Divergent: Ascension

Years ago, I was reading a review of the latest novel in a book series that I enjoyed. The review panned the new book saying, “It’s retcon on a major scale.” I had never heard the term “retcon” before, so I had to look it up and learned that it was a contraction for “retroactive continuity.” Retcon is defined as “a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events.” When writers bring back a popular character killed off in a previous movie, episode, or novel with a hand-waving explanation of how the character escaped at the last minute, that’s retcon.

We have an example of retcon with the ascension of the risen Christ. Luke gives us two versions of the ascension, one at the end of his Gospel (24:50-53), and the other at the beginning of Acts of the Apostles (1:9-11).

The First Ascension Account

The first ascension story is part of the composite passage that concludes the Gospel of Luke (24:36-53). As the two disciples from Emmaus are recounting their experience to the gathered disciples, Jesus appears in their midst and asks them to touch him to see that he is flesh and bones and not a ghost. They give him a piece of broiled fish and he eats it in front of them. He then explicates the Scriptures to them and instructs them to remain in Jerusalem until the Father invests them with power from on high. Finally, leading them outside the city to Bethany, he blesses them and is carried up to heaven. The disciples return to Jerusalem with great joy and “were continually in the Temple praising God.” The gospel concludes as it began, in the Temple.

The Lucan Jesus’ final appearance to the gathered disciples on Easter Sunday night (vv. 36-43) recalls the material that appears in John 20:19-21 and the Marcan appendix (16:14-15). Luke seems to be drawing on a common tradition that at his final appearance to the gathered disciples, Jesus commissioned them to go out into the world. There are similar elements in both the Emmaus narrative and the conclusion of the gospel: an appearance that is not immediately comprehended, a meal, an instruction based on Scripture, and the sudden departure of the risen Christ.

The Second Ascension Account

In the beginning of Acts of the Apostles (1:1-14), Luke references his “first account” in which he described Jesus’ teachings and actions. Luke then recalls how the risen Jesus presented himself to the apostles “throughout forty days.” He instructed them to wait in Jerusalem for the baptism of the Holy Spirit in which they will receive power to become his witnesses to Judea, Samaria, and to the end of the earth. And, as he says this, he was lifted up and a cloud took him out of their sight. Two men in white robes – presumably angels – suddenly appear to explain that Jesus will one day return in the same way he was seen to go. The apostles depart the Mount of Olives and return to Jerusalem to await the coming Spirit.

In this prologue to Acts, Luke uses the ascension to conclude “the age of Jesus” and begin “the age of the church.” He recapitulates what he already said at the end of his gospel, but with more explanation on the coming of the Holy Spirit. Almost out of the blue, the apostles ask about the restoration of the kingdom of Israel (Emmaus disciple Cleopas also made a similar reference to the hope that Jesus would “deliver Israel” in Luke 24:21) and Jesus informs them their duty is to be witnesses to him throughout the world. In a similar fashion, the angelic interpreters assure the apostles that Jesus will return but there’s no point in standing there waiting for him. The implication is that the apostles have other work to do.

"See ya later, guys!" The ascension scene is the subject of the altarpiece in St. Peter’s Church in Copenhagen, by Danish painter Hendrick Krock

When was the Ascension?

We are left with a problem of dating the ascension. Luke’s Gospel clearly dates it to the night following the morning on which the empty tomb was discovered (i.e. Easter Sunday night). Acts describes the ascension occurring after a period of forty days in which the risen Christ appeared to the disciples.

A biblical literalist would try to harmonize the two ascensions. The one reported on Easter Sunday night would be merely the conclusion of Jesus’ appearance to all the disciples. His later ascension after forty days would be the “encore” performance. That’s a bit of a retcon, reinterpreting what appears to be the definitive final appearance of the risen Lord in Luke’s Gospel as merely the conclusion of one of many such appearances.

Another theory is that, having completed his gospel, Luke came upon information that Jesus appeared to the disciples for a period of time and wrote the beginning of Acts to correct his earlier account. In this hypothesis, Luke is retconning his earlier account.

