History and Theology in the Passion narratives of the Synoptic "

HANS CONZELMANN Professor of University of Göttingen

ι. THE SUBJECT ITH WHAT problem is the subject primarily concerned? Is it W the question to what extent assured historical facts underlie the passion narratives of the Gospels, and how the theology of the individual Evangelists expressed in their respective interpretations of the event relates to these facts? Does this theology spring, so to speak, out of the facts themselves? Or is it a subsequent and therefore secondary addition to the facts? If the latter, it is of course necessary to push through the layer of interpretation to the facts themselves, because salvation lies in them. In such a case the decisive task is not the exegesis of the biblical texts but, rather, the reconstruction of the facts. Such an approach does represent a widespread position, identified by that "exchange of fronts55 (to use Käsemann5s phrase) in which conservatives have taken over the heritage of liberal historicism. We ask: If salvation lies in the facts, how can it then be communi­ cated to men who live far removed in time? What then is the word in the salvation event? Of course the historical reconstruction of the happenings (Jesus5 arrest, trial, execution) remains an essential task just because of the necessity of the information. (One thinks of the general helplessness of the pastor against the pseudo-historical, sensational stories in the illus­ trated gazettes and the "news magazines.55) As for the rest, one should * Translation by Charles B. Cousar of "Historie und Theologie in den synoptischen Passions­ berichten," Zur Bedeutung des Todes Jesu, Fritz Viering, ed. (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1967), pp. 37-53·

178 History and Theology in the Passion Narratives of the Interpretation

not get bogged down in the sterile, abstract discussion as to whether "facts55 and their interpretation can be distinguished at all. If one works with the historical sources, this distinction is an indispensable procedure.1 If one asks which facts underlie the biblical passion story, then two questions are to be distinguished : a) What appears to contemporary analysis of the texts as historical {historisch)? b) What seemed historical to the Evangelists? And what significance for them has the facticity as such, which according to our judgment is to a large extent only a supposed one? The modern historical problem—the relation of actual event and what is supposed to have happened—is for the Evangelists of course not a conscious problem. A slight trace of problematic appears only in the apologetic for the in Matthew.

2. THE HISTORICAL SUBSTRATUM The extent of what we can establish as certain fact is minimal. The assured core is that was crucified. From that we can conclude that he was arrested and that a court proceeding followed (and, to be sure) a Roman one. Crucifixion is a Roman, not a Jewish, means of capital punishment. All the rest in the course of events is debatable. It is agreed, however, that the passion story, as we read it, is shaped by intensive theological interpretation.2 It is meaningless to debate abstractly whether this or that scene could be historical or might probably be historical. The general rule of analysis is still valid here. "In the first place we have to ask: not, what can be thought of as historical? but: what is intelligible as tradition in the Christian Church? And this question must be put before or after the question as to historical possibility as each individual case requires."3

ι. The question whether the interpretation of the death of Jesus as a salvation deed goes back to Jesus himself is excluded in this paper. 2. It is significant that presentations of the passion by nonprofessionals, even if they assume a critical stance, take for historical facts (largely uninvestigated) what is theological interpreta­ tion. 3. Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans, by John Marsh (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963), p. 270.

179 An essential reason for the uncertainty with regard to the events is of course the fact that there are for large areas no Christian eyewitnesses, nor could there be in such instances as the closed deliberations in the Jewish high court and in the Roman governor's palace. Even some scenes for which there could be eyewitnesses are not eyewitness reports. For instance, the report of the institution of 's Supper is, at least in its present form, shaped by the community, with the result that it can be understood without the presupposition of an eyewitness report. The same holds true for the story of the arrest of Jesus,4 the , and for every detail of the crucifixion scene. Beyond this we must state that one cannot very well assume that the entire course of the passion narrative, as the Evangelists represent it, is historical (especially when one recalls the "Messianic secret'5 of Mark). The point at which the historical basis () and the theological interpretation (Jesus' destiny as salvation event) coincide is the believing confession of the community: Jesus, or , is killed and is raised from the dead. It can be directly extracted from places such as Romans 14:9; I Corinthians 15:30. It forms the basis of Romans 6. This confession is the key also to the understanding of the narrative presentation of the passion. For example, the christological summaries in Acts (2122Í.; 10:37-41; 13:27-33) show how much this is in the mind of the Evangelists. The summaries are simply an outline of the —of course primarily according to the understanding of Luke. This, however, depends upon Mark, and Mark himself shows the con­ nection of creed and story in the summarization of the passion kerygma in the three passion predictions. In them appears the line which leads from creed to narrative. The passion report may not be isolated; it must be seen in connection with the entire gospel tradition.5 4. Assuming one does not discover an eyewitness in the very mysterious youth of Mark I4:5lf· 5. Why is the faith presented in the form of a historical narrative at all? Why is a "report of the facts" (Tatsachenbericht) created (whereby, according to the judgment of the historical critic, "facts" are created)? Gottfried Schille, ZThK, LII (1955), 16iff., states: "Neither purely historical interest nor the need of (apologetic) preaching nor the experience of being grasped by the cult-hero leads to creation of the form 'passion-report.' The liturgy is the Sitz im Leben and the condition for its origin." But this liturgy is a product of the imagination. Certainly we can presume that in divine worship the passion is represented, however, not through cultic repetition, but, rather, precisely in the telling of it. Moreover, we cannot trans­ form a hermeneutical theory concerning the circumstances of narration into a historical causal explanation. And we ought not to want to know too much where a causal derivation is not even possible. 180 History and Theology in the Passion Narratives of the Synoptic Gospels Interpretation

