On a Friday, Bloody Friday

Pilate, having passed sentence, handed Jesus over to be crucified. On this all the evangelists agree, although they disagree on the details. Matthew stays close to Mark, only adding the story of Pilate posting a guard at the tomb. Luke, as usual, goes off in his own direction and John focuses on aspects of the story that fits his theology.

The Way of the Cross

Mark/Matthew mention that after Jesus is scourged the soldiers mock him as King of the Jews, much as he was mocked as a false prophet after his Sanhedrin trial. The soldiers placed a cloak around him and crown of thorns on his head and pressed Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross, presumably because Jesus was too weak to carry it.

Luke (23:26-32) keeps the mention of Simon but eliminates all reference to Jesus being scourged, mocked, or crowned with thorns. Only Luke relates the scene of a large crowd of people following Jesus with the women mourning and lamenting him. Jesus tells them to weep for themselves and their children. What does Jesus mean with his proverb about the green wood and the dry? Perhaps that is his way of saying that if he can be treated this way by the Jewish leaders now, how much worse will the Romans treat them during the Jewish revolt that results in the destruction of Jerusalem.

The Johannine Jesus, scourged and crowned earlier as part of Pilate’s attempt to avoid the sentence of crucifixion, carries his own cross to Golgotha.

The Crucifixion

Mark/Matthew mentions it was 9 am when Jesus was crucified on Golgotha (translated as “Place of the Skull”) with two bandits to either side of him. He is offered, and refuses a drugged wine, and his clothes are divided among the soldiers. The charge – “King of the Jews” – is inscribed above his head. Jesus is reviled by three groups: passersby, the chief priests and scribes, and those crucified alongside him.

Luke typically avoids Hebrew-sounding names like Golgotha, only referring to it as “the place called the Skull.” As he is being crucified, the Lucan Jesus says, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” (Lk 23:34). This verse is not found in the oldest and most important copies of Luke, so there is question as to whether they were original or added by a later copyist in imitation of Stephen’s words in Acts 7:60. Luke preserves Jesus being taunted by the rulers (but not the people in general), the soldiers, and one of those crucified alongside him.

John expounds upon the details of the charge above his head and the division of clothes. Pilate’s choice of words causes a controversy with the Jewish leaders and John sees the untorn tunic as either symbolic of the garment of a high priest or as a symbol of unity, we can’t be sure. John eliminates the taunts. He is also the only evangelist to feature the Mother of Jesus at the foot of the cross alongside Mary Magdalene and the Beloved Disciple. This scene is loaded with symbolic and theological importance that will have to be discussed in more detail at a later time.

Christ Crucified (1632) by Diego Velazquez

The Death of Jesus

According to Mark/Matthew, at noon darkness covered the land until 3 pm when Jesus said his only words (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). “My God” in Hebrew is “Eli”, so it is understandable that a bystander would think Jesus is calling on Elijah, but it doesn’t make much sense that a natural response would be to lift a vinegary wine-soaked sponge up on reed to Jesus’ lips.

Luke also mentions the darkness over the land (attributing it to an eclipse) but moves up the offer of vinegary wine to the mocking by the soldiers. There’s no confusion of a call on Elijah because, instead of quoting Psalm 22, Jesus’ last words are from Ps 31:6: “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.”

John does not mention the darkness at noon; in John's timeline, it was noon when Pilate condemned Jesus to death. John is the only evangelist to state that Jesus specifically said, “I thirst,” so the wine would was not offered in mockery, but in response to his request. But just to confuse things, instead of offering the sponge on a reed, John has it stuck on the fernlike hyssop, totally unsuitable for that purpose. This is undoubtedly a reference to Exod 12:22 where hyssop is to be used to sprinkle the blood of the paschal lamb on the doorposts of the Israelite home at Passover. After taking the wine, Jesus says his final words in John, “It is finished,” and dies.

The Aftermath

The Synoptic evangelists make a point to mention that at the moment of Jesus’ death on Golgotha, the veil in the Temple was torn. (Matthew further adds that the earth quaked, tombs were opened, and the dead were raised.) There’s symbolism here, but exactly what is debatable. A common interpretation is that since the veil separates God’s presence in the Holy of Holies from the people, Jesus’ death removes that barrier.

