus sees His blood not only as a protection from death in this world (in imitation of the blood of the lamb at the Passover), but also as an eschatological protection (that is, a protection from death itself) which opens upon an eternal life of communion with Him and the Father:

<blockquote>Jesus describes his death as this eschatological passover sacrifice: his vicarious (''huper'') ''death brings into operation the final deliverance'', the new covenant of God. ''Diathēkē'' (“covenant”) is a correlate of ''basileia tōn ouranōn'' (“kingdom of heaven”). The content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus’ death is perfect communion with God (Jer. 31.33-34a) in his reign, based upon the remission of sins (31.34b).<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, Jesus’ selection of the Passover (whether this was celebrated on the eve of the 14th or 15th of Nisan) as the context for His death was a deliberate attempt to manifest a ''sacrificial''<ref>As noted above, the separation of the word over the bread and the word over the wine by a Passover supper separates Jesus’ flesh from Jesus’ blood which would have been commonly understood by His audience to signify His self-sacrifice (reminiscent of all sacrifices which separate the flesh and blood of the gifts offered).</ref> death, and therefore, His institution of the Eucharist at this time established Him as the new Passover sacrifice for the atonement of sins and the initiation of the new covenant unto eternal communion with Him and His Father.<ref>This is why the tradition used by Matthew which references the forgiveness of sins (“Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” – Mt 26:28), though unique in the texts of the eucharistic words and therefore probably not original, is compatible with Jesus’ intentions at the last supper. This is further confirmed by Jesus’ references to the suffering servant who atones for the sins of many by his self-sacrificial act (see above, II.A).</ref>

There is one more element to be discussed about Jesus’ identification of Himself with the Passover lamb, namely, its correlation with agape. Recall that there is a natural correlation between Jesus’ view of love and the beatitudes (see Unit II-J, Section IV). Love is humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, peace-making, merciful (forgiving), and accepting of persecution for the kingdom of God. Jesus’ identification of Himself with the unblemished (innocent) lamb (correlative with the suffering servant<ref>“He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth” (Is 53:7).</ref>) brings to mind the humility and gentleness of the paschal lamb, as well as the forgiveness, reconciliation, and “endurance of persecution” intrinsic to its sacrifice. By making Himself a self-sacrificial Passover offering, Jesus revealed Himself to be Unconditional Love.

Thus, it is not only the sacrificial aspect of Jesus’ self-offering which has the redemptive power to atone for sins and establish a covenant of eternal communion with God, but also the unconditional Love intrinsic to that sacrifice. Jesus’ first-century audience would have probably noticed the redemptive power in the sacrifice more readily than in His unconditional Love, but subsequent generations, reflecting on Jesus’ words of love, began to realize that the unconditional Love intrinsic to the self-sacrifice is the sacrifice’s redemptive power. Jesus was not using sacrifice in some kind of magical-mystical way to elicit God’s power; neither did He believe that God the Father was demanding that He sacrifice Himself in a mechanical way to atone for sins (“I will put my Son on one side of the scale to balance off all the negatives on your side”); Jesus sacrificed Himself to concretely actualize unconditional self-sacrificial gift (unconditional Love) in the world, which is the redemptive power overcoming all hatred, darkness, emptiness, and evil. Notice that the Son’s self-sacrifice in unconditional Love was also the Father’s self-sacrifice, for the Father had to give His Son as much as the Son had to give Himself.

=== “This is My Body” (''Sōma'') ===

We may now turn to the words of institution within the context of the suffering servant and the paschal lamb. To what does “this” (''touto'' – in Aramaic, “''den''”) refer in “this is my body?” Jeremias notes that it cannot refer to Jesus’ action of breaking the bread, but rather to the bread itself:

<blockquote>This interpretation [that “this” refers to Jesus’ breaking of the bread], which in any case is incompatible with the ''touto estin'' (“this is”), would only be feasible if the actions named coincided with the words of interpretation. But that is not the case. As regards the bread-word, the fact that it is preceded by ''gabete'' (“take”) shows that Jesus said it not as the bread was being broken, but as it was being distributed.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 220.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus identifies the bread (signified by ''touto/den'') with His body (''sōma''). The Semitic background of ''sōma'', according to Jeremias, is incontestably ''zeh baśari'' (Hebrew) and ''den bisri'' (Aramaic).<ref>“…the words of interpretation (if what has just been presented is conclusive) read, according to Mark, in Hebrew ''zeh beśari'' and ''zeh dami'', and in Aramaic ''den biśri'' and ''den idmi''” (Jeremias 1966, p. 201; see also p. 200).</ref> This Hebrew/Aramaic background indicates that Jesus is referring to His physical body, his flesh, given in self-sacrifice.<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept ''baśar wadam'' or ''biśra udema'' … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref> However, the Greek translation for Jesus’ Semitic word (''sōma'') may also indicate that the translators thought that Jesus was referring not only to His flesh (which would have been translated more precisely by ''sarx''), but also His whole person (His whole self).<ref>Note Jeremias’ wording, “…Jesus now interprets both again as he says grace, and this time in reference to his own person” (Jeremias 1966, p. 221).</ref>

This interpretation is compatible with the Semitic mindset which was not dualistic in a platonic way, and therefore, did not view body as mere corporeality; rather it viewed body as the whole corporeal self. According to McKenzie:

<blockquote>[In the Gospels], the body is parallel with life and is conceived almost as the self. … [In Paul, t]he first meaning of body is the concretely existing human being; in some contexts it again appears to be nearly synonymous with self (Rm 6:12f; 8:10?; 1 Co 6:18 f)…<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 100.</ref></blockquote>

Perhaps the Greek translators used ''sōma'' to more accurately convey to non-Jewish converts that Jesus’ Aramaic/Hebrew words were referring not only to His physicality, but to His whole self (which would have included characteristics the Greeks would have attributed to soul, such as the power of thinking and love, and the desire for justice and beauty, etc.).

If this interpretation is correct, then Jesus is making His whole corporeal self present in the words over the bread. The notion of “making a blessing present” in the reliving of an action or even in a substance (e.g., bread) was not uncommon in Semitic and Jewish religious practices. As Jeremias notes:

<blockquote>When at the daily meal the paterfamilias recites the blessing over the bread – which the members of the household make their own by the “Amen” – and breaks it and hands a piece to each member to eat, the meaning of the action is that each of the members is made a recipient of the blessing by this eating…<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 232.</ref></blockquote>

The bread of blessing, as it were, contains the blessing and conveys it to the willing recipient who says, “Amen” and consumes it.

The blessing which Jesus intends to be internalized by believers is certainly His sacrificed corporeal body; it is also His whole corporeal self. But Jesus’ use of “body” here cannot be restricted to this life alone, for He anticipated that His body would rise, that is, that there would be a fundamental continuity between His whole corporeal self and His “self in risen life with the Father”:

<blockquote>…[W]e can see from the simile and from the use of ekchunnomenon that Jesus did expect a violent death. Mark 14.25 par. makes it clear that Jesus was certain that God would vindicate his death by his resurrection and the establishment of the kingdom.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 225.</ref></blockquote>

What is even more striking is Jesus’ probable intention to use the body of His sacrifice (which He views as being in continuity with His future risen state) to be the medium through which communion with God (and consequent unity among believers) would be effected. Paul implies this in 1Cor 10:15-17:

<blockquote>Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body for we partake of the one loaf.</blockquote>

It seems that by “participation” Paul means more than participating in the historical self-sacrificed body of Jesus; He means participation in the presently existing body of Jesus which is capable of effecting unity among believers through unity with God. McKenzie notes in this regard:

<blockquote>The sacrificial element prominent in this passage of 1 Co and implicit in the formulae of institution is communion with the deity in the sacrificial banquet. Through the Eucharist the deity is rendered present in a striking and unique fashion. Communion is achieved only through Jesus Christ, who is man, and as man is body. The body is therefore rendered really present; the language of the four sources…leaves no room for mere symbolism in this respect. … The body which is present is the glorified body; we seem justified in believing that the NT implies that it is through His resurrection and exaltation that the body of Jesus becomes the Church [the unity of believers]. But this is the body “which was delivered for you,” one and the same Lord Jesus who ''died, rose, and sits at the right hand of the Father.'' Communion is achieved through the ''participation'' of the body and the blood of the victim. The salvation of the NT is not directed to the soul, but to the man, and man in Hebrew thought is body; if salvation is to reach man, his communion with the Savior must be a communication of body.</ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 251. Italics mine.</ref></blockquote

Paul’s view of the “body of Christ” cannot be retroactively put into the mind of Christ, for Paul is speaking in the light of having witnessed the risen Jesus. Nevertheless, one cannot altogether delete Paul’s interpretation from the mind of Jesus, for Jesus associated His “body” with His risen life with the Father, and this risen life would have been the vehicle through which the full meaning of the new covenant (which He viewed as “the kingdom of God” or communion with God) would be effected.

Thus, Jesus’ sacrificial words over the bread might be interpreted as, “This is my body to be sacrificed for you, the body which will be risen and will bring the blessing of communion with the Father and with believers through me. This sacrificed – risen – salvific – unifying – mediating body is my gift of self for you.”<ref>Notice that this interpretation is commensurate with John’s later eucharistic discourse: “This bread is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world. … Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood ''remains in me and I in him.'' …[T]he one who feeds on me will live because of me. … He who feeds on this bread will live forever.” The Evangelist is aware of Jesus’ body as efficacious, that is, as a power capable of bestowing both communion with God (“remains in me and I in him”) and eternal life.</ref> Johannes Betz summarizes this as follows:

<blockquote>Hence, the bodily person of Jesus is present in the supper, not however in the static manner of being of a thing, but as the Servant of God who in his sacrificial death effects the salvation of us all and more precisely as the sacrificial offering of the Servant who delivers himself up on the cross. The real presence of the person is there to actualize the presence of the sacrificial deed and is united with this in an organic whole. The Eucharist becomes, then, the abiding presence in the meal of the sacrificially constituted salvific event “Jesus”, in whom person and work form an inseparable unity.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v. 2, p. 260.</ref></blockquote>

Remarkable as these intentions of Jesus may seem, they do not exhaust the meaning and mystery of His words, for He also intends to communicate His unconditional Love through His “gift of self.” Recall that Jesus’ eucharistic words in the context of the suffering Servant Song may be interpreted as a self-sacrifice (gift of self) to “justify many” and to “bear iniquities.” This definition is similar to Jesus’ view of love manifest in the Beatitudes and in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan.

Paul directly associates Jesus’ self-sacrificial death with “gift of self,” and associates “gift of self” with love in several passages. In the Letter to the Romans:

<blockquote>While we were yet helpless, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly. Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man – though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. But God shows his love [agapēn] for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. (5:6-8)</blockquote>

in the letter to the Galatians:

<blockquote>I have been crucified with Christ…; the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. (2:20)</blockquote>

and in Ephesians:

<blockquote>And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (5:2)</blockquote>

It is difficult to miss similar parallels between Jesus’ Eucharistic words, the Suffering Servant song, and the view of agape in the Gospel of John. Jesus indicates that there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life (i.e., “body”) for one’s friends (Jn 15:13), and further that the Father loves the Son precisely in the laying down (“giving”) of His life (“body”).<ref>See Jn 10:17-18: “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.”</ref>

'''Summary.''' If Jesus’ view of love is “gift of self” (as suggested by Paul and John) then the eucharistic words “this is my body” (i.e., “self”) within the context of self-sacrifice (self-gift) would be virtually equivalent to love. Since this love knows no limit (i.e., it is complete self-sacrifice), it seems equivalent to unconditional Love.

Thus, we might interpret Jesus’ words as follows: “This is my body given in sacrifice, my future risen presence with you, and my unconditional Love – atoning for sin, transforming your hearts, unifying the community, and actualizing the new covenant unto eternal life.” If this is truly what Jesus had in mind as He instituted the Eucharist at the time of the Passover, then the Eucharist is not only Jesus’ interpretation of His passion, but also the vehicle for transmitting His gift of unconditional Love to all future generations. This leads to the next point.

=== “This Cup is the Covenant in My Blood” ===

Recall the reconstruction of Jesus’ words and actions with respect to the cup (Section II.A, above): After the completion of a Passover meal, Jesus initiated the ritual of the wine which He identifies with the covenant in His blood. He took a cup of red wine, gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This cup is the covenant in my blood.” Recall further that the cup of red wine is identified with both (1) Jesus’ blood and (2) “the ''covenant'' in His blood.”<ref>See above, Section I. “The tertium comparationis in the case of the bread is the fact that it was broken, and in the case of the wine the red colour. We have already seen…that it was customary to drink red wine at the Passover…. The comparison between red wine and blood was common in the Old Testament (Gen. 49.11; Deut. 32.14; Isa. 63.3,6), further Ecclus 39.26; 50.15; I Macc. 6.34; Rev. 14.20; Sanh. 70a, etc.” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 223-24).</ref> These two concepts, among the richest in Christian history, deserve individual discussion.

With respect to “blood,” the Greek term “''aima''” was probably derived from Jesus’ words of institution: “''zeh dami''” in Hebrew, and “''den idmi''” in Aramaic. Though its meaning within Jesus’ words of institution is in many ways similar to the Old Testament, it is also significantly different. There are three major similarities:

<blockquote>1) blood is the life principle and it is roughly equivalent to life itself;</blockquote>

<blockquote>2) blood (the life principle) was the vehicle through which atonement occurred in sin or guilt offerings (which is most poignantly described in the ceremony of the scapegoat on the day of atonement<ref>McKenzie notes, “The priest, dressed in linen vestments, takes two goats as a sin-offering…. The atoning agent is the blood of the victim, which symbolizes life” (McKenzie 1965, pp. 69-70).</ref>); and</blockquote>

<blockquote>3) blood is the agency through which a covenant is established, restored, and maintained.<ref>As McKenzie notes, “In the covenant ritual the blood of the victims was dashed on the altar, representing God, and on the people, signifying that the covenant partners share a common life (Ex 24:6ff)” (McKenzie 1965, p. 99).</ref></blockquote>

However, Jesus parts ways with the Old Testament tradition by proposing His blood as drink (Mt 26:27ff; Mk 14:23ff; Lk 22:20; Jn 6:53ff; 1 Co 11:25ff). McKenzie notes in this regard that “…the eating of blood is prohibited (Gn 9:4; Lv 17:10ff); life is conferred by God and is under His dominion. This prohibition was retained in the apostolic Church (AA 15:20).”<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 99.</ref>

Recall that Jesus anticipated a violent death to be followed by His resurrection,<ref>“…[W]e can see from the simile and from the use of ekchunnomenon that Jesus did expect a violent death. Mark 14.25 par. makes it clear that Jesus was certain that God would vindicate his death by his resurrection and the establishment of the kingdom” (Jeremias 1966, p. 225).</ref> and that He separated the rituals of the bread and wine indicating a sacrifice (or in this case, a self-sacrifice).<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept [of body-blood] baśar wadam [Hebrew] or biśra udema [Aramaic] … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref>

Thus, the blood He refers to in the eucharistic ritual is His future sacrificial blood (the blood of the passion). Jesus intended this to be a sacrifice of atonement (as implied by His allusions to the suffering servant and the paschal lamb) which was understood and deeply appreciated by the early Church (and reflected in the Pauline epistles and the Letter to the Hebrews). McKenzie notes in this regard that:

<blockquote>[Jesus] is a propitiatory offering in His blood (Rm 3:25), through which we are made righteous (Rm 5:9). We are redeemed through His blood (Eph 1:7) and through it we draw near to God (Eph 2:13), and by His blood He has made peace (between man and God; Col 1:20). The contrast and analogy between the blood of Jesus and the blood of sacrificial victims is drawn out at length in Heb. His blood excels that of animals (Heb 9:12 ff). Blood is the only effective agent of purification (Heb 9:20 ff) and of the remission of sins (9:22). But the blood of animals cannot remove sins (10:4); Christ has effected eternal redemption by His own blood (9:12), through which we have access to the sanctuary (10:19).<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept [of body-blood] baśar wadam [Hebrew] or biśra udema [Aramaic] … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref></blockquote>

Jesus does not ''directly'' advocate violating the Old Testament proscription against drinking blood (because He is not advocating the drinking of physical blood), yet He ''implicitly'' does this when He advocates drinking the red wine which He ''identifies'' with the blood of His impending sacrifice in order to share the ''redemptive power''<ref>“The blood of the lambs slaughtered at the exodus from Egypt had redemptive power…” (Jeremias 1966, p. 225).</ref> of that sacrifice. Recall that the power of the Passover lamb’s blood was protection against death in a specific situation,<ref>“For the sake of the passover blood God revoked the death sentence against Israel; he said: ‘I will see the blood of the passover and make atonement for you.’ In the same way the people of God of the End time will be redeemed by the merits of the passover blood” (Jeremias 1966, p. 226).</ref> but the power of Jesus’ redemptive blood goes far beyond this because it protects against ''every'' manifestation of death unto eternal life and communion with God. The redemptive power of the lamb’s blood was placed on the ''exterior'' (door posts) of every Hebrew house. Jesus’ blood (redemptive power) is taken interiorly and protects from ''interior'' (spiritual) death, making it the transformative power of eternal communion with God. It is difficult to believe that Jesus would have advocated the implicit violation of the Old Testament proscription (against drinking blood) unless He believed that His blood of sacrifice had the ''real power'' to protect against spiritual death.

Jesus also associates His sacrificial blood with the “blood of the new covenant.”<ref>“The blood of the Eucharist is the blood of the new covenant in all the formulae of institution [see above, Section I], an allusion to Ex 24:8…” (McKenzie 1965, p. 99).</ref> A covenant is a solemn promise. McKenzie notes:

<blockquote>In early Hebrew society written documents were employed little or not at all. In their place the spoken word was invested with ritual solemnity which gave it a kind of concrete reality. The spoken word thus uttered could not be annulled or retracted. … The covenant was such a solemn ritual agreement which served the function of a written contract. The covenanting parties bound themselves by a ritual agreement which included terrible imprecations upon the party which should violate the covenant.<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 153.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, a covenant has the effect of an absolutely guaranteed promise. In the case of Jesus (who is representing Abba as His Son and suffering servant) it has the effect of an absolutely guaranteed promise on the part of an absolutely truthful God.

But what is Jesus’ new covenant promising? Four interrelated promises: (1) communion with God, (2) the new covenant of Jeremiah, (3) Isaiah’s servant covenant, and (4) the eschatological (fulfilled) kingdom of God (Jesus’ mission – what He has come to bring in His person).

With respect to the first point, common life was part of any “covenant in blood,”<ref>“In the covenant ritual the blood of the victims was dashed on the altar, representing God, and on the people, signifying that the covenant partners share a common life (Ex 24:6 ff)” (McKenzie 1965, p. 99).</ref> because the sprinkling of blood indicated that the parties were one blood or one family.<ref>Ex. 24:3-8. See also McKenzie 1965, p. 155.</ref> Thus, covenant between God and human beings would indicate common life or communion with Him. It can hardly be doubted that Jesus intended this very basic meaning of “covenant in blood” in His words of institution.

With respect to the second point, Jeremiah promises (presumably at the messianic time) a new covenant which would be written on the hearts of human beings:

<blockquote>“The time is coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers…. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”<ref> Jeremiah 31:31-34.</ref></blockquote>

Presuming that Jesus was as familiar with this common text in Jeremiah as He was with the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, Jesus would have seen His new covenant as embracing the new law of the heart (the law of love) which He came to bring through His sacrificial death, resurrection, and gift of the Spirit. Jesus would have probably seen the blood of the covenant not only as a guaranteed promise of communion with God, but also as the vehicle through which the law of unconditional Love would be infused within the heart of every human being through the Holy Spirit.

With respect to the third point (Isaiah’s “servant covenant”) it seems highly probable that Jesus who identified Himself as the suffering servant in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 would have also been acutely aware of the preceding servant prophecies (Isaiah 42:6ff and 49:8ff). A brief review of these two passages will show that the servant is the covenant, that the covenant is for all peoples, and that it leads to the atonement of sin and new communion with God:

<blockquote>“I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness” (Is 42:6-7).</blockquote>

And also:

<blockquote>This is what the Lord says: “In the time of my favor I will answer you, and in the day of salvation I will help you; I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people, to restore the land and to reassign its desolate inheritances, to say to the captives, ‘Come out,’ and to those in darkness, ‘Be free!’ They will feed beside the roads and find pasture on every barren hill. … See, they will come from afar – some from the north, some from the west…” (Is 49:8-12).</blockquote>

Given Jesus’ familiarity with the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, and the remarkable parallels with the themes surrounding His institution of the Eucharist (the suffering servant, atonement of sin, poured out for the many – for the all) it seems very unlikely that Jesus would not have had this notion of “servant (Himself as covenant)” in mind when speaking of the new covenant (the new communion) with God at the Eucharist. Hence, the new covenant in His blood is filled with the notion of a complete healing of humanity (sight for the blind, liberty for captives, release for those who sit in darkness, etc.).

The above eschatological dimension leads to the fourth and final point, namely, the covenant as definitive bringing of the kingdom. This dimension of covenant is manifest in Isaiah 59:21:

<blockquote>“As for me, this is my covenant with them” says the Lord. “My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,” says the Lord.</blockquote>

The “forever” here indicates that the covenant brings with it the eschatological kingdom through the permanent imparting of the Spirit of God. When this is combined with Jeremiah 31:31 and the eschatological dimensions of Isaiah 42:6-7, 49:8-12, and 59:21, it seems likely that Jesus viewed the new covenant as a “guaranteed promise of the actualization of the kingdom.” Jeremias links Jesus’ “new covenant” to His new Passover sacrifice (see above, Section II.B.2) and concludes to the following:

<blockquote>Jesus describes his death as this eschatological passover sacrifice: his vicarious (huper) death brings into operation the final deliverance, the new covenant of God. Diathēkē (“covenant”) is a correlate of basileia ton ouranōn (“kingdom of heaven”). The content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus’ death is perfect communion with God (Jer. 31.33-34a) in his reign, based upon the remission of sins (31.34b).<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

'''Summary.''' Unconditional Love would seem to be the power of this beautiful and encompassing new covenant. It is Jesus’ total gift of Himself, His taking the place of an animal in the sin-offering, and the offering of His blood in place of an animal’s blood in the covenant sacrifice that enables us all to be “one blood, one family” with God. It is His act of total humility and self-sacrifice (Agape) which unites us together as God’s family. The Holy Spirit is the personal power effecting this unity, and Jesus is its “body.” Jesus intended that His act of self-sacrifice, His gift of self, His unconditional Love, be the creative power of protection from spiritual death and therefore from all death. The new covenant is the absolute bond, the absolute guarantee, the very principle of eternal life in communion with God. It arises out of unconditional Love, it finds its fulfillment in unconditional Love; it is unconditional Love. Though He may not have used these words, one can scarcely interpret His action of taking the place of an animal in a sacrificial offering to mean anything less. Thus, when He said, “This cup is the covenant in my blood,” He intended to bestow on us an eternal communion with one another through His own person/body given in self-sacrifice. This is unquestionably unconditional Love.

