Essay I
Luke’s Portrayal of the Passion by Mercedes Downer
In each of the synoptic Gospels, the portrayals of the events right before the crucifixion and ending with the crucifixion are all uniquely different. Matthew portrays Jesus’ death as an apocalyptic event and Mark ties Jesus death and resurrection into God’s divine plan with his death lying at the core of the salvific plan (Evans 2006). Specifically, Luke’s portrait of Jesus’ passion draws upon Greek and Roman “noble death” literary styles that can also be referenced as the “noble death traditions” to portray Jesus as a philosopher and martyr. Before diving deeper into the literary styles, one must be familiar with the summary of the passage under examination, Luke 22:39-23:56.
At the start of the Gospel passage, Jesus went up to the Mount of Olives and his disciples followed him. He then withdrew from his disciples about a short distance and knelt down and began to pray. Jesus prayed, ‘Father, if you are willing, remove this chalice from me; nevertheless not my will but yours, be done.’ (Lk 22:42). When Jesus was finished praying he retreated back to the disciples and found them sleeping from grief they had experienced. While Jesus was still addressing the disciples, a crowd approached him and the disciples. One of the disciples named Judas; approached Jesus to kiss him but Jesus said to him, ‘Judas, is it with a kiss that you are betraying the Son of Man?’(Lk 22:48). A fight broke out and ended with a slave getting their ear cut off. Jesus yelled and demanded that there would be no more of this and healed the slave’s ear. The elders arrest Jesus and take him away. Peter Denies Jesus 3 times claiming he didn’t know him while Jesus is being taken away.
When it was time for his trial, the elders of the people, both of the chief priests and scribes gathered together, and they brought him to their council. They all found him guilty and brought Jesus to Pontius Pilate. The assembly from the council explained to Pilate that Jesus had been claiming that he is the Messiah and saying that Jesus is a false prophet. Pilate directly asks Jesus if he is the king of the Jews and all Jesus’ reply is ‘you say so’ (Lk 23:3) Pilate doesn’t find any basis for an accusation against Jesus so he sent Jesus to Herod because he was under Herod’s jurisdiction. Herod questioned Jesus and could not find reason to convict him and sends him back to Pilate, who under pressure from the Jewish priests and crowds, eventually convicts Jesus. While Jesus was hanging on the cross, one of the criminals confessed that he had been condemned justly and he deserved his punishment but claims that Jesus had done nothing wrong. After many excruciating hours, Jesus cries with a loud voice ‘Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.’ (Lk 23:46). He took one last breath and died. One of the guards admitted that Jesus was innocent.
In the journal article titled “Mors Philosophi: The Death of Jesus in Luke” by Greg Sterling he discusses the literary silhouette of the “noble death tradition”. The “noble death tradition” was an idea that “it was not acceptable for a hero-much less a figure accorded to divine honors- to demonstrate anxiety in the face of death” (Sterling 2001). This idea of a “noble death” was captivating to the ancient Greeks and Romans. In the Hellenistic period, it developed into a new tradition where individuals would collect many accounts of deaths of significant individuals. A lot of these collections consisted of Socrates’ death as a model. There was a pattern that these deaths all had in common. Sterling offers three examples from three separate authors of accounts of deaths of noble men that are similar to that of Socrates’ death and links these same “noble death traditions” that were used in the Gospel of Luke.
The first author was a Greek author named Plutarch. Sterling comments that he certainly knew and used these Socratic traditions. One of the Socratic inspirations used in his story of Cato’s death is that “Plutarch tells us that Cato calmed his friends” and that “he adds that he refused their efforts to save him (Sterling 2001). Another Greek author named Lucian drew on Socratic tradition when relating the trial of Demonax (Sterling 2001). The charges that were charged against Demonax were similar to that of Socrates.
Lastly, there was Tacitus who was a Roman author and according to Sterling, combined the Socratic tradition with the noble death tradition to highlight Stoic opposition to the Caesars. There are two specific examples that combine these literary traditions. Specifically in the story of Seneca, he “maintained a placid demeanor throughout his ordeal; he also consoled his friends and wife just as Socrates had done with Xanthippe and their children” (Sterling 2001). The second, according to Sterling, the most impressive, example is in the account of the death of Thrasea Paetus, who was another Stoic philosopher. In the final hours of Thrasea’s death he spent it “discussing the nature of the soul and the separation of the spirit from the body just as Socrates had does in Phaedo (Sterling 2001). In summary, patterns that follow a Socratic tradition and is used commonly in a “noble death tradition” contain the hero calms their friends or loved ones, are trialed like Socrates, who was trialed unjustly for impiety, and discusses or mentions the nature of the soul and separation of the spirit from the body.
The Greeks and Romans were not the only ones who used “noble death” literacy devices. In Jewish literature there were tons deaths of Jewish martyrs recorded. Although scholars debate whether they are called “martyrs” (Sterling 2001), they definitely have hints of Socratic tradition even if it isn’t actually titled that. For example, the author in 2 Maccabees in the Hebrew bible uses this “noble death” literacy device in the account of the death of seven brothers and their mother (Sterling 2001). They were tortured to death one by one for refusing to eat food forbidden by Jewish law.
These “noble death traditions” were largely present in the New Testament and in the Gospel of Luke. Sterling says that some scholars say that Luke used the model of a Jewish martyr for his passion narrative (Sterling 2001). There were three elements of that Luke used for his passion narrative that follow this model and also the model of the “noble death traditions” was the calmness Jesus had while he prayed at the Mount of Olives before his arrest and crucifixion and right before his death. Secondly was the death of an innocent man. Lastly, is the discussion of the separation of the spirit and the body at the moment of Jesus’ death.
Sterling wasn’t the only author of journal articles that viewed look having these “noble death traditions”. In “Exitus Clari Viri: The Death of Jesus in Luke” by John S. Kloppenborg. Kloppenborg discusses how Luke “displays perhaps the greatest awareness of the sensibilities of Greek and Roman culture” (Kloppenborg 1992). To support his thesis, he used many examples but two that are relative specifically to the Gospel that is under review is how he was trialed and the way Jesus carried himself during his last hours.
Multiple times Luke notes that Jesus was not executed under the Roman rule. Kloppenberg notes that “according to Luke, Rome’s interests in taxation and security were never threatened, at least by Jesus” (Kloppenborg 1992). Three times Pontius Pilate declared Jesus’ innocence; a centurion and also the criminal who was crucified with Jesus make a similar reference (Kloppenborg 1992).This is the same point that Sterling was making as well; Jesus was trialed innocently, just like Socrates, so anyone from who recognizes Greek and Roman literature would be able to identify that Jesus was dying a noble death.
Kloppenborg also touches on “perhaps the most distinctive in Greco-Roman accounts of heroic deaths is the amount of attention paid to the ars moriendi – the way the hero dies” (Kloppenborg 1992). In Phaedo, the work stresses Socrates’ composure (Kloppenborg 1992). Socrates had reprimanded his friends for having grief for his death. (Kloppenborg 1992). Socrates was ready to die. Kloppenborg states that Luke’s editing of Mark reveals some of the same interests and omits any reference to Jesus’ grief and that “in Stoicism, grief was one of the four classes of passion, and was described as torturing and corroding of the soul”. There were two other significant instances Kloppenborg mentions where Luke changes Mark’s version of the narrative. The first is that Mark says that Jesus ‘fell on the ground and prayed’ (Mk 14:35). Luke changed it to ‘and kneeling, he prayed’ (Lk 22:41) (Kloppenborg 1992). The second instance is changing Mark’s ‘if it is possible’ (Mk 14:35) to ‘Father, if you will’ (Lk 22:42) (Kloppenborg 1992). Kloppenborg makes the point that the way in how Jesus began to pray and what he prayed in Luke illustrates Jesus while still calm, knowing his death is coming, is still being obedient to the divine will.
After reading through the journal articles discussed above and learning the history of the crucifixions, what a martyr is and the death of Christ from the New interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. The points that both authors address are valid and I think their thesis is strengthened even more after reading the ideas that are discussed in the New interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Two reasons that add to why both articles had such strong thesis’ and strengthens them even more is there are references from accounts in the Hebrew bible, for example, 2 Samuel and 2 Maccabees, were similar to that of the accounts in Luke’s Gospel and the historical reasoning for crucifixion and the reason why the Romans used crucifixion.
First, there were many accounts in the Hebrew bible that were shockingly identical to that of Luke’s Gospel. For example, Luke referencing Judas going to give Jesus a kiss on the cheek right before he betrayed him would have been easily recognized by any Jew who was familiar with the Hebrew bible. This account in Lk 23:47 are identical to 2 Sam 20:9. In 2 Samuel Joab and Amasa while greeting his brother and asking him how he was. Amasa, without realizing it when Joab went to grab his beard and kiss him Joab had a knife and while kissing him he stabbed and killed him. This reference in Luke portrays not only Luke’s attempt to appeal to not just the Greek and Roman audience but the Jewish audience as well. They would have been able to recognize the cultural reference and identify that Jesus had been betrayed by one of his brothers.
Another account from the Hebrew bible that was mentioned by Sterling and reflects the same Greco-Roman “noble death traditions” was a Jewish “martyr” story with the seven brothers and mother dying for refusing to eat food that was forbidden by the Jewish law. In “Martyr” by Marianne Blickenstaff, She explained that the family had “belief that they would be rewarded in the afterlife” (Blickenstaff 2008). Jesus knew that by his martyrdom, humanity could be rewarded in afterlife. The significance of this is the link between Jewish literature traditions and Luke’s Gospel having the same essence as these references from the Hebrew bible. Luke had to have known these literary devices when writing the Gospel.
Surprisingly, Crucifixion was performed by many long before the Romans. According to “Crucifixion” by Craig A. Evans, “Jewish authorities before the Roman period also practiced crucifixion” (Evans 2006). The Jewish often crucified those who opposed Jewish Law. However, for the Romans crucifixions were “primarily reserved for murderous or rebellious slaves” (Evans 2006). They used it as a deterrent and a threat that portrayed the picture of what would happen if you didn’t follow the ruler. In “Death of Christ” by Joel B. Green, he said that crucifixions demonstrated Roman intolerance of attempts at rebellion. However, Luke portrays Pilate finding Jesus innocent 3 times before he was actually condemned to death. So if the Romans only crucified those who were rebellious or murderous slaves and Pontius Pilate was the Roman Ruler who found him innocent but Jesus was crucified anyway, Luke would have known this pattern of Jesus’ life was significantly similar to that of not only Socrates, but all of the other “noble death traditions” and Luke knew that if he wrote it in the way that he did, the audience that he intended it to be written for would have noticed the literary device he was using.
In summary, I agree with what the articles were highlighting in their thesis. It is hard to ignore the way Luke wrote the passion narrative and not recognize the difference that it has compared to the Gospel of Mark. It is also apparent that the pattern that the Gospel of Luke has with many other collections of these “noble death” narratives. It is obvious that Luke had definitely used some of the Greco-Roman techniques.