In both Mark and Matthew, the centurion overseeing the crucifixion, seeing how Jesus died, declared, “Truly, this man was the Son of God.” It is the first time in the entire Gospel of Mark that a human being testified to Jesus’ true identity. In Luke, the centurion says, “This man was innocent beyond doubt.”

John has no Roman centurion or torn veils. Only John mentions that towards sundown Pilate gave orders to break the legs of the crucified to hasten their deaths. Since Jesus was already dead, that was not necessary and so he is the Passover lamb whose bones were not broken. But he was stabbed in the side to make sure he was dead and blood and water came forth, possibly symbolizing baptism and Eucharist.

The Burial

Meanwhile, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body. Mark said Joseph was a respected member of the Sanhedrin who was waiting for the kingdom of God. Matthew specifies that Joseph was a rich man and also a disciple of Jesus – but not a member of the Sanhedrin. Luke clarifies that although Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin, he was a good and just man and had not consented to the council’s decision and actions.

Women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee watched at a distance while Joseph wrapped Jesus’ body in a linen cloth and laid him in a nearby tomb. Luke also specifies that, watching where and how Jesus was buried, the women went off to prepare spices and oils to bury him properly. This is the evangelists’ way of preparing the reader for the return of the women to the tomb on Easter Sunday to anoint the body.

In John, Joseph of Arimathea is a secret disciple of Jesus who asks Pilate for the body. The Johannine-only character of Nicodemus arrives with a hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes to give Jesus a burial fit for a king, following appropriate Jewish burial customs, not the quick wrapping as in the Synoptic gospels. 

With Jesus now in the tomb, we close the Passion Narrative and the close alignment of the evangelists. The Resurrection Narratives veer off in wildly different directions with almost no parallels.

Trial History

While the evangelists disagree as to whether Jesus had a trial before the Sanhedrin or merely an interrogation before the high priest, at night or in the morning or both, they all agree that the Jewish authorities brought him before Pontius Pilate. Another point of agreement is that the charges against Jesus before the Jewish authorities were religious in nature: threats against the Temple, claims of messiahship, questions about his disciples and teachings. But Pilate is only concerned with the answer to a political question: “Are you the King of the Jews?”

Pilate’s question seems to come out of the blue in each of the gospels. Jesus never referred to himself that way. Yet “King of the Jews” is the charge all four evangelists tell us was written on the titulus that hung above Jesus’ head on the cross. Since it is highly unlikely there were any eyewitnesses at the trial before Pilate, the Passion tradition may have simply projected the charge on the cross back into the Roman trial as a question Pilate posed to Jesus.

How Involved Were the Jewish Authorities?

And thus we come to the delicate question of what role did the Jewish authorities of the time play in the crucifixion of Jesus. There are four basic views:

1. The Jewish authorities were the prime movers in Jesus’ arrest, trial and sentencing.
2. Although the Jewish authorities were involved, all main legal formalities were carried out by the Romans.
3. The Romans were the prime movers and were assisted by collaborators among the Jewish authorities.
4. The Jewish authorities were not involved in any way and references to such in the NT were due to anti-Jewish polemics.

There is certainly anti-Jewish polemic at work in the gospels (Matthew and John, especially), but in 1 Thess 2:14-15 Paul refers to “the Jews who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets.” Written about 20 years after Jesus’ death, it attests to an early belief in the complicity of the Jewish authorities. Involvement by the Jewish authorities cannot be a complete fabrication.

The opposite extreme that the Jewish authorities were solely to blame must also be excluded. While the evidence suggests that there was some Jewish involvement, Matthew intensified this by having Pilate theatrically wash his hands of the matter with the crowd shouting, “His blood be on us an on our children!” (Mt 27-24-25) That single line of Scripture has done more to embitter relations between Jews and Christians than any other.

This leaves us with the second and third views as historical possibilities. The difference between them comes down to the degree of Jewish involvement and motive. Were the Jewish authorities anxious to eliminate Jesus or were they tools of the Romans? Were the charges against Jesus religiously or politically motivated?

