INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE

Year B - Sixth Sunday In Lent

LITURGY OF THE PALMS

PSALM 118:1-2, 19-29. Undoubtedly this psalm was chosen to accompany the Liturgy of the Palms because it is a hymn of celebration and thanksgiving. It may have been used originally at the harvest festival of Sukkoth. In Jewish practice it is the last of the six Hallels (Pss. 113-118) which have found a significant place in the worship services of Judaism.

MARK 11:1-11. Jesus' entry into Jerusalem began the final ascent to the cross. Entering the city in a victory parade, a conquering king would ride a stallion; but this one comes on a borrowed donkey, a symbol of peace. This indicates his humility as well as his true messiahship. The ending is anticlimactic. The business between Jesus and the welcoming throng was unfinished. It was indeed. Our liturgies for Holy Week take us through his condemnation and crucifixion on Good Friday, Holy Saturday, the Easter Vigil and The Resurrection of our Lord on Easter.

JOHN 12:12-16. John's version of Jesus' triumphal entry covers much the same ground including the details that it was the crowds who greeted him. Only Luke tells us that disciples made up the multitude who rejoiced. (Luke 19:17) John continues his portrayal of the disciples not knowing what the celebration was all about until after the resurrection. Thus he links the entry with the Passion and Resurrection narratives as the glorifying of Jesus, the Word of God become flesh.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS - LITURGY OF THE PALMS

Christians too have no difficulty seeing it as reflecting the great drama of the Passion beginning with the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Indeed Mark quotes from vs. 26 in telling how the crowds received Jesus. Vs. 22 also became a favorite theme of the New Testament writers, occurring no less than six times. Vs. 23 may refer to the rebuilding of the temple by Nehemiah (6:16) which even Israel's enemies deemed that Yahweh had accomplished.

As pilgrims approached Jerusalem from the east, they descended the Mount of Olives to the Kidron Valley, then mounted a long stairway to the eastern gates of the Temple Mount. Because it was so sacred, the temple was protected on all sides by walls with strong gates that could be opened to admit worshipers as necessary. But only those who purified themselves by a ritual bath could enter the temple itself. Hence the references in vss. 19-20. The popular Christian anthem, "Open the Gates of the Temple" is based on these verses.

MARK 11:1-11. One cannot help but wonder if Mark included this pericope with a touch of irony. Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem began the final ascent to the cross. Hailed as the Messiah, he would soon be the victim of the fickle crowds' hateful cries, "Crucify him!"

Entering the city in a victory parade, a conquering king would ride a stallion; but this one comes on a borrowed donkey, a symbol of peace. Jesus appears to have deliberately set this up to indicate his humility and so exhibit the true nature of his messiahship. It would also seem that in this instance and in the arrangements for the Passover feast (14:12-16), Jesus had already negotiated with unnamed persons. Or so Mark would have us believe.

In a unique and speculative version of the triumphal entry and the cleansing of the temple, Bruce Chilton suggested that it occurred several months earlier at the annual celebration of Sukkoth (Festival of Booths or Tabernacles) rather than the spring. The waving of branches cut from trees along the wayside to form a festal plume to wave during the singing of the Hallel ( Heb. lubab) was an important part of the festival. (Chilton, Bruce. Rabbi JesusL An Intimate Biography. New York: Doubleday, 2000. 225ff.)

Another speculative proposal is that the donkey's colt belonged to Mark? A donkey would be a suitable beast of burden for a water carrier. The famous silver chalice of Antioch, now in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, has a highly decorative exterior lattice work in the form of a vine in which figures of the Gospel authors are seated and a simple cup enclosed. The chalice was found in the ruins of the great cathedral in Antioch. Tradition holds that the cup is the one used at the Last Supper. Thomas Costain's novel The Silver Chalice told the fictitious story of how the chalice came into existence. The figure representing Mark is that of a water carrier which may have been Mark's employment. (Cf. 14:13) Legend has it that the Upper Room belonged to Mark's mother. And were incidents of the young man who ran away naked from the Garden of Gethsemane (14:51) and also met the women at the empty tomb (16:5) also Mark's personal signature that he had been there too?