3. THE PRE-MARKAN STAGE6 The oft-quoted saying of Martin Kahler that the Gospels are "pas­ sion-narratives with extended introductions55 does not do justice to the material itself. Even if one holds to the position that in terms of the history of the tradition the passion narrative is the oldest section of the Gospel, the question still remains why it was given this introduction or the form "gospel'5 was created—which is not absolutely necessary to the passion narrative. What was the course followed by those who thought through and shaped the material? For Mark the passion is, in fact, the key to open the door to the under­ standing of the work of Jesus. Speaking hermeneutically, this was accom­ plished with the help of the "Messianic secret55 (so Wrede). Speaking with Mark5s own language, the passion opens the door to the mystery of the Kingdom of God, and thus the hiddenness of the nature of Jesus.7 But at the same time the report of the deeds of Jesus retains its own value. Mark shows this repeatedly—by the title "the beginning of the gospel55 ( 1:1 ), in the definition of gospel and faith ( 1:14f.), in the mass of miracle stories together with their interpretation as signs for the authority of the teaching ( 1:2iff. ). In general the christological unity, the identity of the Jesus of the deeds and of the passion, is presupposed. But now the differentia specifi- cae must be worked out on this basis. For salvation is connected with the passion in a manner different from its connection with the deeds, namely, in a direct line (through which the paradox of faith appears). The relation of unity and differentiation between deeds and passion becomes evident (at the Markan stage) in the modification of the

6. Particularly, Dibelius emphasized that the passion narrative was the first component of the Synoptic tradition to take a fixed form. In fact, a complete narrative was already available to Mark. Yet caution is needed if the history of the tradition is judged by this literary diagnosis. Dibelius observed too little of the general style differences. The form in the passion section is more strongly polished. Where the style agrees with the earlier part of the Gospel, it has to do with individual scenes which can be detached without difficulty from the present framework. Miracle stories are missing (the single apparent exception, the cursing of the fig tree, confirms the rule: It is not comparable to the other miracles). In place of them, Jesus' knowledge of future events is hinted at—not in scenes but in parts of scenes. That is to say, the miraculous is no longer related to others but to Jesus himself. The Jesus of the passion is none other than the Jesus of the preceding activity, but he already appears differently in the pre-Markan form. 7. E. Trocmé represents a radically different position in La formation de l'évangile selon Marc (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1963): Mark concluded his book with chapter 13 as the climax. The passion narrative is a secondary expansion.

181 Messianic secret when Jesus goes to Jerusalem. From this we can see that the secret is the application of the theologia crucis to the whole work of Jesus, In Galilee Jesus5 nature {Wesen) is hidden. His secret destiny is the cross. In Jerusalem he declares openly what he is, for now the passion is itself the manner of the veiling. At the same time, the line from the work of Jesus to the believers becomes evident; with the resur­ rection the secret is removed (9:9 ; cf. 4:22 ). Yet in a specific way it still remains, inasmuch as preaching is not a demonstration of the glory of Jesus but rather separates people according to whether they hold to the cross. "To those outside" the secret remains unrevealed; indeed, through preaching it is removed from their view. If we ask now about the Vorlage which Mark used to work out his passion narrative, then we must grant the uncertainty of any reconstruc­ tion (correctly noted by Debelius).8 14: if., iof., an introduction to the passion narrative, opens a window on the pre-Markan presentation. These facts are shown to be already extant because the insertion of the story of anointing disconnects them. In this introduction the passover still appears to possess no theological significance. An interpretative motif appears in the "must55 of the passion, and thus the "proof from Scripture.559 To this is added the apologetic motif: Jesus is not caught in a catastrophe; he went quite consciously to meet his destiny. The accompanying signs (Mark 15:33, 38) document the supranatural character of the incidents. The main motif, however, is the christological dogmatic which pervades the whole and not only shapes but even creates entire scenes.

8. Cf. the difference between Bultmann and Dibelius! 9. Dibelius gives a high place to the creative power of the "proof from Scripture." It is said to have created scenes such as the casting of lots for the garments. Chr. Maurer, ZThK, L (1953), iff., discovers in Isa. 53 the most important dynamic for the presentation. Contrary to this position is A. Suhl, Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markusevangelium (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus G. Mohn, 1965). For him the situa­ tion is exactly reversed. The way begins with the events and moves back into the O.T. One does not spin events out of the proof from Scripture, but relates history with the help of the O.T., e.g., the casting of lots for the garments can be historical. In that case, Ps. 21:18 became an obvious reference. :34 and 14:18 are joined together first by Mark, etc. Also Mark 14:27b is secondary. Likewise the scene in 14:65 is not produced from the proof from Scrip­ ture. Originally the account of the (historical) mistreatment of Jesus was reported in connec­ tion with the arrest (!)—the methodological error of Suhl lies in the fact that he ignores the basic insight of form criticism: He starts, not from the account, but from conjectures about the account—how it could have been or would have been.