This paper was extremely enjoyable to research and write. I have a newfound appreciation for not only the Gospels and the way they are written but also an appreciation for the Greco-Roman literature. A few things that have been enlightening was discovering how these the Greek and Roman styles of writing have developed and how these styles of writing have transferred over to the Gospel writer’s techniques. It feels like a whole new world has been unveiled and it is amazing to be able to identify these techniques and put myself in Luke’s position when he was figuring out how to write the Gospel to appeal to the audience he wanted to reach out to and reach out to them in a way that they could not just understand but understand the concept and believe in this concept that Luke was depicting in the passion narrative.
Bibliography
Evans, Craig A. “Crucifixion.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 1, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 806-807. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006.
Green, Joel B. “Death of Christ.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 69-74. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007. (sections A; B.1)
Blickenstaff, Marianne. “Martyr.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 3, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 822-823. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2008.
Kloppenborg, John. “Exitus clari viri: The Death of Jesus in Luke.” Toronto Journal of Theology 8 (1992) 106–20.
Sterling, Greg. “Mors philosophi: The Death of Jesus in Luke.” Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001): 383-402.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Essay II
Connor Belisle
REL 317
Essay Review
David M. Reis
Passion
The story of Jesus and his crucifixion is widely known and presents itself in a recognizable format: Jesus is betrayed, he is convicted, put to death by the cross, buried, and lastly resurrected. Even though this story is popular, many people do not realize that each Gospel explains the death of Jesus differently. All of the four Gospels add and subtract from the materials that they have used alluding to their own political or apologetic agenda. Luke’s passion, in particular, uses the agenda that Jesus was innocent (White 2010) and adds multiple elements to his narrative that is not found in any of the other three gospels. The passion narrative of Luke starts in chapter 22 when Jesus goes to the Mount of Olives to pray. Upon returning he finds his disciples’ sleeping right before Judas was planning on betraying Jesus “with a kiss”. Before Judas could kiss Jesus, Jesus said “Judas, is it with a kiss that you are betraying the Son if Man?” making Jesus look like the messiah that Luke was projecting because Jesus predicts the betrayal. After this moment, Jesus is arrested and tried before the elders where he was convicted of blasphemy in proclaiming himself as the messiah. Luke does a great job of making Jesus appear innocent in this scene as the claims brought up against Jesus seem forced and harsh. From there, Jesus is sent to Pilate who finds him innocent and sends Jesus to Herod who also finds innocence in Jesus. Jesus is then sent back to Pilate before the people finally gain the power to do whatever they wanted with Jesus who, as most could have guessed, decided to crucify him. On his way up the mountain to his crucifixion, Jesus is mocked, tortured, and beaten. The bright side was that he did not have to carry his own cross, which was customary of most criminals (Evans 2006), as Luke says “they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene… and they laid the cross on him” (Luke 23:26). From here, Jesus is placed on the cross and crucified along with two other criminals. Although one criminal mocked Jesus, the other defended Jesus and claimed his innocence. Jesus then blessed the criminal and said to the crowd “Father, Forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing” while enduring much more mockery about how he should save himself. Before breathing his last breath, Jesus said “Father, into you I commend my spirit”. Jesus was once again proclaimed to be innocent when a centurion saw what took place. After this, Jesus was placed in a tomb before the passion story ends. The story of Luke’s Gospel, although familiar, has subtle extreme differences that separate it from Mark, and the other Gospels. Even though Mark was a source that Luke used, we see a difference in both language and ways that Jesus is portrayed. Greg Sterling and John S. Kloppenborg also noticed this subtle distinction.
Luke’s Gospel follows an apologetic agenda that presents Jesus as innocent. Why? because the cross was considered a criminals death. The disciples of Jesus, and Luke, knew what image crucifixion presented on to Jesus and they went and defended him. Luke uses this agenda of innocence to continuously explain to the audience that even though Jesus was treated like a criminal he was instead a righteous man. This act of using the apologetic agenda is expanded in explanation in the essay by Greg Sterling. Mors philosophi: The Death of Jesus in Luke goes into depth on the certain aspects that Luke brings about his gospel. Sterling’s first take on the passion story of Luke is that it is “Not hyperbolic rhetoric, but a sober assessment of the difficulty of proclaiming a condemned criminal to be “Lord of Glory””. Sterling starts his paper off by explaining how Luke’s effort to convince his audience that Jesus was innocent was a valid attempt. Nothing was completely over exaggerated. One of the ways that Sterling presents this idea is that Luke was accessing the knowledge of Socrates and other Greek heroes when discussing Jesus. The reason for this was Socrates was thought to have died a noble death. Even though he was executed, Socrates was proclaimed to be innocent just like Jesus. Plato even says in his apology that “Note well, if you kill me, being the man that I am, you will hurt yourselves more than you hurt me”. The idea of noble death was common knowledge to the people because of Socrates. By explaining Socrates’ death Sterling is able to show how it “became [an] exemplar” in many other heroes including Jesus. Luke was able to use Socrates as an unstated example and replication of why Jesus was placed on the cross and died the worst possible death a criminal could face (Evans 2006).
The reflecting example of Socrates in Jesus was not the only way that Luke was able to implement a relationship between Jesus and the Greek audience. Luke carefully portrays Jesus as calm and unworried throughout the passion. This motif that Jesus “eliminated anxiety” is completely different than that of Mark. By doing this, Luke is able to present Jesus as facing his death while Mark portrays Jesus as in distress and worried about the troubles that are coming. In chapter 14 of Mark, Jesus is given three different aspects of distress in back to back to back verses. Luke completely relieves all three of these verses from his Gospel. The reason behind this is what Sterling calls“fearlessness in the face of death”. This idea that Luke implements in his Gospel reflects Socrates as an example. Sterling describes how Socrates was not afraid of death in Phaedo, a book by Plato. Luke takes this idea and morphs Mark’s gospel into a story that reflects Jesus as courageous in the moment of facing his own death. We first see this in the Mount of Olives scene right before Jesus is arrested. Luke writes how Jesus is praying and depicts Jesus as not wanting to suffer but is willing to for a greater purpose. Jesus’ demeanor changes from Luke’s simple “knelt down” to Mark’s throwing himself to the ground representing signs of distress and wanting relief. One of the latter examples that Sterling also points at is when Jesus is crucified. Sterling notices how Jesus’ final words have been changed from Gospel to Gospel. In Luke, Jesus recites “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23:46) which is completely different then Psalms 22:1 in which Jesus proclaim “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34). The Mark Gospel shows Jesus as a human; one who feels pain and remorse. Luke, on the other hand, has Jesus as a man who isn’t afraid to die for what he believed in. Jesus, to Luke, was the first martyr that would be reflected throughout time as “Jesus’ death was a paradigmatic for early Christians”. Just like Socrates, Jesus’ actions would be reflected by others. The image that Socrates brought to everyone, especially the Greeks, was of a pure man who died an innocent death, but wasn’t afraid to face the adversity. Luke knew how powerful that idea was, took Mark’s gospel, and shifted it towards this new idea that reflects who Socrates, as well as other Greek heroes, is.
Although Greg Sterling brings up many great points about Luke’s passion of Jesus, we get to see other aspects through the work of John S. Kloppenborg in his article Exitus clari viri: The Death of Jesus in Luke. Kloppenborg’s first main point lies around the Greek language. In comparison to the four Gospels, Luke’s writing of Greek is far superior to the other three. Not only is Luke’s language spot on, but he is also able to “display perhaps the greatest awareness of the sensibilities of Greek and Roman culture”. Kloppenborg reverts back to how Luke explains how Jesus’ death was due to the priestly authorities and not to anyone else making the ‘bad guys’ religious leaders. The reason is that Luke is trying to show Jesus as a savior to the Greek and Roman people. If Luke were to accuse Pilate, or other authorities, for the death of Jesus then his work would more than likely be rejected or worse. By saying that Pilate called Jesus innocent and it was the priests and Pharisees that were responsible for the death of Jesus, Luke’s work then “tailor[ed] the passion Narrative to the sensibilities of his audience”. Kloppenborg explains that this is because Luke’s efforts are apologetic to the people of the Greco-Roman world and “any reader familiar with Greco-Roman literature will immediately recognize this structure as that of symposium, a well known form social and intellectual exchange”. Because Luke was able to address his audience in this manner, he was able to successfully advance his Gospel in an effort to defend Jesus.
The rest of Kloppenborg’s essay revolves around the three questions of Echecrates in the Phaedo. The questions are what he said before his death, how he died, and which of his friends were present during his death. These questions are said by Kloppenborg to be reflected in Luke through Luke’s depictions of the last supper, the disciple’s actions when Jesus was betrayed, and the bearing of Jesus in his final hour. The last supper was a symposium where Jesus was said to have predicted his betrayal, have dinner, promise the coming of the Kingdom of God, prediction of Peter’s denial, and lastly what Kloppenborg calls the “Two Swords”. This sequence of events set the stage for Luke to show how Jesus was anticipating death. This idea of a symposium was also patterned in Plato’s Phaedo which gives an idea as to where Luke received the structure. The power that this brings to the audience is that “the hero was able to anticipate death and where friends could be present”. Luke used his knowledge to progress Jesus towards the messiah who knew that he was destined to die. This meant that Luke had to eliminate all forms of material that did not coincide with this presented idea. Since Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a source, we are able to see a difference in the ways both authors portray Jesus in his final hours with the disciples. Kloppenborg uses Jesus’ prayer to God before his arrest as one of his main examples of this. In Mark, Jesus falls down in prayer showing his grief, but this is substituted with just kneeling in Luke. Kloppenborg brings forward that “the effect is that Jesus prays, not in a state of collapse and desperation, but acknowledging the divine will and obedient to it”. By making this change, Luke presents Jesus as knowing that death is coming, and that he is not afraid of it. Since Jesus was able to anticipate his death, the symposium that Luke sets up flourished. We see this again when Jesus is on the cross. Luke chooses to omit all grief that Mark had in his account of the Gospel. Kloppenborg explains how this motif in Luke of not showing grief is also found through Socrates, Tacitus, and Charidemus. The final point that is made in the essay is that “Luke’s depiction of the disciples is positive”. Instead of focusing on their failures, Luke chooses to alter what he has in order to make Jesus’ disciples pure followers. Kloppenborg’s main example that he used was of the prayer scene right before Jesus was arrested. After Jesus was done praying, he returned to his disciples where he found them sleeping from grief. Even though the disciples showed grief, this scene is perceived as a good thing unlike if Jesus showed grief. This is because “while the absence of grief in the hero demonstrates his or her nobility in meeting death, grief in the bystanders both underscores the great affection that the disciples have for their teacher and affords the sage another opportunity to teach whether directly or indirectly”. But why is it important to show grief in the first place? What is the purpose behind Luke altering Mark? Luke wanted to show that the disciples were true followers of Jesus. His audience, being Greek, would see how much the disciples cared about Jesus and therefore give the same impression that so many followers of other well known heroes gave. Luke knew the power that he had when he was writing his gospel, and he knew that his audience needed to see that Jesus was a noble person to follow because he was the Messiah.