The ending of the entry into Jerusalem is anticlimactic. Jesus just went into the temple and looked around (11:11), then left for an overnight stay in Bethany, a hamlet on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives. That was where the home of Lazarus, Martha and Mary was located. The business between Jesus and the welcoming throng was unfinished. It is obvious, nonetheless, that Mark wrote of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem with the Jewish messianic tradition in mind. That tradition had been radically transformed by the apostolic interpretation of it and was rooted in the apostles' understanding of the words and deeds of Jesus himself. There was still much to tell, as Mark goes on to record. His Passion story takes us through the betrayal, condemnation, crucifixion and burial with the pathos of a great storyteller.

JOHN 12:12-16. John's version of Jesus' triumphal entry covers much the same ground including the details that it was the crowds who greeted him. Only Luke tells us that disciples made up the multitude who rejoiced. (Luke 19:17) John continues his portrayal of the disciples not knowing what the celebration was all about until after the resurrection. Thus he links the entry with the Passion and resurrection narratives as the glorifying of Jesus, the Word of God become flesh.

The quotations in this passage also give us the clue that the entry narratives reflect or may have been a post-resurrection midrash on Psalm 118:26 and the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9 possibly introduced by brief references to Zephaniah 3:16 and Isaiah 44:2. There is one small divergence from Mark's narrative in that it is Jesus himself who found the donkey to ride on. Any tourist who has walked down the Mount of Olives to the Kidron Valley and sat on the steps leading to the Golden Gate into the temple precincts, one has to wonder why a donkey was needed at all except to fulfill the scriptures. John seems to indicate this in vs. 16. Whatever its origin, the tradition remains and is still to be celebrated in the Liturgy of the Palms.

LITURGY OF THE PASSION.

ISAIAH 50:4-9. This is part of the third of four Servant Songs in Isaiah written during Israel's exile in Babylon. It clarifies the vocation of God's servant, but we are never sure whether that servant is all of Israel, God's people, or a single individual. God has given the servant the ability to hear and speak a word to sustain the weary. The servant has been faithful and obedient even though that meant suffering persecution. Yet the servant is confident and trusts God for vindication and deliverance. Jesus appears to have identified closely with this passage, especially the rejection and suffering of the servant.

PSALM 31:9-16. This psalm contains three laments, each referring to different groups of people. Verses 1-8 plead for protection against impending trouble; vss. 9-12 are the petition of one afflicted with disease; and vss. 13-16 voice the cry of one who is persecuted.

PHILIPPIANS 2:5-11. This early Christian hymn, perhaps composed by Paul himself, incorporates the earliest Christian creed: "Jesus is Lord." Christ is seen as the key figure in a divine drama in which he yields up his eternal existence with God and assumes human form. As an obedient servant he suffers the utmost shame of death by crucifixion in total contrast to the glory and honour of divinity before resuming his status as Lord of all.

MARK 14:1-15:47. Mark’s Passion Story consists of series of brief vignettes, something like quick changing scenes in a television drama. They give us a very clear picture of what may have happened during Jesus’ last days. Using the whole passage for preaching purposes may be difficult. However, the way the story is structured gives ample opportunity of dealing with each vignette as a separate entity and homiletic opportunity.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

ISAIAH 50:4-9. This is part of the third of four Servant Songs in Isaiah written during Israel's exile in Babylon. Just how much of this chapter should be included in the Servant Song is a moot question. While it helps to clarify the vocation of God's servant, we are never sure whether that servant is all of Israel, God's people, or a single individual. We can be certain, however, that the servant was not originally intended to be associated with the messianic king of David's royal line who would deliver Israel from oppression. H.H. Rowley pointed out conclusively in his masterful discussion of the issue in The Servant of the Lord (1952) that there is no evidence that these two concepts were related before the beginning of the Christian era.