182 History and Theology in the Passion Narratives of the Synoptic Gospels Interpretation

The pre-Markan form of the report is pursued here no further. Its essential contents are taken over by Mark.10

4. THE PLAGE OF THE PASSION NARRATIVE IN MARK'S GOSPEL11 Characteristic for the formation is a series of anticipatory references. They occur in the passion narrative itself; and they join the passion narrative to the preceding section of the Gospel. Examples in the passion narrative are: The observation concerning the betrayal (14:1 of.) throws light on the preparation of the ; the disclosure of the betrayer illumines the meal itself; the announcement of the consterna­ tion of the disciples and the denial of Peter interpret the agony scene () and the trial. In a basic sense one can speak of a series of hindrances which time and again are cast before the reader as stones of offense. If we ask now concerning the relationship of the passion narrative to the account of the deeds of Jesus (miracles and teaching), we must first determine the limits of the passion narrative. Originally it started with 14: if., 1 of. But Mark shifts its beginning forward. It is introduced at the entry into Jerusalem, actually at the public demonstration of Jesus' king­ ship. The connection is clear: the royal title is taken up in chapter 15 and completely dominates it.12 Before the entry into Jerusalem, Mark places a further preparatory section which begins with 8:27. The essential link is the Messianic secret. A unified theological intention can be deduced. Mark has as extant material a passion account and a picture of Jesus as the miracle worker and theios anthröpos. Now he provides a new interpretation of

1 o. H. W. Bartsch, "Die Passions-und Ostergeschichten bei Matthäus," in Entmythologi­ sierende Auslegung (ThF, 26; Hamburg: H. Reich, 1962), pp. 8off. In the oldest stage suffer­ ing, death, resurrection, together with the appearances, are understood as final events (Endereignisse). They are inaugurated through the passion. Mark gives a new interpretation then when he places an interval between resurrection and end-time. Against Bartsch: In the oldest strata no relationship exists between the death and parousia of Jesus. There is not a single support for identifying the resurrection with the parousia. Bartsch ignores the evidence in the early creed. The parousia is not to be found in it, and its omission is not accidental. 11. E. Lohse, Die Geschichte des Leidens und Sterbens Jesu Christi (Gütersloh: (Gütersloher Verlagshaus G. Mohn, 1964); T. A. Burkill, Mysterious Revelation (Ithaca, Ν.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1963); E. Best, The Temptation and the Passion (Cambridge: University Press, 1965); Ernst Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu (Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1966). 12. On the royal motif, see P. Vielhauer, Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1965), pp. 199fr.

183 this picture in terms of passion-theology. Thereby he can draw the line from the historical accounts of the deeds of Jesus in their own time into contemporary proclamation. The authority of Jesus is actualized in the present as the power of his teaching. And its content is the "way of Jesus55 (Haenchen) from the "beginning of the gospel55 through the passion. This is the believers5 training in "discipleship.55 Thus the unity of the way of Jesus signifies not only the wholeness of a picture of the history of Jesus but also the soteriological unity of historical presentation and proclamation/faith. Exegetical Evidence. Mark had available the scene of the confession of Peter (which I am not able to take as historical) .13 But he interprets it afresh. Peter speaks the "normal55 creed of the church. He uses the title "Messiah55 which in Christian usage has a particular affinity to the passion: "Christ55 is crucified and raised. Peter does not speak a false confession (as has recently been explained again) and Jesus does not deny that he is the Messiah. Only the interpretation of the correct con­ fession by Peter (not the historical Peter but one formed ad hoc) is false. Peter wants glory for the Master—rightly ! Only he wants it without the condition for glory, namely, suffering. In the thinking of Mark the command of Jesus to keep the messiahship secret for the time being and the prediction of the passion are a unity. The disciples5 lack of under­ standing is set over against the "openness55 with which Jesus makes this prediction. The arc of prediction is stretched all the way to the resur­ rection. The Suffering One and the Glorified One are identical, and beyond that the Suffering One and the Coming One. When the one destined to suffer is designated "Son of Man,55 then the reader is quite clearly pointed to the parousia. This is confirmed by the direction of the conversation in the trial scene. The entire sequence in the scene in Mark 8:27ff. is to be interpreted from the perspective of the community and of faith. The community of course knows as fulfilled what Jesus here predicts—up to the resurrec­ tion—so that for it also the hope in the parousia is authenticated. What does it mean then that these events are put in the mouth of Jesus in the

13. For a contrary position, F. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), pp. 226ÎÏ. and E. Dinkier, "Petrusbekenntnis und Satanswort," in Zeit und Geschichte, Festschrift für Rudolf Bultmann (Tübingen: J. G. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1964), pp. 127η0. I cannot help but express my wonder at this neohistoricism from confirmed form critics, even when I believe I know the history of this historicism.

