|
|
Jesus Traditions |
The
reader’s patience is requested in the fact that these Jesus
pages are in effect a kind of sub-Web, “piggy-backing” on the
principal Web, http://www.paulonpaul.org,
and thus that the As Paul Tells It . .
. designation at the top of each page is not quite accurate.
The Jesus
Traditions Home Page is readily accessible by clicking on Contents,
to be found at the top and bottom of each page.
|
|
|
Contents
of Jesus Traditions
|
Addenda (6)
|
Addendum Q
|
Mark’s
Passion Narrative:
A Cautious Scenario
Return to Narratives (3)
|
| When we turn to the Gospel
of Mark, we find a significant pattern in the events leading to the death of Jesus.
Does this pattern fairly reflect events as they unfolded, or is it the
product of Mark or of his sources? Our findings here should have some bearing upon the question of
Jesus’ vocation, especially if we have under consideration the
hypothesis that Jesus accepted the task of the (suffering) Servant
of the Lord. We proceed here with caution, and we do so because
it seems prudent to avoid exceeding the limits imposed by our data if we
are to place some confidence in our conclusions. § We have three formulaic
predictions of the passion
(see below), together with several other passing references (Mark 10:38-39,
45; 12:1-9; 14:21-25), and accounts of
plots against his life (Mark 3:6; 12:12-13; 14:1-2,
10-11). The death of
Jesus does not come as a surprise to the reader. A clue to deciphering the
pattern is found in Mark 8:31, which speaks of the necessity
(Greek, dei) of his death.
|
|
Mark 8:31 |
Mark 9:31 |
Mark 10:33-34 |
|
Then [Jesus] began to teachthem that the Son of Man must [dei] undergo great suffering, and be
rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes,
and be killed, and after three days
rise again. |
For [Jesus] was teaching his disciples, saying to
them, “The Son of Man is to be betrayed [handed over]
into human hands,
and they will kill him, and three days after being
killed, he will rise again.” |
33[Jesus said,] “See, we are going up to
Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to
death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; 34they
will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him;
and after three days he will rise again.” |
|
|
§ In Mark 10:32 we are told of
the foreboding of the disciples, at the prospect of making the trip to
Jerusalem, not a surprising reaction in view of the previous predictions
of Jesus’ death. § There is
pre-arrangement of a colt for the triumphal entry, Mark 11:2.
§ In an action which is strangely
unmotivated—except that the chief priests agree to pay him for the deed—Judas agrees to betray
Jesus, Mark 14:10-11.
§ There is pre-arrangement for the
Passover meal, Mark 14:12-16.
§ Jesus predicts his betrayal, Mark 14:18-21. § Jesus
predicts Peter’s denial, and abandonment by the disciples, Mark 14:27-31.
§ Jesus announces that he is betrayed
[handed over] into the hands of sinners, Mark 14:41 (as in Mark
9:31 and 10:33). § At his arrest,
he offers no resistance, but announces that these things are happening in
order that the scriptures might be fulfilled, Mark 14:49. The
only point of some dramatic interest is the agony in the garden (Mark 14:32-42),
when Jesus for the last time looks for a way out of his suffering, and prays for
the cup to pass from him; but holds firm in a commitment to his
Father’s will (Mark 14:36).
|
This then is the pattern which emerges
in Mark: a divinely ordained scenario
which leads to Jesus’ death, with details of the action planned and
unfolding on cue, in fulfillment of scripture. All is foreknown, all is
predicted, all is pre-arranged. It all seems like a set piece, so
wooden and artificial. To be sure, this is not
blind determinism, but the belief that things
are not out of God’s control; he somehow knows and plans, even
the terrible suffering and death of Jesus.
|
|
We cannot exclude the possibility that the pattern discernible in Mark
may have been a more widespread view of the author’s community, and of
other Christian centers. While filled with a certain pathos, the Q lament over
Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37-39
|| Luke 13:34-35) reflects some of the same sense of divine
necessity which we have noted in Mark.
|
Matthew
23:37-39 |
|
Luke
13:31-35 |
|
|
31At
that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, “Get away from
here, for Herod wants to kill you.” 32[Jesus] said to
them, “Go and tell that fox for me, ‘Listen, I am casting out
demons and performing cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day
I finish my work. 33Yet today, tomorrow, and the next day
I must be on my way, because it is impossible for a prophet to be
killed outside of Jerusalem.’ |
|
37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city
that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!
How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen
gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! 38See,
your house is left to you, desolate. 39For I tell you,
you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is the one
who comes in the name of the Lord.’” [Q] |
|
34Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the
city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!