=== “Do this in Remembrance of Me” ===

If Jeremias’ extensive study of ''anamnesis'' (remembrance) within Semitic cult is correct, then Jesus’ command of repetition (“Do this in remembrance of me”) has the double function of (1) asking God to recall something of religious significance, and (2) asking God to make that blessing really present (to recreate that blessing in the present).

With respect to the first point, Jeremias shows that in both the Old Testament and New Testament (Mark 14:9, Matt 26:13, and Acts 10:4) a ritual remembrance is not so much directed at the human subject but at God so that He might remember: “…[I]n the Old Testament and Palestinian memorial formulae it is almost always God who remembers. In accordance with this the command for repetition may be translated: ‘This do, that God may remember me’”

With respect to the second point, Jeremias notes:

This calling into the presence of God [remembrance – anamnesis], this bringing to life before God, this recalling of the past, this is, on the other side, effective. It has a purpose, it is intended to effect something: that God may remember – mercifully or punishingly. God’s remembrance is, namely (this is an important fact to which O. Michel called attention), never a simple remembering of something, but always and without exception “an effecting and creating event.” When Luke 1.72 says that God remembers his covenant, this means that he is now fulfilling the eschatological covenant promise.

If we combine all these elements, it would seem that when Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me,” He expected that He and His self-sacrificial action would be presented to God (the Father) to be made present (real) in the blessed and distributed bread whenever the words of institution were repeated. Johannes Betz summarizes the work of Michel, Jeremias, and others as follows:

Anamnesis in the biblical sense means not only the subjective representation of something in the consciousness and as an act of the remembering mind. It is also the objective effectiveness and presence of one reality in another, especially the effectiveness and presence of the salvific actions of God, in the liturgical worship. Even in the OT, the liturgy is the privileged medium in which the covenant attains actuality. ¶ The meaning of the logion may perhaps be paraphrased as follows: do this (what I have done) in order to bring about my presence, to make really present the salvation wrought in me.

We may here see Jesus’ intention to extend His self-sacrificial gift, His whole self, and the covenant in His blood to all future generations through a ritual which recreates the efficacy of His passion through His real presence. This desire to share in perpetuity is yet another manifestation of the unconditional nature of Jesus’ self-sacrificial covenant love.

=== “Poured Out for Many” ===

As noted above, the notion of pollōn (many) in Jesus’ logion “poured out for many” is a translation of the Hebrew rabbim which can have an exclusive or inclusive meaning. When it has the inclusive meaning, it signifies “all.” Jeremias summarizes these linguistic issues as follows:

While “many” in Greek (as in English) stands in opposition to “all”, and therefore has the exclusive sense (“many, but not all”), Hebrew rabbim can have the inclusive sense (“the whole, comprising many individuals”). This inclusive use is connected with the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic possess no word for “all”.

This inclusive sense of rabbim was very common in Old Testament and intertestamental literature. When it is accompanied by the definite article in Talmudic and even New Testament texts, it almost always has an inclusive meaning (“all”); but, as Jeremias points out, it can frequently have an inclusive meaning even without the definite article.

In the New Testament (with respect to Jesus’ self-sacrificial passion), Mark 10:45 uses pollōn in the inclusive sense to refer to Jesus’ “ransom for many.” This passage refers back to the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 53:10-12 which is interpreted in 1Timothy 2:6 by using the Greek word “all” (pantōn) instead of “many” (pollōn). According to Jeremias:

Of especial importance for our passage is Mark 10.45 par., lutron anti pollōn “a ransom for many”. That polloi has here the inclusive meaning “all” is shown by the reference in Mark 10.45 to Isa. 53.10-12, as well as by the parallel in I Tim. 2.6: antilutron huper pantōn, “a ransom for all”. Just as Mark 10.45, so also our passage Mark 14.24 [Jesus’ eucharistic words] is to be interpreted in the inclusive sense. Pollōn is therefore a Semitism. ¶ 14.24 to ekchunnomenon huper pollōn (“the[blood] poured out for many”). The placing of the prepositional phrase at the end corresponds to Semitic word order. That it is placed between the article and the participle independently of each other in Matthew as well as in Luke shows that the position at the end sounds harsh in Greek.

This remarkable parallel which shows the rabbim in Isaiah 53:10-12 to be translated by both pollōn (many) and pantōn (all) in Mark and 1Timothy, respectively, and the very uncharacteristically Greek (but characteristically Semitic) expressions of the eucharistic words in Mark and Matthew offer strong evidence that Jesus’ rabbim was meant in an inclusive sense, and therefore, as “all” (all human beings).

Once again, the unconditional nature of Jesus’ love emerges. His sacrificial act is not for a chosen few, but rather for all humankind. He offers this not only to His generation, but all future generations. His gift of Himself is total and universal. His love is unconditional.

== Conclusion ==

Given the above interpretation of Jesus’ eucharistic words and actions, one can scarcely deny His intention to give Himself completely to all humankind in the sacrificial act. He not only wanted to give Himself completely in sacrifice (in imitation of the suffering servant, the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and taking the place of an animal in a sin-offering and a covenant sacrifice), but also wanted to be present to us and in us for all generations and all time. This seems to meet the requirements for an unconditional act of love.

Yes, Jesus had a plan, an unconditionally loving plan, as He proceeded toward imminent death in Jerusalem. He planned to atone for the sins of all unconditionally, and to initiate a covenant of unconditional communion with God in everlasting life, through a ritual which would make the blessing of His sacrifice, self, and love really present in perpetuity. Jesus not only wanted the consummation of His mission (His passion) to be an act of total self-sacrifice, He wanted to give it away to everyone for all generations (unconditionally and universally).

If God were Unconditional Love, would He do something like this as Emmanuel (God with us)? Would He give Himself away in self-sacrifice, and then give that self-sacrificial love away forever? If such actions would typify an unconditionally loving God, then Jesus would seem to be His Emmanuel – His Unconditional Love with us.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Eucharist

2015-01-08T15:20:44Z

David Persyn: /* “This is My Body” (Sōma) */ Footnotes and Formats

Magis ChristWiki - Magis Institute

Unit II. L

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Eucharist

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-L_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Eucharist.3F | Return to Table of Contents]]

Saint Paul believed that the clearest demonstration of Jesus’ love was in His passion and death: “But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rm 5:8). Jesus instituted the Eucharist to give the “total gift of Himself in the passion” to all future generations. He deliberately walked into His passion by traveling to Jerusalem before the feast of the Passover when the authorities were evidently seeking to put an end to His ministry and even His life. He did this because He had a plan in mind; a plan to give the blessing and power of His person and passion to all future generations through a ritual arising out of His interpretation of the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. The Beloved One of the Father intended to make us all beloveds in His own image by giving Himself (and the eschatological kingdom of love) to us in a definitive, unconditional act. This consummation of His mission (His raison d’être) reveals His core identity. The question naturally follows, “Would it be typical of an unconditionally loving God who enters into complete empathy with us to have such a self-sacrificial mission and plan?” If so, then this is one of our most profound signs that Jesus is Emmanuel.

== Did Jesus Institute the Eucharist at a Passover Meal? ==

Joachim Jeremias’ classic work, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus is still acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive treatments of this subject with the most extensive analysis of rabbinical traditions.<ref>Meier 1991, p. 395.</ref> Some exegetes feel uneasy about his application of rabbinical traditions and extratestamental material to New Testament texts,<ref>See Meier 1991, p. 395.</ref> and many scholars do not agree with his assignment of the Last Supper to the Passover meal, because it requires that too much activity take place on Passover day (the 15th of Nisan):

<blockquote>Despite Jeremias’ deft command of the material, he cannot really establish the likelihood that, at the time of Jesus, the supreme Jewish authorities in Jerusalem would arrest a person suspected of a capital crime, immediately convene a meeting of the Sanhedrin to hear the case (a case involving the death penalty), hold a formal trial with witnesses, reach a decision that the criminal deserved to die, and hand over the criminal to the Gentile authorities with a request for execution on the same day – all within the night and early day hours of Passover Day, the fifteenth of Nisan!<ref>Meier 1991, p. 396.</ref></blockquote>

For this reason, Meier believes that it is more probable that the Last Supper took place on the day before the Passover meal (on the eve of the 14th of Nisan), which corresponds with John’s dating of it rather than the Synoptics’.<ref>See Meier 1991, p. 396.</ref>

Yet, the placement of the Last Supper on the eve of the 14th of Nisan does not rule out the possibility that Jesus, aware of what was to befall Him, celebrated a Passover supper with His disciples (without a lamb) on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. Since the lambs were slaughtered prior to the meal on the 15th of Nisan, it would not have been possible for Jesus to celebrate the Passover meal with a lamb. This is consistent with New Testament accounts which make multiple references to the Passover meal,<ref>See, for example, Luke 22:15 (“I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer”); Luke 22:13 (“they prepared the Passover”); Luke 22:11 (“tell the householder, ‘the Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I am to eat the Passover with my disciples?”); Mark 14:12 (“Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”); Luke 22:8 (“Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it”); Luke 22:7 (“[it was] the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed”). Even if one ignores the passages which refer to the Marcan dating of the Last Supper on the eve of the 15th of Nisan (such as Luke 22:7), there are five distinct references (without dating) to a Passover meal.</ref> but no references to a lamb.

There are six reasons why a Passover meal should not be ruled out even if it occurred on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. First, as noted above, the Passover is linked to Jesus’ Last Supper multiple times in all three synoptic Gospels. Secondly, there are differences in the chronology of the Synoptic Gospels which indicate that a Passover meal could have been celebrated at different times within the weeklong celebration leading up to Passover. The reference to the “first day” in Mark and Luke, as Harrington suggests, betrays a mixed chronology, for:

<blockquote>the paschal lamb was normally eaten on the first day of the feast. Yet Mark describes the “first day” as the day of preparation when the lambs were slaughtered, corresponding to Wednesday, while the meal would be celebrated that evening.<ref>Harrington 1991, p. 392.</ref></blockquote>

Thirdly, the Passover is mentioned in a unique, ancient formula recounted in Luke’s Gospel, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.”<ref>See the extensive analysis of Jeremias in 1966, pp. 190-92.</ref> Fourthly, Jeremias detects several Semitisms behind the wording in the Gospel passages which are traceable to the Passover ceremony itself (such as the “fruit of the vine” in Luke 22:18).<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 161-62.</ref> Fifthly, Jeremias notes that:

<blockquote>[T]he pre-Pauline Passover haggadah preserved in I Cor. 5.7f. calls Jesus “our passover (lamb)” and that Paul presupposes as self-evident the familiarity of the Corinthian community with this comparison, a comparison widespread in the early Christian literature.<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 222-23.</ref></blockquote>

Sixthly, there are references to the Passover meal within the passages (e.g., the multiple cups, which seems to have come from Luke’s special source [22:17-18], and the Passover haggadah between the word over the bread and the word over the cup<ref>See Jeremias 1966, p. 85 and 221.</ref>). In sum, these distinct ancient sources of the institution of the Eucharist at Passover indicate a common Palestinian source which very probably goes back to Jesus Himself.

Could Jesus have celebrated an adapted Passover meal with His disciples on the eve of the 14th of Nisan to anticipate His impending death which would have occurred near the time of the slaughtering of the lambs? Since Jesus was not unaccustomed to adapting Jewish doctrine and ritual to conform to His own doctrinal and ritual requirements, this possibility cannot be ruled out. Even if Jesus did not celebrate a Passover meal (without a lamb) at the Last Supper, He could have borrowed particular rituals from it or alluded to it during the Last Supper. For this reason, I will include Jeremias’ references to the Passover meal in the forthcoming analysis. The reader may want to bear in mind that these Passover rituals may not have occurred, but may only have been implied in Jesus’ actions during the Last Supper.

The analysis will be carried out in two steps:

1) a brief synopsis of Jeremias’ and others’ exegetical work on the original tradition (Section II.A); and

2) the meaning of Jesus’ eucharistic words and actions (Section II.B).

== Jeremias’ Interpretation of the Original Tradition ==

There are four traditions of Jesus’ Eucharistic words:<ref>There is also a tradition in John (6:25-59), but it is a Eucharistic discourse instead of a recounting of the Last Supper; a specific exegesis of this passage is beyond the objective of this study.</ref>

1) I Corinthians 11:23-26:

<blockquote>For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.</blockquote>

2) Mark 14:22-25:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take; this is my body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” He said to them. “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”</blockquote>

3) Matthew 26:26-29:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”</blockquote>

4) Luke 22:17-20:

<blockquote>After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”</blockquote>

A brief glance at the above four traditions reveals two branches of an original tradition – (1) a Paul-Luke branch (which makes specific reference to remembrance; a new covenant; and, in the case of Luke alone, “poured out for you”), and (2) a Mark-Matthew branch (which makes no reference to remembrance; refers to covenant, but not a new covenant; and makes the objective of Jesus’ outpouring for many). Jeremias has split this project into two parts: (1) the four common areas of these traditions (which, given the different theologies in the two branches, would probably have to have their origin in a common source), and (2) in areas where the branches differ, locating the more primitive tradition through grammatical constructions and the presence of Semitisms. The two analyses will bring us close to an original tradition which may closely resemble Jesus’ own words.

There are four common areas within the four traditions:

<blockquote>(1) Jesus’ action with respect to the bread: “took bread, gave thanks [in the case of Paul, “after he had given thanks”], and broke it,”</blockquote>

<blockquote>(2) Jesus’ words over the bread: “this is my body [soma],”</blockquote>

<blockquote>(3) Jesus’ action with respect to the cup. In Mark-Matthew: “Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them.” In Paul-Luke: “In the same way” (referring to the way in which He gave the bread, i.e., “took bread and gave thanks… and gave it to them”), and</blockquote>

<blockquote>(4) Jesus’ word over the cup: “This is my blood of the covenant.” Evidently, Paul and Luke refer to the new covenant whereas Mark and Matthew refer only to the covenant.<ref>Jeremias shows through a grammatical analysis that, despite surface appearances, the Paul-Luke version is essentially the same as the Mark-Matthew version even though the Paul-Luke version refers to the cup (where Mark-Matthew does not), and Paul-Luke refers to “the covenant in my blood” while Mark-Matthew refers to the “blood of the covenant.” See Jeremias 1966, pp. 168-69.</ref></blockquote>

Jeremias holds that the Marcan version of the word over the bread is the more original tradition while the Pauline version of the word over the cup is the more original:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “Take; this is my body.” (Mark 14:22)</blockquote>

<blockquote>In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (1Cor. 11:25a).</blockquote>

Jeremias believes there is good reason for holding the Pauline version to be the more original formula for the word over the cup on linguistic grounds, because the Mark-Matthew version is far more symmetrical, indicating the need to take a more complex narrative form (in Paul-Luke) and convert it to a more symmetrical liturgical form in Mark-Matthew. Though it may be thought that the Paul-Luke form is more apologetically appealing (because it is less evocative of drinking blood in a pagan ritual which would have been repulsive to Jewish people), and therefore later than the Mark-Matthew version (which may have given rise to these apologetically unappealing misimpressions), Paul’s version is probably the earlier because it reveals a separation in time between the word over the bread and the word over the wine (to account for the consumption of the meal between the two events) which the Mark-Matthew version does not represent. Thus, the Mark-Matthew version seems to be a later formula taken from the liturgy, which did not need to account for the separation of the meal (as a more narrative account would have) and needed to be more symmetrical for the sake of liturgical repetition.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 169-171 and 191-92.</ref>

It now remains to establish which of the other three divergent areas is the more original. As implied above, there are three areas of divergence:

<blockquote>a) “the new covenant” (Paul-Luke) versus “the covenant” (Mark-Matthew),</blockquote>

<blockquote>b) poured out for you (Luke) versus “poured out for many” (Mark-Matthew), and</blockquote>

<blockquote>c) word of remembrance – ''anamnēsis'' (in Paul-Luke, but not mentioned in Mark-Matthew).</blockquote>

I will briefly summarize Jeremias’ judgment on these three matters so that an original tradition (close to the words and actions of Jesus) may be adduced.

With respect to the new covenant, Jeremias holds that the Mark-Matthew version would probably be the earlier because the placement of the adjective “new” prior to “covenant” is Hellenistic (but not Semitic) indicating that it originated “on Hellenistic soil.”<ref>Though the Pauline formula is not the more original of the two, its pre-Pauline origins are indicated by its agreement with Luke. See Jeremias 1966, pp. 171-72.</ref>

With respect to the “poured out for you” (Luke) versus “poured out for many”<ref>As will be discussed below, “for many,” in the Semitic sense of “rabbim” which was probably uttered by Jesus, is inclusive (that is, it does not exclude some in contrast to the totality, as in the common Greek and English uses of it – e.g., “many, but not everybody”). The reason for this is that there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word for “all.” Thus, the inclusive sense of “rabbim” explicitly includes the totality and its individual members. See Jeremias 1966, p. 179.</ref> (Mark-Matthew), Jeremias holds that “for many” is the more original on the basis of linguistic grounds, namely, “for many” is a Semitism while “you” is not. Jeremias attributes the replacement of “many” by “you” as having a liturgical purpose where each worshiper feels him or herself to be individually addressed (by “you”), which would not happen with the indefinite “many.” In view of this, he holds that the replacement of “many” by “you” is not an attempt to limit the atoning work of Jesus arising out of later theological reflection.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 172.</ref>

Finally, with respect to the word of remembrance (which Jeremias terms the command for repetition), Paul mentions it twice (after the word over the bread and the word over the wine), Luke mentions it once (after the word over the bread), but Mark and Matthew omit it altogether. Jeremias holds that this tradition is pre-Pauline but probably not a part of the oldest traditions. Yet it could well have originated with Jesus. There are three reasons for suspecting this. First, the bread and wine rituals took on a high degree of significance apart from the meal (suggesting a command of repetition from Jesus with respect to them, but not with respect to the meal separating them). Secondly, the words over the bread and wine are so often repeated that they quickly become a central Christian ritual (which gives them far more significance than mere parts of a farewell meal or a commemoration of Jesus’ death<ref>Jeremias has an extensive discussion of the contention that the word of remembrance was a later Greek accretion imitating annual celebrations of the dead. One of his reasons for rejecting this thesis is that the Christian ritual was daily or weekly and not merely an annual celebration. See Jeremias 1966, pp. 238-43.</ref>) suggesting once again a command of repetition from Jesus. Thirdly, it would be unusual for early liturgical formulations to contain this command since, as Jeremias notes, “the celebration itself was its fulfillment.”<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 238.</ref> In view of the fact that Jesus said much more during the meal than was recorded, it may be surmised that He gave a command of repetition.

So what can we now conclude about Jesus’ actions and words? If the earliest narratives reflect Jesus’ actions, and if Jeremias’ conjectures about Jesus’ words are correct, we can conclude that Jesus gathered with His disciples before the feast of the Passover and indicated to them that He longed to celebrate this Passover with them, but instead of doing so, fasted while the other disciples celebrated.<ref>See Jeremias’ convincing argument in 1966, pp. 208-09.</ref> After drinking one of the four Passover cups while they were eating the Passover meal (or an adapted Passover ritual),<ref>See the discussion of this topic in the introduction to Section II above.</ref> Jesus initiated the ritual of the bread, identifying it with His body: “Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take; this is my body.’” Then, after the completion of the Passover meal (or adapted Passover ritual), Jesus initiated the ritual of the wine which He identifies with the covenant in His blood. He took a cup of red wine, gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This cup is the covenant in my blood.”<ref>Though Jesus identifies the red wine with the “covenant in His blood,” it is clear from the red wine, the parallelism with the bread, and the use of “this cup” that Jesus is identifying the red wine with both His blood and the covenant in His blood. Jeremias notes that the color of the wine is significant here: “The tertium comparationis in the case of the bread is the fact that it was broken, and in the case of the wine the red colour. We have already seen…that it was customary to drink red wine at the Passover…. The comparison between red wine and blood was common in the Old Testament (Gen. 49.11; Deut. 32.14; Isa. 63.3,6), further Ecclus 39.26; 50.15; I Macc. 6.34; Rev. 14.20; Sanh. 70a, etc.” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 223-24).</ref> Sometime either prior to or after this (perhaps both), Jesus gives a command of repetition similar to “Do this in remembrance of me.”

If this reconstruction is accurate, we may now proceed to a brief summary of Jeremias’ and others’ conclusions about the meaning of these words and the ritual they constitute.

== The Meaning of Jesus’ Eucharistic Words and Actions ==

Six elements of Jesus’ institution of the Eucharist merit interpretation:

(1) His view of Himself as “suffering servant” (Is 52:13-53:12 – see Section II.B.1);

(2) Jesus as the new sacrificial paschal lamb (II.B.2);

(3) “This is my body” (soma – II.B.3);

(4) “This cup is the covenant in my blood” (II.B.4);

(5) “Do this in remembrance of me” (II.B5); and

(6) “poured out for many” (II.B.6).

As will become evident, the synthesis of these six elements (in their proper interpretation) points strongly to Jesus’ action as one of unconditional Love, which reveals a heart of unconditional Love.

=== Jesus as Suffering Servant ===

It may be helpful to here set out the whole Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12, because reference will be made to it throughout this Unit on the Eucharist as well as the forthcoming Unit on the passion of Jesus:

<blockquote>See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as there were many who were appalled at him – his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness – so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand (52:13-15).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him (53:1-2).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not (53:3).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted (53:4).</blockquote>

<blockquote>But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed (53:5).</blockquote>

<blockquote>We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all (53:6).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth (53:7).</blockquote>

<blockquote>By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken (53:8).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth (53:9).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities (53:10-11).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he ''poured'' out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of ''many'', and made intercession for the transgressors (53:12 – italics mine).</blockquote>

The obvious tie-in between the suffering servant song and Jesus’ eucharistic words occurs at 53:12. The phrase “poured out for many,” which is a part of the oldest tradition of the eucharistic words, has a remarkable parallel with Isaiah 53:12 which states:

<blockquote>…because he poured out (he’erah) his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many (rabbim)….”</blockquote>

The Hebrew background of both Jesus’ eucharistic words and Isaiah 53:12 as well as the context of these words (the sacrifice of Jesus and the suffering servant) are so close that it would be difficult to believe that the ancient tradition of Jesus’ eucharistic words was not referring to Isaiah 53:12.<ref>According to Jeremias, [“poured out for many”] “is linked with an Old Testament passage: Isa. 53.12, ‘because he poured out (he’erah) his life to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many (rabbim) and made intercession for the transgressors’ (the reference is to the Hebrew text of this passage, a fact to be kept in mind as evidence of the age of the tradition). This allusion to the Old Testament passage on the suffering servant is supported by the fact that the word rabbim/πολλοί is almost a ''leit-motiv'' in Isa. 52.13-53.12.” Jeremias 1966, pp. 226-7.</ref> Moreover, Jesus seems to have had an intimate acquaintance with the texts of Deutero-Isaiah,<ref>See Betz, 1968-70, v.2, p. 257.</ref> and also seems to have interpreted His life and His mission in terms of this passage which was uncannily similar to the passion He was about to suffer. Hence, it seems likely that Jesus intended the words “poured out for many” in a way that could be interpreted through the lens of the Suffering Servant song. This means that Jesus intends His eucharistic actions and words in an expiatory way, that is, as a “sin offering” or “guilt offering” for the sins of many. Johannes Betz notes in this regard:

<blockquote>Jesus accomplished the decisive purpose of His life, His task as Messiah, in carrying out the mission of the servant of God of Deutero-Isaiah, who as God’s majestic envoy proclaims and inaugurates a new phase in salvation and who as martyr takes upon Himself expiatory sufferings for the sins of the many.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v.2, p. 258.</ref></blockquote>

It would seem, therefore, that Jesus had this Suffering Servant song deeply in mind when He decided to proceed toward Jerusalem with full knowledge that the authorities were seeking to persecute Him (see John 11:8). This makes sense of both His resoluteness toward impending death and His obvious preparation for the eucharistic ritual (with its imbedded passage from Isaiah 53:12), which would, in turn, make sense of Matthew’s additional words (probably reflective of a later tradition): “for the forgiveness of sins.”<ref>This is imbedded within Jesus’ words over the cup: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt. 26:28).</ref>

The logic of this sin offering may seem a bit confusing to a contemporary audience, especially the passage in Isaiah that states, “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see the light of life and be satisfied” (Isaiah 53:10). At first glance, it may seem that the portrayal of the Lord in this passage (and therefore Jesus’ view of God’s will) is sadistic, but this is certainly not the case, for Jesus’ interpretation of the Isaiah passage is set within His view of the Father as “Abba” and Himself as Son and Beloved. Thus, Jesus’ interpretation of this passage must be seen within the context of the logic of love, which makes the Johannine words of Jesus particularly significant, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (Jn 15:13). If this passage represents Jesus’ interpretive principle for both the Isaiah passage and His Eucharistic words, then Jesus would have interpreted “the Lord’s will to crush him” in terms of the Father’s acceptance of Jesus’ love offering (the gift of Himself) for the sins of the world.