184 History and Theology in the Passion Narratives of the Synoptic Gospels Interpretation

form of prophecy? The usual explanation runs like this : It is done as an apologetic in order to show that the passion did not break over Jesus as a catastrophe, but that he went to meet it knowing that it did not negate but rather fulfilled his work and claim. This explanation is insufficient. It does not do the text justice. The intention is not to explain that the offense of the cross is removed by the resurrection (as if the passion were annulled by the resurrection). The intention of the text is precisely the opposite. It wishes to show that the passion is the necessary condition for glory, and therewith for the continuing qualification of faith even after . For that reason, the story of suffering is an indispensable ingredient of the gospel. Through it the scandal is retained. If the apologetic motif prevailed, it would have to be narrated in a different way. Scenes such as those in Geth- semane would be inexplicable. The passion narrative is a bolt which bars every opening to a christologia gloriae. The command to silence is temporally limited. It holds until Easter. Then follows the time of the open proclamation of the true nature of Jesus, but with the constant narration of the passion. Its "must" is an established content of the teaching. This is shown by the direct con­ tinuation in Mark's Gospel where the suffering of Jesus is pictured as determinative of the existence of the disciples. This consists of - ship and bearing one's own cross—even to the sacrifice of life for the Master, and that means after Easter for the gospel. Both parallels show how tightly the thought is connected. Mark not only places the block of three passion predictions before the events in Jerusalem, but also provides three links between the passion and the vocation of believers in the world (cf. 9:33-37; io:35Íf.).14 Preliminary Results. For the faith which looks back, the point fixed in history is relevant as such. Specifically this is the scandal through which the disciples "at that time" had to pass and which today is trans­ formed into the life style of discipleship. One need only compare the disciples' lack of understanding (Mark 9:33-37) with the statements of Jesus that both initiate and maintain them in their discipleship, which means practically that in the community no offense is to be taken

14. For Mark's share in the formation of the first reference (8:34f.), see E. Haenchen, "Die Komposition von Mk. 8:27—9:1 und Par.," in Charts kai Sophia, Festschrift für Κ. Η. Rengstorf, Ulrich Luck, ed. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964), pp. 81 ff.

185 (9:42). The passion is here the training ground, not only for confession and martyrdom, but also for the daily common life in the church. The third version of the passion prediction (10:32 ff.) shows an arrangement of events which goes beyond the first and second. But these events are not used by themselves individually in a soteriological or sym­ bolic fashion. The passion as a whole is soteriologically effective: Jesus gives his life for the many (10:45). It is this thought which is immedi­ ately put to paraenetical use. The more pronounced sectioning is related not to the interpretation but rather to the narration.15 The same syle, the same connection of thought, prevails throughout. The request of the sons of Zebedee corresponds to the dispute for great­ ness. The point again is discipleship, thus training in the destiny of the Master, with preservation of the distance between the two. Mark has led the reader to the threshold of the passion: geographically, to the city of Jerusalem.

5. THE PASSION NARRATIVE OF MARK The entry into Jerusalem is the epiphany of the "kingdom of David.55 One may not impose Matthew's image of the lowliness of the one entering on the account of Mark too quickly (not even when one acknowledges that Zech. 9:9 is determinative for the Markan, or even the pre-Markan, version). The whole emphasis in Mark is on the king­ dom. To be sure, if the kingdom is greeted, then the passion is greeted. The reader knows what is going on because he knows the announcement of Jesus given three times. The line of thought corresponds to that of the transfiguration story. The glorification of Jesus is momentarily mani­ fest—and therewith the way is shown into suffering. A typical block follows immediately, the conflation of the accounts of Jesus5 appearance in the temple and the cursing of the fig tree. This is in accordance with the narrative technique of Mark. Jesus does not stay in Jerusalem. He visits the city at various times. And he refuses to answer the question concerning his authority. The reader receives the

15. The question as to how far this basic sketch agrees with the narrated explanation can here be ignored. The statement that the meaning lies not in the detail but in the whole does not of course exclude the fact that individual elements (persecution, mockery) have paraenetic value. But they have this meaning from the general context, from the soteriological presup­ position. To speak with Luther: the sactamentum is primary; the exemplum follows.

186 History and Theology in the Passion Narratives of the Synoptic Gospels Interpretation

answer in chapter 13 and from the destiny of Jesus: One cannot have the proof for Jesus5 authority without the passion.16 On the negative side, we note that in the pre-Markan tradition the heilsgeschichtlich theme is laid out—David's kingdom and temple, and thus actually church and Israel (parable of the wicked tenants). But Mark takes up the theme in critical fashion only to limit it and does not develop it positively. He intensifies the "Son of David" title (episode of Bartimaeus, pericope of David's sonship) —and notice how he does it. He does not explain the messiahship of Jesus by recourse to Israel but relates simply the healing of the blind man, the entry, the discussions in Jeru­ salem, the suffering. This is the Son of David, David's Lord. Likewise also the scene in the temple (the ) must be interpreted in the thinking of Mark not in terms of Israel's past but her future. The scene is of course shaped prior to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. But in case Mark writes after 70 (which to me is probable), it has gained for him new and obvious symbolic value. He does not (as Luke in his heilsgeschichtlich reflection) reclaim the temple for the church as the true Israel, but instead confirms that it was built by men and was misused. Punishment has followed. The teaching of Jesus in Jerusalem is punctuated by a series of rejec­ tions—the question about authority, the question of the Pharisees, the question of the Sadduces. The positive teaching, the disclosure of the last things, is restricted to the disciples. The scene itself is symbolic. Jesus speaks, looking down on the temple; he destroys it in anticipation. The content of chapter 13 has its own peculiar value. It is to be under­ stood from the independence of the eschatological theme. For example, the organization of the end events into two groups, a phase of "natural" catastrophes and the supranatural final act, cannot be derived simply from . It is connected on the one hand with the delay of the parousia and on the other hand with the warding off of apocalyptic speculations. We cannot pursue this further here. For our purpose it is