Which Direction did Jesus Go?

At the other end of the spectrum from the biblical literalists are those who like to tweak the literalists by asking, “So which direction is heaven?” While there are some rock-ribbed biblical literalists who would claim that Jesus was bodily transported via cloud to heaven, most non-fundamentalists would agree that the ascension is a metaphor for the conclusion of appearances of the risen Christ to his disciples. At one time, the risen Jesus appeared to his followers and, at some point, those appearances stopped.

But it is more than that. During the Emmaus encounter, the risen Christ explained that the Messiah was bound to suffer “before entering into his glory” (24:26). The crucified Jesus, raised from the dead, has entered “his glory,” and it is from there that he has manifested himself to Peter, the Emmaus disciples, and all the others. Luke’s account of the ascension in Acts uses the trappings of apocalyptic writings – clouds, movement through the heavens, angelic interpreters – to present Christ’s final departure from his disciples in visible form. Thus the apostles become eyewitnesses to Christ’s exaltation. After this, they will no longer experience him in a visible way, but only in “the breaking of the bread.”

Breaking Bread

In preparation for his First Communion in the Catholic Church, my son is learning about the two parts of the Mass: the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. During the Liturgy of the Word, the priest welcomes the congregation and then we listen to readings from the OT and NT, followed by a homily where the priest or deacon explicates the Scriptures and helps us apply it to our lives. The Liturgy of the Eucharist begins when the gifts of bread and wine are brought forward. This is followed by the priest re-presenting the Last Supper during the Eucharistic Prayer and finally communion when the congregation comes forward to receive the consecrated bread and wine.

A Walk to Emmaus

Therefore, the order of the Mass was very much on my mind as I approached the exquisitely-told story of the risen Christ appearing to two disciples who were walking towards the village of Emmaus. This story is only found in Luke (24:13-35), although something similar is found in a brief reference in the Marcan appendix (16:12-13) to the risen Lord appearing “in another form” to two disciples “walking into the country.” Scholars are divided as to whether Luke elaborated on the snippet of tradition found in the Marcan appendix or if vv. 12-13 in the appendix are a summary of the story in Luke.

The Emmaus story can be broken down into four scenes:

1. Two disciples are returning to their home village when they are met by the risen Jesus but fail to recognize him (vv. 13-16).
2. The two (Cleopas and an unnamed disciple) recount how the women discovered the empty tomb that morning and Jesus then interprets for the two disciples the parts of Scripture that pertained to him (vv. 17-27).
3. Towards sundown they reach Emmaus and the disciples ask Jesus to stay with them. When Jesus breaks the bread and offers it to them, they recognize him and he vanishes from their sight (vv.28-32).
4. The two disciples return to Jerusalem where they find the Eleven and the others gathered together. They learn of an appearance of the risen Lord to Simon Peter and recount their experience on the road and how they recognized the risen Jesus “in the breaking of the bread” (vv. 33-35).

Looking at the details of the story, we see a familiar pattern: a greeting, an explication of Scripture, a proclamation of resurrection faith (“the Lord has been raised and has appeared to Simon”), and the meal setting with the breaking of the bread. Is Luke patterning the Emmaus story on early Christian liturgical celebrations? Is it a dramatization of a Mass?

The Supper at Emmaus (1936-37), a fake Vermeer by Han van Meegeren, a Dutch painter who was one of the most successful forgers of the 20th century. After WWII, one of his paintings was found in the possession of Hermann Göring. Accused of collaboration with the Nazis, van Meegeren copped to the less serious charge of forgery.

A Hidden Mass?

We know very little about liturgical celebrations at the time Luke wrote his gospel (80-85 CE). The first description we have of the Eucharistic celebration comes from Justin Martyr writing in 155 CE:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. (First Apology, 67).

All the elements present in Justin’s description of Christian worship in the second century – gathering on Sunday, readings from Scripture, instruction from the presider, blessing over the bread and wine and its distribution – are also present in many modern liturgical celebrations in various denominations. And these liturgical elements also have their echoes in the Emmaus account. While we can’t be absolutely certain in such things, it is not implausible that the Christian worship Justin describes in 155 was very similar to something Luke would have experienced 70 years before.

