18 See. we are going up to
33 See. we are up to
See. we are going un to
Jerusalem, and the Son of
Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death, 19 and will hand him over to
and the Son of
Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes. and they will condemn him to death. and will hand him over to the
and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished.
32 For he will be handed over to the
the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified; and on the third day he will be raised.
Gentiles; 34 thev will mock him. and spit upon him. and flog him.
and kill him; and after three days he will rise again.
Gentiles; and he will be mocked and insulted and spat upon; 33 and after they have flogged him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise again.
Clearly the tradition intends to recall that Jesus predicted his death. including the 'handing over' and the attendant suffering. Equally clear are the indications of (a) saying(s) much repeated and manifesting typical performance variations.
(1) Here is one of the instances (§ 16.4b) where Matthew's version shows awareness of a self-referential bar 'enasa (Matt. 16.21).
(2) More striking are the variations in the final clause: Mark consistently says 'after three days'. whereas Matthew and Luke say 'on the third day'; Mark consistently puts the verb in active voice ('he will rise again' — anastenai, anastesetai), while Matthew consistently prefers a passive form ('he will be raised' — egerthenai, egerthesetai), and Luke uses both forms. It is hard to avoid the obvious deduction. that in the version of Matthew/Luke the less precise 'after three days' has been made more precise in the light of the resurrection tradition ('on the third day').18 And Matthew's 'he will be raised' may also reflect a more theologically careful affirmation that Jesus was raised by God — reflecting the regular confessional formula of the early years of expansion.186
(3) The range of variation is extensive. from the brevity of Luke's version
185. See. e.g.. Evans. 'Did Jesus Predict?' 85-86. 95. with further bibliography in 86 n. 9; see also below. §18.4b(5). The fact that Matt. 12.40 quotes Jonah 2.1 'three days and nights' without qualification may suggest that the extension of 'the sign of Jonah' to the parallel between Jonah's time in the whale with Jesus' time in the earth took place at an early stage in the development of the sign of Jonah saying (§15.6b).
186. See again my Theology of Paul 175 nn. 69 and 72.
of the second prediction, to the fulness of all three versions of the third prediction (handed over to Gentiles to be mocked, spat upon, flogged, and killed). Here again it very much looks as though the third prediction has been elaborated in the light of events, so that the greater precision of its telling might reflect (predict) more accurately what was recalled as actually to have happened.187 Matthew takes the process one step further by specifying the method of execution as crucifixion (Matt. 20.19).188
This evidence of tradition history of substance held firm but with differing introductions, variations in detail, and clarification and elaboration to bring out particular points is wholly in line with a transmission process repeatedly documented in the earlier chapters. These were much recalled and elements of the Jesus tradition.
But are they performance versions of something Jesus himself was remembered as saying?189 Again previous experience would indicate the likelihood that such a firmly recalled tradition was originally derived from those who heard Jesus saying something memorable. It is no longer possible to tell from the traditions whether Jesus spoke on the subject more than once: the threefold sequence looks as though it is part of a much fuller story of Jesus, as the shadow of the cross begins to loom ever larger for the story-teller.190 And the elaboration in the light of events seems to be more extensive than with most of the Jesus tradition reviewed in earlier chapters. But it is quite possible to detect within the tradition variations a core saying which has been thus elaborated.191
187. Handed over to Gentiles — Mark 15.1 pars.; mocked, spat upon — 15.19-20, 31 pars.; flogged (mastigoo) — John 19.1 (Mark 15.15/Matt. 27.26 use the Latin loanwordflagello = Greek phragelloo; Davies and Allison, Matthew 3.593, note how savage such a flogging could be, referring to Josephus, War 6.304; BDAG, phragelloo — 'a punishment inflicted on slaves and provincials after sentence of death had been pronounced on them'). The alternative suggestion — that the Passion narrative has been based on the third Passion prediction (as in Bayer, Jesus' Predictions 172-74) — is less plausible.
188. For similar considerations see, e.g., Davies and Allison, Matthew 2.659.
The possibility is regularly dismissed out of hand: 'secondary constructions of the Church' (Bultmann, History 152); Perrin, Modern Pilgrimage 75, 90; Funk, Five Gospels 75-78; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus 550, 552; Lüdemann, Jesus 56, 63, 71. The absence of these traditions from Q is regularly cited as a principal reason for giving a negative answer. But this would be decisive only if Q had been intended to provide a complete inventory of Jesus' teaching or was the only Jesus tradition known to those who used it. The Q material shows awareness of Jesus' death (chapter 7 n. 52 above), but such allusions would hardly be sufficient on their own to satisfy Christian curiosity and liturgy. More likely, traditions like the Passion predictions were linked with the story of Jesus' death, perhaps in an extended Passion narrative, as Pesch has suggested.