Historical Possibilities

There does seem to be evidence of collaboration between the high priests and the Romans. Joseph Caiaphas, for example, held the office of high priest for eighteen years, the longest term of office in the century between Herod the Great and the fall of Jerusalem. For ten of those years, he served under Pontius Pilate, so they were obviously able to work together for an extended period of time. And, when Pilate was finally removed from office, Caiaphas was deposed as well.

With respect to motive, there may not have been much difference between a religious charge that Jesus claimed to be the messiah and a political charge that he claimed to be the King of the Jews. Either Pilate or the chief priests could have seen Jesus as a disturbance to the peace during the important religious festival of Passover when Jerusalem was thronged with pilgrims. Actions such as a triumphal entry into Jerusalem or halting activities in the Temple could have been viewed as politically provocative.

My personal feeling is that Jesus’ appearance before the high priest was a preliminary interrogation (as in John) rather than a full-blown trial before the Sanhedrin (as in Mark/Matthew). It seems a foregone conclusion that he would be delivered to Pilate. Whether Pilate thought Jesus was a dangerous revolutionary who needed to be crucified or simply someone he wanted out of the way until after Passover, we can’t really say, but the most plausible explanation to me is that Pilate asked Caiaphas to see to it that Jesus was handed over to his custody. Caiaphas then leaned on Judas to arrange a time and place when Jesus could be arrested away from the crowds.

The Innocence Project

The four gospels tell us that Pilate found Jesus innocent and was pressured into the death sentence by the chief priests. Such a forthright and weak-kneed Pilate does not sound like the obstinate and harsh figure described by historians Josephus and Philo. The evangelists had more reason to portray Pilate in a favorable light than the historians had to blacken his reputation because the evangelists wanted Christians to know that even though Jesus was convicted of a Roman capital crime, he was blameless of such a charge. Having the Roman governor state that he though Jesus was innocent furthered that goal.

Ecce Homo (1871) by religious artist Antonio Ciseri portrays the moment in John's Gospel when Pilate presents Jesus to the crowd saying, "Behold the man!" Unlike the other gospels when Jesus is only scourged after his sentence to be crucified, John's Pilate orders him flogged first thinking that would be enough to satisfy the crowd and win him sympathy.

One aspect of the trial that all four evangelists agree upon is that Pilate recognized a custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover. He offers to free either Jesus or Barabbas, a man who had – according to Mark – committed murder during an insurrection, and the crowd chose Barabbas. (The Gospel of John simply refers to him as a “bandit.”)

Many scholars have questioned the historicity of the account. Certainly, it is highly unlikely that Pilate would have released a known murderer or insurrectionist, but it is possible that he would be willing to release a simple robber before Passover if there was a custom of a paschal pardon. Had this occurred immediately prior to Jesus’ crucifixion, the two events could have been conflated at an early date in the Passion tradition into a dramatic scene where Pilate presents the guilty Barabbas and the innocent Jesus and the crowd chooses Barabbas.

Other scenes are pure creation of the evangelists to emphasize the innocence of Jesus. Through his passion narrative, Matthew has a running theme of “innocent blood.” In addition to the aforementioned episode of Pilate washing his hands, after betraying Jesus, Judas returns the thirty pieces of silver he was paid, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood” (Mt 27:4). While Pilate deliberates on what to do with Jesus, his wife sends word, “Have nothing to do with that innocent man” (Mt 27:19).

Luke adds a scene (23:6-12) where, upon learning that Jesus is from Galilee, Pilate sends him to Herod Antipas only to have Herod send him back. But the net effect was that Herod and Pilate became friends from that day on; Jesus has a healing influence even over his enemies.

All sides agree that the cause of Jesus’ death was Roman crucifixion, which means that highest Roman authority in Judea found Jesus guilty of a capital crime and had him executed in the most brutal and shameful way possible, a form of death reserved for only the very worst criminals. The first Christians had to explain to their fellow Jews and Roman citizens that this disgraced figure was actually the messiah and the Son of God. It took decades before the first Christians were able to find meaning in death on a cross. It would have been counterproductive for the apostles to invent such a story if it didn’t really happen.