16. The complex of the entry into Jerusalem and the appearance of Jesus in the temple offers an example of the unfruitfulness of the historical line of questioning. Of course Jesus came sometime and somehow to Jerusalem. And of course at sometime he visited the temple. But with this our sure knowledge is exhausted. All else remains supposition; why he went to Jerusalem, how he appeared there, how long he could stay there until he was arrested, etc. The contemporary preaching of these texts cannot build on these conjectures but, rather, can only tie into the interpretation of the community which discovered this interpretation after Easter. 187 sufficient to ask about the bracketing of the eschatological speech in the framework of the passion. The parenthesis is clearly visible. Immediately after the prediction of the appearance of the Son of Man with power, the death decree against the Son of Man occurs (see the three passion predictions). When Mark inserts the speech about the last things at this place, he makes clear to the reader that the time after Jesus' death until the parousia remains determined by his death. It is a perverse time. The suffering into which discipleship leads, the suffering brought about by the , is inflicted upon disciples. Nothing extensive needs to be said concerning the symbolism of the scene of the . It is clear and is explicidy clarified further in I4:8f. The question as to whether the betrayal of Judas is historical can here remain an open question. What is important is its function as barrier against the christologia gloriae and against a self-glorification of the church derived from it. The betrayer sits at the Lord's Supper in the congregation. Again, it is not enough to speak of an apologetic tendency of the narrative (inasmuch as Jesus knows what is coming and himself determines it). These scenes which anticipate the coming events are intended not to illumine the riddle of the fate of Jesus in order to remove it; they rather affirm precisely the offense and retain it for the time after Easter. The Institution of the Lord's Supper. Also in this case we can exclude the disputed question as to whether this institution is historical, whether it results from the ,17 and the further question—under the presupposition of historicity, whether it was celebrated as a passover meal. By Mark (that is alone what matters from the point of view of our discussion) it is designated as passover meal, but not described as such. The heilsgeschichtlich connection is without significance for Mark.

17. How uncertain our ground is for establishing the validity of the Lord's Supper historically instead of christologically emerges in paradigmatic fashion in the Arnoldshainer discussion. The dilemma is not even avoided if one, instead of the farewell meal of Jesus, refers again to his (alleged) table fellowship with his disciples, for which there is no evidence. Also Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu, pp. 478fr., finds a historical core for the account of the institution in the word: "This is my body," i.e., "I am this." But this interpretation of söma-l is an ad hoc construction in order to give the postulated original form of the words of institution a meaning possible in the mouth of the historical Jesus. It is not made plausible by going back to a presumed Aramaic original. Nothing is produced by this "explanation" either for the history of Jesus or for the clarification of the words of institution. And where in the life of Jesus can one find a "setting" for this phrase "I am this" ?

188 History and Theology in the Passion Narratives of the Synoptic Gospels Interpretation

What is important is the state of shock of the disciples under which the meal is celebrated, the institution itself through which the death of Jesus is made the continuing determination of life in the world, and the pros­ pect of the Kingdom of God. Jesus speaks only of his own role in the Kingdom, not that of the disciples. He holds them at a distance. Before their entrance into life lies the way through suffering, discipleship. The agony scene is again wrought into the context through one of the antici­ patory announcements—that all will take offense—and the denial of Peter, Scripture comes into play (Zech. 13:7). The connection of the prediction of the offense and Jesus5 movement to Galilee originates with Mark. The offense has here also its double meaning: as the first passage of the disciples through failure and as an abiding determination of the faith.18 The offense is a specifically christological state of affairs. The scene shows that the cross is God's decision about Jesus into which Jesus himself does not enter "unhesitatingly.53 He must achieve obedience. The cross does not result from his own decision. It comes to him. Complete historical details of the arrest are unknown to us and are generally for us unessential.19 It is important also here to see that Jesus' renunciation of resistance is not a human but a christological feature. The drawing of the sword by a disciple is the effort to block the passion. It corresponds to the attitude of Peter after the first passion prediction and documents once again the lack of understanding on the part of the disciples. Now, after "Gethsemane," Jesus steadfastly goes his way, and the disciples flee. The prophecy of the offense is fufilled. Also this is to be understood as a continuing feature of the relationship to Jesus. The same holds true for the denial which is significantly intertwined with the trial of Jesus before the high court.20 The culmination of the christological interpretation is now the trial. No historical point of contact is available here either. It is entirely

18. A psychological evaluation of the scene in terms of Jesus' inner state prior to the passion is not only impossible but also misleading. The narrative itself forbids considerations like: Jesus could have expressed himself afterwards to his disciples. The proposition that such a scene of human weakness would be "incomprehensible" is misleading. The early Christology is not aimed at glorification. It retains the lowliness—after Easter. 19. The narrative of the arrest is again instructive. Starting from general considerations, it is probable that Jesus had about him a group of followers. Consequently there were later Christian eyewitnesses. But that which we read is precisely not an eyewitness report. There is no line leading from an actual spectator to the present narrative. 20. For a position rejecting the authenticity of the denial, see Bultmann, op. cit., p. 278; G. Klein, ZThK, LVIII (1961), 285ff.