Recall for a moment some of the observations about Jesus’ view of love (agape) from the previous Unit. We saw that Jesus viewed love as the highest commandment (Mark 12:30 and par.), and that He elucidated His view of love through the beatitudes (Matt 5:3-12), which included humble-heartedness, gentle-heartedness, hungering and thirsting for the will of God, being merciful (which includes being forgiving), peacemaking, and enduring persecution for the kingdom of God. Ironic as it may seem, Jesus’ self-sacrificial gift for the expiation of sins synthesizes and catalyzes every one of these elements from the beatitudes and concretizes their “synthesis in love” within not only historical but future reality.<ref>Paul did not miss this insight in Colossians 3:12-14: “Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which is the bond of completeness.” See the explanation of this passage in Unit II-J, Section IV.</ref>

The Gospel of John has captured Jesus’ intention well. There is no greater love (the synthesis of the beatitudes) that a person can have than to give his life. In light of Jesus’ view of the Father as Abba (which has embedded within it generative, compassionate, forgiving, restoring, affectionate love – similar to the father’s love in the Prodigal Son parable), it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus would have loosely interpreted the words of Isaiah 53:10 to mean “it would have pleased the Father – despite His pain – to see the self-sacrificial (loving) will of His Son become a reality for all humanity.” Just because Jesus uses Isaiah 52:13-53:12 as an interpretive principle for His self-sacrifice does not mean that He agrees with every theological element in that passage. Indeed, Jesus was known to have loosely interpreted and even reinterpreted many passages from Torah and the prophets. It would seem inconceivable that Jesus could have interpreted Isaiah 53:10 outside the context of His being the beloved Son of Abba.

Therefore, we might look at Jesus’ mindset about the passion and Eucharist (as He approached Jerusalem) as follows. First, He intended to make Himself an expiatory offering much like the one spoken of in Isaiah 53:8ff:

<blockquote>…for the transgression of my people he was stricken…. …and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering…. …my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. …because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.</blockquote>

Secondly, Jesus had a twofold understanding of the efficacy of this “sin offering”: (1) the efficacy of sacrifice, and (2) the efficacy of love. With respect to the efficacy of sacrifice, it seems probable that Jesus organized His Eucharistic words to indicate that He was making a sacrifice of Himself. By separating the words over the body and the blood, Jesus implied that what He was about to endure on the cross was like the separation of flesh and blood in a cultic sacrifice.<ref>“This formula derives from Ex 24:8 and characterizes the content of the cup primarily as the cultic sacrificial element “blood”, which is separated from the flesh, then also the death of Jesus as the separation of flesh and blood after the manner of a cultic sacrifice” (Betz 1968-70, v.2, p. 259). See also Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22: “…[I]t also designates, as already in ancient Hebrew, the two component parts of the body [flesh and blood], especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed.”</ref>

Yet, Jesus was not making Himself a cultic sacrifice in the traditional sense, for He, the Son, the Beloved One, the innocent One, made Himself the sacrificial gift for those who are not innocent, in the certain hope of the resurrection and universal atonement. Betz notes in this regard:

<blockquote>Taking on alien guilt meant taking on also the necessity of death. As his life went on, Jesus thought more frequently of his death and spoke more frequently of it to his disciples…. It was for Jesus not something that merely happened to him, but a conscious and willed deed to which he assented as a necessity in the history of salvation, and on which he freely decided (Lk 12:50). His total readiness for the death which was the mission of the Servant of the Lord is also expressed in the logion of the ransom (Mk 10:45), and the prophecies of the passion (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:32ff). … His death is total dedication and the deepest fulfillment of his being. … Unlike the ''cultic'' sacrifices, there is no separate ''gift'' which stands for the offerer and symbolizes his dedication to God. Here the offerer himself functions as ''gift'' in his own person and accomplishes the sacrificial dedication by the real shedding of his blood. Jesus must have been sure that God would accept this sacrifice, his body, and hence that God would fill it with new life. Thus the death of Jesus brings with it the resurrection as an inner consequence, as an essential part of it, regardless of the difference in time between the two events.<ref>Betz, 1968-70, v.2, p. 258. Italics mine.</ref></blockquote>

The middle term, as it were, between efficacy of sacrifice and efficacy of love is gift. As is clear from the above, a cultic sacrifice finds its efficacy in the gift given to God, and, as is clear from the Johannine passage on love, there is no greater love than to give one’s life. When Jesus made Himself the gift in the sacrificial offering, He transformed the efficacy of that gift from one of cultic proportion to one of unconditional Love. This is evidenced in Jesus’ use of the word “covenant” (“the covenant in my blood”) which, as will be seen below, implies a bond of love.

In sum, when Jesus proceeded to Jerusalem He planned to complete His mission of being the suffering (messianic) servant of the Lord by becoming a sacrificial gift for all transgressors. In so doing, he hoped to effect an atonement for all sins as a perfect sacrifice (that is, as the self-sacrifice of the beloved innocent one) in place of cultic sin offerings. This atonement went far beyond mechanical cultic sin offerings because it was fundamentally an act of unconditional self-giving (Love) for humankind. This act of unconditional Love was the source and power of perfect atonement and a new covenant which promised eternal life through the God who has loved us so.

=== Jesus as the New Sacrificial Paschal Lamb ===

As noted above, it is likely that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper within the context of a Passover meal – perhaps an adapted Passover meal (without a lamb) on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. So why would Jesus have chosen the Passover celebration to make His sacrifice and institute the Eucharist? Jeremias believes that He wanted to compare Himself to the paschal lamb, or perhaps better, He wanted to be the eschatological paschal lamb – the one who was to initiate the new covenant (which He correlated with the kingdom of God) in His blood:<ref>Jeremias sees Jesus’ identification of Himself with the paschal lamb as correlative with His identification of the bread and wine with His own person. He also notes that the early Pauline community commonly understood Jesus to be the paschal lamb. See Jeremias 1966, p. 222-23.</ref>

<blockquote>With the words ''den biśri'', “this is my (sacrificial) flesh”, and ''den idmi'', “this is my (sacrificial) blood”, Jesus is therefore most probably speaking of himself as the paschal lamb. He is the eschatological paschal lamb, representing the fulfillment of all that of which the Egyptian paschal lamb and all the subsequent sacrificial paschal lambs were the prototype.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 223.</ref></blockquote>

It should not be thought that the absence of a lamb at an adapted Passover meal (on the eve of the 14th of Nisan) militates against Jeremias’ thesis that Jesus associated Himself with the eschatological paschal lamb, for if Jesus did celebrate the Passover on the eve of the 14th of Nisan, His own passion would have begun at the time that the paschal lambs were being slaughtered in preparation for the feast celebrated on the eve of the 15th of Nisan. This would correlate well with the Last Supper’s anticipation of the impending self-sacrifice which might have been Jesus’ very intention.

The lamb is a simile for two essential dimensions of the Eucharist: (1) the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, and (2) the sacrifice initiating the covenant (leading out of slavery into a new life of freedom in the “promised land”). With respect to the forgiveness of sins, Jeremias notes:

<blockquote>By comparing himself with the eschatological paschal lamb Jesus describes his death as a saving death. … [A]t the passover meal the attention was directed…to the one “passover of the exodus” for the sake of which God had mercifully “passed over” the houses of the Israelites. The blood of the lambs slaughtered at the exodus from Egypt had redemptive power…<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 225.</ref></blockquote>

This “redemptive power,” this atonement for sins, protects from death and leads to everlasting life:

<blockquote>As a reward for the Israelites’ obedience to the commandment to spread blood on their doors, God manifested himself and spared them, “passing over” their houses. For the sake of the passover blood God revoked the death sentence against Israel; he said: “I will see the blood of the passover and make atonement for you.” In the same way the people of God of the End time will be redeemed by the merits of the Passover blood.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus sees His blood not only as a protection from death in this world (in imitation of the blood of the lamb at the Passover), but also as an eschatological protection (that is, a protection from death itself) which opens upon an eternal life of communion with Him and the Father:

<blockquote>Jesus describes his death as this eschatological passover sacrifice: his vicarious (''huper'') ''death brings into operation the final deliverance'', the new covenant of God. ''Diathēkē'' (“covenant”) is a correlate of ''basileia tōn ouranōn'' (“kingdom of heaven”). The content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus’ death is perfect communion with God (Jer. 31.33-34a) in his reign, based upon the remission of sins (31.34b).<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, Jesus’ selection of the Passover (whether this was celebrated on the eve of the 14th or 15th of Nisan) as the context for His death was a deliberate attempt to manifest a ''sacrificial''<ref>As noted above, the separation of the word over the bread and the word over the wine by a Passover supper separates Jesus’ flesh from Jesus’ blood which would have been commonly understood by His audience to signify His self-sacrifice (reminiscent of all sacrifices which separate the flesh and blood of the gifts offered).</ref> death, and therefore, His institution of the Eucharist at this time established Him as the new Passover sacrifice for the atonement of sins and the initiation of the new covenant unto eternal communion with Him and His Father.<ref>This is why the tradition used by Matthew which references the forgiveness of sins (“Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” – Mt 26:28), though unique in the texts of the eucharistic words and therefore probably not original, is compatible with Jesus’ intentions at the last supper. This is further confirmed by Jesus’ references to the suffering servant who atones for the sins of many by his self-sacrificial act (see above, II.A).</ref>

There is one more element to be discussed about Jesus’ identification of Himself with the Passover lamb, namely, its correlation with agape. Recall that there is a natural correlation between Jesus’ view of love and the beatitudes (see Unit II-J, Section IV). Love is humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, peace-making, merciful (forgiving), and accepting of persecution for the kingdom of God. Jesus’ identification of Himself with the unblemished (innocent) lamb (correlative with the suffering servant<ref>“He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth” (Is 53:7).</ref>) brings to mind the humility and gentleness of the paschal lamb, as well as the forgiveness, reconciliation, and “endurance of persecution” intrinsic to its sacrifice. By making Himself a self-sacrificial Passover offering, Jesus revealed Himself to be Unconditional Love.

Thus, it is not only the sacrificial aspect of Jesus’ self-offering which has the redemptive power to atone for sins and establish a covenant of eternal communion with God, but also the unconditional Love intrinsic to that sacrifice. Jesus’ first-century audience would have probably noticed the redemptive power in the sacrifice more readily than in His unconditional Love, but subsequent generations, reflecting on Jesus’ words of love, began to realize that the unconditional Love intrinsic to the self-sacrifice is the sacrifice’s redemptive power. Jesus was not using sacrifice in some kind of magical-mystical way to elicit God’s power; neither did He believe that God the Father was demanding that He sacrifice Himself in a mechanical way to atone for sins (“I will put my Son on one side of the scale to balance off all the negatives on your side”); Jesus sacrificed Himself to concretely actualize unconditional self-sacrificial gift (unconditional Love) in the world, which is the redemptive power overcoming all hatred, darkness, emptiness, and evil. Notice that the Son’s self-sacrifice in unconditional Love was also the Father’s self-sacrifice, for the Father had to give His Son as much as the Son had to give Himself.

=== “This is My Body” (''Sōma'') ===

We may now turn to the words of institution within the context of the suffering servant and the paschal lamb. To what does “this” (''touto'' – in Aramaic, “''den''”) refer in “this is my body?” Jeremias notes that it cannot refer to Jesus’ action of breaking the bread, but rather to the bread itself:

<blockquote>This interpretation [that “this” refers to Jesus’ breaking of the bread], which in any case is incompatible with the ''touto estin'' (“this is”), would only be feasible if the actions named coincided with the words of interpretation. But that is not the case. As regards the bread-word, the fact that it is preceded by ''gabete'' (“take”) shows that Jesus said it not as the bread was being broken, but as it was being distributed.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 220.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus identifies the bread (signified by ''touto/den'') with His body (''sōma''). The Semitic background of ''sōma'', according to Jeremias, is incontestably ''zeh baśari'' (Hebrew) and ''den bisri'' (Aramaic).<ref>“…the words of interpretation (if what has just been presented is conclusive) read, according to Mark, in Hebrew ''zeh beśari'' and ''zeh dami'', and in Aramaic ''den biśri'' and ''den idmi''” (Jeremias 1966, p. 201; see also p. 200).</ref> This Hebrew/Aramaic background indicates that Jesus is referring to His physical body, his flesh, given in self-sacrifice.<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept ''baśar wadam'' or ''biśra udema'' … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref> However, the Greek translation for Jesus’ Semitic word (''sōma'') may also indicate that the translators thought that Jesus was referring not only to His flesh (which would have been translated more precisely by ''sarx''), but also His whole person (His whole self).<ref>Note Jeremias’ wording, “…Jesus now interprets both again as he says grace, and this time in reference to his own person” (Jeremias 1966, p. 221).</ref>

This interpretation is compatible with the Semitic mindset which was not dualistic in a platonic way, and therefore, did not view body as mere corporeality; rather it viewed body as the whole corporeal self. According to McKenzie:

<blockquote>[In the Gospels], the body is parallel with life and is conceived almost as the self. … [In Paul, t]he first meaning of body is the concretely existing human being; in some contexts it again appears to be nearly synonymous with self (Rm 6:12f; 8:10?; 1 Co 6:18 f)…<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 100.</ref></blockquote>

Perhaps the Greek translators used ''sōma'' to more accurately convey to non-Jewish converts that Jesus’ Aramaic/Hebrew words were referring not only to His physicality, but to His whole self (which would have included characteristics the Greeks would have attributed to soul, such as the power of thinking and love, and the desire for justice and beauty, etc.).

If this interpretation is correct, then Jesus is making His whole corporeal self present in the words over the bread. The notion of “making a blessing present” in the reliving of an action or even in a substance (e.g., bread) was not uncommon in Semitic and Jewish religious practices. As Jeremias notes:

<blockquote>When at the daily meal the paterfamilias recites the blessing over the bread – which the members of the household make their own by the “Amen” – and breaks it and hands a piece to each member to eat, the meaning of the action is that each of the members is made a recipient of the blessing by this eating…<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 232.</ref></blockquote>

The bread of blessing, as it were, contains the blessing and conveys it to the willing recipient who says, “Amen” and consumes it.

The blessing which Jesus intends to be internalized by believers is certainly His sacrificed corporeal body; it is also His whole corporeal self. But Jesus’ use of “body” here cannot be restricted to this life alone, for He anticipated that His body would rise, that is, that there would be a fundamental continuity between His whole corporeal self and His “self in risen life with the Father”:

<blockquote>…[W]e can see from the simile and from the use of ekchunnomenon that Jesus did expect a violent death. Mark 14.25 par. makes it clear that Jesus was certain that God would vindicate his death by his resurrection and the establishment of the kingdom.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 225.</ref></blockquote>

What is even more striking is Jesus’ probable intention to use the body of His sacrifice (which He views as being in continuity with His future risen state) to be the medium through which communion with God (and consequent unity among believers) would be effected. Paul implies this in 1Cor 10:15-17:

<blockquote>Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body for we partake of the one loaf.</blockquote>

It seems that by “participation” Paul means more than participating in the historical self-sacrificed body of Jesus; He means participation in the presently existing body of Jesus which is capable of effecting unity among believers through unity with God. McKenzie notes in this regard:

<blockquote>The sacrificial element prominent in this passage of 1 Co and implicit in the formulae of institution is communion with the deity in the sacrificial banquet. Through the Eucharist the deity is rendered present in a striking and unique fashion. Communion is achieved only through Jesus Christ, who is man, and as man is body. The body is therefore rendered really present; the language of the four sources…leaves no room for mere symbolism in this respect. … The body which is present is the glorified body; we seem justified in believing that the NT implies that it is through His resurrection and exaltation that the body of Jesus becomes the Church [the unity of believers]. But this is the body “which was delivered for you,” one and the same Lord Jesus who ''died, rose, and sits at the right hand of the Father.'' Communion is achieved through the ''participation'' of the body and the blood of the victim. The salvation of the NT is not directed to the soul, but to the man, and man in Hebrew thought is body; if salvation is to reach man, his communion with the Savior must be a communication of body.</ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 251. Italics mine.</ref></blockquote

Paul’s view of the “body of Christ” cannot be retroactively put into the mind of Christ, for Paul is speaking in the light of having witnessed the risen Jesus. Nevertheless, one cannot altogether delete Paul’s interpretation from the mind of Jesus, for Jesus associated His “body” with His risen life with the Father, and this risen life would have been the vehicle through which the full meaning of the new covenant (which He viewed as “the kingdom of God” or communion with God) would be effected.

Thus, Jesus’ sacrificial words over the bread might be interpreted as, “This is my body to be sacrificed for you, the body which will be risen and will bring the blessing of communion with the Father and with believers through me. This sacrificed – risen – salvific – unifying – mediating body is my gift of self for you.”<ref>Notice that this interpretation is commensurate with John’s later eucharistic discourse: “This bread is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world. … Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood ''remains in me and I in him.'' …[T]he one who feeds on me will live because of me. … He who feeds on this bread will live forever.” The Evangelist is aware of Jesus’ body as efficacious, that is, as a power capable of bestowing both communion with God (“remains in me and I in him”) and eternal life.</ref> Johannes Betz summarizes this as follows:

<blockquote>Hence, the bodily person of Jesus is present in the supper, not however in the static manner of being of a thing, but as the Servant of God who in his sacrificial death effects the salvation of us all and more precisely as the sacrificial offering of the Servant who delivers himself up on the cross. The real presence of the person is there to actualize the presence of the sacrificial deed and is united with this in an organic whole. The Eucharist becomes, then, the abiding presence in the meal of the sacrificially constituted salvific event “Jesus”, in whom person and work form an inseparable unity.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v. 2, p. 260.</ref></blockquote>

Remarkable as these intentions of Jesus may seem, they do not exhaust the meaning and mystery of His words, for He also intends to communicate His unconditional Love through His “gift of self.” Recall that Jesus’ eucharistic words in the context of the suffering Servant Song may be interpreted as a self-sacrifice (gift of self) to “justify many” and to “bear iniquities.” This definition is similar to Jesus’ view of love manifest in the Beatitudes and in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan.

Paul directly associates Jesus’ self-sacrificial death with “gift of self,” and associates “gift of self” with love in several passages. In the Letter to the Romans:

<blockquote>While we were yet helpless, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly. Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man – though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. But God shows his love [agapēn] for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. (5:6-8)</blockquote>

in the letter to the Galatians:

<blockquote>I have been crucified with Christ…; the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. (2:20)</blockquote>

and in Ephesians:

<blockquote>And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (5:2)</blockquote>

It is difficult to miss similar parallels between Jesus’ Eucharistic words, the Suffering Servant song, and the view of agape in the Gospel of John. Jesus indicates that there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life (i.e., “body”) for one’s friends (Jn 15:13), and further that the Father loves the Son precisely in the laying down (“giving”) of His life (“body”).<ref>See Jn 10:17-18: “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.”</ref>

'''Summary.''' If Jesus’ view of love is “gift of self” (as suggested by Paul and John) then the eucharistic words “this is my body” (i.e., “self”) within the context of self-sacrifice (self-gift) would be virtually equivalent to love. Since this love knows no limit (i.e., it is complete self-sacrifice), it seems equivalent to unconditional Love.

Thus, we might interpret Jesus’ words as follows: “This is my body given in sacrifice, my future risen presence with you, and my unconditional Love – atoning for sin, transforming your hearts, unifying the community, and actualizing the new covenant unto eternal life.” If this is truly what Jesus had in mind as He instituted the Eucharist at the time of the Passover, then the Eucharist is not only Jesus’ interpretation of His passion, but also the vehicle for transmitting His gift of unconditional Love to all future generations. This leads to the next point.

=== “This Cup is the Covenant in My Blood” ===

Recall the reconstruction of Jesus’ words and actions with respect to the cup (Section II.A, above): After the completion of a Passover meal, Jesus initiated the ritual of the wine which He identifies with the covenant in His blood. He took a cup of red wine, gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This cup is the covenant in my blood.” Recall further that the cup of red wine is identified with both (1) Jesus’ blood and (2) “the covenant in His blood.” These two concepts, among the richest in Christian history, deserve individual discussion.

With respect to “blood,” the Greek term “aima” was probably derived from Jesus’ words of institution: “zeh dami” in Hebrew, and “den idmi” in Aramaic. Though its meaning within Jesus’ words of institution is in many ways similar to the Old Testament, it is also significantly different. There are three major similarities:

1) blood is the life principle and it is roughly equivalent to life itself;

2) blood (the life principle) was the vehicle through which atonement occurred in sin or guilt offerings (which is most poignantly described in the ceremony of the scapegoat on the day of atonement ); and

3) blood is the agency through which a covenant is established, restored, and maintained.

However, Jesus parts ways with the Old Testament tradition by proposing His blood as drink (Mt 26:27ff; Mk 14:23ff; Lk 22:20; Jn 6:53ff; 1 Co 11:25ff). McKenzie notes in this regard that “…the eating of blood is prohibited (Gn 9:4; Lv 17:10ff); life is conferred by God and is under His dominion. This prohibition was retained in the apostolic Church (AA 15:20).”

Recall that Jesus anticipated a violent death to be followed by His resurrection, and that He separated the rituals of the bread and wine indicating a sacrifice (or in this case, a self-sacrifice).