How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen
gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! 35See,
your house is left to you. And I tell you, you will not see me until
the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the
name of the Lord.’” [Q] |
We also note the destiny laden character of Luke’s preceding “time-table”
saying (13:31-33), which concludes
with the words, “because it is
impossible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem.”
|
The pattern of a
divinely ordained scenario is unmistakable, a pattern which probably
originates in post-Easter reflection upon the dread events leading to the
death of Jesus. Such a conclusion does not necessarily disqualify the
(suffering) Servant of the Lord hypothesis from consideration, but it
cautions us against the adoption of such a hypothesis without weighty
evidence.
|
The Unanswered Question
The analysis which has been offered above does not intended to address
all conceivable questions raised by the events leading to the death of
Jesus. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to ask: Why then did Jesus go to Jerusalem? Was
he unaware of the risk, or did he choose to ignore signs of danger? Did he
make the journey as a Passover pilgrim? Jesus was of course no formalist, nor was he a fool.
Our data may not be adequate to provide a satisfactory answer.
Click on Mark’s
Passion Narrative: An Alternative Scenario for a different kind of
attempt to
address this and related issues.
|
Return
to Narratives (3)
|
|
Addendum R
|
Mark’s Passion Narrative:
An Alternative Scenario
Return to Narratives (3)
|
Although we have good
methodological grounds for a cautious scenario, we cannot
because of the nature of our evidence rule out a riskier approach. It is
possible to read our texts in a more positive way, by asking different
questions. We pick up the line of interpretation which we introduced
earlier, at Baptism: An Alternative.
There we set out the hypothesis that Jesus was willing to accept a
vocation as Messiah, along the lines of the (suffering) Servant of the
Lord. Before we had gone very far, we found difficulties
with the Messiah part of the proposal, but we also found that it was not quite so easy to dismiss a vocation based upon the suffering
servant-inspired model.
|
COULD JESUS HAVE AVOIDED HIS DEATH?
We need to investigate the events leading up to his death, as a way of
testing this Servant of the Lord hypothesis. Was he the victim of a plot which he could not
avoid, or were real choices open to him, the consequences of which he
could see? We cannot be certain that each of the features of the narrative
is
grounded in fact, but there is cumulatively enough to indicate that Jesus
was not a hapless victim, but was choosing the outcome. These features
include:
§ His decision to travel to Jerusalem for
Passover. Jesus would probably have been safer if he had
remained in Galilee. Judging from the running controversy
with Jewish leaders, he could hardly have been unaware of how serious their
opposition was; they may
well have taken offence at his attitude toward Torah
(the Jewish Law), and may have been alarmed at his popular support.
So was there a compelling reason for him to fly in the face of prudence
and go to Jerusalem for Passover (or pesach)?
• If his mission was to proclaim the
Kingdom of God and preach repentance (Mark 1:15), why did that have
to be done in Jerusalem instead of Galilee?
• If we grant that Jesus might have
desired to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem with his disciples, not every one was obliged to do so in Jerusalem.
• If Jesus was no formalist, and no fool,
then what was it that drew him to
Jerusalem, overriding considerations of safety?
Rejoinder: ... on the contrary, what better time and place to make a maximum impact
with his Kingdom of God message, if not in Jerusalem, at Passover?
|
|
§ His choice of making his entrance
into Jerusalem a public occasion. The so-called triumphal entry (Mark 11:1-11 || Matthew 21:1-11
|| Luke 19:28-40), if historically
based, would have had an ambiguous meaning, signifying royal aspirations to some
people, and to others nothing more than a poor teacher getting a
ride on a donkey. But did his mission in Jerusalem require that he
call attention to his presence in this way? Could he not have entered the city quietly, without
compromising any principle? Was his dramatic entry then a way of declaring, “I’m here,
and what are you going to do about it?” If so, did he not care for his safety?
§ His decision to challenge the
establishment,
especially in disrupting Temple commerce
at the height of a busy pilgrimage season (Mark 11:15-18 || Matthew 21:12-17
|| Luke 19:45-48). We do not have any evidence that Jesus was
opposed to Temple worship as such, and he may have found it a means of
grace. When he saw that something needed to be done to allow an authentic
spirituality to thrive there, he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the religious establishment,
and the Sadducees in particular,
to participate in the reform of Judaism. This defiant gesture would surely have convinced the
establishment, if they still needed convincing, that Jesus had to be
silenced.