Incidents and Accidents, Hints and Allegations

With the Last Supper now over, the passion narrative in the Gospel of John begins to align with the Synoptic Gospels as Jesus takes his disciples to a spot on the Mount of Olives. Mark (14:32) identifies the location as Gethsemane (from the Hebrew name for “oil-press”) and John (18:1) calls it a garden, but Luke (22:39) identifies it as their customary place on the Mount of Olives. Most likely it was an olive garden. John (18:2) agrees that the spot was well-known to Judas as a place where Jesus often met with his disciples.

The Agony in the Garden

While the Fourth Gospel proceeds directly to the arrest, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus retreat a distance from his disciples to pray to his Father to “remove the cup” of suffering he is about to undergo. After this, according to Mark and Matthew, Jesus returns to the disciples three separate times only to find them sleeping. Luke puts the disciples in a better light by having Jesus return only once to find the disciples sleeping. Not only that, but he provides “sorrow” (22:45) as the reason for their slumber, although insomnia would seem to be a more common condition for someone in that state.

Christ in Gethsemane (1886) by Heinrich Hofmann. This painting has been reproduced countless times in kitschy religious art.

The familiar term “agony in the garden” comes from Luke 22:43-44 in which God answers Jesus’ prayer by sending an angel to strengthen him and “in his agony” his sweat fell to the ground like drops of blood. These verses are missing from several of the oldest manuscripts of Luke and are bracketed in many modern English translations. NT scholars are divided on whether these verse are original to Luke or were added later.

In this context, “agony” does not have the connotation of extreme pain. Instead it refers to the moment of tension of an athlete poised at the starting line, sweat beginning to break out. In this case, Jesus is tense as he is about to begin his trial. Although a common understanding is that Jesus’ sweated blood, the verse only says that his sweat dripped like blood.

The Arrest

At this point in Mark (14:43-52), Judas arrives with a crowd to arrest Jesus. Judas tells them that they are to arrest the man that he identifies with a kiss. Someone draws and sword and severs the ear of the high priest’s slave and all the disciples flee, including a lightly-clad young man who left his linen cloth behind to run away naked.

Matthew (26:47-56) is mostly faithful to Mark. He clarifies that the person who severed the ear of the slave was one of the disciples and Jesus urged him to sheathe his sword “for all who take up the sword will perish by it.” The call to sheathe the sword matches John (18:10-11) and John identifies the sword wielder as Peter and the servant as Malchus.

The Taking of Christ (c. 1602) by Caravaggio

Luke’s account of the arrest (22:47-53) abbreviates Mark so much that his narrative is close to being nonsensical. Judas approaches Jesus to kiss him without any explanation. The disciples ask if they are to use the swords in their possession and, before Jesus can answer, attack the high priest’s slave. Only in Luke, however, does Jesus heal the ear of the slave. Along with Matthew, Luke deletes the strange reference to the naked young man. Indeed, because of the high esteem in which he holds the disciples, Luke eliminates any reference to them fleeing.

In John’s brief account of the arrest (18:2-12), Jesus identifies himself (“I am”) rather than have Judas identify him and submits to arrest as long as the other disciples are free to go. The Johannine Jesus is in complete control of events.

Interrogation and Denials

After the arrest, the evangelists differ on the details of what happened next. According to Mark (14:53-65), Jesus was led to the high priest and assembled members of the Jewish council (Sanhedrin) for a night trial where witnesses were presented and Jesus was convicted of blasphemy and condemned to death. This is followed by abuse and mockery. While this is going on, Peter is in the courtyard denying and cursing Jesus (14:66-72). Matthew (26:57-75) agrees with Mark, but notes the name of the high priest was Caiaphas.

In John (18:13-27), Jesus is brought to a high priest, but in this case it is Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas. John has Annas interrogate Jesus before sending him on to Caiaphas for transfer to Pilate. The abuse is limited to Jesus being struck by a guard for being less than deferential to the high priest. While Jesus is being passed back and forth, the Beloved Disciple was able to get Peter into the courtyard where he three times denied that he was either a disciple or present at Jesus’ arrest.