Thus, the blood He refers to in the eucharistic ritual is His future sacrificial blood (the blood of the passion). Jesus intended this to be a sacrifice of atonement (as implied by His allusions to the suffering servant and the paschal lamb) which was understood and deeply appreciated by the early Church (and reflected in the Pauline epistles and the Letter to the Hebrews). McKenzie notes in this regard that:

[Jesus] is a propitiatory offering in His blood (Rm 3:25), through which we are made righteous (Rm 5:9). We are redeemed through His blood (Eph 1:7) and through it we draw near to God (Eph 2:13), and by His blood He has made peace (between man and God; Col 1:20). The contrast and analogy between the blood of Jesus and the blood of sacrificial victims is drawn out at length in Heb. His blood excels that of animals (Heb 9:12 ff). Blood is the only effective agent of purification (Heb 9:20 ff) and of the remission of sins (9:22). But the blood of animals cannot remove sins (10:4); Christ has effected eternal redemption by His own blood (9:12), through which we have access to the sanctuary (10:19).

Jesus does not directly advocate violating the Old Testament proscription against drinking blood (because He is not advocating the drinking of physical blood), yet He implicitly does this when He advocates drinking the red wine which He identifies with the blood of His impending sacrifice in order to share the redemptive power of that sacrifice. Recall that the power of the Passover lamb’s blood was protection against death in a specific situation, but the power of Jesus’ redemptive blood goes far beyond this because it protects against every manifestation of death unto eternal life and communion with God. The redemptive power of the lamb’s blood was placed on the exterior (door posts) of every Hebrew house. Jesus’ blood (redemptive power) is taken interiorly and protects from interior (spiritual) death, making it the transformative power of eternal communion with God. It is difficult to believe that Jesus would have advocated the implicit violation of the Old Testament proscription (against drinking blood) unless He believed that His blood of sacrifice had the real power to protect against spiritual death.

Jesus also associates His sacrificial blood with the “blood of the new covenant.” A covenant is a solemn promise. McKenzie notes:

In early Hebrew society written documents were employed little or not at all. In their place the spoken word was invested with ritual solemnity which gave it a kind of concrete reality. The spoken word thus uttered could not be annulled or retracted. … The covenant was such a solemn ritual agreement which served the function of a written contract. The covenanting parties bound themselves by a ritual agreement which included terrible imprecations upon the party which should violate the covenant.

Thus, a covenant has the effect of an absolutely guaranteed promise. In the case of Jesus (who is representing Abba as His Son and suffering servant) it has the effect of an absolutely guaranteed promise on the part of an absolutely truthful God.

But what is Jesus’ new covenant promising? Four interrelated promises: (1) communion with God, (2) the new covenant of Jeremiah, (3) Isaiah’s servant covenant, and (4) the eschatological (fulfilled) kingdom of God (Jesus’ mission – what He has come to bring in His person).

With respect to the first point, common life was part of any “covenant in blood,” because the sprinkling of blood indicated that the parties were one blood or one family. Thus, covenant between God and human beings would indicate common life or communion with Him. It can hardly be doubted that Jesus intended this very basic meaning of “covenant in blood” in His words of institution.

With respect to the second point, Jeremiah promises (presumably at the messianic time) a new covenant which would be written on the hearts of human beings:

“The time is coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers…. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

Presuming that Jesus was as familiar with this common text in Jeremiah as He was with the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, Jesus would have seen His new covenant as embracing the new law of the heart (the law of love) which He came to bring through His sacrificial death, resurrection, and gift of the Spirit. Jesus would have probably seen the blood of the covenant not only as a guaranteed promise of communion with God, but also as the vehicle through which the law of unconditional Love would be infused within the heart of every human being through the Holy Spirit.

With respect to the third point (Isaiah’s “servant covenant”) it seems highly probable that Jesus who identified Himself as the suffering servant in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 would have also been acutely aware of the preceding servant prophecies (Isaiah 42:6ff and 49:8ff). A brief review of these two passages will show that the servant is the covenant, that the covenant is for all peoples, and that it leads to the atonement of sin and new communion with God:

“I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness” (Is 42:6-7).

And also:

This is what the Lord says: “In the time of my favor I will answer you, and in the day of salvation I will help you; I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people, to restore the land and to reassign its desolate inheritances, to say to the captives, ‘Come out,’ and to those in darkness, ‘Be free!’ They will feed beside the roads and find pasture on every barren hill. … See, they will come from afar – some from the north, some from the west…” (Is 49:8-12).

Given Jesus’ familiarity with the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, and the remarkable parallels with the themes surrounding His institution of the Eucharist (the suffering servant, atonement of sin, poured out for the many – for the all) it seems very unlikely that Jesus would not have had this notion of “servant (Himself as covenant)” in mind when speaking of the new covenant (the new communion) with God at the Eucharist. Hence, the new covenant in His blood is filled with the notion of a complete healing of humanity (sight for the blind, liberty for captives, release for those who sit in darkness, etc.).

The above eschatological dimension leads to the fourth and final point, namely, the covenant as definitive bringing of the kingdom. This dimension of covenant is manifest in Isaiah 59:21:

“As for me, this is my covenant with them” says the Lord. “My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,” says the Lord.

The “forever” here indicates that the covenant brings with it the eschatological kingdom through the permanent imparting of the Spirit of God. When this is combined with Jeremiah 31:31 and the eschatological dimensions of Isaiah 42:6-7, 49:8-12, and 59:21, it seems likely that Jesus viewed the new covenant as a “guaranteed promise of the actualization of the kingdom.” Jeremias links Jesus’ “new covenant” to His new Passover sacrifice (see above, Section II.B.2) and concludes to the following:

Jesus describes his death as this eschatological passover sacrifice: his vicarious (huper) death brings into operation the final deliverance, the new covenant of God. Diathēkē (“covenant”) is a correlate of basileia ton ouranōn (“kingdom of heaven”). The content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus’ death is perfect communion with God (Jer. 31.33-34a) in his reign, based upon the remission of sins (31.34b).

Summary. Unconditional Love would seem to be the power of this beautiful and encompassing new covenant. It is Jesus’ total gift of Himself, His taking the place of an animal in the sin-offering, and the offering of His blood in place of an animal’s blood in the covenant sacrifice that enables us all to be “one blood, one family” with God. It is His act of total humility and self-sacrifice (Agape) which unites us together as God’s family. The Holy Spirit is the personal power effecting this unity, and Jesus is its “body.” Jesus intended that His act of self-sacrifice, His gift of self, His unconditional Love, be the creative power of protection from spiritual death and therefore from all death. The new covenant is the absolute bond, the absolute guarantee, the very principle of eternal life in communion with God. It arises out of unconditional Love, it finds its fulfillment in unconditional Love; it is unconditional Love. Though He may not have used these words, one can scarcely interpret His action of taking the place of an animal in a sacrificial offering to mean anything less. Thus, when He said, “This cup is the covenant in my blood,” He intended to bestow on us an eternal communion with one another through His own person/body given in self-sacrifice. This is unquestionably unconditional Love.

=== “Do this in Remembrance of Me” ===

If Jeremias’ extensive study of ''anamnesis'' (remembrance) within Semitic cult is correct, then Jesus’ command of repetition (“Do this in remembrance of me”) has the double function of (1) asking God to recall something of religious significance, and (2) asking God to make that blessing really present (to recreate that blessing in the present).

With respect to the first point, Jeremias shows that in both the Old Testament and New Testament (Mark 14:9, Matt 26:13, and Acts 10:4) a ritual remembrance is not so much directed at the human subject but at God so that He might remember: “…[I]n the Old Testament and Palestinian memorial formulae it is almost always God who remembers. In accordance with this the command for repetition may be translated: ‘This do, that God may remember me’”

With respect to the second point, Jeremias notes:

This calling into the presence of God [remembrance – anamnesis], this bringing to life before God, this recalling of the past, this is, on the other side, effective. It has a purpose, it is intended to effect something: that God may remember – mercifully or punishingly. God’s remembrance is, namely (this is an important fact to which O. Michel called attention), never a simple remembering of something, but always and without exception “an effecting and creating event.” When Luke 1.72 says that God remembers his covenant, this means that he is now fulfilling the eschatological covenant promise.

If we combine all these elements, it would seem that when Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me,” He expected that He and His self-sacrificial action would be presented to God (the Father) to be made present (real) in the blessed and distributed bread whenever the words of institution were repeated. Johannes Betz summarizes the work of Michel, Jeremias, and others as follows:

Anamnesis in the biblical sense means not only the subjective representation of something in the consciousness and as an act of the remembering mind. It is also the objective effectiveness and presence of one reality in another, especially the effectiveness and presence of the salvific actions of God, in the liturgical worship. Even in the OT, the liturgy is the privileged medium in which the covenant attains actuality. ¶ The meaning of the logion may perhaps be paraphrased as follows: do this (what I have done) in order to bring about my presence, to make really present the salvation wrought in me.

We may here see Jesus’ intention to extend His self-sacrificial gift, His whole self, and the covenant in His blood to all future generations through a ritual which recreates the efficacy of His passion through His real presence. This desire to share in perpetuity is yet another manifestation of the unconditional nature of Jesus’ self-sacrificial covenant love.

=== “Poured Out for Many” ===

As noted above, the notion of pollōn (many) in Jesus’ logion “poured out for many” is a translation of the Hebrew rabbim which can have an exclusive or inclusive meaning. When it has the inclusive meaning, it signifies “all.” Jeremias summarizes these linguistic issues as follows:

While “many” in Greek (as in English) stands in opposition to “all”, and therefore has the exclusive sense (“many, but not all”), Hebrew rabbim can have the inclusive sense (“the whole, comprising many individuals”). This inclusive use is connected with the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic possess no word for “all”.

This inclusive sense of rabbim was very common in Old Testament and intertestamental literature. When it is accompanied by the definite article in Talmudic and even New Testament texts, it almost always has an inclusive meaning (“all”); but, as Jeremias points out, it can frequently have an inclusive meaning even without the definite article.

In the New Testament (with respect to Jesus’ self-sacrificial passion), Mark 10:45 uses pollōn in the inclusive sense to refer to Jesus’ “ransom for many.” This passage refers back to the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 53:10-12 which is interpreted in 1Timothy 2:6 by using the Greek word “all” (pantōn) instead of “many” (pollōn). According to Jeremias:

Of especial importance for our passage is Mark 10.45 par., lutron anti pollōn “a ransom for many”. That polloi has here the inclusive meaning “all” is shown by the reference in Mark 10.45 to Isa. 53.10-12, as well as by the parallel in I Tim. 2.6: antilutron huper pantōn, “a ransom for all”. Just as Mark 10.45, so also our passage Mark 14.24 [Jesus’ eucharistic words] is to be interpreted in the inclusive sense. Pollōn is therefore a Semitism. ¶ 14.24 to ekchunnomenon huper pollōn (“the[blood] poured out for many”). The placing of the prepositional phrase at the end corresponds to Semitic word order. That it is placed between the article and the participle independently of each other in Matthew as well as in Luke shows that the position at the end sounds harsh in Greek.

This remarkable parallel which shows the rabbim in Isaiah 53:10-12 to be translated by both pollōn (many) and pantōn (all) in Mark and 1Timothy, respectively, and the very uncharacteristically Greek (but characteristically Semitic) expressions of the eucharistic words in Mark and Matthew offer strong evidence that Jesus’ rabbim was meant in an inclusive sense, and therefore, as “all” (all human beings).

Once again, the unconditional nature of Jesus’ love emerges. His sacrificial act is not for a chosen few, but rather for all humankind. He offers this not only to His generation, but all future generations. His gift of Himself is total and universal. His love is unconditional.

== Conclusion ==

Given the above interpretation of Jesus’ eucharistic words and actions, one can scarcely deny His intention to give Himself completely to all humankind in the sacrificial act. He not only wanted to give Himself completely in sacrifice (in imitation of the suffering servant, the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and taking the place of an animal in a sin-offering and a covenant sacrifice), but also wanted to be present to us and in us for all generations and all time. This seems to meet the requirements for an unconditional act of love.

Yes, Jesus had a plan, an unconditionally loving plan, as He proceeded toward imminent death in Jerusalem. He planned to atone for the sins of all unconditionally, and to initiate a covenant of unconditional communion with God in everlasting life, through a ritual which would make the blessing of His sacrifice, self, and love really present in perpetuity. Jesus not only wanted the consummation of His mission (His passion) to be an act of total self-sacrifice, He wanted to give it away to everyone for all generations (unconditionally and universally).

If God were Unconditional Love, would He do something like this as Emmanuel (God with us)? Would He give Himself away in self-sacrifice, and then give that self-sacrificial love away forever? If such actions would typify an unconditionally loving God, then Jesus would seem to be His Emmanuel – His Unconditional Love with us.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Eucharist

2015-01-08T15:00:30Z

David Persyn: /* Jesus as the New Sacrificial Paschal Lamb */ Footnotes and Formats

Magis ChristWiki - Magis Institute

Unit II. L

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Eucharist

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-L_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Eucharist.3F | Return to Table of Contents]]

Saint Paul believed that the clearest demonstration of Jesus’ love was in His passion and death: “But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rm 5:8). Jesus instituted the Eucharist to give the “total gift of Himself in the passion” to all future generations. He deliberately walked into His passion by traveling to Jerusalem before the feast of the Passover when the authorities were evidently seeking to put an end to His ministry and even His life. He did this because He had a plan in mind; a plan to give the blessing and power of His person and passion to all future generations through a ritual arising out of His interpretation of the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. The Beloved One of the Father intended to make us all beloveds in His own image by giving Himself (and the eschatological kingdom of love) to us in a definitive, unconditional act. This consummation of His mission (His raison d’être) reveals His core identity. The question naturally follows, “Would it be typical of an unconditionally loving God who enters into complete empathy with us to have such a self-sacrificial mission and plan?” If so, then this is one of our most profound signs that Jesus is Emmanuel.

== Did Jesus Institute the Eucharist at a Passover Meal? ==

Joachim Jeremias’ classic work, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus is still acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive treatments of this subject with the most extensive analysis of rabbinical traditions.<ref>Meier 1991, p. 395.</ref> Some exegetes feel uneasy about his application of rabbinical traditions and extratestamental material to New Testament texts,<ref>See Meier 1991, p. 395.</ref> and many scholars do not agree with his assignment of the Last Supper to the Passover meal, because it requires that too much activity take place on Passover day (the 15th of Nisan):

<blockquote>Despite Jeremias’ deft command of the material, he cannot really establish the likelihood that, at the time of Jesus, the supreme Jewish authorities in Jerusalem would arrest a person suspected of a capital crime, immediately convene a meeting of the Sanhedrin to hear the case (a case involving the death penalty), hold a formal trial with witnesses, reach a decision that the criminal deserved to die, and hand over the criminal to the Gentile authorities with a request for execution on the same day – all within the night and early day hours of Passover Day, the fifteenth of Nisan!<ref>Meier 1991, p. 396.</ref></blockquote>

For this reason, Meier believes that it is more probable that the Last Supper took place on the day before the Passover meal (on the eve of the 14th of Nisan), which corresponds with John’s dating of it rather than the Synoptics’.<ref>See Meier 1991, p. 396.</ref>

Yet, the placement of the Last Supper on the eve of the 14th of Nisan does not rule out the possibility that Jesus, aware of what was to befall Him, celebrated a Passover supper with His disciples (without a lamb) on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. Since the lambs were slaughtered prior to the meal on the 15th of Nisan, it would not have been possible for Jesus to celebrate the Passover meal with a lamb. This is consistent with New Testament accounts which make multiple references to the Passover meal,<ref>See, for example, Luke 22:15 (“I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer”); Luke 22:13 (“they prepared the Passover”); Luke 22:11 (“tell the householder, ‘the Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I am to eat the Passover with my disciples?”); Mark 14:12 (“Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”); Luke 22:8 (“Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it”); Luke 22:7 (“[it was] the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed”). Even if one ignores the passages which refer to the Marcan dating of the Last Supper on the eve of the 15th of Nisan (such as Luke 22:7), there are five distinct references (without dating) to a Passover meal.</ref> but no references to a lamb.

There are six reasons why a Passover meal should not be ruled out even if it occurred on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. First, as noted above, the Passover is linked to Jesus’ Last Supper multiple times in all three synoptic Gospels. Secondly, there are differences in the chronology of the Synoptic Gospels which indicate that a Passover meal could have been celebrated at different times within the weeklong celebration leading up to Passover. The reference to the “first day” in Mark and Luke, as Harrington suggests, betrays a mixed chronology, for:

<blockquote>the paschal lamb was normally eaten on the first day of the feast. Yet Mark describes the “first day” as the day of preparation when the lambs were slaughtered, corresponding to Wednesday, while the meal would be celebrated that evening.<ref>Harrington 1991, p. 392.</ref></blockquote>

Thirdly, the Passover is mentioned in a unique, ancient formula recounted in Luke’s Gospel, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.”<ref>See the extensive analysis of Jeremias in 1966, pp. 190-92.</ref> Fourthly, Jeremias detects several Semitisms behind the wording in the Gospel passages which are traceable to the Passover ceremony itself (such as the “fruit of the vine” in Luke 22:18).<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 161-62.</ref> Fifthly, Jeremias notes that:

<blockquote>[T]he pre-Pauline Passover haggadah preserved in I Cor. 5.7f. calls Jesus “our passover (lamb)” and that Paul presupposes as self-evident the familiarity of the Corinthian community with this comparison, a comparison widespread in the early Christian literature.<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 222-23.</ref></blockquote>

Sixthly, there are references to the Passover meal within the passages (e.g., the multiple cups, which seems to have come from Luke’s special source [22:17-18], and the Passover haggadah between the word over the bread and the word over the cup<ref>See Jeremias 1966, p. 85 and 221.</ref>). In sum, these distinct ancient sources of the institution of the Eucharist at Passover indicate a common Palestinian source which very probably goes back to Jesus Himself.

Could Jesus have celebrated an adapted Passover meal with His disciples on the eve of the 14th of Nisan to anticipate His impending death which would have occurred near the time of the slaughtering of the lambs? Since Jesus was not unaccustomed to adapting Jewish doctrine and ritual to conform to His own doctrinal and ritual requirements, this possibility cannot be ruled out. Even if Jesus did not celebrate a Passover meal (without a lamb) at the Last Supper, He could have borrowed particular rituals from it or alluded to it during the Last Supper. For this reason, I will include Jeremias’ references to the Passover meal in the forthcoming analysis. The reader may want to bear in mind that these Passover rituals may not have occurred, but may only have been implied in Jesus’ actions during the Last Supper.

The analysis will be carried out in two steps:

1) a brief synopsis of Jeremias’ and others’ exegetical work on the original tradition (Section II.A); and

2) the meaning of Jesus’ eucharistic words and actions (Section II.B).

== Jeremias’ Interpretation of the Original Tradition ==

There are four traditions of Jesus’ Eucharistic words:<ref>There is also a tradition in John (6:25-59), but it is a Eucharistic discourse instead of a recounting of the Last Supper; a specific exegesis of this passage is beyond the objective of this study.</ref>

1) I Corinthians 11:23-26:

<blockquote>For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.</blockquote>

2) Mark 14:22-25:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take; this is my body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” He said to them. “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”</blockquote>

3) Matthew 26:26-29:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”</blockquote>

4) Luke 22:17-20:

<blockquote>After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”</blockquote>

A brief glance at the above four traditions reveals two branches of an original tradition – (1) a Paul-Luke branch (which makes specific reference to remembrance; a new covenant; and, in the case of Luke alone, “poured out for you”), and (2) a Mark-Matthew branch (which makes no reference to remembrance; refers to covenant, but not a new covenant; and makes the objective of Jesus’ outpouring for many). Jeremias has split this project into two parts: (1) the four common areas of these traditions (which, given the different theologies in the two branches, would probably have to have their origin in a common source), and (2) in areas where the branches differ, locating the more primitive tradition through grammatical constructions and the presence of Semitisms. The two analyses will bring us close to an original tradition which may closely resemble Jesus’ own words.

There are four common areas within the four traditions:

<blockquote>(1) Jesus’ action with respect to the bread: “took bread, gave thanks [in the case of Paul, “after he had given thanks”], and broke it,”</blockquote>

<blockquote>(2) Jesus’ words over the bread: “this is my body [soma],”</blockquote>

<blockquote>(3) Jesus’ action with respect to the cup. In Mark-Matthew: “Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them.” In Paul-Luke: “In the same way” (referring to the way in which He gave the bread, i.e., “took bread and gave thanks… and gave it to them”), and</blockquote>

<blockquote>(4) Jesus’ word over the cup: “This is my blood of the covenant.” Evidently, Paul and Luke refer to the new covenant whereas Mark and Matthew refer only to the covenant.<ref>Jeremias shows through a grammatical analysis that, despite surface appearances, the Paul-Luke version is essentially the same as the Mark-Matthew version even though the Paul-Luke version refers to the cup (where Mark-Matthew does not), and Paul-Luke refers to “the covenant in my blood” while Mark-Matthew refers to the “blood of the covenant.” See Jeremias 1966, pp. 168-69.</ref></blockquote>

Jeremias holds that the Marcan version of the word over the bread is the more original tradition while the Pauline version of the word over the cup is the more original:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “Take; this is my body.” (Mark 14:22)</blockquote>

<blockquote>In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (1Cor. 11:25a).</blockquote>

Jeremias believes there is good reason for holding the Pauline version to be the more original formula for the word over the cup on linguistic grounds, because the Mark-Matthew version is far more symmetrical, indicating the need to take a more complex narrative form (in Paul-Luke) and convert it to a more symmetrical liturgical form in Mark-Matthew. Though it may be thought that the Paul-Luke form is more apologetically appealing (because it is less evocative of drinking blood in a pagan ritual which would have been repulsive to Jewish people), and therefore later than the Mark-Matthew version (which may have given rise to these apologetically unappealing misimpressions), Paul’s version is probably the earlier because it reveals a separation in time between the word over the bread and the word over the wine (to account for the consumption of the meal between the two events) which the Mark-Matthew version does not represent. Thus, the Mark-Matthew version seems to be a later formula taken from the liturgy, which did not need to account for the separation of the meal (as a more narrative account would have) and needed to be more symmetrical for the sake of liturgical repetition.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 169-171 and 191-92.</ref>

It now remains to establish which of the other three divergent areas is the more original. As implied above, there are three areas of divergence:

<blockquote>a) “the new covenant” (Paul-Luke) versus “the covenant” (Mark-Matthew),</blockquote>

<blockquote>b) poured out for you (Luke) versus “poured out for many” (Mark-Matthew), and</blockquote>

<blockquote>c) word of remembrance – ''anamnēsis'' (in Paul-Luke, but not mentioned in Mark-Matthew).</blockquote>

I will briefly summarize Jeremias’ judgment on these three matters so that an original tradition (close to the words and actions of Jesus) may be adduced.