Note that the word "servant" does not appear in this passage, yet scholars have consistently treated it was one of the Servant Songs. Furthermore, the servant in this song is clearly recognizable as an individual. God has given the servant the role of a teacher with ability to hear and speak a word to sustain weary disciples (vs. 4). The servant has been faithful and obedient even though that meant suffering persecution (vs. 5) Yet the servant is confident and trusts God for vindication and deliverance (vss.7-9)

Jesus appears to have identified closely with this passage, especially the rejection and suffering of the servant. James Muilenberg wrote in the introduction to Isaiah 40-66 in The Interpreter's Bible, (V, 413): "It is on the foundation of Second Isaiah's eschatological poems that the authors of the Gospels write their accounts of Jesus of Nazareth." The Passion story can be seen as a midrash on the Servant Songs, especially the fourth of these, Isa. 52:12-53:12.

The Gospel writers knew, as we also know, how the Passion story ended. The crucifixion and death of Jesus were not the whole story. Their only scriptures were those of their Hebrew tradition, including the Book of Isaiah. From the numerous quotations from Second Isaiah found in the Gospels, beginning with Mark 1:1-3, the resurrection and living presence of Christ could only be understood in the light of that theological tradition. Mark also believed the apostolic teaching that in Jesus Christ God had acted in a dramatic new way to extend salvation to all who heard and responded to their proclamation of the Good News. Thus they would see in the Servant Songs the essential ministry of vicarious and redemptive suffering which Jesus had fulfilled by his life, death and resurrection. That being so, one can see this third song as the basis for the strengthening of Jesus' determination to face his betrayal, trial and crucifixion as told by Mark in his version of the Passion, especially 14:26-42.

PSALM 31:9-16. This psalm contains three laments, each referring to different groups of people. Vss. 1-8 plead for protection against impending trouble; vss. 9-12 are the petition of one afflicted with disease; and vss. 13-16 voice the cry of one who is persecuted. Although these laments have no direct connection with the reading from Second Isaiah or with the Passion story, they do create a mood of sorrow and grief which both engender.

We tend to regard crucifixion from a very different perspective than those who actually witnessed it. The Romans had adopted this means of capital punishment from the Phoenicians and the Persians. It was a particularly cruel form of execution involving great suffering and public humiliation. The Romans reserved it for the execution of slaves and foreigners, especially those who had committed robbery or sedition. It was intended to deter those who witnessed it from further crimes, and as a means of suppressing any disruption of public order. More than likely, the scorn heaped upon the executed villains as they suffered a torturous death was the means many used to counter the horror. Did Mark have this in mind as he wrote of Jesus' crucifixion (Ps. 31:11 cf. Mark 15:29-32)? No wonder the disciples had fled the scene leaving the women to mourn (Mark 15:40-41).

PHILIPPIANS 2:5-11. This early Christian hymn may well have been composed by Paul himself. Yet nowhere else in all his letters does he rise to such eloquence of speech or give such a clear definition of how the apostolic church understood the Jesus story.

As a rabbinical student in Jerusalem before his conversion Paul would have heard of three significant elements of this song: Its lyrical form was similar to the great Levitical hymns of the temple. The apostolic story of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus was a personal concern of his teacher, Rabbi Gamaliel. The humble poverty of the Christian community was well known too, made up as it was predominately of Galileans and the lower classes with few men and women of prominence among them.

In carefully constructed Greek words and phrases, the Christ is seen as the key figure in a divine drama in which he yields up his co-existence with God, assumes human form and suffers the humiliation of death by crucifixion. Those who have difficulty understanding whether or not Jesus was divine have only to consider Paul's statement about his true nature. The word huparchein (translated as "being") described the very inner nature or essence of a person. Of this word William Barclay wrote: "It describes the innate, unchangeable, unalterable characteristics and abilities of a man which, in spite of all the chances and the changes, and in any circumstances, remains the same." (The Letter to the Corinthians: Daily Bible Readings. 1957, 43.) Coupled with that was the Greek word for "form." In this case, morph‚ was used rather than schema. Morph‚ referred to the essential form as opposed to the outward form (schema) that continually changed. So Jesus' unchangeable nature was divine.