The Gospel of Luke is able to advance itself among the Greeks by portraying Jesus in a way that is familiar to them. Both Sterling and Kloppenborg provide examples of Greek heroes that resemble an idea of who Jesus was. Sterling compares Luke depiction of Jesus to noble death heroes which include Socrates. Kloppenborg uses Socrates as well as others to show how Jesus’ lack of grief was a symbol to impress the Greek audience. It wasn’t an accident that Luke’s Gospel is easily compared to these heroes. It has been proven that Luke had the most knowledge on Greek tradition in the first place. By knowing this, he knew that he could alter the texts to relate to the ideas that the Greeks had already known about. If Luke didn’t do this, his Gospel would have been in danger of being rejected or passed by. With the main focus of Jesus’ death being crucifixion, Luke knew he had to present information that would support his ministry. Being crucified is not a joyous act. It’s not something you hope for even if you deserve to die. Crucifixion was “reserved for murderous and rebellious slaves” (Evans 2006) because of how gruesome it was. Even though crucifixion is no longer in practice, it was seen as “the worst form of death” (Evans 2006). Luke knew the image that the cross showed to those who didn’t truly understand Jesus so Luke took a different approach. By incorporating Greek heroic ideas into his work Luke is able to show that Jesus is innocent and therefore unworthy of the cross. This is the same when Luke changes Mark to remove scenes that show Jesus in grief. If we don’t see the Greek model, Jesus is just seen as a rebellious criminal who died on a cross. Luke believed that Jesus was the messiah so in order to prove it he had to make the Gospel appear that Jesus knew it too even in the tough times. This meant that Luke had to appeal to his audiences’ knowledge and use it to his advantage. By removing that Jesus had any grief, Luke is able to present Jesus as the first martyr (Blickenstaff 2008) whose example will be followed by other followers of Jesus. Luke is able to elevate Jesus’ status through appealing to the audience and is able to show Jesus as the messiah who “sets cross bearing as the standard for faithful discipleship” (Green 2007). By using the knowledge of Greek culture, Luke successfully writes an apology for Jesus by relating him to other cultural icons that went through the same situation.
This project about Luke’s Passion has allowed me to appreciate the effort that Luke puts forth to ensure that his audience knows that Jesus was innocent. It’s one thing to just say that a person is innocent and another to use the whole story as a comparison to what is already known. Luke allowed his knowledge of Greek heroes and tradition to relate and reflect who Jesus was. By doing this, Luke was able to help spread the truth about Jesus Christ. In a way, Luke’s use of Greek heroes in his passion is a parable to characteristics of Jesus.
Work Cited
Blickenstaff, Marianne. “Martyr.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 3, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 822-823. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2008.
Evans, Craig A. “Crucifixion.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 1, edited by
Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 806-807. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006.
Green, Joel B. “Death of Christ.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 69-74. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007. (sections A; B.1)
Kloppenborg, John. “Exitus clari viri: The Death of Jesus in Luke.” Toronto Journal of Theology 8 (1992) 106–20.
Sterling, Greg. “Mors philosophi: The Death of Jesus in Luke.” Harvard Theological Review 94
(2001):383-402.
White, Michael L. Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Rewrited. 1st ed. HarperOne, 2010. Print.
Word Count: 2639
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Essay III
Connor Mann
The Gospel of Luke: Passion Narrative in the Greco-Roman Context
Understanding the social context we are currently living in is very important to be aware of, just as it is important to understand the social context and influences around the time of the Gospel authors as they regard the life of Jesus. Without thoroughly diving in, an inquisitive mind would mostly likely question the notion of why there are four separate Gospels that are accounts of the same one story, why is there not just one. Why are all of them just a little bit different. It is a multi-faceted question that takes a multi-faceted answer, but for all intensive purposes we can take the example of the Passion Narrative from the perspective of the Lukan author and as it relates to the same story in the Gospel of Mark. Each Gospel, particularly the synoptics, in the Bible, is pushing an agenda that is only seen through the various nuances that occur throughout each narrative. Luke in particular, and the Passion Narrative as it relates to the same story in Mark is seemingly pushing for a different idea of who Jesus is as well as how both the authors discern Jesus through the social context of their time.
The Lukan Passion Narrative evokes this idea that Jesus was without worry and fear in the moments leading up to his death, contrary to the Markan author who depicts Jesus as distressed. Particularly in Mark, Jesus takes Peter, James, and John aside where he “began to be distressed and troubled” (Mk 14:33 NRSV) and Jesus later prayed to God to seemingly question the decision to sacrifice him, “Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him.” (Mk 14:35 NRSV). In these moments Jesus is reacting like any human being would, although still righteous in the sense that he is still willing to go through with it because it is God’s will.
Before looking into the Passion Narrative of Luke, we need to consider that Mark and Luke were both written at different times with very different social contexts regarding the events that were taking place and the external influences amidst them. Mark was written in a time where Christians were viewed as pagans for their new found religion, it was different and because of that it was deemed controversial. Many new followers of Jesus were persecuted and suffered for their faith. The setting at the time was tense, the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem by Rome occurred in 70 CE, around the same time that the Markan Gospel was written. Now regarding the Gospel according to Luke, it is obvious that there was some Greco-Roman influence. This is attributed to the authors style of writing that involves idioms from Greek context and is therefore written to a Greek audience, or Christians within the Greco-Roman influence that was ubiquitous at the time. Luke follows a similar order as Mark regarding the Passion Narrative, but throughout it one can find nuances that reveal distinct differences in the two stories. The events leading up to the death of Jesus according to Luke in verses 22:39-23:56, show Jesus and his followers praying in the time before his subsequent arrest. In this particular Gospel, the Lukan author omits the verse about Jesus asking God to not let this happen to him as it said in Mark. A number of words are left out in the Lukan Gospel that portray Jesus as not worried but ready to accept the will that God has given him, “then an angel appeared and gave him strength.” (Lk 22:43 NRSV). Throughout this story Jesus has to calm his disciples who are grieving for him, rather than him asking for their support. Jesus then is arrested as he has been betrayed by Judas. Both Pilate and Herod cannot find reasoning to kill Jesus, yet they take this decision to the people who decide to kill him over Barabbas who has been prosecuted for murder and let free instead of Jesus. As Jesus walks to The Skull where he will be crucified, women are weeping for him and in this moment Jesus stops and simply tells them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and your children.” (Lk 23:28 NRSV). On the cross Jesus is surrounded by other convicted criminals who beg him to save them and Jesus calmly tells them to believe in him and they will all be in “paradise” soon. There is little detail leading up to Jesus’ final breath, it abruptly ends with Jesus saying to God, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” (Lk 23:46 NRSV). In this moment, Jesus should be distressed, yet he is portrayed as somewhat heroic by calming those around him in his time of death. Unlike the death in Mark, where Jesus cries out to God, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” where Jesus is depicted as scared and rather cowardice (Mk 15:34 NRSV).
We know how these stories are different and the varying social context around the productions of the two Gospels, but now we need to examine why they are different. As mentioned previously, the Lukan author was most likely writing to a Greek audience or at least in a very prominent Greco-Roman culture. At this time, it was not uncommon to see the notion of the noble death of Socrates used to emphasize the significance of particular protagonists in Greek narratives. It also found its was into the Jewish Martyrs and the criteria to be labeled as so. Both Greg Sterling and John Kloppenborg explain in their journals how Luke’s use of Socrates as an influence for the noble death of Jesus works as an idiom for the Greek audience that he was speaking to.
Greg Sterling wrote a journal titled, “Mors philosophi: The Death of Jesus in Luke,” that is centered around the notion that the author of Luke had Greek influence supporting this particular portrayal of Jesus. Sterling makes the statement that the author of Luke fabricated Jesus to represent the death of Socrates, a common death motif found in traditional Greek storytelling. The result of this was a sub-genre in Greek storytelling titled, exitus clarorum virorum, that depicted the death of philosophers who resisted tyrants. An excerpt from the The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible on Crucifixion explains how in the Greco-Roman context, the majority of prisoners that were condemned to be crucified were revolutionaries that were threatening the ruler at that particular time (Evans 2006, 806-807). Luke portrays Jesus as a martyr through his crucifixion as he galvanized his followers to peacefully resist tyrant rule by simply putting their focus on God, that of which is also an example of Socratic tradition that will be discussed later. Jesus accepts his death and dies for his faith, further supporting the claim of his as a martyr (Blickenstaff 2008, 822-823). Luke adapted this to his redaction of the Markan Passion Narrative in order to defend criticism regarding the death of Jesus, as it had claimed to have undermined the Christian claims for Jesus because he was showing anxiety and reluctancy in his time of death (Sterling 2001, 383-402). The author of Luke reworked this portion of the story of Jesus almost to be like an apology, defending the significance of his death. Sterling proposes that Luke did in fact use the Socratic death narrative as an influence for his reworking of the Passion Narrative. His evidence for this argument is seen through three particular events that occur in the Lukan Passion Narrative that relate to this Socratic tradition: the calmness of Jesus, the innocents of Jesus, and finally the paradigm.
As we noted earlier, Jesus in the Markan Narrative was distressed in his time leading up to his death, whereas the Lukan Jesus is calm and accepting of his fate. Sterling mentions how Socratic tradition promotes his emotionless death because of Socrates belief that the body is useless and living a life only through the soul is where one will find true enlightenment. Essentially Socrates was not afraid of death because as a philosopher he was simply gaining knowledge and awaiting death (Sterling 2001, 383-402). The next example Sterling mentions is regarding the innocents of Jesus. Socrates was said to be condemned to death unjustly, which produced the very famous chreia, “would you prefer me to die justly or unjustly?” provoking the idea that the political system is flawed. In the section in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible pertaining the Death of Christ, Joel Green supplements this claim of testing the political moralities and structure by examining the idea of Jesus being regarded as King and attempting to resist authority by galvanizing large numbers of people. Jesus threatened these rulers and in the Roman context, the leaders would do anything to keep the peace in Rome (Green 2007, 69-74). Jesus accepting his death, in a way, even proved further the legitimacy of his ministry. Because he died and accepted his death, it solidified that he was who he said he was and proved that above all he was King. Ultimately, his acceptance of his death was his rejection of politics and coercion and violence (Green 2007, 69-74). This particular excerpt supplements what Luke is trying to convey as the author of Luke employs a political motif as well when he mentions that even Herod found Jesus was innocent and they still continued with his death. Both the Lukan Jesus and Socrates were calm and accepting of their fate amidst knowing they were innocent, emitting a sense of nobility. The final example that Sterling provides us with is the idea of how the Lukan Jesus took on a paradigmatic quality, such as Socrates had. The followers of Jesus were arrested for resisting authority, stating that they “obey God rather than humans,” while Socrates claimed, “I will be obedient to god rather than you.” (Sterling 2001, 383-402). Many of Luke’s redactions to the Passion Narrative parallel the nobility of the Socratic model, it is obvious because Luke wanted to have a response to the criticisms regarding the previous Markan account of the Passion Narrative and relate to the Greek audience he was wiring to.
