Daniel Smith on Narrative, Historicity, and Verisimilitude in the Passion Narratives

I mentioned Dnaiel Smith's short article, The Trouble with Q, the other day. He has a new oped piece today also on Bible and Interpretation that is well worth a read.  It is clear, illuminating and I I wholeheartedly agree with it!

Narrative, Historicity, and Verisimilitude in the Passion Narratives; or, What I Learned from “Big Fish” About Reading the Bible
Daniel Smith

I recently watched Tim Burton’s film Big Fish (2003) again. I must have first seen it around the time that Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ (2004) came out. Although these films are now several years old, the issues they raise are illustrative for how we understand ways of reading the Bible, especially where claims about the historicity (what “really happened”) or the verisimilitude (the appearance of being true or real) where biblical narratives are concerned. Where The Passion tends to use its own narrative to concretize abstract theological concepts (for example, the medieval notion of the superhuman suffering of Christ) or to historicize familiar moments from the history of Christian piety or art (for example, Jesus’ encounter with Veronica), Big Fish sees the relationship between narrative and history in a much more ambivalent way. For the characters in the film, narrative is foundational for community and relationship in spite of troubling questions about truth and verifiability.

Read more . . .

Dating the Last Supper a Day Early?

BBC News reported earlier this week on an interesting seasonal story about the date of the Last Supper:

Jesus Christ's Last Supper 'was on a Wednesday'

The gist of the story is that Colin Humphreys, a metallurgist and materials scientist at the University of Cambridge, claims that Jesus and the Synoptics were working with one (older) calendar, according to which Passover fell that year on the Wednesday, while John was working with the standard calendar, according to which Passover fell that year on the Friday evening / Sabbath.

The story made it into the L.A. Times (link courtesy of Jim Davila, who also reports an email comment from Geza Vermes) and there are fuller versions at Cambridge University's research pages, The Penultimate Supper? and in an article written by Humphreys himself in Bible and Interpretation, The Mystery of the Last Supper: Reconstructing the Last Days of Jesus. These articles are all advertising Humphreys's new book, The Mystery of the Last Supper, now out from Cambridge University Press.

This is an ingenious proposal that attempts to squeeze every element in the Gospel Passion chronology into a harmonized whole.  If I have understand the case properly, and I have not yet had a chance to read the book, the effective timetable, on Humphreys's scheme, looks like this:

Wednesday evening: Last Supper (Old Passover: Synoptics; before the Official Passover: John)
Thursday: Trial before the Sanhedrin
Friday: Trial before Pilate and Crucifixion
Sabbath: "Official" Passover (John)

This scheme of contrasting Passovers attempts to resolve the conflict over the date of the crucifixion.  It attempts to harmonize all the varying statements in the Gospels.  When the Synoptics talk about Jesus eating the Passover, they are talking about Passover on an old calendar.  When John talks about events before Passover , he is talking about Passover on the "official" calendar.  So both types of statements, eating the meal before the Passover and during the Passover, can be harmonized.

It is a neat solution and I'll have to read the book to get the detail but on the basis of the sketch, let me outline my problems with the proposal:

(1) One of Humphreys's primary concerns is to avoid the idea that the Gospels "contradict themselves".  The concern is one that characterizes apologetic works and it is not a concern that I share.  Nevertheless, if it is to be a concern, then it needs to be reiterated that as they stand, the Gospels do "contradict themselves" and this proposal does not succeed in avoiding the contradiction.  What the Synoptics are calling "the Passover" is set on a different day from what John is calling "the Passover".  The Synoptics do not distinguish the Passover that Jesus is celebrating from the Passover that everyone else was celebrating (e.g. Mark 14.1-2) and John shows no awareness of an alternative Passover date.  What Humphreys's proposal does is to try to explain the contradiction in the light of a proposed underlying history;  it does not remove the contradiction.

(2) It is not just Jesus and his disciples in the Synoptics who think that it is Passover.  It is Pilate and the crowds too (Mark 15.6,8).

(3) Proposals that attempts to harmonize discrepant accounts usually end up placing strain on the narrative(s) at other points.  This proposal is no exception.  The pay-off, for Humphreys, in the Wednesday evening Last Supper is that this allows more time for the trials to take place.  But according to Mark, the trial before the High Priest and the Sanhedrin took place on the same night as the Last Supper and not the next day.  It receives a marked emphasis:

Mark 14.30: καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Ἀμὴν λέγω σοι ὅτι σὺ σήμερον αύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ πρὶν ἢ δὶς ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι τρίς με ἀπαρνήσῃ

Mark 14.30: Amen I say to you: Today, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.