At the same time, Paul said, Jesus did not think that his divinity "was something to be exploited" as the NSRV puts it. Again the Greek word is beautifully descriptive. Harpagmos comes from the verb which means "to snatch" or "to clutch." Either English word would fit the situation. As Barclay points out, either he had no need to snatch at equality with God; or he did not need to clutch it, "as if to hug it jealously to himself. And to refuse to let it go." On the contrary, Paul says in amazement, Jesus gave it all up, humiliating himself as a slave obedient to the point of suffering the utmost shame of crucifixion in total contrast to the glory and honour of divinity. Barclay again: "There is no passage in the whole New Testament which so movingly sets out the utter reality of the godhead and the manhood of Jesus Christ, and which makes so vivid the inconceivable sacrifice that Christ made when he laid aside his godhead and took manhood upon him. How it happened we cannot tell. The end is mystery, but it is the mystery of a love so great that we can never fully understand it, although we can blessedly experience it and adore it."

The hymn does not end there however. It goes on to sing of the exaltation of Jesus to the place of glorious sovereignty with God where heavenly and earthly worship is offered to him as to God.

The confession 'Jesus is Lord" is at once the earliest Christian creed and an acknowledgment of Jesus' divinity and sovereignty. Paul used that designation only three times in his letters and each time with worshipful sincerity and awe. The other two are found in Romans 10:9 and 1 Corinthians 12:3. This was said to be the essential confession each convert repeated at baptism. All the Philippians had made this same confession. All later creeds of the Christian church derived from it. There was - and is - nothing more that needs to be said as a statement of faith.

For Paul, and for the Philippians too, this would have been the utmost in civil disobedience and high treason. In those times the only person for whom this could be said was Caesar himself. “Caesar is Lord” was the oath taken by every Roman citizen. For all time, this confession “Jesus is Lord” commits the one who says it sincerely to a life in which Jesus reigns supreme and so lives day by day to fulfill the will and purpose of God.

MARK 14:1-15:47. Mark’s Passion Story consists of series of brief vignettes, similar to quick changing scenes in a television drama. They give us a very dramatic picture of what may have happened during Jesus’ last days. Using the whole passage for preaching purposes may be difficult. However, the way the story is structured gives ample opportunity of dealing with each vignette as a separate entity and homiletic opportunity.

Vss. 1-10 tell of the anointing of Jesus by an unnamed woman, mistakenly identified as Mary Magdalene, because of an erroneous attribution of Luke 7:36-50. John 12:1-8 specifically identifies Mary of Bethany as the woman. Note that both pericopes locate the incident in Bethany but at different times and circumstances. Each author had his own reasons, now unknown to us, for telling the story in this way.

According to Mark 14:12, preparations for the feast of Passover took place on the first day of Unleavened Bread, the same day when the Passover lamb was slaughtered and sacrificed (i.e. 15 Nisan). Matthew and Luke follow this chronology, but John placed the last supper and the crucifixion both occurred on “the day of Preparation,” the eve of the Passover (John 18:28; 19:14). The discrepancy is unsolvable, but so are many of the distinctive chronologies of John’s Gospel.

Three separate pericopes present Mark’s version of the preparations for and the institution of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The first (vss. 12-16) reveals Jesus’ intention of celebrating the Passover with his disciples and that he had made prior plans to do so. In the second (vss. 17-21) Jesus distresses the fellowship by telling them of his imminent betrayal, but he does not identify which one of them will actually do it. The third pericope presents very briefly the act of sharing of bread and cup which were to become the basic elements of the sacrament. Ancient texts vary as to whether the words of institution included reference to the “new” covenant (14:24) as Paul did in 1 Corinthians 11:25.

Vss. 26-31 have greater import than a transition from the Upper Room to the Garden of Gethsemane. Mark attributes Jesus as prophesying that the disciples would all desert him, quoting from Zechariah 13:7. He added a word that after his resurrection he would go before them to Galilee, inferring that he would meet them there. Peter naturally objected to the initial and worst part of the prophecy. He swore that he would never desert Jesus and received the rebuke that he would go so far as to deny Jesus. Peter objected vehemently, as did the others, thus heightening the dramatic tension of Mark’s narrative.

The scene in Gethsemane (14:32-42) provide a further intensification of the suffering Jesus endured. So much so that one scholar offered the suggestion to a class of seminarians that the suffering of Gethsemane, being essential moral and spiritual, was greater than the physical pain of the crucifixion. This comment enraged some of his more materialistically minded students while others nodded their heads in silent agreement.