With respect to the new covenant, Jeremias holds that the Mark-Matthew version would probably be the earlier because the placement of the adjective “new” prior to “covenant” is Hellenistic (but not Semitic) indicating that it originated “on Hellenistic soil.”<ref>Though the Pauline formula is not the more original of the two, its pre-Pauline origins are indicated by its agreement with Luke. See Jeremias 1966, pp. 171-72.</ref>

With respect to the “poured out for you” (Luke) versus “poured out for many”<ref>As will be discussed below, “for many,” in the Semitic sense of “rabbim” which was probably uttered by Jesus, is inclusive (that is, it does not exclude some in contrast to the totality, as in the common Greek and English uses of it – e.g., “many, but not everybody”). The reason for this is that there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word for “all.” Thus, the inclusive sense of “rabbim” explicitly includes the totality and its individual members. See Jeremias 1966, p. 179.</ref> (Mark-Matthew), Jeremias holds that “for many” is the more original on the basis of linguistic grounds, namely, “for many” is a Semitism while “you” is not. Jeremias attributes the replacement of “many” by “you” as having a liturgical purpose where each worshiper feels him or herself to be individually addressed (by “you”), which would not happen with the indefinite “many.” In view of this, he holds that the replacement of “many” by “you” is not an attempt to limit the atoning work of Jesus arising out of later theological reflection.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 172.</ref>

Finally, with respect to the word of remembrance (which Jeremias terms the command for repetition), Paul mentions it twice (after the word over the bread and the word over the wine), Luke mentions it once (after the word over the bread), but Mark and Matthew omit it altogether. Jeremias holds that this tradition is pre-Pauline but probably not a part of the oldest traditions. Yet it could well have originated with Jesus. There are three reasons for suspecting this. First, the bread and wine rituals took on a high degree of significance apart from the meal (suggesting a command of repetition from Jesus with respect to them, but not with respect to the meal separating them). Secondly, the words over the bread and wine are so often repeated that they quickly become a central Christian ritual (which gives them far more significance than mere parts of a farewell meal or a commemoration of Jesus’ death<ref>Jeremias has an extensive discussion of the contention that the word of remembrance was a later Greek accretion imitating annual celebrations of the dead. One of his reasons for rejecting this thesis is that the Christian ritual was daily or weekly and not merely an annual celebration. See Jeremias 1966, pp. 238-43.</ref>) suggesting once again a command of repetition from Jesus. Thirdly, it would be unusual for early liturgical formulations to contain this command since, as Jeremias notes, “the celebration itself was its fulfillment.”<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 238.</ref> In view of the fact that Jesus said much more during the meal than was recorded, it may be surmised that He gave a command of repetition.

So what can we now conclude about Jesus’ actions and words? If the earliest narratives reflect Jesus’ actions, and if Jeremias’ conjectures about Jesus’ words are correct, we can conclude that Jesus gathered with His disciples before the feast of the Passover and indicated to them that He longed to celebrate this Passover with them, but instead of doing so, fasted while the other disciples celebrated.<ref>See Jeremias’ convincing argument in 1966, pp. 208-09.</ref> After drinking one of the four Passover cups while they were eating the Passover meal (or an adapted Passover ritual),<ref>See the discussion of this topic in the introduction to Section II above.</ref> Jesus initiated the ritual of the bread, identifying it with His body: “Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take; this is my body.’” Then, after the completion of the Passover meal (or adapted Passover ritual), Jesus initiated the ritual of the wine which He identifies with the covenant in His blood. He took a cup of red wine, gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This cup is the covenant in my blood.”<ref>Though Jesus identifies the red wine with the “covenant in His blood,” it is clear from the red wine, the parallelism with the bread, and the use of “this cup” that Jesus is identifying the red wine with both His blood and the covenant in His blood. Jeremias notes that the color of the wine is significant here: “The tertium comparationis in the case of the bread is the fact that it was broken, and in the case of the wine the red colour. We have already seen…that it was customary to drink red wine at the Passover…. The comparison between red wine and blood was common in the Old Testament (Gen. 49.11; Deut. 32.14; Isa. 63.3,6), further Ecclus 39.26; 50.15; I Macc. 6.34; Rev. 14.20; Sanh. 70a, etc.” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 223-24).</ref> Sometime either prior to or after this (perhaps both), Jesus gives a command of repetition similar to “Do this in remembrance of me.”

If this reconstruction is accurate, we may now proceed to a brief summary of Jeremias’ and others’ conclusions about the meaning of these words and the ritual they constitute.

== The Meaning of Jesus’ Eucharistic Words and Actions ==

Six elements of Jesus’ institution of the Eucharist merit interpretation:

(1) His view of Himself as “suffering servant” (Is 52:13-53:12 – see Section II.B.1);

(2) Jesus as the new sacrificial paschal lamb (II.B.2);

(3) “This is my body” (soma – II.B.3);

(4) “This cup is the covenant in my blood” (II.B.4);

(5) “Do this in remembrance of me” (II.B5); and

(6) “poured out for many” (II.B.6).

As will become evident, the synthesis of these six elements (in their proper interpretation) points strongly to Jesus’ action as one of unconditional Love, which reveals a heart of unconditional Love.

=== Jesus as Suffering Servant ===

It may be helpful to here set out the whole Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12, because reference will be made to it throughout this Unit on the Eucharist as well as the forthcoming Unit on the passion of Jesus:

<blockquote>See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as there were many who were appalled at him – his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness – so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand (52:13-15).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him (53:1-2).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not (53:3).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted (53:4).</blockquote>

<blockquote>But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed (53:5).</blockquote>

<blockquote>We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all (53:6).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth (53:7).</blockquote>

<blockquote>By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken (53:8).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth (53:9).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities (53:10-11).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he ''poured'' out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of ''many'', and made intercession for the transgressors (53:12 – italics mine).</blockquote>

The obvious tie-in between the suffering servant song and Jesus’ eucharistic words occurs at 53:12. The phrase “poured out for many,” which is a part of the oldest tradition of the eucharistic words, has a remarkable parallel with Isaiah 53:12 which states:

<blockquote>…because he poured out (he’erah) his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many (rabbim)….”</blockquote>

The Hebrew background of both Jesus’ eucharistic words and Isaiah 53:12 as well as the context of these words (the sacrifice of Jesus and the suffering servant) are so close that it would be difficult to believe that the ancient tradition of Jesus’ eucharistic words was not referring to Isaiah 53:12.<ref>According to Jeremias, [“poured out for many”] “is linked with an Old Testament passage: Isa. 53.12, ‘because he poured out (he’erah) his life to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many (rabbim) and made intercession for the transgressors’ (the reference is to the Hebrew text of this passage, a fact to be kept in mind as evidence of the age of the tradition). This allusion to the Old Testament passage on the suffering servant is supported by the fact that the word rabbim/πολλοί is almost a ''leit-motiv'' in Isa. 52.13-53.12.” Jeremias 1966, pp. 226-7.</ref> Moreover, Jesus seems to have had an intimate acquaintance with the texts of Deutero-Isaiah,<ref>See Betz, 1968-70, v.2, p. 257.</ref> and also seems to have interpreted His life and His mission in terms of this passage which was uncannily similar to the passion He was about to suffer. Hence, it seems likely that Jesus intended the words “poured out for many” in a way that could be interpreted through the lens of the Suffering Servant song. This means that Jesus intends His eucharistic actions and words in an expiatory way, that is, as a “sin offering” or “guilt offering” for the sins of many. Johannes Betz notes in this regard:

<blockquote>Jesus accomplished the decisive purpose of His life, His task as Messiah, in carrying out the mission of the servant of God of Deutero-Isaiah, who as God’s majestic envoy proclaims and inaugurates a new phase in salvation and who as martyr takes upon Himself expiatory sufferings for the sins of the many.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v.2, p. 258.</ref></blockquote>

It would seem, therefore, that Jesus had this Suffering Servant song deeply in mind when He decided to proceed toward Jerusalem with full knowledge that the authorities were seeking to persecute Him (see John 11:8). This makes sense of both His resoluteness toward impending death and His obvious preparation for the eucharistic ritual (with its imbedded passage from Isaiah 53:12), which would, in turn, make sense of Matthew’s additional words (probably reflective of a later tradition): “for the forgiveness of sins.”<ref>This is imbedded within Jesus’ words over the cup: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt. 26:28).</ref>

The logic of this sin offering may seem a bit confusing to a contemporary audience, especially the passage in Isaiah that states, “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see the light of life and be satisfied” (Isaiah 53:10). At first glance, it may seem that the portrayal of the Lord in this passage (and therefore Jesus’ view of God’s will) is sadistic, but this is certainly not the case, for Jesus’ interpretation of the Isaiah passage is set within His view of the Father as “Abba” and Himself as Son and Beloved. Thus, Jesus’ interpretation of this passage must be seen within the context of the logic of love, which makes the Johannine words of Jesus particularly significant, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (Jn 15:13). If this passage represents Jesus’ interpretive principle for both the Isaiah passage and His Eucharistic words, then Jesus would have interpreted “the Lord’s will to crush him” in terms of the Father’s acceptance of Jesus’ love offering (the gift of Himself) for the sins of the world.

Recall for a moment some of the observations about Jesus’ view of love (agape) from the previous Unit. We saw that Jesus viewed love as the highest commandment (Mark 12:30 and par.), and that He elucidated His view of love through the beatitudes (Matt 5:3-12), which included humble-heartedness, gentle-heartedness, hungering and thirsting for the will of God, being merciful (which includes being forgiving), peacemaking, and enduring persecution for the kingdom of God. Ironic as it may seem, Jesus’ self-sacrificial gift for the expiation of sins synthesizes and catalyzes every one of these elements from the beatitudes and concretizes their “synthesis in love” within not only historical but future reality.<ref>Paul did not miss this insight in Colossians 3:12-14: “Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which is the bond of completeness.” See the explanation of this passage in Unit II-J, Section IV.</ref>

The Gospel of John has captured Jesus’ intention well. There is no greater love (the synthesis of the beatitudes) that a person can have than to give his life. In light of Jesus’ view of the Father as Abba (which has embedded within it generative, compassionate, forgiving, restoring, affectionate love – similar to the father’s love in the Prodigal Son parable), it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus would have loosely interpreted the words of Isaiah 53:10 to mean “it would have pleased the Father – despite His pain – to see the self-sacrificial (loving) will of His Son become a reality for all humanity.” Just because Jesus uses Isaiah 52:13-53:12 as an interpretive principle for His self-sacrifice does not mean that He agrees with every theological element in that passage. Indeed, Jesus was known to have loosely interpreted and even reinterpreted many passages from Torah and the prophets. It would seem inconceivable that Jesus could have interpreted Isaiah 53:10 outside the context of His being the beloved Son of Abba.

Therefore, we might look at Jesus’ mindset about the passion and Eucharist (as He approached Jerusalem) as follows. First, He intended to make Himself an expiatory offering much like the one spoken of in Isaiah 53:8ff:

<blockquote>…for the transgression of my people he was stricken…. …and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering…. …my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. …because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.</blockquote>

Secondly, Jesus had a twofold understanding of the efficacy of this “sin offering”: (1) the efficacy of sacrifice, and (2) the efficacy of love. With respect to the efficacy of sacrifice, it seems probable that Jesus organized His Eucharistic words to indicate that He was making a sacrifice of Himself. By separating the words over the body and the blood, Jesus implied that what He was about to endure on the cross was like the separation of flesh and blood in a cultic sacrifice.<ref>“This formula derives from Ex 24:8 and characterizes the content of the cup primarily as the cultic sacrificial element “blood”, which is separated from the flesh, then also the death of Jesus as the separation of flesh and blood after the manner of a cultic sacrifice” (Betz 1968-70, v.2, p. 259). See also Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22: “…[I]t also designates, as already in ancient Hebrew, the two component parts of the body [flesh and blood], especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed.”</ref>

Yet, Jesus was not making Himself a cultic sacrifice in the traditional sense, for He, the Son, the Beloved One, the innocent One, made Himself the sacrificial gift for those who are not innocent, in the certain hope of the resurrection and universal atonement. Betz notes in this regard:

<blockquote>Taking on alien guilt meant taking on also the necessity of death. As his life went on, Jesus thought more frequently of his death and spoke more frequently of it to his disciples…. It was for Jesus not something that merely happened to him, but a conscious and willed deed to which he assented as a necessity in the history of salvation, and on which he freely decided (Lk 12:50). His total readiness for the death which was the mission of the Servant of the Lord is also expressed in the logion of the ransom (Mk 10:45), and the prophecies of the passion (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:32ff). … His death is total dedication and the deepest fulfillment of his being. … Unlike the ''cultic'' sacrifices, there is no separate ''gift'' which stands for the offerer and symbolizes his dedication to God. Here the offerer himself functions as ''gift'' in his own person and accomplishes the sacrificial dedication by the real shedding of his blood. Jesus must have been sure that God would accept this sacrifice, his body, and hence that God would fill it with new life. Thus the death of Jesus brings with it the resurrection as an inner consequence, as an essential part of it, regardless of the difference in time between the two events.<ref>Betz, 1968-70, v.2, p. 258. Italics mine.</ref></blockquote>

The middle term, as it were, between efficacy of sacrifice and efficacy of love is gift. As is clear from the above, a cultic sacrifice finds its efficacy in the gift given to God, and, as is clear from the Johannine passage on love, there is no greater love than to give one’s life. When Jesus made Himself the gift in the sacrificial offering, He transformed the efficacy of that gift from one of cultic proportion to one of unconditional Love. This is evidenced in Jesus’ use of the word “covenant” (“the covenant in my blood”) which, as will be seen below, implies a bond of love.

In sum, when Jesus proceeded to Jerusalem He planned to complete His mission of being the suffering (messianic) servant of the Lord by becoming a sacrificial gift for all transgressors. In so doing, he hoped to effect an atonement for all sins as a perfect sacrifice (that is, as the self-sacrifice of the beloved innocent one) in place of cultic sin offerings. This atonement went far beyond mechanical cultic sin offerings because it was fundamentally an act of unconditional self-giving (Love) for humankind. This act of unconditional Love was the source and power of perfect atonement and a new covenant which promised eternal life through the God who has loved us so.

=== Jesus as the New Sacrificial Paschal Lamb ===

As noted above, it is likely that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper within the context of a Passover meal – perhaps an adapted Passover meal (without a lamb) on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. So why would Jesus have chosen the Passover celebration to make His sacrifice and institute the Eucharist? Jeremias believes that He wanted to compare Himself to the paschal lamb, or perhaps better, He wanted to be the eschatological paschal lamb – the one who was to initiate the new covenant (which He correlated with the kingdom of God) in His blood:<ref>Jeremias sees Jesus’ identification of Himself with the paschal lamb as correlative with His identification of the bread and wine with His own person. He also notes that the early Pauline community commonly understood Jesus to be the paschal lamb. See Jeremias 1966, p. 222-23.</ref>

<blockquote>With the words ''den biśri'', “this is my (sacrificial) flesh”, and ''den idmi'', “this is my (sacrificial) blood”, Jesus is therefore most probably speaking of himself as the paschal lamb. He is the eschatological paschal lamb, representing the fulfillment of all that of which the Egyptian paschal lamb and all the subsequent sacrificial paschal lambs were the prototype.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 223.</ref></blockquote>

It should not be thought that the absence of a lamb at an adapted Passover meal (on the eve of the 14th of Nisan) militates against Jeremias’ thesis that Jesus associated Himself with the eschatological paschal lamb, for if Jesus did celebrate the Passover on the eve of the 14th of Nisan, His own passion would have begun at the time that the paschal lambs were being slaughtered in preparation for the feast celebrated on the eve of the 15th of Nisan. This would correlate well with the Last Supper’s anticipation of the impending self-sacrifice which might have been Jesus’ very intention.

The lamb is a simile for two essential dimensions of the Eucharist: (1) the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, and (2) the sacrifice initiating the covenant (leading out of slavery into a new life of freedom in the “promised land”). With respect to the forgiveness of sins, Jeremias notes:

<blockquote>By comparing himself with the eschatological paschal lamb Jesus describes his death as a saving death. … [A]t the passover meal the attention was directed…to the one “passover of the exodus” for the sake of which God had mercifully “passed over” the houses of the Israelites. The blood of the lambs slaughtered at the exodus from Egypt had redemptive power…<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 225.</ref></blockquote>

This “redemptive power,” this atonement for sins, protects from death and leads to everlasting life:

<blockquote>As a reward for the Israelites’ obedience to the commandment to spread blood on their doors, God manifested himself and spared them, “passing over” their houses. For the sake of the passover blood God revoked the death sentence against Israel; he said: “I will see the blood of the passover and make atonement for you.” In the same way the people of God of the End time will be redeemed by the merits of the Passover blood.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

Jesus sees His blood not only as a protection from death in this world (in imitation of the blood of the lamb at the Passover), but also as an eschatological protection (that is, a protection from death itself) which opens upon an eternal life of communion with Him and the Father:

<blockquote>Jesus describes his death as this eschatological passover sacrifice: his vicarious (''huper'') ''death brings into operation the final deliverance'', the new covenant of God. ''Diathēkē'' (“covenant”) is a correlate of ''basileia tōn ouranōn'' (“kingdom of heaven”). The content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus’ death is perfect communion with God (Jer. 31.33-34a) in his reign, based upon the remission of sins (31.34b).<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>

Thus, Jesus’ selection of the Passover (whether this was celebrated on the eve of the 14th or 15th of Nisan) as the context for His death was a deliberate attempt to manifest a ''sacrificial''<ref>As noted above, the separation of the word over the bread and the word over the wine by a Passover supper separates Jesus’ flesh from Jesus’ blood which would have been commonly understood by His audience to signify His self-sacrifice (reminiscent of all sacrifices which separate the flesh and blood of the gifts offered).</ref> death, and therefore, His institution of the Eucharist at this time established Him as the new Passover sacrifice for the atonement of sins and the initiation of the new covenant unto eternal communion with Him and His Father.<ref>This is why the tradition used by Matthew which references the forgiveness of sins (“Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” – Mt 26:28), though unique in the texts of the eucharistic words and therefore probably not original, is compatible with Jesus’ intentions at the last supper. This is further confirmed by Jesus’ references to the suffering servant who atones for the sins of many by his self-sacrificial act (see above, II.A).</ref>

There is one more element to be discussed about Jesus’ identification of Himself with the Passover lamb, namely, its correlation with agape. Recall that there is a natural correlation between Jesus’ view of love and the beatitudes (see Unit II-J, Section IV). Love is humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, peace-making, merciful (forgiving), and accepting of persecution for the kingdom of God. Jesus’ identification of Himself with the unblemished (innocent) lamb (correlative with the suffering servant<ref>“He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth” (Is 53:7).</ref>) brings to mind the humility and gentleness of the paschal lamb, as well as the forgiveness, reconciliation, and “endurance of persecution” intrinsic to its sacrifice. By making Himself a self-sacrificial Passover offering, Jesus revealed Himself to be Unconditional Love.

Thus, it is not only the sacrificial aspect of Jesus’ self-offering which has the redemptive power to atone for sins and establish a covenant of eternal communion with God, but also the unconditional Love intrinsic to that sacrifice. Jesus’ first-century audience would have probably noticed the redemptive power in the sacrifice more readily than in His unconditional Love, but subsequent generations, reflecting on Jesus’ words of love, began to realize that the unconditional Love intrinsic to the self-sacrifice is the sacrifice’s redemptive power. Jesus was not using sacrifice in some kind of magical-mystical way to elicit God’s power; neither did He believe that God the Father was demanding that He sacrifice Himself in a mechanical way to atone for sins (“I will put my Son on one side of the scale to balance off all the negatives on your side”); Jesus sacrificed Himself to concretely actualize unconditional self-sacrificial gift (unconditional Love) in the world, which is the redemptive power overcoming all hatred, darkness, emptiness, and evil. Notice that the Son’s self-sacrifice in unconditional Love was also the Father’s self-sacrifice, for the Father had to give His Son as much as the Son had to give Himself.

=== “This is My Body” (''Sōma'') ===

We may now turn to the words of institution within the context of the suffering servant and the paschal lamb. To what does “this” (''touto'' – in Aramaic, “''den''”) refer in “this is my body?” Jeremias notes that it cannot refer to Jesus’ action of breaking the bread, but rather to the bread itself:

This interpretation [that “this” refers to Jesus’ breaking of the bread], which in any case is incompatible with the ''touto estin'' (“this is”), would only be feasible if the actions named coincided with the words of interpretation. But that is not the case. As regards the bread-word, the fact that it is preceded by ''gabete'' (“take”) shows that Jesus said it not as the bread was being broken, but as it was being distributed.

Jesus identifies the bread (signified by ''touto/den'') with His body (''sōma''). The Semitic background of ''sōma'', according to Jeremias, is incontestably ''zeh baśari'' (Hebrew) and ''den bisri'' (Aramaic). This Hebrew/Aramaic background indicates that Jesus is referring to His physical body, his flesh, given in self-sacrifice. However, the Greek translation for Jesus’ Semitic word (''sōma'') may also indicate that the translators thought that Jesus was referring not only to His flesh (which would have been translated more precisely by ''sarx''), but also His whole person (His whole self).

This interpretation is compatible with the Semitic mindset which was not dualistic in a platonic way, and therefore, did not view body as mere corporeality; rather it viewed body as the whole corporeal self. According to McKenzie:

[In the Gospels], the body is parallel with life and is conceived almost as the self. … [In Paul, t]he first meaning of body is the concretely existing human being; in some contexts it again appears to be nearly synonymous with self (Rm 6:12f; 8:10?; 1 Co 6:18 f)….

Perhaps the Greek translators used sōma to more accurately convey to non-Jewish converts that Jesus’ Aramaic/Hebrew words were referring not only to His physicality, but to His whole self (which would have included characteristics the Greeks would have attributed to soul, such as the power of thinking and love, and the desire for justice and beauty, etc.).

If this interpretation is correct, then Jesus is making His whole corporeal self present in the words over the bread. The notion of “making a blessing present” in the reliving of an action or even in a substance (e.g., bread) was not uncommon in Semitic and Jewish religious practices. As Jeremias notes:

When at the daily meal the paterfamilias recites the blessing over the bread – which the members of the household make their own by the “Amen” – and breaks it and hands a piece to each member to eat, the meaning of the action is that each of the members is made a recipient of the blessing by this eating….

The bread of blessing, as it were, contains the blessing and conveys it to the willing recipient who says, “Amen” and consumes it.

The blessing which Jesus intends to be internalized by believers is certainly His sacrificed corporeal body; it is also His whole corporeal self. But Jesus’ use of “body” here cannot be restricted to this life alone, for He anticipated that His body would rise, that is, that there would be a fundamental continuity between His whole corporeal self and His “self in risen life with the Father”:

…[W]e can see from the simile and from the use of ekchunnomenon that Jesus did expect a violent death. Mark 14.25 par. makes it clear that Jesus was certain that God would vindicate his death by his resurrection and the establishment of the kingdom.

What is even more striking is Jesus’ probable intention to use the body of His sacrifice (which He views as being in continuity with His future risen state) to be the medium through which communion with God (and consequent unity among believers) would be effected. Paul implies this in 1Cor 10:15-17:

Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body for we partake of the one loaf.