Peter's denial in Mark is famously intertwined with the trial before the High Priest -- it is taking place at night, that night, before the cock crows (Mark 14.53-72).

(4) The clear indication is that the events of Mark 15 follow straight on from the end of Mark 14, beginning "Early" (πρωΐ,15.1) without an additional unmentioned day intervening.

(5) Humphreys is concerned that a night trial before the Sanhedrin would be illegal.  It is true that this concern is often repeated in the literature, but the basis for it is weak.  The authoritative work on Mishnah Tractate Sanhedrin by Jacob Neusner concludes that that tractate is not a useful guide to what obtained in Jerusalem in the pre-70 period.  It is an idealized re-imagination of what went on before 70.

(6) Humphreys is also concerned about the rushed timetable that is implied. I don't share this concern for two reasons, historical and liturgical.  The historical concern: we should be wary of importing our own ideas of what a "trial" ought to include.  In the ancient world, these "trials" were often summary, ad hoc, ruthless affairs.  The liturgical issue: If early Christians were remembering the Passion as they celebrated Passover, it is easy to imagine how the retelling compressed the narrative.  The apparently tight timetable is more about liturgical remembering than historical memory.

Now it may be that some of my concerns are dealt with in the book, which I hope to read in due course.  But on the basis of the press releases and summary articles, I think the proposal is flawed for these reasons.

Passion Podcasts 2: The Horror of Crucifixion

The second Passion Podcast this year is NT Pod 54: The Horror of Crucifixion  It looks at the archaeological and literary evidence and reflects on its relevance to the Passion Narratives in the Gospels.

If you are interested in other episodes of the podcast, please visit the NT Pod web page or subscribe in your preferred reader or subscribe via iTunes. Or, of course, you can follow the NT Pod on Twitter or on the NT Pod Facebook page.

Passion Podcasts 1: Are the Passion Narratives "Prophecy Historicized"?

Around this time of year, as Easter approaches and as I get to the end of my latest  Historical Jesus class, I like to theme my podcasts with the Passion.  One of the latest episodes is NT Pod 53: Are the Passion Narratives "Prophecy Historicized"?  It discusses the origins of the Passion Narratives, contrasting John Dominic Crossan's theory of "prophecy historicized" with the idea that they are actually "tradition scripturalized".

For those who would like to explore further, I have an article out on the topic and I've reproduced it on the web for those who don't have access to the book:

Mark Goodacre, "Scripturalization in Mark's Crucifixion Narrative" in Geert van Oyen and Tom Shepherd (eds.), The Trial and Death of Jesus: Essays on the Passion Narrative in Mark (Leuven: Peeters, 2006): 33-47

I also have an unpublished piece available here, the Swan lecture at Nebraskan Wesleyan University, February 2006:

Mark Goodacre, "When Prophecy became Passion: The Death of Jesus and the Birth of the Gospels"

If you are interested in other episodes of the podcast, please visit the NT Pod web page or subscribe in your preferred reader or subscribe via iTunes. Or, of course, you can follow the NT Pod on Twitter or on the NT Pod Facebook page.

NT Pod 33: The Passion Narrative in John's Gospel

I uploaded the fourth and final episode of this week's back to back Passion Podcasts in the early hours of this morning.  In this one, we turn to John's Gospel, NT Pod 33: The Passion of Jesus in John's Gospel.

I have enjoyed this experiment in doing something a little different on the NT Pod, and to do something that is seasonal.

NT Pod 32: The Passion of Jesus in Luke's Gospel

I uploaded the third of this week's four Passion Podcasts early on Thursday morning.  In this one, we turn to Luke's Gospel, NT Pod 32: The Passion of Jesus in Luke's Gospel.

It is certainly my most ambitious plan so far on the NT Pod, but it's something I have enjoyed doing.  I am pleased that the regular release schedule is not quite so demanding, though, and look forward to returning to normal again next week.