Standing in the traditional site of Gethsemane at the foot of the Mount of Olives, one can wonder why in the darkness of night Jesus could not have easily escape through the trees and up the slope of the mountain to the safety of his friends’ home in Bethany or into the wilderness of Judea close by. In other words, it was not only the disciples who were tempted but failed to follow Jesus’ instructions to stay awake (vs. 34, 36, 40). Indeed, Jesus made an issue of their drowsing and in doing so acknowledged his own spiritual struggle to stay alive while knowing full well that death was imminent. He intensely desired to escape the inevitable doom that awaited him should he be captured. In simple but powerful words Mark described his final acceptance of the suffering God’s purpose imposed on him. With a sharp word, “Enough!” to waken the disciples, he announced he arrival of his betrayer.

But where was Gethsemane? The traditional site shown to tourists was developed for pilgrimages during the Middle Ages. In 1995, a New Zealand scholar, Joan E. Taylor, wrote a detailed discussion that the actual place called Gethsemane was a cave which is known to have been visited by pilgrims from the 4^th to the 12^th centuries as the site where Jesus and the disciples went after the Last Supper. This large cave 36 by 60 feet, not far from the traditional site, had been used as a place where olives were pressed and stored. Taylor further asserted that Gethsemane is a Greek adaptation of the Aramaic word Gat-shemanim, which means “an olive press.” She claimed that it would have been entirely possible for Jesus and the disciples to have sheltered there during their stay in Jerusalem during the Passover festival when thousands of other pilgrims had filled every available lodging. Today, the cave has become a much changed as a tourist site with two altars. (Biblical Archeology Review. 21:04, July-August 1995.)

At last Mark identifies the betrayer, Judas, one of the twelve. (14:34) He did not come alone, but with a well-armed crowd and a pre-arranged plan of betrayal. It seems strange that after all that gone on in the previous few days that many of the crowd, especially among those who were in league with the chief priests, scribes and elders, would not have recognized Jesus. The kiss of the betrayer and the enthusiastic greeting seem more of a touch for dramatic emphasis by the storyteller. The irony of Jesus’ retort to Judas’ greeting is palpable as is the terrified flight of the other disciples.

Vs. 51 deserves a special note. Is this Mark’s own signature? When linked with mention of the water-carrier (14:13-14) and the young man in white at the empty tomb (16:5), it is an enticing to imagine that this is evidence Mark’s own personal story. He was there at all three moments. Writing thirty or forty years later, the events and scenes were still vivid in his memory. But this is pure speculation.

Jesus’ trial before the High Priest has been described as “the Jewish trial” in contrast to “the Roman trial” before Pilate in ch. 15. While Mark does tend to shift blame for the crucifixion to the Jewish religious leaders, this trial (14:53-65) was more likely a preliminary hearing before high priest (Caiaphas) and his entourage than a formal trial before the whole Sandhedrin. They were the ones who wished to get rid of this imposter, as they regarded Jesus. On the other hand, Mark does insist that “the chief priests and the whole council were looking for testimony against Jesus.” (vs. 55) It seems unreasonable, however, that the Sanhedrin would have been summoned to a formal session at night during the Passover festival. False testimonies which did not agree (vss. 58-59) and Jesus’ own silence were insufficient to convict the prisoner until he was challenged directly to declare whether or not he was the Messiah (vs. 61).

The high priest’s challenge and Jesus’ answer form what is more likely to have been a statement of Mark’s Christology than an actual account of the proceedings. The specific titles used by the high priest, “the Messiah” and “Son of the Blessed” were Jewish honorifics, but technically speaking not blasphemy in the Old Testament sense of that crime. Rather, they represent a Hellenistic style of identifying Jesus with God as in John 10:33. Nonetheless, Mark describes the conviction meted out as blasphemy. This condemnation deserved death in the eyes of all present. Their reactions only served to emphasize their hatred. But was it more fear than rage? After all, if he truly was the Messiah, their power and influence would have ended instantly.