But to discern every element of the Mass from penitential rite to dismissal in the Emmaus story may be going further than the evidence allows.

The Breaking of the Bread

The last verse seems to sum up the central thrust of the Emmaus story: “They told what had happened on the road and how he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.” The words describing Jesus’ actions in v. 30 (“he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them”) are very similar to what Luke describes happening at the Last Supper in 22:19: “Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them.”

Did the two disciples recognize Jesus because they made a connection between his actions and gestures here with those he used at the Last Supper? We only know the name of one of the disciples – Cleopas – and he was not present at the Last Supper. But he could have been present at the miracle of the loaves and fishes (9:10-17). In v. 16, Luke writes: “And taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke them, and gave them to the disciples to set before the crowd.” Perhaps the disciples were reminded of the Feeding of the Five Thousand?

But Luke is writing a gospel, not history. The point he wants to make is that the disciples did not recognize the risen Jesus on the road, but only in “the breaking of the bread.” This is a uniquely Lucan term which he uses several times in Acts of the Apostles to refer to celebration of the Lord’s Supper (cf. Paul’s use of “the bread that we break” in 1 Cor 10:16). Luke is telling his audience (and us) that although contemporary disciples will no longer experience the risen Lord in visible form, he will be present among them in their weekly Eucharistic celebrations.

Raising the Tomb of Christ from the Dead

The holiest site in Christendom is the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. Under one roof, it memorializes the traditional sites of both the crucifixion and the resurrection. Lots of places in Israel claim that “Jesus was here,” so what are the chances that these have any more historical provenance than the supposed location of the Last Supper or the Garden of Gethsemane?

Constantine’s Church

The Emperor Constantine sought to unify the Roman Empire under Christianity, and around 325 CE he decided to build churches over the sites where Jesus was born, buried, and ascended. The locals told Constantine’s engineers that, two centuries before, the Emperor Hadrian had constructed a temple over the site of Jesus’ tomb. According to the Church historian Eusebius, as Constantine’s workers cleared away the rubble and fill dirt from Hadrian’s temple, they found a tomb which was obviously that of Christ’s.

Eusebius doesn’t say why it was obvious this particular tomb was that of Jesus. Perhaps there was some graffiti written or carved on it from the time when it was venerated before it was buried under Hadrian’s temple. Or maybe the placement of the tomb directly under a statue to Jupiter was the sign that they had found the right tomb.

In any event, the workmen isolated the tomb from the surrounding rock and adorned it with decorations and columns. It was called the Edicule (Latin for “little house”). Originally the Edicule was a free-standing structure in the open, separate from the church Constantine had built around the rock of Calvary, but fifty years after the church’s dedication, a rotunda was constructed around it.

In 1009, the Moslem caliph al-Hakim ordered Constantine’s church to be demolished and the Edicule was hacked to pieces. Eventually, the present Church of the Holy Sepulcher was rebuilt in its place and over the centuries suffered a series of natural and man-made disasters. A fire in the rotunda in 1808 caused the dome over the Edicule to collapse and seriously damage the Edicule itself. It was rebuilt in 1810, but after earthquakes in 1927 and 1934, the marble cladding surrounding the Edicule became so unstable that the British (who were responsible for the Holy Land back then) had iron girders erected in 1947 to keep it from falling apart.

The Edicule inside the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem showing the steel framework keeping it from falling apart. (Photo by author, 1993).

Status Quo

Repairs have been stalled for decades as the various groups responsible for the Church of the Holy Sepulcher squabble over what to do. The Church is primarily controlled by the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Armenians churches. Each have their own portions of the church that they control, but according to the status quo decree of 1853, nothing can be changed in the public areas unless all parties agree. No detail is too small to argue about. A ladder was on a window ledge over the church’s entrance when the status quo decree went into effect and it has been there ever since. It is now called the “Immovable Ladder.”