§ His willingness to include the traitor in
his Passover plans. Was there something in Judas’ shifty gaze or
body language that gave away his intended treachery? If
in some way Jesus did know of it, why would he
have permitted Judas to remain with the Twelve and participate in what
turned out to be the last supper? Was Jesus too nonchalant about his own
safety?
|
|
§ His failure to use opportunities to make his
escape, after he had observed Passover; and his refusal to resist arrest. If
Jesus knew of the impending treachery, why did he not take evasive
action? He could have made his way down to the Kidron Valley and
escaped along several different routes; instead, he crossed the
valley and proceeded up the Mount of Olives. If indeed it was his custom to go
here, as Luke indicates (22:39), he also had the option of finding
another place to be with his disciples. The acquiescence of Jesus in the
unfolding events is obvious, as much before his arrest as well as when it happened.
§ His reluctance to defend
himself at his trials. As skillful as he was in debates with Pharisees
and others, it is remarkable that he remained silent at the trial before
the Sanhedrin (or high council of the Jews), and at his trial before the Roman
procurator, Pilate. In fact, in the former case he willingly incriminated
himself; when he was asked, in Mark’s version of the proceedings, “Are
you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” he answered, “I am;
and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the
Power,’ and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven’” (Mark 14:61-62).
This answer was taken by the court as blasphemy, and deserving of death.
Upon being referred to the jurisdiction of Pilate, Jesus did little to
defend himself, responding enigmatically, “You say so,” when
Pilate asked him if he was the King of the Jews (Mark 15:2). (We do
not intend to prejudice the question of whether the Sanhedrin proceedings
were a formal trial, or a hearing of some sort.)
|
| Summary: Such evidence as we have yields a pattern
of events which suggests the answer: Yes, Jesus could have avoided his
death: there was no over-riding reason for him to go to Jerusalem
for Passover; having made the trip, he did not need to make a
dramatic entry; having visited the Temple, he could have used more
conciliatory means to bring about change; unless he was completely
“blind-sided” by Judas’ treachery, he could have taken evasive
action; and, if we can trust Mark’s report, Jesus was strangely
ineffective in defending himself at his trials.
We cannot of course be assured that Mark is an impartial
chronicler of events, but it is doubtful whether the author or his source
invented all of these events.
|
A Purposeful Death?
If Jesus could have avoided his death, can we discern a purpose in an
otherwise senseless and tragic end?
§ It is important not to overstate the
case for Jesus as (suffering) Servant of the Lord. We can probably do no better than to say that
the theme of vicarious suffering in certain sayings coheres
with a reasonable and purposeful death, even though the existence of a
purpose does not therefore authenticate these sayings:
Mark 10:45 For the Son of Man came not to be served
but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Mark 14:22-25 22While they were eating,
he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to
them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23Then he
took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them
drank from it. 24He said to them, “This is my blood of the
covenant, which is poured out for many. 25Truly I tell
you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when
I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
In the former passage, the servant theme is unmistakable;
in both passages the idea of vicarious suffering, while not developed into a theory of
atonement, is also unmistakable.
|
§
The oddness factor. When viewed with a certain
detachment, free from commonly held Christian presuppositions, the notion
of an otherwise reasonable and well adjusted person going intentionally to
his death for the sins of the world sounds an alien tone, distant from our
time and place. This factor may weigh unconsciously against a reader’s
readiness to acknowledge that Jesus could have been inspired and guided by
the servant model in Second Isaiah. §
Non-use by early Christians. As already noted, in Baptism: An Alternative,
the relevant texts in Isaiah 53 were, for some reason, virtually unused by
the early church in support of a theory of vicarious suffering to
understand the death of Jesus, the notable exception being 1 Corinthians
15:3, and the late first century 1 Peter 2:22 (click on Use
in New Testament). We have reason, therefore, to be less suspicious than in
other cases that the theology of the church has been read back into a text
such as Mark 10:45. §
A good match? One might make an argument for viewing
the death of Jesus as a brave statement of principle against Pharisaic
legalism; or as the hapless dream of an intrepid preacher of
God’s impending reign; or even as a tragic miscarriage of justice
without any meaning. But it is arguable that the suffering servant
hypothesis provides a good match with the events leading up to
his death—assuming that some at least of the details in Mark are
authentic. If in fact Pilate did release the terrorist Barabbas in place
of Jesus, it was a powerful metaphor for the expiatory significance of his
death, the innocent dying in place of the guilty.
|
Return
to Narratives (3)
|
| Revised
July 25, 2003
|
|
Contents
of Jesus Traditions
|
|