NT Pod 30: The Passion of Jesus in Mark's Gospel

I uploaded the first of this week's four Passion Podcasts on Sunday.  Naturally, we turn to Mark's Gospel first, and NT Pod 30 deals with the Passion Narrative in Mark.  Apologies for the lack of extended programme notes this week, but I want to prioritize getting these episodes out on time.

Passion Week Podcasts

I have an ambitious plan this week to release four back to back episodes of the NT Pod on the Passion Narratives in the Gospels. The idea arose from the fact that I am focusing on the Passion Narratives in the Gospels in my New Testament Introduction class. Instead of putting out the podcasts on these episodes as I teach them, I thought it might be interesting to group them together and release them during Holy Week. I released the first tonight, NT Pod 30, on Mark's Passion Narrative. I turn to Matthew next, and hope to have all four out by Good Friday.

Was the Last Supper a Passover Seder?

The most recent Bible Archaeology Review features an excellent article by Jonathan Klawans, "Was Jesus' Last Supper a Seder?".  I won't here summarize the article because it is available for all to read on the Bible Archaeology Review website but I would like to make a few comments on the details.  I will simply quote the passages I would like to comment on, and will then add my comments.

Of course a number of New Testament scholars—the Jesus Seminar comes to mind—tend to doubt that the Gospels accurately record very much at all about Jesus, with the exception of some of his sayings. Obviously if the Gospels cannot be trusted, then we have no reason to assume that there ever was a Last Supper at all. And if there was no Last Supper, then it could not have taken place on Passover.

Well, there is also the testimony of Paul in 1 Cor. 11.23-26, which most take as the earliest witness to some kind of Last Supper tradition.  Of course it does not help us a lot with the question of dating, though it parallels the Gospel traditions by locating the meal on "the night that Jesus was handed over".  And there are interesting Passover motifs elsewhere in the letter, especially 1 Cor. 5.7, "Christ our paschal lamb has been sacrificed" (which Klawans later mentions in another context).  The letter may have been written around Passover time since Paul wishes to stay at Ephesus "until Pentecost" (16.8).

While three of the four canonical Gospels strongly suggest that the Last Supper did occur on Passover, we should not get too comfortable based on that. The three Gospels that support this view are the three synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark and Luke. As anyone who has studied these three Gospels knows, they are closely related. In fact, the name synoptic refers to the fact that these three texts can be studied most effectively when “seen together” (as implied in the Greek etymology of synoptic). Thus, in fact we don’t really have three independent sources here at all. What we have, rather, is one testimony (probably Mark), which was then copied twice (by Matthew and Luke).

This is a common claim, and it is important to explain to newcomers that it indeed simplifies things to make it three vs. one.  Matthew and Luke know and use Mark's Gospel therefore they probably derive their dating from Mark.  All that is quite right.  However, some caution is necessary.  Eliminating Matthew and Luke as witnesses on the basis of their familiarity with Mark assumes that their only source of information was Mark.  That may be the case -- and I am very much a minimum sources man, especially when it comes to the Passion -- but we should bear in mind that Matthew and Luke may sometimes have been familiar with parallel traditions.  In other words, the likelihood that Matthew and Luke have Mark as a literary source does not automatically rule out the possibility of familiarity with other traditions.  They are sometimes willing to modify Mark in line with alternative traditions, for example Luke in his eucharistic discourse, which has parallels with Paul, or in his resurrection account, which has appearances in Jerusalem that cohere with the presence of the leaders in Jerusalem at a later date.

It's worth adding too that John may not be an independent witness either.  If John knows the Synoptics (the best evidence for which is, in my opinion, his account of the Anointing), we have to reckon with the possibility that he has simply adjusted the timing for theological reasons, with no parallel tradition about the dating.

According to John, Jesus died just when the Passover sacrifice was being offered and before the festival began at sundown . . . Any last meal—which John does not record—would have taken place the night before, or even earlier than that. But it certainly could not have been a Passover meal, for Jesus died before the holiday had formally begun.

This is a minor error here -- John 13.2,4 speak of a last supper, though indeed one that is before the Passover.

The article also features a sidebar,  but it does not render well in the web version -- it is practically incomprehensible.  What I would recommend here is Felix Just SJ's table, The Death of Jesus in Mark vs. John, which is clear and accurate.