Peter’s denial has been a favourite preaching text for many centuries. Some might presume that it is a Petrine reminiscence, but others regard it as more stylized than a personal account. Peter’s linguistic difficulty on the first challenge by the high priest’s servant girl (vs. 66-68) could have been real because Galilean and Judean dialects and accents of Aramaic were different. The girl’s second challenge in the presence of bystanders in the outer courtyard had greater impact (vs. 71). The final blow came when the bystanders again charged that Peter was a follower of Jesus, hence Peter’s curse. The sound of the second crowing of the cock brought Peter to his senses as he recalled what Jesus had said he would do just a short time earlier.

Ch. 15 begins with a puzzling statement, as if the whole Sanhedrin had not already met (14:55). This confirms the presumption that the first condemnation (14:64) had been made by a limited group whom the chief priest had hurriedly assembled. The use of the word “consultation” may imply that not all were agreed with the earlier judgment, but were powerless to change the decision.

Mark’s narration becomes very sparse at this point. Preachers tend to elaborate it with details drawn from Passion narratives in the other gospels. Mark’s one special revelation is Pilate’s realization that jealousy motivated the chief priests (15:10). Pilate appears as the extreme appeaser. He had a reputation for brutality and one Jew executed was as good as another. Hence the summary trial and his effort to keep the aroused mob at bay. It matter little to him that Jesus’ own religious leaders were so adamant that he hand down the death penalty.

The Roman Catholic tradition claims that the Stations of the Cross date from earliest times and were firmly established as a goal for pilgrims to Jerusalem in the 4^th century reign of Constantine. Not until the 16^th century did the name Via Dolorosa come into common use. Possibly it was Constantine’s mother, St. Helena, who first laid out some kind of progression for pilgrimages to the supposed sites of various Passion events, now numbering fourteen and ending at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Mark includes very few of those still cited as devotional stations in Roman Catholic churches, chapel and monasteries.

Jerome Murphy-O’Connor has shown that the actual condemnation and journey to Golgotha probably took place on the western side of the city. Pilate was likely staying in Herod’s Palace where the praetorium was located, not at the Antonia Fortress at the north end of the Temple Mount where the traditional Via Dolorosa begins. (Bible Review, “The Geography of Faith: Tracing the Via Delorosa.” 12:06 December 1996).

Mark makes the mockery of Jesus by the Roman cohort almost as compelling as the act of crucifixion itself (vss. 16-20). Could he have been thinking of Isaiah 53:3? The incident had but one intent: to humiliate the man understood to be King of the Jews. One wonders if the text from Deutero-Isaiah mandated more than the public scourging Pilate had already ordered.

And why does Mark name Simon of Cyrene, the passerby picked from the crowd to carry the cross? One can only presume that he was known to Mark’s audience and so further identified as “the father of Alexander and Rufus.” They likely were members of the congregation for whom the Passion narrative was first composed. (Cf. Romans 16:13) Scholars from the school of source criticism firmly believe that the several Passion narratives came into existence about 50 CE and circulated separately, in both oral and written form, before the full gospels appeared.

The scene at Golgotha has been vividly displayed many, many times in art and in movies, most recently in Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of Christ. During the 1880s, General Gordon discovered a rocky hillside shaped like a skull outside the gates of the ancient walls of Jerusalem. In time under the sponsorship of a British charity, The Garden Tomb became a favoured alternate site of the crucifixion and burial place in a beautiful garden close by. Today it rivals the traditional site as a tourist attraction. An actual sepulchre is featured there as the possible burial place of Jesus.

It is easy for preachers and congregations alike to recall those images far more than Mark’s actual text even while reading or listening to it. The sparseness of the scripture, however, elicits as much as or more pathos than any artifact or picture.

A six year old schoolboy became instantly terrified and ran back to the shelter of the family car when he stared into the hideously cruel face of a Roman soldier depicted by a larger than life cast of the crucifixion in an outdoor Stations of the Cross beside a Quebec orphanage. The memory remains after more than seventy years. The soldier held a huge hammer poised to strike a nail into Jesus’ hand. Mark’s description (15:23) of the soldiers offering Jesus wine mixed with myrrh, a common analgesic of the time, belies that crude sculpture.

The haunting derision of the crowds and the perpetrators of Jesus’ condemnation (vss. 29-32) has all the violence of a 21^st century mob shouting curses at those who published cartoons of the prophet Mohammed perceived as blasphemous.