Christ before Caiaphas (c. 1630) by Matthias Stom. Great use of light in this one.

Luke (22:54-71) splits the difference. Just as in the other gospels, Peter follows Jesus to the courtyard of the high priest, but the Sanhedrin doesn’t gather until morning. Sitting around the fire with others, Peter denies he knows Jesus, denies he is one of the disciples, and even denies being a Galilean. As the cock crows, Jesus – who apparently was also in the courtyard all this time – turns to look at him and Peter remembers the prophecy. Jesus is also mocked and beaten before any sort of hearing. Luke’s account of the Sanhedrin hearing is different in that no witnesses are presented and there was no mention of the charge of blasphemy or passing of a death sentence. It is more like Annas' interrogation in John.

The differing details have caused NT scholars to debate which version of events are most likely to be historical. Was Jesus convicted by the Sanhedrin after a trial or did he only have a preliminary interrogation before being delivered to Pilate? In other words, how big a role did the Jewish authorities play in the execution of Jesus? We’ll discuss this more next week when we get to Jesus’ trial before Pilate.

These three scenes would have had special importance for the early Christians. Although Mark has Jesus prostrate on the ground praying that “the hour might pass” from him, he did accede to the Father’s will. Some of the disciples tried to resist his arrest with a sword, but Jesus accepted his fate “so that Scripture might be fulfilled.” Peter may have committed the worst sin in the early Church, that of renouncing Jesus, but he would regain his faith and become the head of the Church. The example of Jesus taught the early Christians the proper way to respond when faced with persecutions and death. Peter taught them that even if they failed, redemption was still possible.

The New Passover

All four gospels recall Jesus’ last meal with his disciples as one with special significance. For the synoptic gospels it was a Passover meal and, during it, Jesus intoned a special blessing over the bread and wine. John differs from the synoptics in that his last supper was not a Passover meal and the symbolic act was one of foot washing. I’ll leave a discussion of John’s last supper to a later time. In this article, I will just focus on what the synoptic evangelists have to say about the last supper.

Passover Preparations

After describing how Judas offered to betray Jesus, Mark then proceeds to the preparations for Passover (14:12-17). Matthew (26:17-19) abbreviates the story, but Luke (22:7-13) stays fairly close to Mark. It is Passover eve, or the Preparation Day in which lambs begin to be slaughtered in the Temple court for use at the Passover supper. Upon being asked where they would celebrate the Passover, Jesus provides some odd instructions. 

He sends two disciples – Luke names them Peter and John – into the city where they will follow a man carrying a water jar. The man will lead them to a house with a furnished upper room where the disciples will prepare for the supper. Since it was typically the woman’s job to carry water, perhaps this particular man was part of a community, such as the Essenes, that did not admit women. It seems that Jesus had already made prior arrangements.

Growing up, I think just about every Catholic home had a framed Last Supper print similar to this. No, it's not da Vinci's famous mural, but a painting done in his style by Austrian artist H. Zabateri (1859-1945).

Reinterpreting Passover

As the supper begins in Mark and Matthew (Mk 14:18-21; Mt 26:21-25), Jesus foretells his betrayal before he blesses the bread and wine. In Luke, he does this after the blessing, most likely in order to add it to his lengthy discourse after the meal.

For the supper itself, Mark (14:22-25) and Matthew (26:26-29) describe the blessing and breaking of the bread, followed by Jesus giving thanks and sharing the cup. In Luke (22:15-20), Jesus shares the cup, breaks the bread, and then shares a second cup. Luke’s longer account deviates from Mark in other respects and can be broken down into two parts. 

In the first part (vv. 15-18), Jesus more clearly ties his supper to the Passover meal, twice asserting (“for I tell you”) his belief that the fulfillment of Passover will occur in the messianic banquet (Is 25:6) of the Kingdom of God:

He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer;
for I tell you, I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”
Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves;
for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

In the second part (vv. 19-20), Jesus reinterprets the signature foods of the meal. In a traditional Passover meal, the head of the house would say, “This is the bread of affliction which our fathers had to eat as they came out of Egypt.” Jesus, instead, identifies the bread with himself:

Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

There is a clear connection between the mentions of Jesus’ imminent suffering and death in the first part of the unit and his body and blood in the second part. His death is salvific because his body is “given for you” and his blood is “poured out for you.” Exodus 24:3-8 described one covenant sealed with blood between God and his people. This will be a “new covenant” confirmed with “my blood.” Being “poured out” is an allusion to the Suffering Servant passage of Isaiah 53:12.