But what of Klawans's major conclusion, that the Last Supper was most likely not a Passover Seder?  I think this may be right.  I have argued in favour if a liturgical origin of the Passion narratives in the Gospels, that they were developed in the context of worshipping communities.  This had the effect of fixing the dating of the narratives to the times when the communities were celebrating the events of Jesus' Passion, whether on 14th Nisan (the Quartodecimans, perhaps in continuity with some first century communities) or in a Passion vigil on the Thursday night / Friday after Passover, a custom that eventually came common but which may have had roots in the first century.  The difficulty with the celebration of events on particular days is that those celebrating quickly come to think of the day of celebration as the day on which the events happened.  My guess is that Jesus died at around Passover time, that this was remembered, that his death and resurrection were then celebrated around this time, but that the precise details were forgotten.

Klawans may well be right to lean towards the Johannine dating, though.  Although the Synoptics clearly locate Jesus' death on the Passover (Mark 14.12, 16, 17), there are remnants of the alternative view in Mark 14.2.  It is two days before the Passover (Mark 14.1) and the chief priests and scribes want to execute Jesus but they say, "Not during the festival, lest there will be a riot among the people".  I suspect that this note assumes a Johannine style chronology according to which Jesus was arrested and executed on 13/14 Nisan, the day before Passover.  The same underlying chronology is I think present in the idea that they were rushing to get Jesus' body buried in time for the Sabbath (Mark 15.42), an artificial idea if this is in fact Passover day, but a coherent notion if John is right that Sabbath and Passover coincided.

The Centurion's Cry Once More (briefly)

Further to my previous posts, The Centurion's Sarcastic Cry in Mark 15.39 and More on the Centurion's Sarcastic Cry in Mark 15.39, I would like to thank Earl Johnson for letting me know about two articles he has written on Mark 15.39, one of which is accessible free to all online:

Earl S. Johnson, Jr., "Mark 15,39 and the So-Called Confession of the Roman Centurion", Biblica 81 (2000): 406-413

E. S. Johnson, "Is Mark 15:39 the Key to Mark’s Christology?", JSNT 31 (1987): 3-22

I have not had a chance to read the latter yet, but the former makes a good case that we should not read this as a "confession" in the normally accepted sense of that word, though without specifically suggesting that the cry is sarcastic or ironic. See too comments by Neil Godfrey on Vridar, also with a mention of the articles by Johnson.

More on the Centurion's Sarcastic Cry in Mark 15.39

I am grateful for all the helpful feedback on my post on The Centurion's Sarcastic Cry in Mark 15.39 last week, especially here on the blog, where dozens of comments provided helpful biblioblography and some excellent engagement with the issue.  On Primal Subversion, Sean helpfully gathers together several quotations from commentaries on Mark 15.39 and concludes that the ironic / sarcastic reading is preferable.  Other blog  commenters found support for the interpretation in a variety of places, from Alexander Roberts in 1862 to Stephen Moore in 2008.

What, though, of John Fenton?  Other than my own representation of the John Fenton oral tradition, which dates to the mid 1980s, there is nothing more specific at this point.  But several have been able to help me out with Donald Juel's views.  It is quite clear that he held the same view, apparently independently of Fenton, and it is mentioned in a variety of places, including Messiah and Temple and the Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament (see comments for details).  I picked up a copy of Donald H. Juel, Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), which features the following little footnote (74, n. 7):

I have come to believe that even "Son of God" in 15.39 ought probably be read as a taunt ("Sure, this was God's Son"), in accord with the rest of the taunts in the account of Jesus' trial and death.  The centurion plays a role assigned all Jesus' enemies: They speak the truth in mockery, thus providing for the reader ironic testimony to the truth.

I found a little more of interest in Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Patrick D. Miller (eds.), The Ending of Mark and the Ends of God: Essays in Memory of Donald Harrisville Juel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005).  The essay by Michael Welker, "Baptism as Change of Lordship" (107-14) quotes one of Juel's former students to the following effect:

Like a critic who delights in investigating and revealing the secrets behind magicians' illusions, Don dissected people's biblical exegesis, often wondering aloud why so much knowledge about texts and their histories prevented us from actually reading the texts. Likewise, he eagerly exposed students' hermeneutical assumptions, not necessarily to invalidate them but always to impel us to acknowledge and examine them.  His sarcastic reading of the centurion's 'confession' in Mark 15.39 best illustrates this practice.  While reading the passion narrative aloud, he would voice, 'Sure this was God's son!' with acerbic scorn.  He clearly enjoyed the effects of the reading as much as he believed it a faithful rendering of Mark's account.  His bold interpretation sounded alarms among students, driving us to the text to examine its contours for evidence to support various readings (Quoted from Matthew L. Skinner, "Mark a Life: A Tribute to Don Juel," inSpire 8/1 (2003), 33).