So it was to my great surprise when I read an announcement released Holy Week (3/22/16) that the Greeks, Latins and Armenians had agreed on a major restoration to the Edicule. Work could begin as soon as May 1 after Orthodox Easter celebrations are over and will take at least 8 months. During this time, the entire Edicule will be dismantled and rebuilt. Usable parts will be cleaned and weakened or broken parts will be replaced.

What can we expect to see? As the marble cladding is removed, it will expose the masonry of the 1555 structure. There should also be what remains of the native limestone of the original tomb. Archaeologists will get an opportunity to examine, measure and record the ruins and give us a better idea of what the original tomb might have looked like.

The Empty Tomb

Based on the best information we have today, the original tomb was a small cave with two chambers carved into the side of a hill or cliff. The outer chamber was a partly-covered forecourt with a low entrance leading into the fully-enclosed rock-cut interior burial chamber. The entrance would have been closed by a large stone. There would have been rock-cut burial benches on two or three sides of the inner chamber.

Reconstruction (A) of the form of the rock-cut tomb within the Edicule and (B) of its conversion by the construction of Constantine's Edicule. (Drawn by Steven Ashley, taken from The Tomb of Christ by Martin Biddle).

According to Eusebius, Constantine’s engineers cut away the rock of the surrounding cliff, including the outer forecourt, to isolate the burial chamber. The other burial benches may have been sealed up with masonry so as to leave only the bench on the inside right exposed, since Mark 16:5 reports the women entering the empty tomb found an angel sitting there instead of Jesus’ body.

Is this really the tomb of Christ? It is impossible to say but it is plausible. Whereas the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is inside the walls of Jerusalem today, around 30 CE the area was a disused quarry outside the walls. Today, a short distance from the Edicule, visitors to the church can see small burial chambers carved into the rock dating back to the 1st century CE, so the area was a definitely a gravesite until Jerusalem’s walls were extended around the area in the early 40’s and the site was brought inside the city.

Nothing is known of the site prior to 130 CE when Hadrian filled in the quarry and paved over it to construct his temple. It is very possible that the empty tomb would have been venerated as the site of the resurrection. Did Hadrian intentionally construct his temple over a site revered by Christians in order to suppress the new religion? Again, we don’t know, but later Christians certainly attributed bad intentions to Hadrian’s choice of construction site.

So I will be eagerly awaiting news of any discoveries made during the restoration work on the Edicule. I’m sure a PBS Nova or National Geographic program will be produced documenting the project. But even if surviving 1st or 2nd century graffiti saying “Jesus was here” is found, that would not prove scientifically this was the tomb of Jesus, only that early Christians venerated it as though it was.

If I learn anything more about the restoration, I’ll post it here, so watch this space.

Polaroids of the Resurrection

Thirty years ago, when the Internet was young and before there was a worldwide web, there was something called Usenet. It was a collection of discussion groups on any topic imaginable, from art to zoology. One newsgroup that I frequented was called talk.religion.christian and I recall posting an article – although I have been unable to find it to verify the content – called “Polaroids of the Resurrection.”

My post was my contribution to an on-going discussion as to whether the events of Easter Sunday morning were objective facts accessible to all disinterested observers. From what I can recall, my point was that when the NT reported an appearance of the risen Christ, the appearance was only to believers. My contention was that if you had a Polaroid camera on Easter Sunday morning, you would not have been able to take a photograph of a resurrected body.

Risen

I was thinking about this while watching the recent movie Risen (2016) starring Joseph Fiennes as the Roman tribune Clavius, a kind of fix-it guy for Pontius Pilate. In the film, Pilate orders Clavius to find the missing body of the recently crucified Yeshua (Cliff Curtis) to curtail any rumors on the part of the disciples that he has risen from the dead. Clavius eventually locates the cadre of disciples just as Yeshua happens to be making one of his appearances to the doubting Thomas. Stunned by seeing a very live version of the man he witnessed dead on the cross, Clavius quits his post and follows the disciples to Galilee to make sense of it all.