190. The threefold sequence which talks of the Son of Man being 'lifted up' in the Fourth Gospel (John 3.14; 8.28; 12.32-34) may reflect the same sequencing and indicate that the structure of the longer story was established very early (cf. Brown, Death 1483-87).
191. Bayer strongly resists the attempt to trace the different sayings to 'one primitive
The second prediction (Mark 9.31 pars.) appears to be the least developed of all the versions: 'The son of man is (about) to be handed over into the hands of men'.192 Particularly to be noted are the characteristic play of words ('son of man', 'men'), which presupposes an original formulation,193
the 'divine passive', and the fact that 'handed over into the hands of is a Semitic construction.194 The form of the verb expresses a foreboding of imminent destiny or fate (whether with the mellei, 'about to be', or not).195 In other words, we have an Aramaic masal, expressing in bare, proverbial terms the prospect of Jesus' arrest: 'the man is to be handed over to the men'.196 The basic structure has been held firm in subsequent retellings, but tradents and story-tellers evidently could not resist elaborating both the 'handing over' and the 'men' in the light of what actually happened. Conversely, precisely the bare, aphoristic character of the core masal, so evidently untouched by such elaborations, points to the probability that it was Jesus himself who formulated the masal, most likely in explaining to his disciples why he must go up to Jerusalem.
Several conclusions follow at once. (1) We have one (or more) further in-stance(s) where Jesus was remembered as using the form bar ,enasa, and precisely form' 7, as concluded on 200); but in oral tradition analysis the concept of 'one primitive form' is inappropriate.
192. Goppelt, Theology 1.189: 'This unmistakable riddle went back in all probability to Jesus himself. This version was also recalled elsewhere within the Passion narrative (Mark 14.41/Matt. 26.45). Hahn suggests that Mark 14.21 indicates a different type of Passion saying, motivated by the need to demonstrate scriptural fulfilment ('the son of man goes as it is written concerning him'), and traces both 9.31/14.41 and 14.21 back to Palestinian community tradition (HoheitstitelA 6-53; Titles 37-42; cf. Todt, Son of Man 201). Lindars (Jesus 74-76) and Casey ('General, Generic and Indefinite' 40-49) also draw particular attention to Mark 14.21, but Casey argues that brings us closer to what Jesus actually said. For the division of opinion as to whether 8.31 or 9.31 is 'original' see Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom 392-93 n. 84, who favours the view that each passage contains 'independent traditions of instruction given on more than one occasion' (238-40 and n. 85).
195. Jeremias suggests an underlying Aramaic participle to denote the near future (Proc-lamation28l and n. 2). Several have pointed out (e.g., Todt, Son ofMan 188) that the simple future tense of Dan. 2.28 ('what will be in the latter days') is rendered in the LXX with a dei formulation ('what must happen at the end of days') — as in the first Passion prediction (Mark 8.31 pars.). Beasley-Murray adds Lev. 5.17 and Isa. 30.29 (Jesus and the Kingdom 238-39).
196. Jeremias, Proclamation 281-82 (suggesting Aramaic mitmesar bar vnasa lide bene *nasa); Hampel, Menschensohn 296-302, who notes the parallel form in T. Abr. A 13.3 ('Every man isjudged by man', pasanthrdpos exanthropoukrinetai). Lindars argues for the form 'a man may be delivered up ...' (Jesus 63, 68-69); criticized by Casey, 'General, Generic and Indefinite' 40, but Casey in turns strives unnecessarily to give the 'son of man' a general reference (43-46). See also Bayer, Jesus'Predictions 169-71,178-81. Pursuant to his main thesis, Caragounis argues that the elements of the fuller sayings can be derived directly from Daniel (Son of Man 197-200).
in a word-play which indicates the flexibility of the phrase in Jesus' use — both as 'a man' (human person), but also with evident self-reference ('someone, one'). (2) More to the immediate point, Jesus evidently did indeed anticipate that his mission would not be accepted in Jerusalem; he would be arrested and given over to the power of human authorities (with all that that would probably entail). (3) Nevertheless, he seems to have embraced that outcome as divinely intended, whether as destiny or dogma. Whether we can say more will become evident in §§17.5, 6.
Was this article helpful?