Kloppenborg supplements the argument made by Sterling in his journal titled, “Exitus clari viri: The Death of Jesus in Luke.” John Kloppenborg makes the argument that the Lukan author was indeed aware of the typicalities of exitus clarorum virorum as it relates to the Socrates death model. He argues that the author of Luke provides Greco-Roman influences in the last discourse in the Lukan Passion Narrative, the way in which the hero dies, and the role that the friends or followers plays. Luke presents a farewell address that would not only be relatable from a biblical standpoint but to someone in the Roman society as well (Kloppenborg 1992, 106-20). He then goes on to explain how in his time of death, Socrates dismisses the women who are grieving for him and rebuked them for behaving in such a way. Jesus was not as disgusted with those who had grieved for him, but in this account of the Passion Narrative Luke portrays Jesus as not grieving but only those around him are, unlike the account in Mark where Jesus grieves amongst his followers. Finally, Kloppenborg gives us the example regarding the role that friends and followers play in the Lukan account. In the Markan account, the followers of Jesus are seen to have fled once he was persecuted and never return, while the Lukan account they are with Jesus throughout the entire narrative. This parallels with the Greco-Roman model in that followers of traditional Greco-Roman leaders, such as Socrates, are depicted as grieving for their fallen leader and continue to practice the teachings well beyond the death (Kloppenborg 1992, 106-20). It is obvious to see from these two accounts that Luke had a Greco-Roman influence in his storytelling as he was placed in a Greek context and had to adapt his story to relate to his current social context.
While only exposing myself to the Gospels with a perspective from my current social context, it is hard to fully grasp the entirety of what each individual Gospel is trying to express. This project allowed me to openly discern the Gospels in their proper contextual time frame. Without understanding the Greco-Roman context of Luke and the audience that the author of that particular Gospel is attempting to reach, you would not fully grasp the concept that the Lukan author is trying to portray. I’ve come to fully recognize these texts not just as scripture to read in a Christians daily life but as historical documents, in that they represent a social context that far exceeds my own perception and opens up a window into a contemporary view of that time and how religion and politics were looked at. It taught me that some things are very different today than they were in that time period, but many things are also very nuanced. It is very interesting to see that over the course of around 2,000 years that these teachings from one man are still being analyzed and thoroughly practiced in religion to this day.
Bibliography
Blickenstaff, Marianne. “Martyr.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 3, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 822-823. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2008.
Evans, Craig A. “Crucifixion.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 1, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 806-807. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006.
Green, Joel B. “Death of Christ.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 69-74. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007. (sections A; B.1)
Kloppenborg, John. “Exitus clari viri: The Death of Jesus in Luke.” Toronto Journal of Theology 8 (1992) 106–20.
Levine, Amy, and Marc Z. Brettler. The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2011.
Sterling, Greg. “Mors philosophi: The Death of Jesus in Luke.” Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001):383-402.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Essay IV
Chance McCord
REL 317
Essay Review
Luke’s Passion Narrative
The Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Mark contain essentially the same stories within the passion narrative, but there are still some contrasts that make the narrative in Luke unique. The Gospel of Mark gives less detail and seems to portray a more harsh view of Jesus’s passion, whereas; The Gospel of Luke is more in depth and seems to portray the passion in a more calm and honorable way.
In this review we will be taking a look specifically at the passion narrative as told by Luke. The section of the passion narrative that will be examined in Luke is found from Luke 22:39 to Luke 23:56, beginning with the scene of Jesus praying on the Mount of Olives.
This scene on the Mount of Olives is very interesting in that it seems to highlight the manhood of Jesus. Jesus began to pray that God would find a different way for His plan to be carried out: “Father if you are willing, remove this cup from me.” (Luke 22:42). He then proved his dedication to following the will of God: “Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” (Luke22:42). Later in the chapter Jesus showed the amount of stress and anguish he was going through: “And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” (Luke 22:44). In this portion of Scripture we can easily see the human emotions of Jesus. For a character that was often shown as divine, we see a Jesus who seemed surprisingly human.
Jesus was then arrested after Judas, one of Jesus’s disciples, lead a group of officers to his location. Jesus had predicted the betrayal of Judas earlier even though Judas denied the fact. This gives more insight on the amount of dedication that Jesus had in following the will of God. Jesus knew that the betrayal of Judas was imminent, but he chose to continue with God’s plan for him. After the betrayal and arrest, Jesus was brought before the temple elders where he was accused of blaspheming and claiming to be God. It was at this time that Peter denied knowing Jesus on three separate occasions, just as Jesus had predicted in Luke 22:34: “Jesus said, I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow this day, until you deny three times that you know me”.
The next important section of the narrative was the exchange between Pilate, a Roman governor, and Herod, the Galilean ruler. After Jesus was arrested He was sent to Pilate to be judged, but Pilate learning that Jesus was a Galilean sent Jesus to Herod because Jesus belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction. After being questioned and treated with contempt, Jesus was sent back to Pilate by Herod. Pilate then questioned the people about why they were condemning Jesus, because he found no fault in him. It is interesting that the people were so adamant about having Jesus crucified when neither Pilate nor Herod found any fault in him. Both of these men had the job of condemning criminals and were most likely very experienced at it. That is why it seems strange that the people had such a different opinion from that of both Pilate and Herod.
The people’s wish was eventually granted and Jesus was sentenced to death on the cross. Crucifixion was the means of execution that was usually reserved for the worst criminals there were. The fact that Jesus was crucified shows just how the people viewed him. This view of Jesus is a polar opposite from that of his followers who viewed him as God’s son. Jesus was led up to Mount Golgotha, commonly referred to as the place of the skull, and he was nailed to the cross between two other criminals. One of the thieves believed Jesus to be the Christ and understood his sin and Jesus granted him salvation while on the cross: “And he said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43). It is clear that Luke is continuing to portray this loving image of Jesus even at the time of his death. Jesus, while hanging on the cross, uses some of his last moments to show grace to a man who was being crucified for the horrible things he had done. This scene perfectly illustrates the character and mission of Jesus as written in Luke. In the Lukan gospel we see this overarching picture of Jesus as the savior who sought out sinners and offered his gift of salvation by faith and not works. There is not a much better way to illustrate this point then by scene of Jesus with the criminal. Jesus showed love to the seemingly, worst of sinners, and accepted the man’s faith and granted salvation even in the last few moments of the man’s life. This is the exact Jesus that Luke seems to be working so hard to portray in his gospel. When Jesus finally dies, we see some very dark imagery. Luke writes about the land being covered in darkness as the sun’s light failed, and the temple curtain being torn in two. Both events seem to add to Luke’s divine view of Jesus in the sense that Luke is claiming that the death of Jesus caused both of these events to happen. We then see an account of the centurion who saw the events and witnessed the death of Jesus and immediately believed that Jesus was the Son of God as he claimed. This account continues to give credibility to the passion story of Luke.
From the beginning, we can see that Luke portrays the passion narrative as no ordinary death. He views Jesus as, not only a good man, but also as the Son of God. He articulates Jesus’s death into a story of love, grace, and forgiveness. To Luke and many other followers of Jesus, Jesus died to be the propitiation for all the people of the world. He came to save the world from their sins, and that was only possible through his death accompanied by his resurrection. Although this is only a summary of the death of Jesus, it is important to keep in mind the resurrection story of Jesus and understand that the resurrection is one of the most central aspects of Luke’s, as well as other Jesus follower’s beliefs. Regardless of which narrative is being studied, it is important to keep in mind that, at least in Luke’s gospel, both the death and resurrection of Jesus go hand-in-hand and must be accepted as a whole.
The article by John S. Kloppenborg, “Exitus Clari Viri: The Death of Jesus in Luke”, contains a thorough analysis of the Gospel of Luke with the overarching argument that Luke not only took material from Mark’s gospel, but that he may have used Greek and Roman traditions or texts to shape his narrative. This article contains five main sections: Introduction, Luke’s Last Discourse, Ars Moriendi, The Role of Friends, and the Conclusion. By examining the Introduction, we can see that Kloppenborg points out that Luke differs from other biblical writers in that he shows a greater awareness for Greek and Roman culture. While New Testament scholars seem to focus on the Hebrew Bible and closely related documents, Kloppenborg challenges reader to broaden their scope for understanding the New Testament texts as a whole, but specifically the gospel texts. The article then highlights the discrepancies between Mark and Luke’s gospels. As highlighted earlier in the essay, Mark’s gospel tends to be less in depth and more to-the-point, whereas; Luke’s gospel is more elaborate and in depth. This alone could cause some small differences, but there are some significant differences that are noted in the article. Another main theme of Luke that is discussed in the Introduction is the emphasis on the chief priests being fully responsible for falsely accusing and arresting Jesus. Luke portrays the priests and other religious leaders as the greatest enemies of Jesus. The second portion of this article is Luke’s Last Discourse. This section breaks down and analyzes the famous Last Supper scene of the passion narrative. Kloppenborg begins by pointing out that the Last Supper story in Luke uses the literary form of a farewell address. A typical farewell address would have included references to the hero’s impending death, exhortations and warnings, a didactic speech, and provisions for the care and consolation of the successors or survivors. It is relatively safe to say that Luke followed this form very closely. Greek and Roman readers would have recognized the construction of the Last Supper because it was written in a similar form to their own traditional hero farewell addresses: “Luke may have used a few distinctly biblical themes, but a Greek or Roman reader would have had no difficulty recognizing the same farewell form” (Kloppenborg1992, 109). It seems apparent that Luke is trying to appeal to a Greek and Roman audience and integrate Greek and Roman constructs. The next section of the article is titled Ars Moriendi, meaning, “the way the hero dies”. Kloppenborg points out that Luke’s portrayal of Jesus’s death looks more similar to Greco-Roman death accounts than most biblical accounts because of the amount of emphasis put on the way Jesus died: “In general, biblical examples, because the character of the speaker is not at stake, do not dwell on the hero’s bearing at death” (Kloppenborg 1992, 111). Later in this section it is pointed out that the portrayal of Jesus’s death seems to parallel many ideas from the Ars Moriendi of ancient Greek scholars. Plutarch’s account of Otho’s death is a good example on which to make comparisons. “Plutarch’s account of Otho’s death likewise underscores that he did not break down, but instead consoled his defeated troops, presented gifts to his domestic slaves and insured that they would not be killed when his suicide was discovered, and then retired to die nobly at his own hand” (Kloppenborg 1992, 112). Although there are some obvious differences in the account of Otho’s death and Jesus’s death there is an overlying theme of composure, kindness, and nobility in the face of death. This seems to set apart Luke’s account of Jesus’s death from the accounts of other writers. The final section of the article is The Role of Friends. This section is primarily referring to Jesus’s disciples. Kloppenborg points out the difference in the way that Mark and Luke depict the disciples. Mark depicts the disciples in a very negative way and describes them as being imperceptive, among other things. Luke depicts the disciples in a very positive way. Kloppenborg advises that a reader should not let Mark’s view influence the reading of Luke: “While Luke relied on Mark as his source for most of the passion narrative, it is important not to let Mark’s negative view of the disciples contaminate our reading of Luke” (Kloppenborg 1992, 114). The article points out that on several occasions Luke focuses on the actions or teachings of Jesus rather than highlighting the failure of the disciples. Luke attempts to discredit many of the disciples’ actions as failures and use them to instead illustrate the genuineness of these men.