Exactly what significance should be attached to the cry of dereliction in vs. 34? A number of years ago, a theological essay presented the thesis that Jesus in that moment indeed felt totally isolated from God. Was he actually abandoned by God to death? Was this the moment when he descended into hell as the later creedal formula stated? Later exegesis and scriptural references held that Jesus had to die and be totally excluded from God’s presence in order that pre-Christian saints might be rescued from eternal death. (Cf. Rev. 1:18; Heb. 2:14; 1 Pet. 4:6). A less controversial exegesis points to Ps. 22:1 as the origin of this “word from the cross.”

Translations and versions of vs. 39 differ as to the exact article (“a” or “the”) preceding the phrase “son of God.” The debate has theological significance for many. Perhaps the focus should be on the centurion and not on the crucified. Was he impressed by the loud cry the dying man emitted and interpreted it as a triumphant cry of victory? Whatever modern fiction or religious sentimentality may have made of the incident, as a non-theological pagan, the soldier could only regard his victim as a divine hero and not “the Son of God.” On the other hand, perhaps Mark too had already accepted the developing of creedal statements about Jesus (cf. Luke 17:5-6; John 20:28; Acts 9:10-11; 1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11).

In the remaining scenes of Mark’s Passion story, three Galilean women have primacy of place along with Joseph of Arimathea. The women were witnesses to the crucifixion while the male disciples had long since disappeared (cf. John 19:25-27). They also witnessed the burial and they were the first to learn of the empty tomb. Mark’s may well have given them such prominence to signal that they had been the source of his information, or at least confirmation of the events he described.

The presence of Joseph of Arimathea leads to a different possibility. Prof. J.R. Donahue, S.J., of Vanderbilt University Divinity School, noted that Mark’s Passion traditions became a passion theology or an affirmation in faith that the lowly one was the Messiah. The way of discipleship is the way of the Cross and that the small band who wait in Galilee will be ‘the temple not made with hands’ (14:58). (Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. V, 643-645) Other scholars have questioned that the incidents related in this narrative all derived from oral traditions circulating for a generation before being written into Mark’s Gospel. The pattern behind the story is very similar to that of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. The burial scene (15:42-47) has its type in Isaiah 53:9 “They made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich.”

John Dominic Crossan, on the other hand, has proposed an even more radical solution to the question of the sources behind Mark’s Passion narrative. (Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus. HarperCollins 1995.) Crossan does believe that some of the events narrated in Mark’s Passion, i.e the crucifixion, did happen. He goes further to claim that an earlier, independent source existed prior to and was used by Mark and the other canonical gospels. He claims that this narrative is still discernible in the Gospel of Peter. (See The Complete Gospels. Robert J. Miller, ed. Polebridge Press, 1992.) Only a fragment of this gospel dating from the late 2^nd or early 3^rd century has so far been discovered. Nonetheless, “scriptural memory” of several Old Testament references may well lie behind the Passion narrative. Crossan calls this “prophecy historicized” rather than “history remembered” in a “Cross Gospel” used by Mark. Specific elements of the story Crossan finds in Psalm 2, prophecies of Isaiah and Zechariah, a scapegoat ritual, and instructions for the burial of a criminal in Deuteronomy 21:22-23.

Geza Vermes, professor emeritus of Jewish Studies at Oxford University has published a more recent intensive study of the Passion narratives (The Passion. Penguin Books, 2005). He presented a detailed analysis of the four Gospel narratives and other New Testament accounts. He also compared these to references to the event outside the scriptures. Finally, he summarized in 12 points what he believes actually happened on that momentous day nearly 2000 years ago. He concluded his study with an epilogue defining the role of the four key figures in the narrative: The Jews, Caiaphas, Pilate and Jesus.

This interpretation will not satisfy and may even enrage those whose faith depends on a literal or historical view of the Passion. This alternative thesis is for those who are prepared to look beyond the words of the New Testament canon to the religious literature of the Jewish people which formed the Holy Scriptures for the early Christians. Such an imaginative reconstruction based in part on actual events and on scriptural references and allusions only adds to the lure of the Passion story for those who wish to search for deeper insight.

-30-