On the one hand, I give props to the creators of the film for taking a different approach to the Easter story. By following the story of a Roman solider instead of the disciples, it allows the filmmakers artistic license to find new angles in the story. Unfortunately, the story they tell isn’t very engaging and the latter half of the movie falls in familiar Bible movie territory, only with Clavius as the replacement for Judas among the disciples.

But what bothers me is the central premise that Clavius, an unbeliever, could have experienced the risen Christ and come to believe. Was the appearance of the resurrected Jesus an objective event accessible to all disinterested observers?

In the movie Risen, Joseph Fiennes stars at the Roman tribune Clavius who is tasked by Pontius Pilate with finding the missing body of Jesus.

Empty Tomb

The core of the Easter proclamation is told in the story of the empty tomb (Mk 16:1-8; Mt 28:1-8; Lk 24:1-12; Jn 20:1-13). There are no narratives of appearances of the risen Christ in the Gospel of Mark as the oldest manuscripts end with this story. After the Sabbath is over, Mary Magdalene and other women visit the tomb with spices to complete Jesus’ burial, only to find the stone rolled back. One or two men – or angels – inform the women that although they seek Jesus of Nazareth, “he is not here for he has risen.”

After this, the gospels do not agree as to whether the women did not tell anyone (Mark) or told the disciples and were not believed (Luke). Matthew recounts an appearance of the risen Christ in Galilee but Luke reports all the appearances occurred in the Jerusalem area. The original ending (Jn 20) of John’s gospel only reports appearances in Jerusalem, but the later appendix (Jn 21) tells of the miraculous catch of fish in Galilee. There’s not much in the way of agreement other than the original empty tomb narrative and subsequent appearances of the risen Christ. Unlike the passion narrative where arrest precedes trial and crucifixion follows sentencing, there is no internal sequencing to the resurrection narratives; after the finding of the risen tomb, the individual episodes are free to appear in any order.

Pauline Confession

But we also have a resurrection account coming from Paul (1 Cor 15:3-8). Paul wrote to the Corinthians about 56 CE, but he says this statement of faith is something that he received, so presumably it came to him in his early days as a Christian (mid to late 30’s?). The core of the statement is four-fold: “that Christ died…that he was buried…that he was raised…and that he appeared”: [1] to Cephas (Peter), [2] the Twelve, [3] more than 500 at one time, [4] to James (the brother of Jesus), [5] all the apostles, and [6] finally to Paul.

Paul believes that his experience of the risen Christ was every bit as valid as those appearances to Peter and the others. He spends several verses (1 Cor 15:35-49) trying to distinguish between the physical body we have now and the spiritual body that will have after death. Just as the seed is different from the plant, so is our physical body different from our resurrected body. There do not appear to be many points of contact between the physical and the spiritual body according to Paul.

Resurrected Body or Resuscitated Corpse?

The evangelists, who did not experience the risen Christ themselves as Paul did, tried to straddle the fence. On the one hand, they wanted to show that the raised Jesus wasn’t a ghost so they described him eating food or allowing himself to be touched. But, on the other hand, he was transformed from his previous earthly existence, so the disciples were slow to recognize him or he suddenly appeared inside a locked room.

The key point the NT writers are trying to make is that the risen Christ is not the same as someone brought back from the dead like Lazarus. According to John, Lazarus was brought back from the dead and resumed his former life. At some later time, he would have died again. Jesus, on the other hand, was transformed into a different plane of existence. His spiritual body resembled his former physical body, but it was not bound to physical laws and he would not die again. Such is what Paul and the evangelists are trying to tell us.

Getting back to my question from thirty years ago, could you have taken photographs of the resurrected Christ? I still don’t think so. From the NT evidence, it seems the risen Jesus only appeared to believers, or to people like James and Paul who became believers as a result of the experience. If the Roman tribune Clavius had stumbled upon the disciples experiencing the risen Lord, I don’t think he would have seen anything.

So does this mean that a resurrection appearance was a vision? One is tempted to think of a vision that each person experienced internally, but if the risen Lord appeared to more than 500 of the brethren at once, that would have been one heck of a mass hallucination. Maybe a resurrected body is one of those things you can only see with the eyes of faith.

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.