It seems that by “participation” Paul means more than participating in the historical self-sacrificed body of Jesus; He means participation in the presently existing body of Jesus which is capable of effecting unity among believers through unity with God. McKenzie notes in this regard:

The sacrificial element prominent in this passage of 1 Co and implicit in the formulae of institution is communion with the deity in the sacrificial banquet. Through the Eucharist the deity is rendered present in a striking and unique fashion. Communion is achieved only through Jesus Christ, who is man, and as man is body. The body is therefore rendered really present; the language of the four sources…leaves no room for mere symbolism in this respect. … The body which is present is the glorified body; we seem justified in believing that the NT implies that it is through His resurrection and exaltation that the body of Jesus becomes the Church [the unity of believers]. But this is the body “which was delivered for you,” one and the same Lord Jesus who died, rose, and sits at the right hand of the Father. Communion is achieved through the participation of the body and the blood of the victim. The salvation of the NT is not directed to the soul, but to the man, and man in Hebrew thought is body; if salvation is to reach man, his communion with the Savior must be a communication of body.

Paul’s view of the “body of Christ” cannot be retroactively put into the mind of Christ, for Paul is speaking in the light of having witnessed the risen Jesus. Nevertheless, one cannot altogether delete Paul’s interpretation from the mind of Jesus, for Jesus associated His “body” with His risen life with the Father, and this risen life would have been the vehicle through which the full meaning of the new covenant (which He viewed as “the kingdom of God” or communion with God) would be effected.

Thus, Jesus’ sacrificial words over the bread might be interpreted as, “This is my body to be sacrificed for you, the body which will be risen and will bring the blessing of communion with the Father and with believers through me. This sacrificed – risen – salvific – unifying – mediating body is my gift of self for you.” Johannes Betz summarizes this as follows:

Hence, the bodily person of Jesus is present in the supper, not however in the static manner of being of a thing, but as the Servant of God who in his sacrificial death effects the salvation of us all and more precisely as the sacrificial offering of the Servant who delivers himself up on the cross. The real presence of the person is there to actualize the presence of the sacrificial deed and is united with this in an organic whole. The Eucharist becomes, then, the abiding presence in the meal of the sacrificially constituted salvific event “Jesus”, in whom person and work form an inseparable unity.

Remarkable as these intentions of Jesus may seem, they do not exhaust the meaning and mystery of His words, for He also intends to communicate His unconditional Love through His “gift of self.” Recall that Jesus’ eucharistic words in the context of the suffering Servant Song may be interpreted as a self-sacrifice (gift of self) to “justify many” and to “bear iniquities.” This definition is similar to Jesus’ view of love manifest in the Beatitudes and in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan.

Paul directly associates Jesus’ self-sacrificial death with “gift of self,” and associates “gift of self” with love in several passages. In the Letter to the Romans:

While we were yet helpless, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly. Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man – though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. But God shows his love [agapēn] for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. (5:6-8)

in the letter to the Galatians:

I have been crucified with Christ…; the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. (2:20)

and in Ephesians:

And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (5:2)

It is difficult to miss similar parallels between Jesus’ Eucharistic words, the Suffering Servant song, and the view of agape in the Gospel of John. Jesus indicates that there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life (i.e., “body”) for one’s friends (Jn 15:13), and further that the Father loves the Son precisely in the laying down (“giving”) of His life (“body”).

Summary. If Jesus’ view of love is “gift of self” (as suggested by Paul and John) then the eucharistic words “this is my body” (i.e., “self”) within the context of self-sacrifice (self-gift) would be virtually equivalent to love. Since this love knows no limit (i.e., it is complete self-sacrifice), it seems equivalent to unconditional Love.

Thus, we might interpret Jesus’ words as follows: “This is my body given in sacrifice, my future risen presence with you, and my unconditional Love – atoning for sin, transforming your hearts, unifying the community, and actualizing the new covenant unto eternal life.” If this is truly what Jesus had in mind as He instituted the Eucharist at the time of the Passover, then the Eucharist is not only Jesus’ interpretation of His passion, but also the vehicle for transmitting His gift of unconditional Love to all future generations. This leads to the next point.

=== “This Cup is the Covenant in My Blood” ===

Recall the reconstruction of Jesus’ words and actions with respect to the cup (Section II.A, above): After the completion of a Passover meal, Jesus initiated the ritual of the wine which He identifies with the covenant in His blood. He took a cup of red wine, gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This cup is the covenant in my blood.” Recall further that the cup of red wine is identified with both (1) Jesus’ blood and (2) “the covenant in His blood.” These two concepts, among the richest in Christian history, deserve individual discussion.

With respect to “blood,” the Greek term “aima” was probably derived from Jesus’ words of institution: “zeh dami” in Hebrew, and “den idmi” in Aramaic. Though its meaning within Jesus’ words of institution is in many ways similar to the Old Testament, it is also significantly different. There are three major similarities:

1) blood is the life principle and it is roughly equivalent to life itself;

2) blood (the life principle) was the vehicle through which atonement occurred in sin or guilt offerings (which is most poignantly described in the ceremony of the scapegoat on the day of atonement ); and

3) blood is the agency through which a covenant is established, restored, and maintained.

However, Jesus parts ways with the Old Testament tradition by proposing His blood as drink (Mt 26:27ff; Mk 14:23ff; Lk 22:20; Jn 6:53ff; 1 Co 11:25ff). McKenzie notes in this regard that “…the eating of blood is prohibited (Gn 9:4; Lv 17:10ff); life is conferred by God and is under His dominion. This prohibition was retained in the apostolic Church (AA 15:20).”

Recall that Jesus anticipated a violent death to be followed by His resurrection, and that He separated the rituals of the bread and wine indicating a sacrifice (or in this case, a self-sacrifice).

Thus, the blood He refers to in the eucharistic ritual is His future sacrificial blood (the blood of the passion). Jesus intended this to be a sacrifice of atonement (as implied by His allusions to the suffering servant and the paschal lamb) which was understood and deeply appreciated by the early Church (and reflected in the Pauline epistles and the Letter to the Hebrews). McKenzie notes in this regard that:

[Jesus] is a propitiatory offering in His blood (Rm 3:25), through which we are made righteous (Rm 5:9). We are redeemed through His blood (Eph 1:7) and through it we draw near to God (Eph 2:13), and by His blood He has made peace (between man and God; Col 1:20). The contrast and analogy between the blood of Jesus and the blood of sacrificial victims is drawn out at length in Heb. His blood excels that of animals (Heb 9:12 ff). Blood is the only effective agent of purification (Heb 9:20 ff) and of the remission of sins (9:22). But the blood of animals cannot remove sins (10:4); Christ has effected eternal redemption by His own blood (9:12), through which we have access to the sanctuary (10:19).

Jesus does not directly advocate violating the Old Testament proscription against drinking blood (because He is not advocating the drinking of physical blood), yet He implicitly does this when He advocates drinking the red wine which He identifies with the blood of His impending sacrifice in order to share the redemptive power of that sacrifice. Recall that the power of the Passover lamb’s blood was protection against death in a specific situation, but the power of Jesus’ redemptive blood goes far beyond this because it protects against every manifestation of death unto eternal life and communion with God. The redemptive power of the lamb’s blood was placed on the exterior (door posts) of every Hebrew house. Jesus’ blood (redemptive power) is taken interiorly and protects from interior (spiritual) death, making it the transformative power of eternal communion with God. It is difficult to believe that Jesus would have advocated the implicit violation of the Old Testament proscription (against drinking blood) unless He believed that His blood of sacrifice had the real power to protect against spiritual death.

Jesus also associates His sacrificial blood with the “blood of the new covenant.” A covenant is a solemn promise. McKenzie notes:

In early Hebrew society written documents were employed little or not at all. In their place the spoken word was invested with ritual solemnity which gave it a kind of concrete reality. The spoken word thus uttered could not be annulled or retracted. … The covenant was such a solemn ritual agreement which served the function of a written contract. The covenanting parties bound themselves by a ritual agreement which included terrible imprecations upon the party which should violate the covenant.

Thus, a covenant has the effect of an absolutely guaranteed promise. In the case of Jesus (who is representing Abba as His Son and suffering servant) it has the effect of an absolutely guaranteed promise on the part of an absolutely truthful God.

But what is Jesus’ new covenant promising? Four interrelated promises: (1) communion with God, (2) the new covenant of Jeremiah, (3) Isaiah’s servant covenant, and (4) the eschatological (fulfilled) kingdom of God (Jesus’ mission – what He has come to bring in His person).

With respect to the first point, common life was part of any “covenant in blood,” because the sprinkling of blood indicated that the parties were one blood or one family. Thus, covenant between God and human beings would indicate common life or communion with Him. It can hardly be doubted that Jesus intended this very basic meaning of “covenant in blood” in His words of institution.

With respect to the second point, Jeremiah promises (presumably at the messianic time) a new covenant which would be written on the hearts of human beings:

“The time is coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers…. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

Presuming that Jesus was as familiar with this common text in Jeremiah as He was with the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, Jesus would have seen His new covenant as embracing the new law of the heart (the law of love) which He came to bring through His sacrificial death, resurrection, and gift of the Spirit. Jesus would have probably seen the blood of the covenant not only as a guaranteed promise of communion with God, but also as the vehicle through which the law of unconditional Love would be infused within the heart of every human being through the Holy Spirit.

With respect to the third point (Isaiah’s “servant covenant”) it seems highly probable that Jesus who identified Himself as the suffering servant in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 would have also been acutely aware of the preceding servant prophecies (Isaiah 42:6ff and 49:8ff). A brief review of these two passages will show that the servant is the covenant, that the covenant is for all peoples, and that it leads to the atonement of sin and new communion with God:

“I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness” (Is 42:6-7).

And also:

This is what the Lord says: “In the time of my favor I will answer you, and in the day of salvation I will help you; I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people, to restore the land and to reassign its desolate inheritances, to say to the captives, ‘Come out,’ and to those in darkness, ‘Be free!’ They will feed beside the roads and find pasture on every barren hill. … See, they will come from afar – some from the north, some from the west…” (Is 49:8-12).

Given Jesus’ familiarity with the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, and the remarkable parallels with the themes surrounding His institution of the Eucharist (the suffering servant, atonement of sin, poured out for the many – for the all) it seems very unlikely that Jesus would not have had this notion of “servant (Himself as covenant)” in mind when speaking of the new covenant (the new communion) with God at the Eucharist. Hence, the new covenant in His blood is filled with the notion of a complete healing of humanity (sight for the blind, liberty for captives, release for those who sit in darkness, etc.).

The above eschatological dimension leads to the fourth and final point, namely, the covenant as definitive bringing of the kingdom. This dimension of covenant is manifest in Isaiah 59:21:

“As for me, this is my covenant with them” says the Lord. “My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,” says the Lord.

The “forever” here indicates that the covenant brings with it the eschatological kingdom through the permanent imparting of the Spirit of God. When this is combined with Jeremiah 31:31 and the eschatological dimensions of Isaiah 42:6-7, 49:8-12, and 59:21, it seems likely that Jesus viewed the new covenant as a “guaranteed promise of the actualization of the kingdom.” Jeremias links Jesus’ “new covenant” to His new Passover sacrifice (see above, Section II.B.2) and concludes to the following:

Jesus describes his death as this eschatological passover sacrifice: his vicarious (huper) death brings into operation the final deliverance, the new covenant of God. Diathēkē (“covenant”) is a correlate of basileia ton ouranōn (“kingdom of heaven”). The content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus’ death is perfect communion with God (Jer. 31.33-34a) in his reign, based upon the remission of sins (31.34b).

Summary. Unconditional Love would seem to be the power of this beautiful and encompassing new covenant. It is Jesus’ total gift of Himself, His taking the place of an animal in the sin-offering, and the offering of His blood in place of an animal’s blood in the covenant sacrifice that enables us all to be “one blood, one family” with God. It is His act of total humility and self-sacrifice (Agape) which unites us together as God’s family. The Holy Spirit is the personal power effecting this unity, and Jesus is its “body.” Jesus intended that His act of self-sacrifice, His gift of self, His unconditional Love, be the creative power of protection from spiritual death and therefore from all death. The new covenant is the absolute bond, the absolute guarantee, the very principle of eternal life in communion with God. It arises out of unconditional Love, it finds its fulfillment in unconditional Love; it is unconditional Love. Though He may not have used these words, one can scarcely interpret His action of taking the place of an animal in a sacrificial offering to mean anything less. Thus, when He said, “This cup is the covenant in my blood,” He intended to bestow on us an eternal communion with one another through His own person/body given in self-sacrifice. This is unquestionably unconditional Love.

=== “Do this in Remembrance of Me” ===

If Jeremias’ extensive study of ''anamnesis'' (remembrance) within Semitic cult is correct, then Jesus’ command of repetition (“Do this in remembrance of me”) has the double function of (1) asking God to recall something of religious significance, and (2) asking God to make that blessing really present (to recreate that blessing in the present).

With respect to the first point, Jeremias shows that in both the Old Testament and New Testament (Mark 14:9, Matt 26:13, and Acts 10:4) a ritual remembrance is not so much directed at the human subject but at God so that He might remember: “…[I]n the Old Testament and Palestinian memorial formulae it is almost always God who remembers. In accordance with this the command for repetition may be translated: ‘This do, that God may remember me’”

With respect to the second point, Jeremias notes:

This calling into the presence of God [remembrance – anamnesis], this bringing to life before God, this recalling of the past, this is, on the other side, effective. It has a purpose, it is intended to effect something: that God may remember – mercifully or punishingly. God’s remembrance is, namely (this is an important fact to which O. Michel called attention), never a simple remembering of something, but always and without exception “an effecting and creating event.” When Luke 1.72 says that God remembers his covenant, this means that he is now fulfilling the eschatological covenant promise.

If we combine all these elements, it would seem that when Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me,” He expected that He and His self-sacrificial action would be presented to God (the Father) to be made present (real) in the blessed and distributed bread whenever the words of institution were repeated. Johannes Betz summarizes the work of Michel, Jeremias, and others as follows:

Anamnesis in the biblical sense means not only the subjective representation of something in the consciousness and as an act of the remembering mind. It is also the objective effectiveness and presence of one reality in another, especially the effectiveness and presence of the salvific actions of God, in the liturgical worship. Even in the OT, the liturgy is the privileged medium in which the covenant attains actuality. ¶ The meaning of the logion may perhaps be paraphrased as follows: do this (what I have done) in order to bring about my presence, to make really present the salvation wrought in me.

We may here see Jesus’ intention to extend His self-sacrificial gift, His whole self, and the covenant in His blood to all future generations through a ritual which recreates the efficacy of His passion through His real presence. This desire to share in perpetuity is yet another manifestation of the unconditional nature of Jesus’ self-sacrificial covenant love.

=== “Poured Out for Many” ===

As noted above, the notion of pollōn (many) in Jesus’ logion “poured out for many” is a translation of the Hebrew rabbim which can have an exclusive or inclusive meaning. When it has the inclusive meaning, it signifies “all.” Jeremias summarizes these linguistic issues as follows:

While “many” in Greek (as in English) stands in opposition to “all”, and therefore has the exclusive sense (“many, but not all”), Hebrew rabbim can have the inclusive sense (“the whole, comprising many individuals”). This inclusive use is connected with the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic possess no word for “all”.

This inclusive sense of rabbim was very common in Old Testament and intertestamental literature. When it is accompanied by the definite article in Talmudic and even New Testament texts, it almost always has an inclusive meaning (“all”); but, as Jeremias points out, it can frequently have an inclusive meaning even without the definite article.

In the New Testament (with respect to Jesus’ self-sacrificial passion), Mark 10:45 uses pollōn in the inclusive sense to refer to Jesus’ “ransom for many.” This passage refers back to the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 53:10-12 which is interpreted in 1Timothy 2:6 by using the Greek word “all” (pantōn) instead of “many” (pollōn). According to Jeremias:

Of especial importance for our passage is Mark 10.45 par., lutron anti pollōn “a ransom for many”. That polloi has here the inclusive meaning “all” is shown by the reference in Mark 10.45 to Isa. 53.10-12, as well as by the parallel in I Tim. 2.6: antilutron huper pantōn, “a ransom for all”. Just as Mark 10.45, so also our passage Mark 14.24 [Jesus’ eucharistic words] is to be interpreted in the inclusive sense. Pollōn is therefore a Semitism. ¶ 14.24 to ekchunnomenon huper pollōn (“the[blood] poured out for many”). The placing of the prepositional phrase at the end corresponds to Semitic word order. That it is placed between the article and the participle independently of each other in Matthew as well as in Luke shows that the position at the end sounds harsh in Greek.

This remarkable parallel which shows the rabbim in Isaiah 53:10-12 to be translated by both pollōn (many) and pantōn (all) in Mark and 1Timothy, respectively, and the very uncharacteristically Greek (but characteristically Semitic) expressions of the eucharistic words in Mark and Matthew offer strong evidence that Jesus’ rabbim was meant in an inclusive sense, and therefore, as “all” (all human beings).

Once again, the unconditional nature of Jesus’ love emerges. His sacrificial act is not for a chosen few, but rather for all humankind. He offers this not only to His generation, but all future generations. His gift of Himself is total and universal. His love is unconditional.

== Conclusion ==

Given the above interpretation of Jesus’ eucharistic words and actions, one can scarcely deny His intention to give Himself completely to all humankind in the sacrificial act. He not only wanted to give Himself completely in sacrifice (in imitation of the suffering servant, the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and taking the place of an animal in a sin-offering and a covenant sacrifice), but also wanted to be present to us and in us for all generations and all time. This seems to meet the requirements for an unconditional act of love.

Yes, Jesus had a plan, an unconditionally loving plan, as He proceeded toward imminent death in Jerusalem. He planned to atone for the sins of all unconditionally, and to initiate a covenant of unconditional communion with God in everlasting life, through a ritual which would make the blessing of His sacrifice, self, and love really present in perpetuity. Jesus not only wanted the consummation of His mission (His passion) to be an act of total self-sacrifice, He wanted to give it away to everyone for all generations (unconditionally and universally).

If God were Unconditional Love, would He do something like this as Emmanuel (God with us)? Would He give Himself away in self-sacrifice, and then give that self-sacrificial love away forever? If such actions would typify an unconditionally loving God, then Jesus would seem to be His Emmanuel – His Unconditional Love with us.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Eucharist

2015-01-08T14:51:23Z

David Persyn: /* Jesus as Suffering Servant */ Footnotes and Formats

Magis ChristWiki - Magis Institute

Unit II. L

Is God Unconditional Love? – The Eucharist

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Unit_II-L_Is_God_Unconditional_Love_.E2.80.93_the_Eucharist.3F | Return to Table of Contents]]

Saint Paul believed that the clearest demonstration of Jesus’ love was in His passion and death: “But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rm 5:8). Jesus instituted the Eucharist to give the “total gift of Himself in the passion” to all future generations. He deliberately walked into His passion by traveling to Jerusalem before the feast of the Passover when the authorities were evidently seeking to put an end to His ministry and even His life. He did this because He had a plan in mind; a plan to give the blessing and power of His person and passion to all future generations through a ritual arising out of His interpretation of the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. The Beloved One of the Father intended to make us all beloveds in His own image by giving Himself (and the eschatological kingdom of love) to us in a definitive, unconditional act. This consummation of His mission (His raison d’être) reveals His core identity. The question naturally follows, “Would it be typical of an unconditionally loving God who enters into complete empathy with us to have such a self-sacrificial mission and plan?” If so, then this is one of our most profound signs that Jesus is Emmanuel.

== Did Jesus Institute the Eucharist at a Passover Meal? ==

Joachim Jeremias’ classic work, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus is still acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive treatments of this subject with the most extensive analysis of rabbinical traditions.<ref>Meier 1991, p. 395.</ref> Some exegetes feel uneasy about his application of rabbinical traditions and extratestamental material to New Testament texts,<ref>See Meier 1991, p. 395.</ref> and many scholars do not agree with his assignment of the Last Supper to the Passover meal, because it requires that too much activity take place on Passover day (the 15th of Nisan):

<blockquote>Despite Jeremias’ deft command of the material, he cannot really establish the likelihood that, at the time of Jesus, the supreme Jewish authorities in Jerusalem would arrest a person suspected of a capital crime, immediately convene a meeting of the Sanhedrin to hear the case (a case involving the death penalty), hold a formal trial with witnesses, reach a decision that the criminal deserved to die, and hand over the criminal to the Gentile authorities with a request for execution on the same day – all within the night and early day hours of Passover Day, the fifteenth of Nisan!<ref>Meier 1991, p. 396.</ref></blockquote>

For this reason, Meier believes that it is more probable that the Last Supper took place on the day before the Passover meal (on the eve of the 14th of Nisan), which corresponds with John’s dating of it rather than the Synoptics’.<ref>See Meier 1991, p. 396.</ref>

Yet, the placement of the Last Supper on the eve of the 14th of Nisan does not rule out the possibility that Jesus, aware of what was to befall Him, celebrated a Passover supper with His disciples (without a lamb) on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. Since the lambs were slaughtered prior to the meal on the 15th of Nisan, it would not have been possible for Jesus to celebrate the Passover meal with a lamb. This is consistent with New Testament accounts which make multiple references to the Passover meal,<ref>See, for example, Luke 22:15 (“I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer”); Luke 22:13 (“they prepared the Passover”); Luke 22:11 (“tell the householder, ‘the Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I am to eat the Passover with my disciples?”); Mark 14:12 (“Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”); Luke 22:8 (“Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it”); Luke 22:7 (“[it was] the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed”). Even if one ignores the passages which refer to the Marcan dating of the Last Supper on the eve of the 15th of Nisan (such as Luke 22:7), there are five distinct references (without dating) to a Passover meal.</ref> but no references to a lamb.

There are six reasons why a Passover meal should not be ruled out even if it occurred on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. First, as noted above, the Passover is linked to Jesus’ Last Supper multiple times in all three synoptic Gospels. Secondly, there are differences in the chronology of the Synoptic Gospels which indicate that a Passover meal could have been celebrated at different times within the weeklong celebration leading up to Passover. The reference to the “first day” in Mark and Luke, as Harrington suggests, betrays a mixed chronology, for:

<blockquote>the paschal lamb was normally eaten on the first day of the feast. Yet Mark describes the “first day” as the day of preparation when the lambs were slaughtered, corresponding to Wednesday, while the meal would be celebrated that evening.<ref>Harrington 1991, p. 392.</ref></blockquote>

Thirdly, the Passover is mentioned in a unique, ancient formula recounted in Luke’s Gospel, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.”<ref>See the extensive analysis of Jeremias in 1966, pp. 190-92.</ref> Fourthly, Jeremias detects several Semitisms behind the wording in the Gospel passages which are traceable to the Passover ceremony itself (such as the “fruit of the vine” in Luke 22:18).<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 161-62.</ref> Fifthly, Jeremias notes that:

<blockquote>[T]he pre-Pauline Passover haggadah preserved in I Cor. 5.7f. calls Jesus “our passover (lamb)” and that Paul presupposes as self-evident the familiarity of the Corinthian community with this comparison, a comparison widespread in the early Christian literature.<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 222-23.</ref></blockquote>

Sixthly, there are references to the Passover meal within the passages (e.g., the multiple cups, which seems to have come from Luke’s special source [22:17-18], and the Passover haggadah between the word over the bread and the word over the cup<ref>See Jeremias 1966, p. 85 and 221.</ref>). In sum, these distinct ancient sources of the institution of the Eucharist at Passover indicate a common Palestinian source which very probably goes back to Jesus Himself.