189 unknown whether, how, before which court Jesus was tried before he was delivered to the Romans. The scene includes no concrete material. It is christological teaching scenically formed (like the scene of Peter's confession). It is actually a compendium of Christology with presenta­ tion of titles, thus of the nature of Jesus; offense; connection with creed (which confirms and retains the passion) ; and hope (view toward the parousia).21 The "false" witness serves as foil. The high priest puts the decisive question—from the Christian perspective. He receives the first undis­ guised explanation which Jesus gives concerning himself. Now he can speak openly not only about his suffering but also concerning his nature. For now the nature of the messiahship, that is, the sonship of God, is no longer to be misunderstood. Mark shapes the answer of Jesus so that in the counterpoint of question and answer the essential identity of the three christological titles—Messiah, Son of God, and Son of Man— becomes clear, and consequently the unity of the work and way of Jesus, the unity of deeds, passion, and future parousia. The Suffering One introduces himself as the Coming One. Or, to translate it into the perspective of the post-Easter community, the awaited one is the one who has "suffered.55 The community "sees55 him as such. Jesus' claim is "blasphemy.55 This also is not historical description but interpretaiio Christiana. According to actual Jewish law a messianic claim of a pretender would not have been a crime. But for Mark it is not a matter of historical fact but of the alternative of faith or unbelief. This unbelief is scenically presented in Mark 14:65 (cf. Isa. soröf.).22 The trial before Pilate is to be understood in similar fashion. There exists also here no historical basis (in terms of an eyewitness account).

21. Again, all pseudo-historical considerations must be set aside, e.g., most likely Jesus' claim to be the Messiah would have been debated, etc. Was there this claim? And if so, then he would not have fulfilled the legal stipulation for blasphemy against God. Precisely in this central point the apologetic motif would contradict itself. We can also omit the question as to the jurisdiction of the Sanhédrin in regard to capital punishment. Furthermore, all reflec­ tions concerning the relationship of the trial of Jesus to the Jewish legal procedure will miss the mark as long as they must juggle two unknown dimensions. What can be positively stated is this: Not only did Pilate issue a writ of execution for a death sentence passed by a Jewish court, but he also sentenced Jesus. The discovery of a mere command of execution of Pilate is not worth the trouble which the learned J. Blinzler expends in the refutation (Münchner Th.Z, V (1954), i7iff.). 22. Bultmann (op. cit., p. 271) finds that this "detached piece of tradition" was inserted in a particularly unfortunate place. This is an error of historical judgment. It has to do with a typical Markan point.

I90 History and Theology in the Passion Narratives of the Synoptic Gospels Interpretation

The primary christological motif is now illumined (in the confrontation with the ruler) in characteristic fashion by the royal titles. They domi­ nate chapter 15. The meaning of the titles is again made plain by the situation. The widespread Jewish tradition of the royal titles is without significance for the elucidation of the meaning. This is exclusively deter­ mined through the work of salvation, through its interpretation in the sense of theologia crucis. The unified thread continues in the episode with Barabbas and in the scoffing scene. The mockery is the last confirmation of the royal dignity before the execution. Jesus is led as king to the cross.23 And the cross is the presentation of the nature of his rule.24 The significance of the Old Testament motifs in the account of the crucifixion is well known. For Mark they serve merely a helping func­ tion. The constant allusions to the kingship of Jesus constitute the real center. This is particularly clear if the title on the cross is first inserted by Mark, a thesis which must be reckoned with. The mockery against the crucified explains itself. Its content shows again—by the break­ through in unbelief—the structure of faith and its constant relation to the visible powerlessness of the crucified. The last word of Jesus confirms that here, in profundis, the work of salvation comes to completion. The resurrection confirms that the passion is the work of salvation. Mark does not need to relate appearances of the risen Christ. He relates the resurrection back to the passion. Ahead lie not appearances but the way to Galilee, the withdrawal from Jerusalem, and beyond that the parousia.25 For the believers in the present, it is sufficient that he is risen. In the church they will see him.

6. THE TRANSITION FROM MARK TO MATTHEW AND LUKE It has become customary (following Dibelius) to designate Luke as "historian.55 In his prologue (Luke 1:1-4) he does in fact inquire

23. Even if the purple robe is removed! According to 15:24 Jesus must have been led out in his own clothes. 24.The symbol of the king perhaps also remains in 15:21: Simon must "bear the cross"; i.e., he is compelled by the soldiers into service, discipleship. The usual explanation that Jesus because of the flogging has become too weak to bear the cross (i.e., the crossbeam) himself is eisegesis. 25. Without thereby accepting Lohmeyer's explanation of 16:7 as a prediction of the parousia.

!9i through his sources for the facts. These guarantee the validity of the teaching. This historical program is developed not only in the introduc­ tion of new sources, in the widening of the biographical horizon through the addition of the stories of the birth and childhood (the latter is at least represented by one episode), and in the more pronounced organiza­ tion of the epochs of the activity of Jesus (preaching in Galilee, journey to Jerusalem, teaching in the temple which opens on the passion). But Luke5s historical program is seen above all in the further development of the interpretation through the insertion of the history of Jesus into the whole of the Heilsgeschichte. Also Matthew interprets Jesus in a corresponding framework of pro­ mise and fulfillment, time of Israel and time of the church, which at the same time are connected and separated. In both Gospels Jesus limits his activity before the passion to Israel. Precisely by so doing he prepares for the breakthrough into the universality of salvation. In the present essay the inquiry is again limited. How does the total theological program of Matthew and Luke respectively work itself out in their formation of the passion narrative? It is presupposed—without its being essential to the conclusion—that both assimilate no continuous, additional source besides Mark.