Some remain unconvinced by this reading and prefer to see Mark's centurion as making a true confession of some kind.  Mike Parsons asks about Matthew's apparent misunderstanding of Mark's intent.  My guess on that front is that Matthew is not so much misunderstanding as changing and re-conceptualizing.  One might see Matthew's version of the story, the so-called "Zombie Pericope" (Matt. 27.51-54), as providing the reader with a new and explicit reason for the centurions' (now plural) confession. Matthew often explicates Mark’s mysteries in this way, and here he provides a scene that can genuinely impress the centurion and those with him, a truly apocalyptic breaking up of the earth, as heaven declares the momentous nature of Jesus’ death for the characters within the drama to see.  The crucial difference is on what the centurion(s) witness in the different versions.  Mark's centurion makes his assertion when he "saw how he died", ὅτι οὕτως ἐξέπνευσεν.  Matthew's centurion, and those with him, on the other hand, do not just see how Jesus died. They "saw the earthquake and all that had happened", which leaves the reader in no doubt that this is some kind of awed confession.

This draws attention to the key point in the Marcan narrative, that the centurion makes his remark when he sees how Jesus dies. It is the reader who sees the veil of the temple torn in two. To speak of the temple curtain being visible from Golgotha, whether Mark is implying inner or outer, is wishful thinking. Perhaps we are supposed to surmise that the centurion is impressed by the darkness described earlier, but that is not what the narrator isolates in order to provide the context for the centurion's remark. As far as the narrative is concerned, it is the sight of Jesus' death that causes the centurion to make this remark.

Thanks again to everyone for their informed and interesting comments.

The Centurion's Sarcastic Cry in Mark 15.39

The centurion's cry in Mark 15.39, "Truly this was the son of God", is often described as a "confession". It is the moment in Mark's Gospel when Jesus is finally acknowledged as God's son, by a Gentile centurion, forming a nice inclusio with God's announcement of Jesus as his son in Mark 1.11 (cf. 9.7, 12.6). But are we supposed to read centurion's statement as a positive confession, or is it a sarcastic comment, "Huh, truly this fellow as a son of god!"? I first heard the latter interpretation as a first year student in Oxford in the mid 80s, from Canon John Fenton. I would like to underline the merits of this reading in the current blog post, and then I will conclude by asking where the reading originates.

Since hearing John Fenton expound this reading, I have often taught it myself. Usually people are somewhat shocked at first, but as time goes on the reading becomes more appealing and, ultimately, quite persuasive. If the cry is sarcastic, it makes sense in its narrative context. Take another look:

Mark 15.37: ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἀφεὶς φωνὴν μεγάλην ἐξέπνευσεν. 38. Καὶ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη εἰς δύο ἀπ' ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω. 39 Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ κεντυρίων ὁ παρεστηκὼς ἐξ ἐναντίας αὐτοῦ ὅτι οὕτως ἐξέπνευσεν εἶπεν, Ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος υἱὸς θεοῦ ἦν.

Mark 15.37: And Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last. 38. And the veil of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who was standing facing him, saw how he died, he said, "Truly this was a son of god".

There is nothing that the centurion has seen that suggests that we should read the text as implying his admiration for Jesus. He makes his comment when he saw how Jesus died (ὅτι οὕτως ἐξέπνευσεν εἶπεν), that is, in despair (15.34), apparently unable to call down Elijah to deliver him (15.35-6). The reader, on the other hand, is given some privileged information, that the veil of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. This is classic dramatic irony: the reader knows what the actors in the drama do not know, and the actors do not realize the truth of the words that they are speaking in mockery.

To read the text in this way coheres with the rest of Mark's Passion Narrative, which is commonly regarded as rich in irony. Jesus is repeatedly mocked as a king (15.9, 12, 18, 26, 32) with purple cloak, crown of thorns and mock homage (15.17-20), but the reader knows that he really is a king. He is mocked as a prophet (14.65) while his very prophecies are being enacted all around him (the mockery itself, fulfilling his Passion predictions, and Peter's denial, fulfilling Jesus' Last Supper prophecies). Given this context, it is difficult to think that the centurion's remark can be intended as a "confession" of faith in Jesus. Reading the remark as the crowning element in the dramatic irony of Mark's Passion Narrative makes good narrative sense.