The next article, written by Greg Sterling, is called “Mors philosophi: The Death of Jesus in Luke”. The article begins by examining the idea of “noble death”. The death of famous characters was a very popular and intriguing topic for ancient Greeks and Romans. There are many examples of these “noble death” stories with one of the most famous being that of Socrates. Socrates became a, sort of, model on how to approach death with nobility: “On other occasions, however, the death of Socrates became the lens through which the deaths of later philosophers were viewed” (Sterling 2001, 387). Sterling then points out that Hebrew and Jewish authors also had an opinion on “noble death” in their construct of martyrdom. Finally Sterling addresses the death of Jesus in Luke. He points out that Luke’s narrative appeals to a larger scope of people: “the third evangelist reshaped the traditions that he inherited by self-consciously situating them in the context of the larger Greco-Roman world” (Sterling 2001, 394). Although it appears that the words of Mark influenced Luke’s writings, Sterling argues that there could have very well been a variety of other sources that Luke used in his gospel. This article, just as the previous article, shows the gospel of Luke as a unique account that took aspects from many different traditions and sources in order to create an elaborate narrative that appealed to a large audience.
Taking a deeper look at the Kloppenborg article with reference to The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, we can get a greater understanding of certain themes. One of the main themes in Kloppenborg’s article is the idea of Ars Moriendi, or, “the way the hero dies”. In Luke it certainly seems that Jesus is being portrayed as a hero during his lifetime, but that becomes problematic when analyzing the way Jesus died. Crucifixion was, by no means a noble way to die: “It was primarily reserved for murderous or rebellious slaves (and for this reason was known as ‘slaves punishment’)” (Evans 2006, 806). This seems to be an odd means of death for a man that Luke portrayed as the Son of God. Another major complication is how the Jewish leaders viewed Jesus. Jesus was a Jew so one would think that Jesus and the Jewish leaders would get along, but exactly the opposite was true. The Jewish leaders did not believe the divine claims of Jesus to be true. “Blasphemy was long regarded as an infraction punishable by death, and according to the gospels Jesus was guilty of blasphemy” (Green 2007, 71). The Jews believed that Jesus was a blasphemer, and in the end they got their way and Jesus was crucified.
There are also some interesting points to be studied when looking at the Sterling article alongside The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. This article also focuses a lot of attention on the way that Jesus died. It emphasizes the idea of a “noble death” which was most commonly known from Greco-Roman traditions, but was also an intriguing idea among the Jews through their construct of martyrdom. “A martyr is someone who gives witness to the strength of his or her convictions by dying rather than recanting religious or political beliefs” (Blickenstaff 2008, 822). When analyzing this definition it would be pretty safe to assume that Luke and Jesus’s other followers viewed Jesus as a martyr. They believed in what Jesus preached and saw that he was faithful to his convictions even until death. Although Jews would not view Jesus as a martyr, he seems to fit the mold of martyrdom.
Growing up in a Christian family has allowed me to be exposed to the New Testament gospels on a regular basis. It is easy to skim over parts of the gospel that I have already heard, so it is interesting to take a more in depth look at a small chunk of gospel such as the passion narrative of Luke. There is much that can be learned when we break down a small piece of a narrative and compare it to other scholarly sources. This essay review has helped me to better understand the culture in which Luke’s passion narrative was written. I now have a better knowledge of the complexities of Luke, the sources and cultural traditions that Luke drew material from, and the themes that Luke tried to illustrate in his gospel story. The gospels are rich texts that should not just be read once, but should be read repeatedly and analyzed in order to get the most out of every word.
Gospel Passage: Lk 22:39-23:56
Evans, Craig A. “Crucifixion.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 1, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 806-807. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006.
Green, Joel B. “Death of Christ.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 69-74. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007. (sections A; B.1)
Blickenstaff, Marianne. “Martyr.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 3, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 822-823. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2008.
Kloppenborg, John. “Exitus clari viri: The Death of Jesus in Luke.” Toronto Journal of Theology 8 (1992) 106–20.
Sterling, Greg. “Mors philosophi: The Death of Jesus in Luke.” Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001): 383-402.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Essay V
Brad Libolt
REL 317
Essay Review Project 2
Luke’s Passion and Jesus’ Noble Death
To an untrained eye, Jesus’ passion narratives may seem very similar in gospels of Mark and Luke. Upon further examination, one can see that they are indeed quite different. The story of Jesus’ death in Luke could begin in many places, but for the evaluation purposes of this paper we will begin in Luke 22:14. Jesus has been teaching and performing miracles all over the country, and has finally come to Jerusalem where he will meet his death. The beginning of chapter 22 narrates Judas acquiring money from the chief priests in exchange for betraying Jesus, then Jesus’ instructions to Peter and John for preparing the Passover.
Verse 14 begins with the Passover meal. There is a long conversation, a dispute among the disciples regarding which one is the greatest, and Jesus speaks great sayings about the kingdom of God and his own upcoming death. After the Passover meal, Jesus and the disciples go up to the Mount of Olives. Once there, Jesus leaves the disciples a little ways off and prays, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me; yet, not my will but yours be done.” (Luke 22:42) After praying, an angel appears and gives him strength. He continues to pray, more earnestly, and anguishes to the point of sweating drops of blood. After praying, Jesus went back to the disciples to find them asleep. He asks why they are sleeping, and then commands them to get up and pray that they “may not come into the time of trial.” (Luke 22:46)
While Jesus was still speaking, a crowd of people came led by Judas. Judas kisses Jesus, betraying him, and the disciples around Jesus lash out. One of the disciples cuts of the ear of one of the high priest’s slaves, but Jesus heals the wound. The crowd seizes Jesus and takes him to the high priest’s house. There is a small episode where Peter denies Jesus three times before the rooster crows, just as Jesus predicted during the Passover meal. Back at the high priests house, the men who have Jesus are mocking and beating him. When daytime comes, the accusations and trial begins. The chief priests and elders question him, trying to get him to say something that would make him guilty. Jesus’ answer is short, but saying that he is indeed the Son of God drives the priests to take him to Pilate. Pilate questions and examines Jesus, eventually sending him off to Herod to go through more questioning. Herod gets no answers from Jesus, and his soldiers mock and treat him poorly. Herod sends Jesus back to Pilate, who finds no guilt in him. The Jews shout for the release of Barabbas and death of Jesus, and eventually Pilate gives in and turns Jesus over to the Jews to be crucified.
The Jews lead Jesus up to be crucified, and along the way they have a man named Simon carry the cross. They weren’t alone, however, as Luke 23:27 states, “A great number of the people followed him, and among them were the women who were beating their breasts and wailing for him.” Jesus charges the women not to weep for him, but for themselves and their children. When they got to The Skull, the place where he was crucified, they hung him on a cross. There were two criminals with him, one on each side. Jesus speaks, saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34)
As Jesus hung on the cross, people mocked him and cast lots to divide his clothes. Jesus tells one of the criminals he will be with him in paradise soon, then the curtain of the temple tears in two. Jesus shouts one last thing, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” After saying this, he dies. A nearby centurion confesses that Jesus was in fact the Son of God, and the people go home beating their breasts and wailing. A man named Joseph then comes to Pilate to ask if he could take down Jesus’ body. Pilate allows it, and Jesus is placed in a tomb.
This is Luke’s depiction of Jesus’ death. It is much longer and of a much different attitude than Mark’s. Luke is portraying a different Jesus than Mark. In Mark, Jesus approaches the cross with much more grief and anguish. When Jesus was leaving the disciples to go pray on the Mount of Olives, he said, “I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and keep awake.” (Mark 14:34) Then later as he is praying, “He said, ‘Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.” (Mark 14:36) Compare this to Luke 22:42 when Jesus simply says, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me; yet, not my will but yours be done.” The difference is clear; the question is why did Luke alter the story in this way? One possibility is the idea of a noble death and a martyr. Greg Sterling discusses the possibility of Luke presenting Jesus as a martyr in Mors Philosophi: The Death of Jesus in Luke. John S. Kloppenborg argues that Luke’s motives point towards a noble death narrative in Exitus clari viri: The Death of Jesus in Luke.
Kloppenborg presents the idea that Luke wrote Jesus’ passion story as a noble death story, similar to the noble death stories of other notably philosophical figures such as Socrates. Luke was well aware of the culture he was writing too, and knew how to tailor his gospel according to the Greco-Roman world. “He writes the best Greek of the four gospels, beginning each of his books with ahistoriographic preface much like those found in Josephus’ Antiquities and Contra Apionem.” (Kloppenborg, 106) Other examples of Luke’s sensitiveness to Greek culture include the omission of John the Baptist’s wild appearance and Jesus overturning tables in the temple. Perhaps the most noticeable addition is the repetitive mentioning of Pilate declaring Jesus as innocent. Luke wanted it to be very clear in his gospel that the Jews killed Jesus, not the Romans. These were all apologetic attempts at defending Jesus’ image in the Roman world. Luke also goes on the offensive, writing Jesus’ passion as a exitus clarorum virorum, a Greek genre of noble deaths.
The most notable noble death story in ancient Rome was that of Socrates in Plato’s Phaedo. There are three elements of Luke’s passion narrative similar to Socrates death in Phaedo. The last supper, the arrest scene, and Jesus’ disposition in the hours leading up to his death, are almost identical to the narrative of Socrates death. (Kloppenborg. 108)
The last supper scene is much like the farewell address of other Biblical and Greco-Roman heroes. “This form included references to the hero’s impending death, exhortations and warnings, a didactic speech, and provisions for the care and consolation of the successors or survivors.” (Kloppenborg, 109) Luke uses distinct elements of a biblical farewell, such as in Luke 22:19-20, mentioning the covenant, and successors in 22:28-30. Also, biblical farewells include submission to divine will and instructions for survivors, but these are also a significant part of Greek farewells. (Kloppenborg, 109) Any reader in the Greco-Roman culture would have been able to recognize these elements quite easily. Luke uses parts of Mark in different orders and some of Q to narrate the last supper scene, making it much longer and more significant. In Luke’s language there are many definitive similarities to a symposium. A symposium is “a well-known form of social and intellectual exchange and, since Plato, a literary form used to organize didactic material.” (Kloppenborg, 109) A typical symposium began with dinner and a cup and moved into discussion on various topics, much like the last supper scene in Luke. This is seen more in the attention Luke draws to the meal itself, something not seen in Mark’s depiction of the story. He also turns Marks simple phrases into much greater topics which require lengthy discussion, such as Mark 10:43 to Luke 22:26-27. Lastly in the common order of a symposium, Jesus brings up the disciples role in the Kingdom of God and in the coming Judgment.