Could Jesus have celebrated an adapted Passover meal with His disciples on the eve of the 14th of Nisan to anticipate His impending death which would have occurred near the time of the slaughtering of the lambs? Since Jesus was not unaccustomed to adapting Jewish doctrine and ritual to conform to His own doctrinal and ritual requirements, this possibility cannot be ruled out. Even if Jesus did not celebrate a Passover meal (without a lamb) at the Last Supper, He could have borrowed particular rituals from it or alluded to it during the Last Supper. For this reason, I will include Jeremias’ references to the Passover meal in the forthcoming analysis. The reader may want to bear in mind that these Passover rituals may not have occurred, but may only have been implied in Jesus’ actions during the Last Supper.

The analysis will be carried out in two steps:

1) a brief synopsis of Jeremias’ and others’ exegetical work on the original tradition (Section II.A); and

2) the meaning of Jesus’ eucharistic words and actions (Section II.B).

== Jeremias’ Interpretation of the Original Tradition ==

There are four traditions of Jesus’ Eucharistic words:<ref>There is also a tradition in John (6:25-59), but it is a Eucharistic discourse instead of a recounting of the Last Supper; a specific exegesis of this passage is beyond the objective of this study.</ref>

1) I Corinthians 11:23-26:

<blockquote>For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.</blockquote>

2) Mark 14:22-25:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take; this is my body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” He said to them. “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”</blockquote>

3) Matthew 26:26-29:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”</blockquote>

4) Luke 22:17-20:

<blockquote>After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”</blockquote>

A brief glance at the above four traditions reveals two branches of an original tradition – (1) a Paul-Luke branch (which makes specific reference to remembrance; a new covenant; and, in the case of Luke alone, “poured out for you”), and (2) a Mark-Matthew branch (which makes no reference to remembrance; refers to covenant, but not a new covenant; and makes the objective of Jesus’ outpouring for many). Jeremias has split this project into two parts: (1) the four common areas of these traditions (which, given the different theologies in the two branches, would probably have to have their origin in a common source), and (2) in areas where the branches differ, locating the more primitive tradition through grammatical constructions and the presence of Semitisms. The two analyses will bring us close to an original tradition which may closely resemble Jesus’ own words.

There are four common areas within the four traditions:

<blockquote>(1) Jesus’ action with respect to the bread: “took bread, gave thanks [in the case of Paul, “after he had given thanks”], and broke it,”</blockquote>

<blockquote>(2) Jesus’ words over the bread: “this is my body [soma],”</blockquote>

<blockquote>(3) Jesus’ action with respect to the cup. In Mark-Matthew: “Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them.” In Paul-Luke: “In the same way” (referring to the way in which He gave the bread, i.e., “took bread and gave thanks… and gave it to them”), and</blockquote>

<blockquote>(4) Jesus’ word over the cup: “This is my blood of the covenant.” Evidently, Paul and Luke refer to the new covenant whereas Mark and Matthew refer only to the covenant.<ref>Jeremias shows through a grammatical analysis that, despite surface appearances, the Paul-Luke version is essentially the same as the Mark-Matthew version even though the Paul-Luke version refers to the cup (where Mark-Matthew does not), and Paul-Luke refers to “the covenant in my blood” while Mark-Matthew refers to the “blood of the covenant.” See Jeremias 1966, pp. 168-69.</ref></blockquote>

Jeremias holds that the Marcan version of the word over the bread is the more original tradition while the Pauline version of the word over the cup is the more original:

<blockquote>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “Take; this is my body.” (Mark 14:22)</blockquote>

<blockquote>In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (1Cor. 11:25a).</blockquote>

Jeremias believes there is good reason for holding the Pauline version to be the more original formula for the word over the cup on linguistic grounds, because the Mark-Matthew version is far more symmetrical, indicating the need to take a more complex narrative form (in Paul-Luke) and convert it to a more symmetrical liturgical form in Mark-Matthew. Though it may be thought that the Paul-Luke form is more apologetically appealing (because it is less evocative of drinking blood in a pagan ritual which would have been repulsive to Jewish people), and therefore later than the Mark-Matthew version (which may have given rise to these apologetically unappealing misimpressions), Paul’s version is probably the earlier because it reveals a separation in time between the word over the bread and the word over the wine (to account for the consumption of the meal between the two events) which the Mark-Matthew version does not represent. Thus, the Mark-Matthew version seems to be a later formula taken from the liturgy, which did not need to account for the separation of the meal (as a more narrative account would have) and needed to be more symmetrical for the sake of liturgical repetition.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 169-171 and 191-92.</ref>

It now remains to establish which of the other three divergent areas is the more original. As implied above, there are three areas of divergence:

<blockquote>a) “the new covenant” (Paul-Luke) versus “the covenant” (Mark-Matthew),</blockquote>

<blockquote>b) poured out for you (Luke) versus “poured out for many” (Mark-Matthew), and</blockquote>

<blockquote>c) word of remembrance – ''anamnēsis'' (in Paul-Luke, but not mentioned in Mark-Matthew).</blockquote>

I will briefly summarize Jeremias’ judgment on these three matters so that an original tradition (close to the words and actions of Jesus) may be adduced.

With respect to the new covenant, Jeremias holds that the Mark-Matthew version would probably be the earlier because the placement of the adjective “new” prior to “covenant” is Hellenistic (but not Semitic) indicating that it originated “on Hellenistic soil.”<ref>Though the Pauline formula is not the more original of the two, its pre-Pauline origins are indicated by its agreement with Luke. See Jeremias 1966, pp. 171-72.</ref>

With respect to the “poured out for you” (Luke) versus “poured out for many”<ref>As will be discussed below, “for many,” in the Semitic sense of “rabbim” which was probably uttered by Jesus, is inclusive (that is, it does not exclude some in contrast to the totality, as in the common Greek and English uses of it – e.g., “many, but not everybody”). The reason for this is that there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word for “all.” Thus, the inclusive sense of “rabbim” explicitly includes the totality and its individual members. See Jeremias 1966, p. 179.</ref> (Mark-Matthew), Jeremias holds that “for many” is the more original on the basis of linguistic grounds, namely, “for many” is a Semitism while “you” is not. Jeremias attributes the replacement of “many” by “you” as having a liturgical purpose where each worshiper feels him or herself to be individually addressed (by “you”), which would not happen with the indefinite “many.” In view of this, he holds that the replacement of “many” by “you” is not an attempt to limit the atoning work of Jesus arising out of later theological reflection.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 172.</ref>

Finally, with respect to the word of remembrance (which Jeremias terms the command for repetition), Paul mentions it twice (after the word over the bread and the word over the wine), Luke mentions it once (after the word over the bread), but Mark and Matthew omit it altogether. Jeremias holds that this tradition is pre-Pauline but probably not a part of the oldest traditions. Yet it could well have originated with Jesus. There are three reasons for suspecting this. First, the bread and wine rituals took on a high degree of significance apart from the meal (suggesting a command of repetition from Jesus with respect to them, but not with respect to the meal separating them). Secondly, the words over the bread and wine are so often repeated that they quickly become a central Christian ritual (which gives them far more significance than mere parts of a farewell meal or a commemoration of Jesus’ death<ref>Jeremias has an extensive discussion of the contention that the word of remembrance was a later Greek accretion imitating annual celebrations of the dead. One of his reasons for rejecting this thesis is that the Christian ritual was daily or weekly and not merely an annual celebration. See Jeremias 1966, pp. 238-43.</ref>) suggesting once again a command of repetition from Jesus. Thirdly, it would be unusual for early liturgical formulations to contain this command since, as Jeremias notes, “the celebration itself was its fulfillment.”<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 238.</ref> In view of the fact that Jesus said much more during the meal than was recorded, it may be surmised that He gave a command of repetition.

So what can we now conclude about Jesus’ actions and words? If the earliest narratives reflect Jesus’ actions, and if Jeremias’ conjectures about Jesus’ words are correct, we can conclude that Jesus gathered with His disciples before the feast of the Passover and indicated to them that He longed to celebrate this Passover with them, but instead of doing so, fasted while the other disciples celebrated.<ref>See Jeremias’ convincing argument in 1966, pp. 208-09.</ref> After drinking one of the four Passover cups while they were eating the Passover meal (or an adapted Passover ritual),<ref>See the discussion of this topic in the introduction to Section II above.</ref> Jesus initiated the ritual of the bread, identifying it with His body: “Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take; this is my body.’” Then, after the completion of the Passover meal (or adapted Passover ritual), Jesus initiated the ritual of the wine which He identifies with the covenant in His blood. He took a cup of red wine, gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This cup is the covenant in my blood.”<ref>Though Jesus identifies the red wine with the “covenant in His blood,” it is clear from the red wine, the parallelism with the bread, and the use of “this cup” that Jesus is identifying the red wine with both His blood and the covenant in His blood. Jeremias notes that the color of the wine is significant here: “The tertium comparationis in the case of the bread is the fact that it was broken, and in the case of the wine the red colour. We have already seen…that it was customary to drink red wine at the Passover…. The comparison between red wine and blood was common in the Old Testament (Gen. 49.11; Deut. 32.14; Isa. 63.3,6), further Ecclus 39.26; 50.15; I Macc. 6.34; Rev. 14.20; Sanh. 70a, etc.” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 223-24).</ref> Sometime either prior to or after this (perhaps both), Jesus gives a command of repetition similar to “Do this in remembrance of me.”

If this reconstruction is accurate, we may now proceed to a brief summary of Jeremias’ and others’ conclusions about the meaning of these words and the ritual they constitute.

== The Meaning of Jesus’ Eucharistic Words and Actions ==

Six elements of Jesus’ institution of the Eucharist merit interpretation:

(1) His view of Himself as “suffering servant” (Is 52:13-53:12 – see Section II.B.1);

(2) Jesus as the new sacrificial paschal lamb (II.B.2);

(3) “This is my body” (soma – II.B.3);

(4) “This cup is the covenant in my blood” (II.B.4);

(5) “Do this in remembrance of me” (II.B5); and

(6) “poured out for many” (II.B.6).

As will become evident, the synthesis of these six elements (in their proper interpretation) points strongly to Jesus’ action as one of unconditional Love, which reveals a heart of unconditional Love.

=== Jesus as Suffering Servant ===

It may be helpful to here set out the whole Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12, because reference will be made to it throughout this Unit on the Eucharist as well as the forthcoming Unit on the passion of Jesus:

<blockquote>See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as there were many who were appalled at him – his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness – so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand (52:13-15).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him (53:1-2).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not (53:3).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted (53:4).</blockquote>

<blockquote>But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed (53:5).</blockquote>

<blockquote>We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all (53:6).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth (53:7).</blockquote>

<blockquote>By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken (53:8).</blockquote>

<blockquote>He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth (53:9).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities (53:10-11).</blockquote>

<blockquote>Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he ''poured'' out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of ''many'', and made intercession for the transgressors (53:12 – italics mine).</blockquote>

The obvious tie-in between the suffering servant song and Jesus’ eucharistic words occurs at 53:12. The phrase “poured out for many,” which is a part of the oldest tradition of the eucharistic words, has a remarkable parallel with Isaiah 53:12 which states:

<blockquote>…because he poured out (he’erah) his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many (rabbim)….”</blockquote>

The Hebrew background of both Jesus’ eucharistic words and Isaiah 53:12 as well as the context of these words (the sacrifice of Jesus and the suffering servant) are so close that it would be difficult to believe that the ancient tradition of Jesus’ eucharistic words was not referring to Isaiah 53:12.<ref>According to Jeremias, [“poured out for many”] “is linked with an Old Testament passage: Isa. 53.12, ‘because he poured out (he’erah) his life to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many (rabbim) and made intercession for the transgressors’ (the reference is to the Hebrew text of this passage, a fact to be kept in mind as evidence of the age of the tradition). This allusion to the Old Testament passage on the suffering servant is supported by the fact that the word rabbim/πολλοί is almost a ''leit-motiv'' in Isa. 52.13-53.12.” Jeremias 1966, pp. 226-7.</ref> Moreover, Jesus seems to have had an intimate acquaintance with the texts of Deutero-Isaiah,<ref>See Betz, 1968-70, v.2, p. 257.</ref> and also seems to have interpreted His life and His mission in terms of this passage which was uncannily similar to the passion He was about to suffer. Hence, it seems likely that Jesus intended the words “poured out for many” in a way that could be interpreted through the lens of the Suffering Servant song. This means that Jesus intends His eucharistic actions and words in an expiatory way, that is, as a “sin offering” or “guilt offering” for the sins of many. Johannes Betz notes in this regard:

<blockquote>Jesus accomplished the decisive purpose of His life, His task as Messiah, in carrying out the mission of the servant of God of Deutero-Isaiah, who as God’s majestic envoy proclaims and inaugurates a new phase in salvation and who as martyr takes upon Himself expiatory sufferings for the sins of the many.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v.2, p. 258.</ref></blockquote>

It would seem, therefore, that Jesus had this Suffering Servant song deeply in mind when He decided to proceed toward Jerusalem with full knowledge that the authorities were seeking to persecute Him (see John 11:8). This makes sense of both His resoluteness toward impending death and His obvious preparation for the eucharistic ritual (with its imbedded passage from Isaiah 53:12), which would, in turn, make sense of Matthew’s additional words (probably reflective of a later tradition): “for the forgiveness of sins.”<ref>This is imbedded within Jesus’ words over the cup: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt. 26:28).</ref>

The logic of this sin offering may seem a bit confusing to a contemporary audience, especially the passage in Isaiah that states, “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see the light of life and be satisfied” (Isaiah 53:10). At first glance, it may seem that the portrayal of the Lord in this passage (and therefore Jesus’ view of God’s will) is sadistic, but this is certainly not the case, for Jesus’ interpretation of the Isaiah passage is set within His view of the Father as “Abba” and Himself as Son and Beloved. Thus, Jesus’ interpretation of this passage must be seen within the context of the logic of love, which makes the Johannine words of Jesus particularly significant, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (Jn 15:13). If this passage represents Jesus’ interpretive principle for both the Isaiah passage and His Eucharistic words, then Jesus would have interpreted “the Lord’s will to crush him” in terms of the Father’s acceptance of Jesus’ love offering (the gift of Himself) for the sins of the world.

Recall for a moment some of the observations about Jesus’ view of love (agape) from the previous Unit. We saw that Jesus viewed love as the highest commandment (Mark 12:30 and par.), and that He elucidated His view of love through the beatitudes (Matt 5:3-12), which included humble-heartedness, gentle-heartedness, hungering and thirsting for the will of God, being merciful (which includes being forgiving), peacemaking, and enduring persecution for the kingdom of God. Ironic as it may seem, Jesus’ self-sacrificial gift for the expiation of sins synthesizes and catalyzes every one of these elements from the beatitudes and concretizes their “synthesis in love” within not only historical but future reality.<ref>Paul did not miss this insight in Colossians 3:12-14: “Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which is the bond of completeness.” See the explanation of this passage in Unit II-J, Section IV.</ref>

The Gospel of John has captured Jesus’ intention well. There is no greater love (the synthesis of the beatitudes) that a person can have than to give his life. In light of Jesus’ view of the Father as Abba (which has embedded within it generative, compassionate, forgiving, restoring, affectionate love – similar to the father’s love in the Prodigal Son parable), it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus would have loosely interpreted the words of Isaiah 53:10 to mean “it would have pleased the Father – despite His pain – to see the self-sacrificial (loving) will of His Son become a reality for all humanity.” Just because Jesus uses Isaiah 52:13-53:12 as an interpretive principle for His self-sacrifice does not mean that He agrees with every theological element in that passage. Indeed, Jesus was known to have loosely interpreted and even reinterpreted many passages from Torah and the prophets. It would seem inconceivable that Jesus could have interpreted Isaiah 53:10 outside the context of His being the beloved Son of Abba.

Therefore, we might look at Jesus’ mindset about the passion and Eucharist (as He approached Jerusalem) as follows. First, He intended to make Himself an expiatory offering much like the one spoken of in Isaiah 53:8ff:

<blockquote>…for the transgression of my people he was stricken…. …and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering…. …my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. …because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.</blockquote>

Secondly, Jesus had a twofold understanding of the efficacy of this “sin offering”: (1) the efficacy of sacrifice, and (2) the efficacy of love. With respect to the efficacy of sacrifice, it seems probable that Jesus organized His Eucharistic words to indicate that He was making a sacrifice of Himself. By separating the words over the body and the blood, Jesus implied that what He was about to endure on the cross was like the separation of flesh and blood in a cultic sacrifice.<ref>“This formula derives from Ex 24:8 and characterizes the content of the cup primarily as the cultic sacrificial element “blood”, which is separated from the flesh, then also the death of Jesus as the separation of flesh and blood after the manner of a cultic sacrifice” (Betz 1968-70, v.2, p. 259). See also Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22: “…[I]t also designates, as already in ancient Hebrew, the two component parts of the body [flesh and blood], especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed.”</ref>

Yet, Jesus was not making Himself a cultic sacrifice in the traditional sense, for He, the Son, the Beloved One, the innocent One, made Himself the sacrificial gift for those who are not innocent, in the certain hope of the resurrection and universal atonement. Betz notes in this regard:

<blockquote>Taking on alien guilt meant taking on also the necessity of death. As his life went on, Jesus thought more frequently of his death and spoke more frequently of it to his disciples…. It was for Jesus not something that merely happened to him, but a conscious and willed deed to which he assented as a necessity in the history of salvation, and on which he freely decided (Lk 12:50). His total readiness for the death which was the mission of the Servant of the Lord is also expressed in the logion of the ransom (Mk 10:45), and the prophecies of the passion (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:32ff). … His death is total dedication and the deepest fulfillment of his being. … Unlike the ''cultic'' sacrifices, there is no separate ''gift'' which stands for the offerer and symbolizes his dedication to God. Here the offerer himself functions as ''gift'' in his own person and accomplishes the sacrificial dedication by the real shedding of his blood. Jesus must have been sure that God would accept this sacrifice, his body, and hence that God would fill it with new life. Thus the death of Jesus brings with it the resurrection as an inner consequence, as an essential part of it, regardless of the difference in time between the two events.<ref>Betz, 1968-70, v.2, p. 258. Italics mine.</ref></blockquote>

The middle term, as it were, between efficacy of sacrifice and efficacy of love is gift. As is clear from the above, a cultic sacrifice finds its efficacy in the gift given to God, and, as is clear from the Johannine passage on love, there is no greater love than to give one’s life. When Jesus made Himself the gift in the sacrificial offering, He transformed the efficacy of that gift from one of cultic proportion to one of unconditional Love. This is evidenced in Jesus’ use of the word “covenant” (“the covenant in my blood”) which, as will be seen below, implies a bond of love.

In sum, when Jesus proceeded to Jerusalem He planned to complete His mission of being the suffering (messianic) servant of the Lord by becoming a sacrificial gift for all transgressors. In so doing, he hoped to effect an atonement for all sins as a perfect sacrifice (that is, as the self-sacrifice of the beloved innocent one) in place of cultic sin offerings. This atonement went far beyond mechanical cultic sin offerings because it was fundamentally an act of unconditional self-giving (Love) for humankind. This act of unconditional Love was the source and power of perfect atonement and a new covenant which promised eternal life through the God who has loved us so.

=== Jesus as the New Sacrificial Paschal Lamb ===

As noted above, it is likely that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper within the context of a Passover meal – perhaps an adapted Passover meal (without a lamb) on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. So why would Jesus have chosen the Passover celebration to make His sacrifice and institute the Eucharist? Jeremias believes that He wanted to compare Himself to the paschal lamb, or perhaps better, He wanted to be the eschatological paschal lamb – the one who was to initiate the new covenant (which He correlated with the kingdom of God) in His blood:

With the words den biśri, “this is my (sacrificial) flesh”, and den idmi, “this is my (sacrificial) blood”, Jesus is therefore most probably speaking of himself as the paschal lamb. He is the eschatological paschal lamb, representing the fulfillment of all that of which the Egyptian paschal lamb and all the subsequent sacrificial paschal lambs were the prototype.

It should not be thought that the absence of a lamb at an adapted Passover meal (on the eve of the 14th of Nisan) militates against Jeremias’ thesis that Jesus associated Himself with the eschatological paschal lamb, for if Jesus did celebrate the Passover on the eve of the 14th of Nisan, His own passion would have begun at the time that the paschal lambs were being slaughtered in preparation for the feast celebrated on the eve of the 15th of Nisan. This would correlate well with the Last Supper’s anticipation of the impending self-sacrifice which might have been Jesus’ very intention.

The lamb is a simile for two essential dimensions of the Eucharist: (1) the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, and (2) the sacrifice initiating the covenant (leading out of slavery into a new life of freedom in the “promised land”). With respect to the forgiveness of sins, Jeremias notes:

By comparing himself with the eschatological paschal lamb Jesus describes his death as a saving death. … [A]t the passover meal the attention was directed…to the one “passover of the exodus” for the sake of which God had mercifully “passed over” the houses of the Israelites. The blood of the lambs slaughtered at the exodus from Egypt had redemptive power….

This “redemptive power,” this atonement for sins, protects from death and leads to everlasting life:

As a reward for the Israelites’ obedience to the commandment to spread blood on their doors, God manifested himself and spared them, “passing over” their houses. For the sake of the passover blood God revoked the death sentence against Israel; he said: “I will see the blood of the passover and make atonement for you.” In the same way the people of God of the End time will be redeemed by the merits of the Passover blood.

Jesus sees His blood not only as a protection from death in this world (in imitation of the blood of the lamb at the Passover), but also as an eschatological protection (that is, a protection from death itself) which opens upon an eternal life of communion with Him and the Father:

Jesus describes his death as this eschatological passover sacrifice: his vicarious (huper) death brings into operation the final deliverance, the new covenant of God. Diathēkē (“covenant”) is a correlate of basileia tōn ouranōn (“kingdom of heaven”). The content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus’ death is perfect communion with God (Jer. 31.33-34a) in his reign, based upon the remission of sins (31.34b).

Thus, Jesus’ selection of the Passover (whether this was celebrated on the eve of the 14th or 15th of Nisan) as the context for His death was a deliberate attempt to manifest a sacrificial death, and therefore, His institution of the Eucharist at this time established Him as the new Passover sacrifice for the atonement of sins and the initiation of the new covenant unto eternal communion with Him and His Father.