Now, the first time I heard the suggestion that we read the centurion's cry as ironic was from my tutor John Fenton. A friend tells me that he thinks Fenton got this interpretation from Austin Farrer. This is plausible because Fenton was an admirer of Farrer, but I don't remember that from what Fenton himself said -- and he was inclined to attribute ideas that were not original. I have cast around the literature too to see if anyone else has read the text in this way, and I am surprised to be struggling to find examples of this interpretation. I had thought that perhaps Donald Juel mentioned it, but again I can't find it. Fenton himself mentions it in written work once, as far as I am aware, as follows, with some helpful additional context connecting the saying to the Elijah on Horeb narrative:

Elijah had, it was believed, set up an experiment to prove that the Lord was God, not Baal (1 Kings 18). Someone now tries to repeat the experiment on Jesus: he is given the drink, and they say, Let us see if Elijah will come to take him down from the cross. If Elijah comes, Jesus is who he says he is; if Elijah does not come, he is not. Jesus dies, without the intervention of Elijah, thus proving to those who think in this way that he was not the Messiah, the king of Israel. (It is possible that the centurion's words should be taken in this sense: He really was God's son! Of course not! There is a parallel in the Greek between what the people said on Mount Horeb after Elijah's miracle: Truly the Lord is God; and what is said here, Truly this man was the Son of God. There is also the possibility that 'this man' should be translated 'this fellow', disparagingly, as in Acts 6.13.), John Fenton, Finding the Way Through Mark (London: Mowbray, 1995), 111.

If anyone has any more from the literature on this theme, I would be interested to hear it.

The Trial and Death of Jesus

This book is new from Peeters. My copy arrived today:

The Trial and Death of Jesus
Essays on the Passion Narrative in Mark

Series: Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology, 45

Editors: Van Oyen G., Shepherd T.

Year: 2006
ISBN: 90-429-1834-9
Pages: XI-268 p.
Price: 40 EURO


What is the significance of the trial and death of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark? In its annual meetings the Mark Group of the Society of Biblical Literature studied the trial of Jesus in 2003 and the death of Jesus in 2004. Both speakers and audience expressed the desire to bring some of the papers together in book form. The current volume fulfills this wish. The contributions presented here represent an up to date expression of one of the most important themes in Markan exegesis. The editors use the metaphor of a prism to illustrate the two sections of the book. Like a concave prism spreading light, the first section presents a range of understandings of the meaning of the death of Jesus. Like a convex prism focusing light, the second section uses multiple methodologies to focus attention on the trial of Jesus, particularly the charge of blasphemy. The papers together raise questions, challenge common views, and interrelate themes that push Markan scholarship forward.
---
I have an essay in the volume called "Scripturalization in Mark's Crucifixion Narrative". Here's the full list of contents:

Section One
The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

Sharyn DOWD and Elizabeth Struthers MALBON
The Significance of Jesus’ Death in Mark: Narrative Context and
Authorial Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Mark GOODACRE
Scripturalization in Mark’s Crucifixion Narrative . . . . . . . . . 33

Geert VAN OYEN
The Meaning of the Death of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark: A Real
Reader Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Jocelyn MCWHIRTER
Messianic Exegesis in Mark’s Passion Narrative . . . . . . . . . 69

William SANGER CAMPBELL
“Why did you abandon me?” Abandonment Christology in Mark’s
Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Stephen P. AHEARNE-KROLL
Challenging the Divine: LXX Psalm 21 in the Passion Narrative
of the Gospel of Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Section Two
The Trial of Jesus

Adela YARBRO COLLINS
The Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14:64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Jeffrey B. GIBSON
The Function of the Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14:64 . . . . 171

Michael E. VINES
The “Trial Scene” Chronotype in Mark and the Jewish Novel . . 189

Kelli S. O’BRIEN
Innocence and Guilt: Apologetic, Martyr Stories, and Allusion in
the Markan Trial Narratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Tom SHEPHERD
The Irony of Power in the Trial of Jesus and the Denial by Peter –
Mark 14:53-72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

List of contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Index of Ancient texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253