The symposium was common in the death of heroes at that time. Not everyone could incorporate it, as some heroes died in battle or unexpectedly, but when the hero could predict death and their friends were present, a meal and discussion was always present. The earliest example is in Plato’s Phaedo, but the style is repeated again and again. One example is in the death of Cato. When death was imminent to Cato, he summoned his friends to a meal and had a long discussion over wine. After a long talk with his company, he went to his room to commit suicide. (Kloppenborg, 111) Luke’s dinner discussion narrative includes many types of farewell-symposia, implying he knew what he was doing. Luke could have been well versed in death stories of other heroes, and incorporated them into his own story for similar purposes.
The next element of exitus clarorum virorum is in the way that the hero dies, or the ars moriendi. An example of a biblical ars moriendi can be seen in Josephus’ account of Moses’ death. Josephus tailors Moses’ death to the culture of the audience he was trying to reach. His explanation of the people’s grief upon Moses’ death is very similar to that of Luke. “The crowds burst into tears and women beat their breasts at his approaching death (Ant. 4.8.48 &320).” (Kloppenborg, 111) This is very similar to Luke 23:27 “A great number of the people followed him, and among them were women who were beating their breasts and wailing for him.” In both cases, Moses and Jesus maintained their composure and told the people around them not to grieve. Similarly, in Plutarch’s account of Otho, Otho stayed calm and comforted his defeated troops giving them gifts and assuring them they wouldn’t die. (Kloppenborg, 112) The same goes for Ceneca, Charidemus, and many other heroes in the last moments before their death.
Luke is very careful in his omission of Jesus’ grief. This is one of the main differences in Mark and Luke’s passion narratives. Mark presents Jesus and extremely distraught and full of grief as he prays on the Mount of Olives. (Mark 14:35) In Luke, Jesus isn’t grieved, and is much calmer when praying to God that his will be done. (Luke 22:41-42) Jesus is praying for God’s divine will in Luke in a tone of obedience, rather than in a tone of desperation and grief as in Mark. This theme is again common in the deaths of other heroes of the time. Socrates, for example, was very calm and collected approaching his suicide; Charidemus was the same.
Beyond the disposition of Jesus as he was praying, there are many other factors pointing to his nobility as he approaches death. He is merciful at the arrest, healing the man whose ear was cut off by a disciple. (Luke 22:51) Also, in Jesus’ last moments he is in a state of prayer and forgiveness, telling one of the condemned criminals next to him that he would be with him in paradise that same day. Luke was very clear in portraying Jesus as calm, cool, and collected as he approached the cross. He wanted his readers to see Jesus as taking death on nobly, and did that in the same way that other authors portrayed other various Greco-Roman heroes.
The third and final part of the exitus clarorum virorum is the role of the heroes’ friends. Contrary to Mark, Luke depicts the disciples as being much more composed. Luke omits all the parts of Mark that put a bad light on the disciples. (Kloppenborg, 114) Instead of Jesus sharply telling the disciples where they are wrong, Luke turns it into a mild correction. Luke makes it clear that the disciples will still grieve their hero, much like the friends of other Greco-Roman heroes, but still stay together in support of one another.
Greg Sterling argues for a noble death story in Luke as well, but adds the possibility of Luke portraying Jesus as a martyr. In Sterling’s essay, he uses the qualifications of martyrdom from Ulrich Kellermann and the revision of those qualifications by Jan Willem van Henten. Kellermann’s characteristics include: a confrontation between Hellenism and Judaism; the religious policy of a foreign state towards devout Jews; the readiness of devout Jews to die for the Torah and their ancestral laws; the use of torture; the martyr’s explanation of his or her own death; a dialogue between the martyr and his or her torturer; the death of the martyr and his or her postmortem acceptance by God. Van Henten breaks it down into only five qualifications: the enactment of oppressive measures by the authorities; the conflict that develops as a result of enforcement; the decision to die; the declaration of the decision during an examination that is sometimes accompanied by torture; and the execution. (Sterling, 391)
Luke’s passion narrative included many of these characteristics, suggesting Luke could have wanted Jesus to look like a martyr. The noble death aspect of the story could appeal to the Greco-Roman readers, while the martyrdom aspect could strike a chord with the Jewish crowd. Luke’s depiction of Jesus, according to both Sterling and Kloppenborg, was intended to put Jesus on the same level as other Greco-Roman and Jewish heroes. He cleverly and carefully rearranged and added to Marks account of Jesus’ death to make him seem noble. It can be seen as apologetic and polemic, both defending and attacking the enemies of Jesus, making him appealing to anyone who read the gospel.
Without living in the Greco-Roman culture, it can be difficult for one to understand what Luke was trying to portray. To start, one must understand the significance of crucifixion as a death penalty. Crucifixion dates all the way back to Alexander the Great, who crucified thousands during his reign of the Middle East and surrounding areas. (Evans, 806) We know from Josephus that the Jews also crucified people. The Romans may be the most known crucifiers, lining well traveled roads with crosses to express Roman rule. Crucifixion was a brutal way to die. Someone about to be crucified was beaten, mocked, and whipped before being hung on a cross to suffocate and die. It wasn’t meant to be a quick death, and often people would hang on the cross for days before dying and being eaten by birds and wild animals.
Josephus and Cicero both claim that crucifixion was the worst form of death. (Evans, 806) Once one understands the brutality and history of crucifixion, they can then begin to appreciate Luke’s attempt at making Jesus’ death a noble one. For someone to approach death on a cross nobly, with so much confidence in God’s will and a calm composure is seemingly insane. Jesus, knowing what crucifixion was and how much pain and torture would come from it, approached death with a noble disposition as a martyr. That is a bold statement to make, but one that makes Luke’s noble death story that much more impressive and significant.
Making Jesus look like a martyr would have been crucial for his followers to read after his death. A martyr would die for his or her beliefs, inspiring others to stay loyal and faithful to their beliefs, even under persecution and trials. (Blickenstaff, 822) This is just the case in the times after Jesus. His followers were under heavy persecution by the Romans, and many were being put to death. Luke could have targeted Jewish readers, portraying Jesus as a martyr so devoted to his beliefs that he would even die for them, to give them hope and something to fight for through persecution. It is a brilliant tactic really, claiming the man you had been following believed so strongly in what he was teaching that he was faithful to it, even to the point of death on a cross. Stephen is another notable martyr, and eventually Paul would die for his beliefs as well.
Writings of Jesus’ death don’t end in the gospels. Throughout the New Testament authors such as Paul and Peter try to explain the death of Christ. (Green, 73) In Hebrews, Jesus’ noble death shows readers his obedience to God and his divine will, something crucial to the New Testaments theology of Jesus Christ. The death of Christ is later interpreted as forgiving sins. He lived a perfect life, suffered a noble death being a substitution for sinful humans so that anyone that accepts him as their personal savior has forgiveness of sins and eternal life in heaven. This is all later interpretation and theology, but the noble death of Christ could have pointed later authors and theologians to this conclusion.
Upon studying the difference between Luke and Mark, I have grown an understanding and appreciation for the authors varying intentions. The authors of the gospels were very intelligent, crafty, and clever, and they knew exactly how to approach different groups of readers. Luke, a seemingly educated man who was well immersed in Greco-Roman culture, wanted to reach both Jews and Romans, making Jesus relatable and acceptable for anyone who happened to read his good news. Studying Luke in depth has helped me understand more about Jesus as a person and more about the cultural significance of his death and the events leading up to it. When reading the gospels in the future, I will be more analytical and compare them closely, in hopes of discovering which Jesus each author is trying to portray. Jesus is an interesting character in history, and looking at him from all angles proves to be quite the endeavor.
Bibliography:
Gospel Passages: Lk 22:39-23:56
Evans, Craig A. “Crucifixion.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 1, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 806-807. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006.
Green, Joel B. “Death of Christ.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 69-74. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007. (sections A; B.1)
Blickenstaff, Marianne. “Martyr.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 3, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 822-823. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2008.
Kloppenborg, John. “Exitus clari viri: The Death of Jesus in Luke.” Toronto Journal of Theology 8 (1992) 106–20.
Sterling, Greg. “Mors philosophi: The Death of Jesus in Luke.” Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001): 383-402.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Essay VI
Hailey Zaayer
February 17, 2015
David Reis
Religion 317
Passion: The Death of Jesus in Luke
Luke’s account of the passion narrative incorporates and dismisses elements that tell a different story than the other gospels. The gospel of Luke depicts Jesus as tranquil and humbly willing to be crucified; as a depiction of the Roman and Greek tradition “noble death,” Jesus was the ultimate martyr.
The Lukan passion story starts out in Luke 22:39, when Jesus goes to the Mount of Olives and tell his disciples to “pray that you may not come into the time of trial” (Lk. 22:39). Afterwards, Jesus himself goes and prays to the father, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me; yet, not my will but yours be done” (Lk. 22:42). Then an angel, from heaven, gave him strength. He prayed more earnestly and started sweating drops of blood. When finished praying, he went back to the disciples to find them sleeping, because of grief. Jesus told them to pray. At once, a crowd of people led by Judas came. Judas approached Jesus and kissed him. A disciple struck one of the slaves of the high priest with a sword. Jesus was angered by this and healed the man’s ear. The temple police and chief priests arrested Jesus and took him away to the high priest’s house. Peter followed the crowd and around the fire a woman recognized Peter and said he had been with Jesus. Peter denied the accusation. An hour later, a man asked him the same question, and he denied knowing Jesus again. This happened one more time and then a crock crowed. The men who took Jesus captive mocked and insulted him. They brought Jesus to the Sanhedrin (the council) who promptly asked Jesus if he was the Messiah. Jesus does not answer directly, but instead he says that if he tells them, then they will not believe him. He says that the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of God and tells them “you say that I am” (Lk 22:70). This was enough evidence to take to Pilate.