There is one more element to be discussed about Jesus’ identification of Himself with the Passover lamb, namely, its correlation with agape. Recall that there is a natural correlation between Jesus’ view of love and the beatitudes (see Unit II-J, Section IV). Love is humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, peace-making, merciful (forgiving), and accepting of persecution for the kingdom of God. Jesus’ identification of Himself with the unblemished (innocent) lamb (correlative with the suffering servant ) brings to mind the humility and gentleness of the paschal lamb, as well as the forgiveness, reconciliation, and “endurance of persecution” intrinsic to its sacrifice. By making Himself a self-sacrificial Passover offering, Jesus revealed Himself to be Unconditional Love.

Thus, it is not only the sacrificial aspect of Jesus’ self-offering which has the redemptive power to atone for sins and establish a covenant of eternal communion with God, but also the unconditional Love intrinsic to that sacrifice. Jesus’ first-century audience would have probably noticed the redemptive power in the sacrifice more readily than in His unconditional Love, but subsequent generations, reflecting on Jesus’ words of love, began to realize that the unconditional Love intrinsic to the self-sacrifice is the sacrifice’s redemptive power. Jesus was not using sacrifice in some kind of magical-mystical way to elicit God’s power; neither did He believe that God the Father was demanding that He sacrifice Himself in a mechanical way to atone for sins (“I will put my Son on one side of the scale to balance off all the negatives on your side”); Jesus sacrificed Himself to concretely actualize unconditional self-sacrificial gift (unconditional Love) in the world, which is the redemptive power overcoming all hatred, darkness, emptiness, and evil. Notice that the Son’s self-sacrifice in unconditional Love was also the Father’s self-sacrifice, for the Father had to give His Son as much as the Son had to give Himself.

=== “This is My Body” (''Sōma'') ===

We may now turn to the words of institution within the context of the suffering servant and the paschal lamb. To what does “this” (''touto'' – in Aramaic, “''den''”) refer in “this is my body?” Jeremias notes that it cannot refer to Jesus’ action of breaking the bread, but rather to the bread itself:

This interpretation [that “this” refers to Jesus’ breaking of the bread], which in any case is incompatible with the ''touto estin'' (“this is”), would only be feasible if the actions named coincided with the words of interpretation. But that is not the case. As regards the bread-word, the fact that it is preceded by ''gabete'' (“take”) shows that Jesus said it not as the bread was being broken, but as it was being distributed.

Jesus identifies the bread (signified by ''touto/den'') with His body (''sōma''). The Semitic background of ''sōma'', according to Jeremias, is incontestably ''zeh baśari'' (Hebrew) and ''den bisri'' (Aramaic). This Hebrew/Aramaic background indicates that Jesus is referring to His physical body, his flesh, given in self-sacrifice. However, the Greek translation for Jesus’ Semitic word (''sōma'') may also indicate that the translators thought that Jesus was referring not only to His flesh (which would have been translated more precisely by ''sarx''), but also His whole person (His whole self).

This interpretation is compatible with the Semitic mindset which was not dualistic in a platonic way, and therefore, did not view body as mere corporeality; rather it viewed body as the whole corporeal self. According to McKenzie:

[In the Gospels], the body is parallel with life and is conceived almost as the self. … [In Paul, t]he first meaning of body is the concretely existing human being; in some contexts it again appears to be nearly synonymous with self (Rm 6:12f; 8:10?; 1 Co 6:18 f)….

Perhaps the Greek translators used sōma to more accurately convey to non-Jewish converts that Jesus’ Aramaic/Hebrew words were referring not only to His physicality, but to His whole self (which would have included characteristics the Greeks would have attributed to soul, such as the power of thinking and love, and the desire for justice and beauty, etc.).

If this interpretation is correct, then Jesus is making His whole corporeal self present in the words over the bread. The notion of “making a blessing present” in the reliving of an action or even in a substance (e.g., bread) was not uncommon in Semitic and Jewish religious practices. As Jeremias notes:

When at the daily meal the paterfamilias recites the blessing over the bread – which the members of the household make their own by the “Amen” – and breaks it and hands a piece to each member to eat, the meaning of the action is that each of the members is made a recipient of the blessing by this eating….

The bread of blessing, as it were, contains the blessing and conveys it to the willing recipient who says, “Amen” and consumes it.

The blessing which Jesus intends to be internalized by believers is certainly His sacrificed corporeal body; it is also His whole corporeal self. But Jesus’ use of “body” here cannot be restricted to this life alone, for He anticipated that His body would rise, that is, that there would be a fundamental continuity between His whole corporeal self and His “self in risen life with the Father”:

…[W]e can see from the simile and from the use of ekchunnomenon that Jesus did expect a violent death. Mark 14.25 par. makes it clear that Jesus was certain that God would vindicate his death by his resurrection and the establishment of the kingdom.

What is even more striking is Jesus’ probable intention to use the body of His sacrifice (which He views as being in continuity with His future risen state) to be the medium through which communion with God (and consequent unity among believers) would be effected. Paul implies this in 1Cor 10:15-17:

Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body for we partake of the one loaf.

It seems that by “participation” Paul means more than participating in the historical self-sacrificed body of Jesus; He means participation in the presently existing body of Jesus which is capable of effecting unity among believers through unity with God. McKenzie notes in this regard:

The sacrificial element prominent in this passage of 1 Co and implicit in the formulae of institution is communion with the deity in the sacrificial banquet. Through the Eucharist the deity is rendered present in a striking and unique fashion. Communion is achieved only through Jesus Christ, who is man, and as man is body. The body is therefore rendered really present; the language of the four sources…leaves no room for mere symbolism in this respect. … The body which is present is the glorified body; we seem justified in believing that the NT implies that it is through His resurrection and exaltation that the body of Jesus becomes the Church [the unity of believers]. But this is the body “which was delivered for you,” one and the same Lord Jesus who died, rose, and sits at the right hand of the Father. Communion is achieved through the participation of the body and the blood of the victim. The salvation of the NT is not directed to the soul, but to the man, and man in Hebrew thought is body; if salvation is to reach man, his communion with the Savior must be a communication of body.

Paul’s view of the “body of Christ” cannot be retroactively put into the mind of Christ, for Paul is speaking in the light of having witnessed the risen Jesus. Nevertheless, one cannot altogether delete Paul’s interpretation from the mind of Jesus, for Jesus associated His “body” with His risen life with the Father, and this risen life would have been the vehicle through which the full meaning of the new covenant (which He viewed as “the kingdom of God” or communion with God) would be effected.

Thus, Jesus’ sacrificial words over the bread might be interpreted as, “This is my body to be sacrificed for you, the body which will be risen and will bring the blessing of communion with the Father and with believers through me. This sacrificed – risen – salvific – unifying – mediating body is my gift of self for you.” Johannes Betz summarizes this as follows:

Hence, the bodily person of Jesus is present in the supper, not however in the static manner of being of a thing, but as the Servant of God who in his sacrificial death effects the salvation of us all and more precisely as the sacrificial offering of the Servant who delivers himself up on the cross. The real presence of the person is there to actualize the presence of the sacrificial deed and is united with this in an organic whole. The Eucharist becomes, then, the abiding presence in the meal of the sacrificially constituted salvific event “Jesus”, in whom person and work form an inseparable unity.

Remarkable as these intentions of Jesus may seem, they do not exhaust the meaning and mystery of His words, for He also intends to communicate His unconditional Love through His “gift of self.” Recall that Jesus’ eucharistic words in the context of the suffering Servant Song may be interpreted as a self-sacrifice (gift of self) to “justify many” and to “bear iniquities.” This definition is similar to Jesus’ view of love manifest in the Beatitudes and in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan.

Paul directly associates Jesus’ self-sacrificial death with “gift of self,” and associates “gift of self” with love in several passages. In the Letter to the Romans:

While we were yet helpless, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly. Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man – though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. But God shows his love [agapēn] for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. (5:6-8)

in the letter to the Galatians:

I have been crucified with Christ…; the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. (2:20)

and in Ephesians:

And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (5:2)

It is difficult to miss similar parallels between Jesus’ Eucharistic words, the Suffering Servant song, and the view of agape in the Gospel of John. Jesus indicates that there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life (i.e., “body”) for one’s friends (Jn 15:13), and further that the Father loves the Son precisely in the laying down (“giving”) of His life (“body”).

Summary. If Jesus’ view of love is “gift of self” (as suggested by Paul and John) then the eucharistic words “this is my body” (i.e., “self”) within the context of self-sacrifice (self-gift) would be virtually equivalent to love. Since this love knows no limit (i.e., it is complete self-sacrifice), it seems equivalent to unconditional Love.

Thus, we might interpret Jesus’ words as follows: “This is my body given in sacrifice, my future risen presence with you, and my unconditional Love – atoning for sin, transforming your hearts, unifying the community, and actualizing the new covenant unto eternal life.” If this is truly what Jesus had in mind as He instituted the Eucharist at the time of the Passover, then the Eucharist is not only Jesus’ interpretation of His passion, but also the vehicle for transmitting His gift of unconditional Love to all future generations. This leads to the next point.

=== “This Cup is the Covenant in My Blood” ===

Recall the reconstruction of Jesus’ words and actions with respect to the cup (Section II.A, above): After the completion of a Passover meal, Jesus initiated the ritual of the wine which He identifies with the covenant in His blood. He took a cup of red wine, gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This cup is the covenant in my blood.” Recall further that the cup of red wine is identified with both (1) Jesus’ blood and (2) “the covenant in His blood.” These two concepts, among the richest in Christian history, deserve individual discussion.

With respect to “blood,” the Greek term “aima” was probably derived from Jesus’ words of institution: “zeh dami” in Hebrew, and “den idmi” in Aramaic. Though its meaning within Jesus’ words of institution is in many ways similar to the Old Testament, it is also significantly different. There are three major similarities:

1) blood is the life principle and it is roughly equivalent to life itself;

2) blood (the life principle) was the vehicle through which atonement occurred in sin or guilt offerings (which is most poignantly described in the ceremony of the scapegoat on the day of atonement ); and

3) blood is the agency through which a covenant is established, restored, and maintained.

However, Jesus parts ways with the Old Testament tradition by proposing His blood as drink (Mt 26:27ff; Mk 14:23ff; Lk 22:20; Jn 6:53ff; 1 Co 11:25ff). McKenzie notes in this regard that “…the eating of blood is prohibited (Gn 9:4; Lv 17:10ff); life is conferred by God and is under His dominion. This prohibition was retained in the apostolic Church (AA 15:20).”

Recall that Jesus anticipated a violent death to be followed by His resurrection, and that He separated the rituals of the bread and wine indicating a sacrifice (or in this case, a self-sacrifice).

Thus, the blood He refers to in the eucharistic ritual is His future sacrificial blood (the blood of the passion). Jesus intended this to be a sacrifice of atonement (as implied by His allusions to the suffering servant and the paschal lamb) which was understood and deeply appreciated by the early Church (and reflected in the Pauline epistles and the Letter to the Hebrews). McKenzie notes in this regard that:

[Jesus] is a propitiatory offering in His blood (Rm 3:25), through which we are made righteous (Rm 5:9). We are redeemed through His blood (Eph 1:7) and through it we draw near to God (Eph 2:13), and by His blood He has made peace (between man and God; Col 1:20). The contrast and analogy between the blood of Jesus and the blood of sacrificial victims is drawn out at length in Heb. His blood excels that of animals (Heb 9:12 ff). Blood is the only effective agent of purification (Heb 9:20 ff) and of the remission of sins (9:22). But the blood of animals cannot remove sins (10:4); Christ has effected eternal redemption by His own blood (9:12), through which we have access to the sanctuary (10:19).

Jesus does not directly advocate violating the Old Testament proscription against drinking blood (because He is not advocating the drinking of physical blood), yet He implicitly does this when He advocates drinking the red wine which He identifies with the blood of His impending sacrifice in order to share the redemptive power of that sacrifice. Recall that the power of the Passover lamb’s blood was protection against death in a specific situation, but the power of Jesus’ redemptive blood goes far beyond this because it protects against every manifestation of death unto eternal life and communion with God. The redemptive power of the lamb’s blood was placed on the exterior (door posts) of every Hebrew house. Jesus’ blood (redemptive power) is taken interiorly and protects from interior (spiritual) death, making it the transformative power of eternal communion with God. It is difficult to believe that Jesus would have advocated the implicit violation of the Old Testament proscription (against drinking blood) unless He believed that His blood of sacrifice had the real power to protect against spiritual death.

Jesus also associates His sacrificial blood with the “blood of the new covenant.” A covenant is a solemn promise. McKenzie notes:

In early Hebrew society written documents were employed little or not at all. In their place the spoken word was invested with ritual solemnity which gave it a kind of concrete reality. The spoken word thus uttered could not be annulled or retracted. … The covenant was such a solemn ritual agreement which served the function of a written contract. The covenanting parties bound themselves by a ritual agreement which included terrible imprecations upon the party which should violate the covenant.

Thus, a covenant has the effect of an absolutely guaranteed promise. In the case of Jesus (who is representing Abba as His Son and suffering servant) it has the effect of an absolutely guaranteed promise on the part of an absolutely truthful God.

But what is Jesus’ new covenant promising? Four interrelated promises: (1) communion with God, (2) the new covenant of Jeremiah, (3) Isaiah’s servant covenant, and (4) the eschatological (fulfilled) kingdom of God (Jesus’ mission – what He has come to bring in His person).

With respect to the first point, common life was part of any “covenant in blood,” because the sprinkling of blood indicated that the parties were one blood or one family. Thus, covenant between God and human beings would indicate common life or communion with Him. It can hardly be doubted that Jesus intended this very basic meaning of “covenant in blood” in His words of institution.

With respect to the second point, Jeremiah promises (presumably at the messianic time) a new covenant which would be written on the hearts of human beings:

“The time is coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers…. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

Presuming that Jesus was as familiar with this common text in Jeremiah as He was with the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, Jesus would have seen His new covenant as embracing the new law of the heart (the law of love) which He came to bring through His sacrificial death, resurrection, and gift of the Spirit. Jesus would have probably seen the blood of the covenant not only as a guaranteed promise of communion with God, but also as the vehicle through which the law of unconditional Love would be infused within the heart of every human being through the Holy Spirit.

With respect to the third point (Isaiah’s “servant covenant”) it seems highly probable that Jesus who identified Himself as the suffering servant in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 would have also been acutely aware of the preceding servant prophecies (Isaiah 42:6ff and 49:8ff). A brief review of these two passages will show that the servant is the covenant, that the covenant is for all peoples, and that it leads to the atonement of sin and new communion with God:

“I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness” (Is 42:6-7).

And also:

This is what the Lord says: “In the time of my favor I will answer you, and in the day of salvation I will help you; I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people, to restore the land and to reassign its desolate inheritances, to say to the captives, ‘Come out,’ and to those in darkness, ‘Be free!’ They will feed beside the roads and find pasture on every barren hill. … See, they will come from afar – some from the north, some from the west…” (Is 49:8-12).

Given Jesus’ familiarity with the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, and the remarkable parallels with the themes surrounding His institution of the Eucharist (the suffering servant, atonement of sin, poured out for the many – for the all) it seems very unlikely that Jesus would not have had this notion of “servant (Himself as covenant)” in mind when speaking of the new covenant (the new communion) with God at the Eucharist. Hence, the new covenant in His blood is filled with the notion of a complete healing of humanity (sight for the blind, liberty for captives, release for those who sit in darkness, etc.).

The above eschatological dimension leads to the fourth and final point, namely, the covenant as definitive bringing of the kingdom. This dimension of covenant is manifest in Isaiah 59:21:

“As for me, this is my covenant with them” says the Lord. “My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,” says the Lord.

The “forever” here indicates that the covenant brings with it the eschatological kingdom through the permanent imparting of the Spirit of God. When this is combined with Jeremiah 31:31 and the eschatological dimensions of Isaiah 42:6-7, 49:8-12, and 59:21, it seems likely that Jesus viewed the new covenant as a “guaranteed promise of the actualization of the kingdom.” Jeremias links Jesus’ “new covenant” to His new Passover sacrifice (see above, Section II.B.2) and concludes to the following:

Jesus describes his death as this eschatological passover sacrifice: his vicarious (huper) death brings into operation the final deliverance, the new covenant of God. Diathēkē (“covenant”) is a correlate of basileia ton ouranōn (“kingdom of heaven”). The content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus’ death is perfect communion with God (Jer. 31.33-34a) in his reign, based upon the remission of sins (31.34b).

Summary. Unconditional Love would seem to be the power of this beautiful and encompassing new covenant. It is Jesus’ total gift of Himself, His taking the place of an animal in the sin-offering, and the offering of His blood in place of an animal’s blood in the covenant sacrifice that enables us all to be “one blood, one family” with God. It is His act of total humility and self-sacrifice (Agape) which unites us together as God’s family. The Holy Spirit is the personal power effecting this unity, and Jesus is its “body.” Jesus intended that His act of self-sacrifice, His gift of self, His unconditional Love, be the creative power of protection from spiritual death and therefore from all death. The new covenant is the absolute bond, the absolute guarantee, the very principle of eternal life in communion with God. It arises out of unconditional Love, it finds its fulfillment in unconditional Love; it is unconditional Love. Though He may not have used these words, one can scarcely interpret His action of taking the place of an animal in a sacrificial offering to mean anything less. Thus, when He said, “This cup is the covenant in my blood,” He intended to bestow on us an eternal communion with one another through His own person/body given in self-sacrifice. This is unquestionably unconditional Love.

=== “Do this in Remembrance of Me” ===

If Jeremias’ extensive study of ''anamnesis'' (remembrance) within Semitic cult is correct, then Jesus’ command of repetition (“Do this in remembrance of me”) has the double function of (1) asking God to recall something of religious significance, and (2) asking God to make that blessing really present (to recreate that blessing in the present).

With respect to the first point, Jeremias shows that in both the Old Testament and New Testament (Mark 14:9, Matt 26:13, and Acts 10:4) a ritual remembrance is not so much directed at the human subject but at God so that He might remember: “…[I]n the Old Testament and Palestinian memorial formulae it is almost always God who remembers. In accordance with this the command for repetition may be translated: ‘This do, that God may remember me’”

With respect to the second point, Jeremias notes:

This calling into the presence of God [remembrance – anamnesis], this bringing to life before God, this recalling of the past, this is, on the other side, effective. It has a purpose, it is intended to effect something: that God may remember – mercifully or punishingly. God’s remembrance is, namely (this is an important fact to which O. Michel called attention), never a simple remembering of something, but always and without exception “an effecting and creating event.” When Luke 1.72 says that God remembers his covenant, this means that he is now fulfilling the eschatological covenant promise.

If we combine all these elements, it would seem that when Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me,” He expected that He and His self-sacrificial action would be presented to God (the Father) to be made present (real) in the blessed and distributed bread whenever the words of institution were repeated. Johannes Betz summarizes the work of Michel, Jeremias, and others as follows:

Anamnesis in the biblical sense means not only the subjective representation of something in the consciousness and as an act of the remembering mind. It is also the objective effectiveness and presence of one reality in another, especially the effectiveness and presence of the salvific actions of God, in the liturgical worship. Even in the OT, the liturgy is the privileged medium in which the covenant attains actuality. ¶ The meaning of the logion may perhaps be paraphrased as follows: do this (what I have done) in order to bring about my presence, to make really present the salvation wrought in me.

We may here see Jesus’ intention to extend His self-sacrificial gift, His whole self, and the covenant in His blood to all future generations through a ritual which recreates the efficacy of His passion through His real presence. This desire to share in perpetuity is yet another manifestation of the unconditional nature of Jesus’ self-sacrificial covenant love.

=== “Poured Out for Many” ===

As noted above, the notion of pollōn (many) in Jesus’ logion “poured out for many” is a translation of the Hebrew rabbim which can have an exclusive or inclusive meaning. When it has the inclusive meaning, it signifies “all.” Jeremias summarizes these linguistic issues as follows:

While “many” in Greek (as in English) stands in opposition to “all”, and therefore has the exclusive sense (“many, but not all”), Hebrew rabbim can have the inclusive sense (“the whole, comprising many individuals”). This inclusive use is connected with the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic possess no word for “all”.

This inclusive sense of rabbim was very common in Old Testament and intertestamental literature. When it is accompanied by the definite article in Talmudic and even New Testament texts, it almost always has an inclusive meaning (“all”); but, as Jeremias points out, it can frequently have an inclusive meaning even without the definite article.

In the New Testament (with respect to Jesus’ self-sacrificial passion), Mark 10:45 uses pollōn in the inclusive sense to refer to Jesus’ “ransom for many.” This passage refers back to the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 53:10-12 which is interpreted in 1Timothy 2:6 by using the Greek word “all” (pantōn) instead of “many” (pollōn). According to Jeremias:

Of especial importance for our passage is Mark 10.45 par., lutron anti pollōn “a ransom for many”. That polloi has here the inclusive meaning “all” is shown by the reference in Mark 10.45 to Isa. 53.10-12, as well as by the parallel in I Tim. 2.6: antilutron huper pantōn, “a ransom for all”. Just as Mark 10.45, so also our passage Mark 14.24 [Jesus’ eucharistic words] is to be interpreted in the inclusive sense. Pollōn is therefore a Semitism. ¶ 14.24 to ekchunnomenon huper pollōn (“the[blood] poured out for many”). The placing of the prepositional phrase at the end corresponds to Semitic word order. That it is placed between the article and the participle independently of each other in Matthew as well as in Luke shows that the position at the end sounds harsh in Greek.

This remarkable parallel which shows the rabbim in Isaiah 53:10-12 to be translated by both pollōn (many) and pantōn (all) in Mark and 1Timothy, respectively, and the very uncharacteristically Greek (but characteristically Semitic) expressions of the eucharistic words in Mark and Matthew offer strong evidence that Jesus’ rabbim was meant in an inclusive sense, and therefore, as “all” (all human beings).

Once again, the unconditional nature of Jesus’ love emerges. His sacrificial act is not for a chosen few, but rather for all humankind. He offers this not only to His generation, but all future generations. His gift of Himself is total and universal. His love is unconditional.

== Conclusion ==

Given the above interpretation of Jesus’ eucharistic words and actions, one can scarcely deny His intention to give Himself completely to all humankind in the sacrificial act. He not only wanted to give Himself completely in sacrifice (in imitation of the suffering servant, the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and taking the place of an animal in a sin-offering and a covenant sacrifice), but also wanted to be present to us and in us for all generations and all time. This seems to meet the requirements for an unconditional act of love.

Yes, Jesus had a plan, an unconditionally loving plan, as He proceeded toward imminent death in Jerusalem. He planned to atone for the sins of all unconditionally, and to initiate a covenant of unconditional communion with God in everlasting life, through a ritual which would make the blessing of His sacrifice, self, and love really present in perpetuity. Jesus not only wanted the consummation of His mission (His passion) to be an act of total self-sacrifice, He wanted to give it away to everyone for all generations (unconditionally and universally).

If God were Unconditional Love, would He do something like this as Emmanuel (God with us)? Would He give Himself away in self-sacrifice, and then give that self-sacrificial love away forever? If such actions would typify an unconditionally loving God, then Jesus would seem to be His Emmanuel – His Unconditional Love with us.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>