7. MATTHEW In Matthew the theme is worked out still more clearly than in Mark. The passion is a stage on the way that runs like a straight line to the enthronement (Matt. 28:16-20). The line begins even in the prehistory. From the beginning the lowliness of the revealer and revelation is ac­ centuated (threat against the child, 2:i5f. etc.). Analogously to Mark, the passion must be interpreted by its goal—as the necessary condi­ tion for exaltation and as the continuing definition of the preaching and the faith (of discipleship).26 In Matthew too the passion means on the one hand the provision of salvation (Jesus as saci'amentum), and on the other hand the model for the believers (Jesus as exemplum). It is for the collective "people of God55 the transfer of the election of Israel to the church, in the course of which it is significant that the time

26. N. A. Dahl, NTS, II (1965), 17fr.: The passion narrative of Matthew explains the origin and continuing foundation of the church as the people of God of the New Covenant.

192 History and Theology in the Passion Narratives of the Synoptic Gospels Interpretation

of the transference is not precisely defined (crucifixion? resurrection? cf. 12:40 with 21139; 27:2s).27 Comparison xmth Mark. After the confession of Peter the command to silence is specified; it relates to the title. The secret no longer has the strong theological character of the Markan version but is pragmatically grounded. The passion must not be hindered by a premature disclosure of the nature of Jesus. This reason is not based on historical fact but on interpretatio Christiana. The confession introduces a new epoch in the teaching of Jesus (16:21). In 17:9-13 Matthew erases the lack of understanding of the disciples in regard to the resurrection. They under­ stand after they have been instructed. Thereby the entire aspect of the passion narrative is of course modified. Also in 17:22f. the secrecy motif is removed. In Mark the one killed rises; in Matthew death and resur­ rection are simply arranged in order. In Mark the disciples do not understand and are in dread in the presence of Jesus; in Matthew they understand and become sad. The connection of the passion prediction and the dispute about precedent is loosened by the insertion of 17:24-27. Instead, the relation to Israel is introduced. The conflict comes a didactic question. A similar loosening of connections occurs through the insertion of 20:1-16. In the prophecy Matthew again removes the numinous sphere about Jesus and makes an instruction out of his revelation. The sons of Zebedee do not make the request but rather their mother, who according to 20:17 had not heard Jesus5 prophesying. The entry into Jerusalem is interpreted by means of Isaiah 62:11 and Zechariah 9:9 as epiphany in the form of lowliness, whereby Matthew for the sake of the interpretation makes the event inconceivable (two animals). He formulates the crowd's acclamation of the Messiah in a personal way. The Markan residue of veiling is taken away and replaced by the design of promise and fulfillment. The public character of the event is documented in 21 : iof. The prophet from the despised Galilee clears out the temple and works miracles. The cripples28 and the chil­ dren (Ps. 8:2)—under the opposition of the Jewish authorities—are the surroundings suitable to him. The "vineyard" slips away from the tenants. 27. Georg Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19662), pp. ii7f. 28. Matthew pays no attention to the question as to whether cripples might remain in the temple (II Sam. 5:8).

193 With this background the great speech against the Pharisees assumes a special emphasis. Through the word about Jerusalem it is connected with the eschatological teaching taken from Mark as a contribution to the interpretation of the destiny of Israel and temple (on whose destruc­ tion Matthew looks back). Concerning the eschatological speech: In contrast to Mark, the dis­ ciples in Matthew already know in general about the future, namely, about parousia and end of the world. They need only be taught more in detail. The firm structural scheme of the speech in Matthew is to be observed.29 Typical is the paraenetic conclusion with talk about delay of the parousia, persecution, false teaching, and judgment. Immediately added is a fourth passion prediction with the basic motif of passover and passion. The initiative lies with Jesus. "Thereupon55 the officials come together. The betrayal by Judas is psychologically motivated by greed. The amount noted here intimates the fulfillment of prophecy. The moment of the divine vocation is emphasized through the thematic words "time55 and "hour55 (26:18, 45). The specifically christological character of the offense is underlined. You will take offense "because of me55 (26:31, 33; cf. 26:38,40. Watch "withme55.) In the agony scene the "hour55 is associated with the end of the passion. The structure of the scene presents the progressive surrender of Jesus to the will of God.30 Jesus is a stronger model of obedience than he is in Mark. In the arrest his renunciation of power is emphasized (through the indication that he has it at his disposal). At the same time he proves his sovereignty by grasping the initiative (however the enigmatic word to Judas may be explained). And again the telos (26:58) is referred to in advance. Also in the trial the conduct of the action is controlled by Jesus. In Mark the high priest puts the decisive question; in Matthew likewise, but as a consequence of the claim of Jesus. His answer ("hereafter you will see. .. .55, 26:64) is tied in to the conclusion of the book. On the one hand, this can be seen in the church; on the other hand, in the fate of Israel. 29. Günther Börnkamm, "End-expectation and Church in the ," in G. Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, trans, by Percy Scott (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963), pp. 2iff. 30. Haenchen, Der Weg, pp. 4921.