In Memory of Me

The Lucan Jesus instructs his disciples to repeat his actions “in remembrance” of him, just like the yearly Passover meal was repeated in order to make present God’s saving act in the past. Jesus’ own body and blood will replace the Passover lamb as the sign for how the Kingdom of God will be realized from now on.

In light of how important Jesus’ words instituting the Lord’s Supper are, there is disagreement over exactly what those words were. Mark/Matthew present one version and Luke/Paul present another. Luke’s wording is very similar to what Paul hands on in 1 Cor 11:24-25:

And when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

In contrast, the Marcan Jesus says of the bread, “Take; this is my body.” And, for the cup, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” Mark lacks the explanation that Jesus’ body is “for you” and the command to “do this in remembrance of me.” Mark also misses the allusion to the “new covenant” in Jer 31:31, but does capture that Jesus’ blood is to be “poured out,” something that is missing in Paul. The reference to “many” is another allusion to Is 53:12 where the Suffering Servant “bore the sin of many.” It really means “for all,” not just one or a few.

Matthew slightly alters Mark’s words. The Matthean Jesus doesn’t just tell the disciples to “take” the break but to “take, eat.” Similarly, when it comes to the cup, the Matthean Jesus asks the disciples to “drink of it, all of you.” The cup isn’t simply “poured out” but is poured out “for the forgiveness of sins.” Matthew is attempting to explain that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross forgives sins in the way that the blood of sacrificial animals in the OT forgave sins.

When Jesus tells his disciples that the bread is his body (Greek, soma), he is referring to his entire “self.” As biblical scholar Rudoph Bultmann once wrote, “A man does not have a soma; he is soma.” Jesus is not sacrificing his physical human body, but his entire life, everything he is. When Jesus says “do this,” he is not simply urging his disciples to relive the supper. He is asking them to give of their entire being.

The Woman with the Alabaster Jar

The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are referred to as the synoptic gospels (from synopsis, “seeing together”) because they present many of the same stories, frequently in the same sequence, and many times with the same words. This is not unexpected since most biblical scholars believe that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of the sources for their gospels. By way of contrast, however, even a casual reader of the NT will notice that the Gospel of John is markedly different. For example, in John’s Gospel there are no narrative parables, no exorcisms and few relatively miracles, and extended discourses instead of proverbial “sound bites.”

General Comments on the Passion Narratives

That said, the Fourth Gospel does start to track more closely with events in the synoptic gospels beginning with the arrest in the garden and continuing to Jesus’ burial. This suggests that a common tradition of Jesus’ passion (from the Greek, “to suffer”) was known separately to both Mark and John. This passion tradition probably was not a full-fledged narrative source, but more likely a collection of individual episodes that Mark and John each shaped to their purposes. A certain sequence – arrest before trial, trial before crucifixion, etc. – is inherent in the events being described and that is why the chronology is the same.

In the Revised Common Lectionary used by many Christian denominations, Passion (Palm) Sunday gospel reading rotates between Matthew, Mark, or Luke in a three-year cycle. The Good Friday gospel reading always comes from John. The reading from John starts with the arrest in the garden, but the readings from the synoptic gospels begin with the Last Supper. This is partly due to the fact that passages from John’s Last Supper are read on Holy Thursday, but also because the Last Supper is a more intrinsic part of the passion narrative in the synoptics than it is in John.

While each evangelist shows Jesus coming into conflict with religious authorities, it is in the days just prior to the Passover festival that a conspiracy to eliminate Jesus develops. According to Mark (14:1-2), the “chief priests and scribes” sought to arrest and execute him “by stealth” to avoid igniting a riot during the festival.