Pilate did not see what Jesus had done wrong. He learned that Jesus was Galilean and sent him to Herod in Jerusalem. Herod was glad to see Jesus for he wanted to see a miracle. Jesus did not humor him, perform a miracle, or answer Herod. Because of not doing so, Herod dressed Jesus up in an elegant robe, as a sign of humiliation and mockery, and sent him back to Pilate. Pilate found this humorous and the two become friends through this exchange. Pilate declares that both himself and Herod do not accuse Jesus as being guilty and that he will have him flogged and subsequently released. Yet, the crowd protested and complained, saying they would rather have a murderer, Barabbas, released than Jesus. Pilate tried to address the people, but they kept shouting, “Crucify, crucify him!” even when Pilate again said he will release Jesus after flogging him. Finally, Pilate grants their wish of crucifixion and puts Jesus in prison for insurrection and murder. Luke places the blame of the death of Jesus on the Jewish people.
Jesus is handed over to the people who force a man, Cyrene, to carry the cross for Jesus. Jesus tells the women not to weep, and that there will be hope to come. Jesus presents an analogy, “for if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry.” (Lk 23:31) This statement is unclear. Either it is telling us that if the innocent Jesus suffers, than the guilty will suffer even more. Or it could mean that if “evil occurs with Jesus present, than how much more will occur in his absence” (Bible Commentary). Two criminals are crucified on each side of Jesus. The Jews ridicule Jesus on the cross, saying that if he is able to save others then he should be able to save himself. While on the cross, one of the men stands up for Jesus. At the end of the excruciating crucifixion on the cross Jesus cried out, “Father, into your hands I commend in two” (Lk 23: 46b). Everyone in the crowd was distraught by this. A centurion saw this event and said, “Truly this man is innocent” (Lk 22:47).
After Jesus’ death, Joseph, a member of the council who did not agree with the crucifixion, took the body down from the cross and wrapped it in linen. He laid it in a tomb and covered it with a rock. Joseph returned and prepared spices and ointments for burial, but Sabbath came so he rested before the burial.
In the article “Mors Philosophi: The Death of Jesus in Luke,” Greg Sterling shows how Luke portrayed Jesus as a “philosopher-martyr” throughout his passion narrative. Sterling begins by explaining that Jesus’ crucifixion, in the ancient world, would have been viewed as an oxymoron. The idea that the hero of the story dies is not standard. This creates the “noble death tradition” where it is not acceptable for a hero to show distress while facing death; therefore an author will turn a character’s death story from an embarrassment into an exemplum (Sterling 2001, 384). Sterling argues that Luke uses the noble death tradition to explain Jesus’ death. People of the ancient Greek and Roman world were fascinated by these noble death stories, especially when they were tragic.
The noble death tradition was so intriguing to the Hellenistic world that they started collecting death stories. Socrates’ death was one of the major models in this movement. Many authors at the time drew upon Socrates’ death as an example for the deaths of their characters or heroes. Sterling gives accounts of authors as leading examples of this allusion to the Socratic tradition. Plutarch and Lucian are the two Greek authors that Sterling exemplifies. Plutarch writes the death story of Cato, and how “Cato calmed his friends. He adds that he refused their efforts to save him, a detail that reminds us that Socrates had refused Crito” (Sterling 2001, 388). Tacitus was a Roman author who drew upon Socratic tradition and intertwined it with the noble death tradition during the narrative death of Seneca and Thrasea Paetus. Both of these death narratives exhibited the characters accepting their death and consoling their friends. Seneca is said to have had maintained a “placid demeanor throughout his ordeal.” (Sterling 2001, 389) and Thrasea spent his final hours discussing the nature of the soul. Sterling suggests it is here that Luke drew upon ideas for his narrative of the passion story of Jesus.
Sterling goes on to tell us that Hebrew and Jewish authors recounted deaths in the Hebrew Bible. The Jews called them martyrs; they were gladly dying for the teachings of God. An example of this is Eleazar’s death in 2 Maccabees 6:18-31, which demonstrated calmness and courage. Sterling suggests that Jewish martyrs influenced Luke’s passion narrative. Knowing that Luke used Mark as an outline for the Lukan narrative, Sterling expresses that Luke did not agree with Mark’s story so he reshaped it to better fit a new character of Jesus. Luke portrayed Jesus as being serene. Luke uses Socratic tradition by eliminating emotion from the story; Socrates was a model for composure and fearlessness at the time of death. Luke eliminated three statements suggesting Jesus’ struggles and apprehensions: Mark 14:33, 34, 35b. Luke changes Mark 14:35a from Jesus falling on the ground and praying to Jesus “got down on his knees and prayed.” (Lk 22:41) Sterling suggests this change occurs because the Markan story shows fear and distress in Jesus whereas in Luke’s story Jesus is portrayed as poised. Luke draws upon Jesus’ innocence. Luke changes Mark 15:39 from “Truly this man was God’s son” (Mk 15:39), to “Truly this man is innocent” (Lk 23:47), in Luke 23:47. This stated that Jesus’ death was unjust and showed similarities between Socrates and Jesus. “For these reasons I think that many first-century Christians would have recognized Socrates’ death in the confession of the centurion” (Sterling 2001, 399). Sterling argues that the allusions to Socrates softened the harsh picture of Jesus on the cross by making it appear positive.
In John S. Kloppenborg’s article, Exitus Clari Viri: The Death of Jesus in Luke, he argues that Luke was aware of his audience as Greek and Roman, and Luke portrays the antagonists as the priests. Kloppenborg states Luke is aware that Pilate would reject his writings if he accused Pilate, or Herod, or the Roman rule, of being the reason Jesus was crucified. Luke is intentional about making it clear that Jesus was not seen as a threat to the Romans. Pilate declared Jesus innocent three times, yet the crowd shouted for him to be imprisoned and crucified. Luke even points out that a centurion saw what had happened and declared Jesus as innocent. Not even Herod could find cause for execution of Jesus. Kloppenborg says that Luke’s narrative is apologetic for the Greco-Roman world. This is to show that Jesus died a noble death and Greeks and Roman readers would be familiar and would recognize that.
Kloppenburg compares the Phaedo and Luke’s narrative. The two works both show Socrates and Jesus as untroubled and noble when facing death. Kloppenborg states that each story includes friends and companions being present, at some distance, of the death. Kloppenborg also suggests that in the last hours of Luke’s narrative, Jesus is depicted as fearless, without regret or grief. “What is perhaps most distinctive in Greco-Roman accounts of heroic deaths is the amount of attention paid to the ars moriendi—the way the hero dies” (Kloppenborg 1992, 111). Kloppenborg suggests that Luke edited and reworked Mark’s narrative, similar to what Sterling argues. The same accounts are changed, where Jesus got down on his knees and prayed in Luke 22:41, and how Luke chose to avoid Mark 14:33-35. Thus showing Jesus was a comfort and acted noble when faced with death. Kloppenborg expresses other examples where Luke has altered Mark, each contributing to the portrayal of Jesus facing death with composure. In conclusion, Kloppenborg draws one more time to the Phaedo, and how even if Luke did not read Plato, he was nonetheless influenced by this genre of noble tradition.
After reading these two articles, I find both have strong points pointing to Luke portraying his Jesus character to be martyr. First, the crucifixion itself is argued in both articles to have been played down to more of a somber event rather than a murder from the Roman authorities to keep the peace. Luke altered many word before the cross that leads the reader to hear a different story than that of other gospels. Luke did not include the grief and distress that Jesus went through. Luke includes that Cyrene was a man who carried the cross up the hill for Jesus, allowing Jesus to comfort his friends and companions. At the end of crucifixions, it was common for bodies to be left unburied and to be picked apart by birds and animals (Evans 2006, 806). However, Joseph took Jesus’ body down from the cross and wrapped him in linen, showing a sign of respect to Jesus.
Luke, as stated in both articles, portrayed Pilate as a person who did not accuse Jesus. He declared him innocent three times. This is not a usual account of Roman authorities. Roman authorities are responsible for keeping peace and they were intolerant of attempts of rebellion. However, in the case of Jesus, Pilate saw that he was stirring up the people, although still declared Jesus innocent. This was Luke’s way of defending the Greco-Roman world and showing that Pilate was the “good guy” through this ordeal.
The key term of Jesus being a martyr is a literary device that Luke chose to use to link together the Jewish traditions and the Hebrew Bible. This concept is the key argument in these articles. It shows Jesus as piety. He is the one who is loyal and will go through persecution in order to inspire others to have life. The noble death tradition is so strongly alluded to in Luke’s passion story that there is no way he did not intentionally chose to portray Jesus as humble, calm, and willing.
In conclusion, this project helped me better understand and grasp the deeper meaning of the passion narrative. Even though it was only through the Lukan narrative, I appreciated the wealth of information that was provided for such a story. We have talked a lot in class about how Luke and John have used Mark as a reference to writing their gospels, and this research helped my understanding of that concept; the synoptic gospels. It showed me exactly where certain words or even whole statements have been altered and have been reworked, and I see now the intentions behind Luke’s alterations of Mark’s story. I would have to agree with the Kloppenborg and Sterling. There is excellent evidence provided that show that Luke had many factors in the ancient Greco-Roman world that would have been a big influence to the way he wrote about and portrayed Jesus’ character. Also, there was clear intent behind the portrayal of the Roman authorities. Luke clearly knew whom his intended audience was and how to manipulate and construe his story with them in mind. This project has helped my appreciation of the different gospels as well. I am now curious if I were to do this project, but say, with Matthew, what are his depictions of Jesus and why? I appreciate now the time Luke took to represent Jesus’ death through the noble tradition lens. Luke’s knowledge of Greek was said to be superior to the other gospel writers, and therefore he was able to take that knowledge and create a passion narrative that is different than any others in the gospel stories.
Gospel Passage: Lk 22:39-23:56
Evans, Craig A. “Crucifixion.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 1, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 806-807. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006.
Green, Joel B. “Death of Christ.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 69-74. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007. (sections A; B.1)
Blickenstaff, Marianne. “Martyr.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 3, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 822-823. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2008.
Kloppenborg, John. “Exitus clari viri: The Death of Jesus in Luke.” Toronto Journal of Theology 8 (1992) 106–20.