I94 History and Theology in the Passion Narratives of the Synoptic Gospels Interpretation

The action of the Jews is both illumined by the opposition (explana­ tion of Pilate's wife and Pilate's gesture) and pushed forward. They are driven to self-condemnation. This is consistently related to the person of Jesus. In the view of Matthew this is an indirect statement of the nature of the church. The peculiar features of the Easter narrative are easily discernible. They are hints at the climax, 28:16-20.

8. LUKE Luke removes, as does Matthew, the Markan secret and introduces the notion of promise and fulfillment. In contrast to Matthew, he em­ phasizes, even more than Mark, the lack of understanding of the dis­ ciples. After the confession of Peter, Luke removes Peter's opposition to Jesus and the reproof of him. Jesus' prediction cannot even be protested because the disciples did not understand it at all (cf. 9:45; 18:34; also 19:11. They consider the anabasis to Jerusalem the march to the epiphany, which it is, only tot aliter aliter than they think). Luke 9:23 is addressed to the public. Discipleship is related to daily life (the daily cross). The transfiguration is expressedly oriented to the passion. It estab­ lishes the new era in the life of Jesus—the journey, thus the direct orien­ tation to Jerusalem and the passion.31 The conversation on the descent from the mount is removed. For Luke eradicates every significance of the figure of the Baptist (as the returned Elijah) ; that is, he fends off every other "historical" arrangement as setting for the passion except the christologicai-heilsgeschichtlich one which he himself advocates. The scheme of the three passion predictions is loosened because the great travel account is inserted before the third prediction. Also loosened is the connection of the suffering of Jesus and the destiny of the disciples (9:46-48). The scene of the sons of Zebedee is omitted. Had Luke con­ cluded that, according to his conception of the limits of knowledge of the disciples, the sons of Zebedee could not even make this request because they do not yet know its presupposition? 31. Luke allows for the inconsistency that Jesus learns in the transfiguration something which he already knows and even has already communicated to his disciples. The intention of Luke is all the clearer.

195 The peculiar Lukan character emerges first in the framework which stretches from 4:13 to 22:3. The activity of Jesus excludes the presence of Satan. Jesus is not continuously tempted. He is assailed only when Satan is permitted to return to him. Now the hour of darkness begins, the time of temptation (22:57; the conversation at the last supper). Jesus endures it in his agony in an exemplary way, and it is from then on the continuing destination of the life of the disciples. Nor in Luke can one ask schematically when the new time begins exactly (with the beginning of the passion, the death, or the resurrec­ tion?). Although Luke distinguishes the events more strictly than Mark, he does not dissolve the passion into a series of isolated salvation events {Heilsereignissen). As regards the negative side, it must be stated that Luke of course takes over the tradition of the Lord's Supper but does not himself work with the notion of the sacrificial atonement. In Acts this is missing with the exception of slight traces (Acts 20:28). The christological sum­ maries in Acts (2:22f., etc.) provide the key for the interpretation of the passion in the Gospel. The death of Jesus is the background for the reaction of God—the resurrection, through which the eyewitnesses are sent to witness before the world. Luke 20:18 corresponds to these sum­ maries in Acts. In view of the whole of Luke's theology, the question of the relation of passion and eschatology arises. Luke 17:25 speaks to the point. For Luke also the passion is the condition for salvation. It is forcefully pre­ sented as such through the double preparation: through the broad development of the journey to the passion, and through the extensive presentation of the teaching of Jesus in the temple. The shaping of the entry with the double scenery of the acclamation on the Mount of Olives and the occupation of the temple points in the same direction. Jesus seizes the temple as the house of his Father. He exercises thereby the office of the King of Israel. And he reigns by teaching in the temple. Upon this the claim of the church to be the true Israel is based. The prophecies about Jerusalem included in the passion form the back­ ground. How do passion and hope relate to each other positively? Is the passion, for Luke, only a transition which for us disappears with the exaltation of Jesus?

196 History and Theology in the Passion Narratives of the Synoptic Gospels Interpretation

We must notice that Luke takes over a tradition of the Lord's Supper in which it is fundamental for the sense of the meal that it is established as a passover meal. And Luke certainly carries this notion not merely as a piece of tradition. He relates it both to the interpretation of the destiny of Jesus and to the vocation of the disciples. In contrast to Mark, he allows Jesus to be killed precisely at the passover feast (22 : ι ). And he actualizes the significance of the meal through the table conversation concerning the new time which dawns upon the disciples. Moreover, the proton dei of Luke 17:25 is not forgotten by Luke in the passion narra­ tive. He actualizes it through the adoption and adaptation of the eschato­ logical speech. As the legacy of Jesus, his image remains. In addition, the community receives the Spirit. But the passion belongs to the legacy even after Easter. It defines the time of the church as the time of opposition and persecution. The passion is a permanent ingredient of the proclamation. Luke also knows no Easter gospel without the cross.

CONCLUSION

A contemporary approach to the passion narrative is not to be gained from single facts but only from the interpretation. This is not a sec­ ondary addition to primary facts of salvation {Heilst at sachen)—what an expression! The essence of interpretation consists in the fact that it includes the exegesis of the existence of the interpreter through the cross. Not only is that enough; rather, any supposed "more" (of Heils- tatsachen) would be in reality less.

197 ^s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.