From Head to Toes

At this point, Mark turns to the story (14:3-9) of an unnamed woman anointing the head of Jesus with an alabaster jar of expensive ointment (made from real nard!) at the home of Simon the leper in Bethany. Upon hearing complaints that the money spent on the ointment – 300 denarii, equivalent to 300 days’ wages – could have been given to the poor instead, Jesus admonished them, saying the woman performed a good service in anointing his body prior to burial. (Words in italics are common to more than one version of the story.)

Jesus Anointed at Bethany by contemporary artist Anthony Falbo 

Matthew (26:6-13) also reports the story of the anointing in Bethany, but Luke does not because he already recounted a similar story earlier in his gospel (7:36-50). In Luke’s version, Jesus was at the house of Simon the Pharisee in Galilee, when an unnamed sinful woman washed his feet with her tears, dried them with her hair, and then anointed his feet with an alabaster jar of ointment. When the Pharisee complained that the woman was a sinner, Jesus tells a parable of two debtors, compares the reception he received from Simon with that of the woman, and then forgives her sins.

Luke seems to have conflated two separate stories involving Jesus and unnamed women. In one story from his private “L” tradition, a sinful woman washes Jesus’ feet with her tears and dries them with her hair. In the second story from Mark, the unnamed woman anoints Jesus’ head with expensive ointment just prior to his crucifixion.

What’s odd about Luke’s conflation of two stories is that John does the same thing! In his telling of the story (12:1-8), six days before Passover Jesus is at the home of Lazarus in Bethany. While Lazarus’ sister Martha served dinner, his other sister Mary anointed the feet of Jesus with a pound of expensive ointment (made from real nard!) and then wiped it off with her hair. Judas objects to the extravagance saying the perfume could have been sold for 300 denarii and the money given to the poor.

The tendency to blur the stories together continued in Christian preaching. The virtuous Mary of Bethany in John became muddled with the sinful woman of Luke and confused with Mary of Magdala. What is the most likely sin of a woman? Prostitution, of course. And so we end up with a tradition of Mary Magdalene as a reformed prostitute! (For more on what we know from the gospels of Mary of Magdala, check out my later article.)

Enter Judas

Returning to Mark’s chronology (14:10-11), after the anointing in Bethany, Judas approached the chief priests and offers to betray Jesus; they offer him money. Because Luke omitted the anointing scene, Judas’ offer of betrayal is part of the same unit with the plotting of the chief priests (Lk 22:1-6). Some scholars think Mark intentionally inserted the anointing at Bethany to separate this unit since that is his rhetorical style, sometimes referred to as Mark’s “sandwich technique.” He will start an episode, cut away to something else, and then return to conclude the episode.

Mark calls the betrayer “Judas Iscariot” and re-introduces him as “one of the Twelve.” Scholars have debated the meaning of “Iscariot” without any resolution as to whether it refers to a nickname, his place of birth, or something else. We really just don’t know. That he was one of Jesus’ inner circle was truly scandalous to the early Christians.

Mark provides no motive for Judas’ act of betrayal. Matthew said he did it for the money (thirty pieces of silver). In the story of the anointing in Bethany, John tells us (12:6) that Judas was the treasurer and would take from the purse. While Judas was simply greedy in Matthew, in John he was a greedy thief.

Luke provides a different motivation: “Satan entered into Judas.” This is an allusion to the end of the temptation episode (4:13) where the devil “departed from [Jesus] until an opportune time.” Well, he’s back! Curiously, John uses almost the same words in 13:27: “Satan entered into him.” So not only does John provide the mundane motivation of greed, but he also adds the Lucan motivation of demonic possession.

Next week we will continue our journey through the passion narrative with the Last Supper and the institution of the eucharist.

The Apostles Go to the Movies

Before starting a discussion on the infancy narratives, how about some “gospel truths” for background?