Sterling, Greg. “Mors philosophi: The Death of Jesus in Luke.” Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001): 383-402
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Essay VII
Amanda Dougherty
REL 317
David Reis
2-16-15
The Passion Narrative In Luke
The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), all display the story of the crucifixion differently. The gospel of Luke tends to portray Jesus as serene and composed while in Mark, Jesus seems to be more emotional. The story of the crucifixion in Luke starts out with Jesus being costumed to the Mount of Olives, followed by His disciples. When Jesus is at the Mount of Olives He prays to God that His will would be done. Jesus knows that God’s plan for Him is to be crucified. After this, Judas, one of Jesus’ twelve disciples, comes to Jesus leading a crowd of people. The people are all carrying swords and clubs because they have come to take Jesus away. Jesus’ followers all seem upset by this and one of them even cuts of a slave’s ear, which Jesus heals with His touch. The crowd of people took Jesus to the high priest’s house. While they are there, Peter, another one of Jesus’ disciples, denies the fact that he knows Jesus even though he was following Him. Jesus was then mocked and beaten by the crowd of people. “They said, “If you are the messiah, tell us.” He replied, “If I tell you, you will not believe; if I question you, you will not answer.” (Luke vs. 22:67-68). Jesus was then brought before Pilate. The people were accusing Jesus of many things and at first Pilate was on Jesus’ side. He said, “I find no basis for an accusation against this man.(23:4) Pilate then sent Jesus to Herod. Jesus gave Herod no answer when Herod asked if the things that the people were saying were true. Herod and his soldiers then mocked Jesus and put an elegant robe on Him and then Herod sent Jesus back to Pilate. Pilate said that since both him and Herod found nothing wrong with Jesus that he should just be “flogged and released (vs. 23:16)”. People were mad about this and kept on shouting out to crucify Him, so eventually Pilate gave in to them (vs. 23:24)”. Jesus was crucified at a place called, “the skull” along with two other criminals. While Jesus was on the cross He said, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing”(vs. 23:34). One of the criminals that was being crucified alongside Jesus said that Jesus should have no problem saving them if He was really the Messiah. The other criminal said, “Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom.” and Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise”(vs. 23:42-43). Jesus’ last words that He said while on the cross were, “Father into your hands I commend my spirit” and died. A man by the name of Joseph then took Jesus’ body, wrapped it in linen, and laid It in a rock tomb.
In the New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Evans explains in greater detail what a crucifixion really is and facts about crucifixions in the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. Crucifixion: “a form of execution practiced in late antiquity. Whereby a person was tied or nailed to a pole or cross and left to hang. This type of execution is known to be the worst form of death. The words “crucify” and “cross” are derived form the word torture which in latin is “cruciare”. The word crucifixion was ultimately known as a “slaves” punishment. This punishment was practiced in the east Mediterranean long before it was adopted by the Romans. “Alexander the Great is said to have crucified thousands” (Evans 2006, 806-807). As part of the ritual of a Crucifixion, the criminals would often be made to carry their own crosses, as an added punishment, to the place where they were to be crucified. After the criminal was dead, the bodies were usually left to rot and be eaten by the birds. However, there is a practice that allows the criminals who are being crucified, to be buried before sundown. This practice is only taken into account when broken leg bones, of the criminals, are relevant. During the crucifixion of Jesus, His body was taken down from the cross the night of His death. It is written “to hasten the deaths of the two men crucified with Jesus, their legs were broken” (Jn 19.32). This was contrary to the Roman practice, but kept with Jewish Law and sensitivities. Pilate generally allowed Jewish criminals to have a proper burial which is why this happened to Jesus. In the chapter of Mark, it is depicted that Jesus wears a crown of thorns. This is meant to resemble a lauree wreath, worn by Caesar, which is meant to mock Jesus. The people also make Jesus wear a purple cloak and they addressed him as a “so-called King”. A titilus (a label of a criminal’s name and punishment often worn around their neck) was hung on Jesus’ cross that stated “King of the Jews” in several languages. This is another way that the people mocked Jesus while He was on the cross.
Jesus was crucified on the cross for a few different reasons. The people did not like how he was saying that He was the Messiah. They wanted Him to prove Himself which He wouldn’t do to their faces. Jesus’ disciples knew who He was but at times, like Paul did, refused to even know Him because they gave into the crowd. “…the cross marked Jesus’ condemnation as a religious deliverer and false prophet” (Green 2007, 69-74). People were mocking Jesus and wanted Him to be crucified because they believed that He was was a false prophet and that He wasn’t who He said He was. Many Christians at this time however, truly believed that Jesus was the son of God and that He was dying on the cross for their salvation. “Among early Christians, the death of Christ served as the means by which God offered salvation and provided the pattern of discipleship” (Green 2007, 69-74). When victims were being affixed, the people of authority would like the entertainment of the crucifixion and try to leave the victim alive for as long as they could to see them suffer longer. “…victims of crucifixion were subject to optimal, unmitigated, vicious ridicule” (Green 2007, 69-74). In the gospel of Luke compared to the gospel of Mark, this side of crucifixion seems to be left out because Luke seems to be portraying a more serene and composed character of Jesus. While Jesus is on the cross he is being mocked which is portrayed in both Mark and Luke, but there are things that are said in Luke that aren’t mentioned in Mark. An example of this is in Luke when one of the criminals next to Jesus says, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” (Lk 23:39). The Jesus replies with, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Lk 23:43). This shows a more composed character from Jesus which isn’t shown as well in the gospel of Mark. Jesus did not agree with the politics and certain things that were going on in the world at the time of his crucifixion which is why people were so unhappy with Him. “He could not be forgotten then and must not be forgotten now, that Jesus was crucified as a threat to Rome and His acceptance of His death was His rejection of the politics of coercion and violence” (Green 2007, 69-74). Jesus followed after God’s will for Him while He was on Earth. He showed His faithfulness to God and His obedience to God when He suffered on the cross which was how God ultimately wanted Him to show suffering for His people. “His life proves that suffering on account of faithfulness to God is neither the whole nor the end of the story, but is a precursor to vindication and glory” (Green 2007, 69-74).
In the New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, there is a section that discusses Jesus as a “martyr”. Throughout the New Testament there were several occasions when there were martyrs, “someone who gives witness to the strength of his or her convictions by dying rather than recounting religious or political beliefs” (Blickenstaff 2008, 822-823). The most notable story however, was the martyrdom of Jesus. He stood up for His own beliefs and was crucified on the cross because of them. The death of a martyr often ends in persecution or torture; a cruel end to one’s life. A martyr however, is a very strong person and role model to many. They aren’t afraid to be loyal and faithful to their own beliefs even if there are death threats or they’re under persecution. This can be very inspiring to people who believe in the same things that they believe in.
The fact that Jesus who was believed to be the Messiah and a “Lord” was crucified did not make sense to many people in the ancient days. The term “crucified Lord” was seen as an Oxymoron to people. There was a tradition called the “noble death tradition” that stated, “it was not acceptable for a hero-much the less a figure accorded divine honors-to demonstrate anxiety in the face of death.” In Luke it is stated that Jesus says, “Oh Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass” (Lk 22:42). A question is raised with this verse about why Jesus would pray for this and be fearful of his death. In the gospel of Luke, it is rarely mentioned that Jesus is anxious or fearful of what God’s will is for Him, but this verse shows that He did have a little fear. In Mark, Jesus is portrayed as seeming fairly emotional. “…and He began to be disturbed and distressed” (Mk 14:33). This shows a difference in the way that Luke tells the crucifixion story. He interprets the story differently then Mark and doesn’t show Jesus as being very emotional. In Luke when Jesus and the two criminals are hanging on the crosses, one of the criminals asks the other criminal, “Do you not fear God since you are suffering the same penalty? We suffer this justly, for we are receiving what our actions deserve. But He has done nothing wrong” (Lk 23:40-41). This is another way that Luke shows that Jesus was made out to have done nothing wrong, which He didn’t but He didn’t agree with certain things that were going on in the world at this time such as a war.
In an article called “Mors Philosophi”, there is a section called: The Death of Jesus in Luke. In this section the author, Sterling, compares Jesus’ death with that of Socrates who is a classic Greek philosopher. Socrates was often used as a model for noble death in Hellenism. “…the death of Socrates became the lens through which the deaths of later philosophers were viewed” (Sterling 2001, 383-402). There are many sources that are used for Socrates death: four of Plato’s Dialogues, and two of Xenophon’s works. His death is seen as very evident in the case of Eleazar. Eleazar was a priest in the Hebrew bible as well as the nephew of Moses. There are many parallels made between Socrates and Eleazar. An example of this is how, “Eleazar refused to deliver himself by substituting his own meat for that of the king, just as Socrates had refused to listen to his friends who tried to persuade him to go into exile” ( Sterling 2001, 383-402).
In the gospel of Luke, the story of the Last Supper is a lot longer than in the gospels of Matthew and Mark. While both Matthew and Mark tell it in only nine verses, Luke tells it in 25 verses. Luke’s understanding of this supper is also portrayed differently than in the other gospels. Luke seems to focus on the words that Jesus is speaking to His disciples which are some of the last words that He will ever speak to them. Jesus does not seem to show any fear, regret, or grief during this time, some of His last hours. There are some verses that show the differences among the gospels. In Mark, Jesus says, “Whoever wishes to be great among you should be your servant” (Mk 10:43). While in Luke, Jesus expands this and says, “Let the one who is the greater among you be as the youngest, and the leader of as the servant; for who is greater, the one reclining at the table, or the server? Is it not the one who reclines? But I am among you as a server” (Lk 22:26-27). In Luke, It seems that Jesus is expanding the passage in Mark to add greater emphasis on the meaning and lesson that Jesus is sharing through these words. Jesus is showing that He came to the Earth to serve even though He is known as the “Messiah” or “Savior”. He is telling Hos disciples this before He is crucified so that they will understand that and know that.
Several times throughout the crucifixion story, It is noted that Jesus’ disciples don’t understand why Christ has to suffer. Jesus is the only one who knows this before the Easter story. The disciples do show grief when they know that Jesus is going to be crucified, “And arising from prayer, and coming to the disciples he found them sleeping from grief” (Lk 22:45). Luke shows grief from the disciples but he really doesn’t reflect on any grief shown by Jesus. “..Luke’s avoidance of grief can be traced to the negative connotations that grief had in Stoic and Hellenistic Jewish thought” (Kloppenborg 1992, 106-120).
As a result from working on this paper, I have ultimately gained a deeper and greater understanding of the crucifixion story. I have heard this story and sermons on this passage numerous times, but researching in depth, every part of the passage and analyzing it really made my understanding of the crucifixion grow. It also really challenged me to compare the crucifixion stories of the different gospels. It is interesting how each gospel portrays the story differently. Some of the facts may be more expanded upon in one gospel than in another. I really learned a lot about the character of Jesus in Luke compared to the character of Jesus in Matthew and in Mark. He is the same Jesus, but the gospel writers have different understandings of how He reacted during certain times. This really gave me a greater appreciation for the synoptic gospels. It really helped me to understand the story of the crucifixion better to read it from three different perspectives. Overall I am glad that I had the chance to further my knowledge on the story of the crucifixion and of Jesus during the crucifixion.
Bibliography
-
Evans, Craig A. “Crucifixion.” The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 1. Nashville: Abingdom, 2006. 806-07. Print.
-
Green, Joel B. “Death of Christ.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 69-74. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007. (sections A; B.1)
-
Blickenstaff, Marianne. “Martyr.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 3, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 822-823. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2008.
-
Kloppenborg, John. “Exitus clari viri: The Death of Jesus in Luke.” Toronto Journal of Theology 8 (1992) 106–20.
-
Sterling, Greg. “Mors philosophi: The Death of Jesus in Luke.” Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001): 383-402.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~