Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE CLIMAX OF JESUS' MISSION §17.1
does not mean that the details in question were created in the light of the scriptural
allusions: 77 the crucifixion with two others (Mark 15.27 pars.) is hardly derived
from Isa. 53.12; 78 the mocking (Mark 15.29-32 pars.), like its earlier counterpart,
79 is determined more from within the tradition (echoing the earlier accusation
and trial verdict) than by the scriptural echoes ('shaking their heads'); it is not
implausible that the attendant soldiers should have offered some of their own vinegary
wine (oxos) to drink, 80 whether out of malice (Gos. Pet. 5.16-17) or compassion;
and some memory of Jesus crying out in the words of Ps. 22.1 (problematic
as narrated for subsequent Christology) may have prompted the search for
other echoes of the psalm (see below). 81 But it does mean that from the first, the
shape of the tradition may have obscured as well as enhanced various details of
the event. 82 Was it ever otherwise with partisan accounts? 83
form the basis of the tradition. It is unlikely that Jesus' story was ever told as a recitation of
facts' (Juel, Messianic Exegesis 113). The Gospel of Peter attests a variant (not necessarily a
more original) instance of the procedure (cf. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels 220-30); but
Koester's conclusion — 'No question (sic), the Gospel of Peter has preserved the most original
narrative version of the tradition of scriptural interpretation' (230) — is hardly justified. See
further above, chapter 7 n. 154.
77. As already pointed out by Dibelius, Tradition 188-89. Moo, Old Testament, notes indications
that the scriptural texts were themselves emended in order to fit more closely to the
events as they were remembered. A good example is the use of Zech. 11.13 in Matt. 27.9-10
(Lindars, New Testament Apologetic 116-22; Dunn, Unity and Diversity 92-93, 95-96). Juel
concludes on the use of Psalm 89 in the tradition (echoing Dahl, cited above in chapter 15
n. 63): 'The psalm was cited not to prove Jesus was the Christ but to make sense ofthat confession'
(Messianic Exegesis 117).
78. 'He was numbered with the transgressors' (Isa. 53.12).
79. The purple robe, the crown of thorns, the mock homage (Mark 15.16-20 pars.); cf.
Isa. 50.6: 'I gave my back to those who struck me and my cheeks to those who pulled out the
beard; I did not hide my face from insult and spitting'. Flusser notes also the mockery of
Karabas described by Philo in Flacc. 36-39 (Jesus 169-70, 210-12) and suggests that Pilate's
'Behold the man' (John 19.5) was a mocking acclamation echoing the soldiers' mockery (207-
20); in reference to Matt. 26.68/Luke 22.64 Flusser also suggests that Jesus was made the butt
of an ancient game, 'Who is it that struck You?' (187-94).
80. See MM oxos, BDAG, oxos.
81. A case could also be made for quotation of Zech. 13.7 in Mark 14.27/Matt. 26.31 in
view of the strong shepherd/sheep motif in Jesus' teaching (Wright, Jesus 533-34; see §13.3c
n.110 above); see also Marcus, 'Old Testament' 220.
82. The point should not be exaggerated; the restraint of the tradition should also be
noted. As Keck observes, 'no gospel reports that the Voice spoke where one might expect it
most of all — at the crucifixion.... At Golgotha the silence of God was deafening' (Who Is Jesus?
128; see also the powerful meditation on the holiness of God in regard to Jesus' crucifixion
which follows [134-40]).
83. In a paper delivered at the SBL annual meeting in Denver, Colorado (November
2001), Mark Goodacre noted how many details of the accounts cannot be derived from Scrip-
778