1. Mark is the oldest gospel (written around 66-70 CE). Mark begins his gospel with the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. Mark never mentions the name of Jesus’ legal father, Joseph.
2. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a basis for their own gospels (80-90 CE), but added additional material not found in Mark. Some of the supplementary material in Matthew has parallels with additions in Luke, but some non-Marcan material is only found in Matthew or only found in Luke.
3. Because so much of the material in Matthew, Mark and Luke are similar, they are called the synoptic gospels.
4. John’s gospel (90-100 CE) is very different and not based on Mark. Outside of the passion narrative, there are very few points of contact with the synoptic gospels. After a brief prologue on how the divine Word existed before creation and became flesh, John’s gospel opens with Jesus’ baptism. 
5. The infancy narrative in Matthew appears in the first two chapters and contains material that is exclusive to Matthew.
6. The infancy narrative in Luke appears in the first two chapters and contains material that is exclusive to Luke.

This brief survey highlights the peculiar nature of the infancy narratives. They seem to be prefixed to the gospels of Matthew and Luke like the prologue of a novel. The prologue sets the stage for what is to come, but you could skip it and not have missed anything crucial to the plot. There are no references in the rest of Matthew and Luke to anything that occurs in the infancy narratives.

Unlike the narratives and sayings from the public ministry which have the authority of the disciples standing behind it, there were few witnesses to the events being described in the infancy narratives. Theoretically, Matthew or Luke could have spoken to people who were alive during the time of Jesus’ ministry, but it is highly unlikely that any family members privy to the events of Jesus’ birth would have still been alive when Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels. And, if so, why are the stories so different?

While the two infancy narratives are completely distinct, there are a few points of agreement between them that may indicate a core of common tradition:

• Mary conceives after she has been betrothed to Joseph but before they live together.
• The conception of the child is through the Holy Spirit.
• Joseph is of Davidic descent.
• An angel announces the birth of the child, that he is to be named Jesus, and that he is to be Savior.
• The birth takes place after the parents have come to live together.
• The birth takes place in Bethlehem but the child is reared in Nazareth.
• The birth occurs during the reign of Herod the Great.

There are other infancy narratives in works that never became accepted as part of the NT (that is, non-canonical gospels), but these date from a later period (2nd century CE) than the four canonical gospels and seem to have been influenced by them, so they do not provide us with any independent information. Our only source of knowledge of the infancy of Jesus (such as it is) are in the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke.

So why do Matthew and Luke each provide an infancy narrative while Mark and John are unconcerned about the early life of Jesus? Let’s look back at the “gospel truths” above. The one main point of contact among all four canonical gospels is the passion narrative (#4). This suggests that the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection was the most primitive core of early Christian preaching. 

Stories and sayings from Jesus’ public ministry became attached to the passion narratives. Mark was the first to do this (#1 above) and there may have been a collection of sayings from which Matthew and Luke both drew (#2). For Mark, the baptism of Jesus is when God reveals who Jesus is and marks the start of his ministry. This is a critical moment in all four canonical gospels. 

But for Matthew and Luke it wasn’t enough. Jesus couldn’t have become God’s son only at his baptism. By prefixing the infancy narratives to their gospels, Matthew and Luke showed that Jesus was the Son of God from his conception and birth. The evangelists are not merely relating biographical information; they are making a proclamation of the good news of salvation.

In Talladega Nights, Ricky Bobby (played by Will Ferrell) liked the Christmas Jesus best: “When you say grace, you can say it to grown-up Jesus, or teenage Jesus, or bearded Jesus, or whatever you want.”

It’s like one of those movies with a big twist (for example, The Sixth Sense, Fight Club, The Usual Suspects) that cause you to re-evaluate everything you thought was going on in the movie. The director provides you with a series of brief flashbacks so you can see how previous scenes now need to be understood.

For the early disciples of Jesus, the resurrection event was that twist. They thought Jesus was going to bring about his new kingdom, only to have their hopes dashed to pieces by his crucifixion. But the resurrection appearances caused them to re-evaluate the events around Jesus’ death. That, in turn, caused them to interpret the sayings and works of his ministry in a new light. Eventually, this train of thought led to the angel’s proclamation of Jesus as savior in the infancy narratives. 

The understanding of who Jesus was worked its way backwards from his resurrection to his baptism by John to his conception and birth. The adult Christ is very much a part of the infancy narrative.

Or, as Ricky Bobby in Talladega Nights would say, “Dear eight-pound, six-ounce newborn infant Jesus, don’t even know a word yet, just a little infant and so cuddly, but still omnipotent.”