Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§17.5 Crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato
Jeremias claims that Mark's text shows strong influence from Isa. 53.10-11: 229
Mark 10.45
to give his life (dounai ten psychen autou)
a ransom (lytron)
for many (anti pollön)
Isa. 53.10, 11
10 you make his life (tasim napso)
a sin offering fasam)
11 shall make many (larabbim) righteous
The links are certainly striking, though somewhat diffuse; the allusion is not
obvious and has to be worked at before it becomes clear. 230 More significant
from a tradition-historical perspective is the fact that Luke seems to know a
different version of the teaching which climaxed in the saying, including a version
of the conclusion which lacks any of the elements on which the allusion to
Isa. 53 depends. 231 John 13.3-17 was probably developed out of another version
of the teaching, climaxing with similar teaching of Jesus on service. 232 If
it is appropriate to talk in terms of core tradition at this point, 233 the core is the
image of Jesus as one who serves/came to serve. 234 It is quite likely, then, that
the final clause of the Markan/Matthean version (assuming an allusion to the
Isaianic Servant) is an elaboration, presumably at an early stage, of the core
229. Jeremias, Servant 99-100; Proclamation 292-93 n. 3.
230. The challenge of Hooker, Servant 74-79, and Barrett, 'Mark 10:45', in particular,
was against the claim that linguistic connections could be demonstrated between Mark 10.45
and Isaiah 53; see now also Hampel, Menschensohn 317-25, and Casey, Aramaic Sources 211-
13 (particularly on lytron). The case for dependence on Isaiah 53 has been restated by Davies
and Allison, Matthew 3.95-96, who conclude: 'We do not claim that Mt 20.28 par. is a translation
of any portion of Isaiah 53, LXX, MT or targum. Rather, it is a summary which describes
the 'ebed who gives his life as a sin offering for many' (96). Also by R. E. Watts, 'Jesus' Death,
Isaiah 53, and Mark 10:45', in Bellinger and Farmer, Jesus and the Suffering Servant 125-51
(particularly 136-47).
231. It is less likely that Luke omitted Mark 10.45b for soteriological reasons; he does
not avoid 'ransom' language elsewhere — Luke 1.68; 2.38; 24.21; Acts 7.35 (Fitzmyer, Luke
1212). More likely he knew the variant tradition and used/reworked it in preference to Mark
10.35-45. Cf. Gnilka, 'Wie urteilte Jesus?' 41-49; 'dying for' as 'the oldest interpretation of Jesus'
death' (50).
232. Lindars, Jesus 11.
233. Pesch argues that Luke 22.27 is derived by redaction from Mark {Markusevangelium
2.164-65; followed by Hampel, Menschensohn 310-12), and Marshall suggests an
original saying composed of two parts (Luke 22.27 + Mark 10.45) abbreviated by each Evangelist
(Luke 813-14, followed by Kim, Son of Man 43-45), but a variant oral tradition makes
better sense of the data than does a process conceived in terms of literary editing; the choice to
follow an alternative version is more readily conceivable than arbitrary abbreviation of a unified
tradition.
234. This saying in itself would be sufficient basis for a central thrust of Schiirmann's
Gottes Reich: 'as in life, so in death' (205-208), Jesus' 'pro-existence' death (e.g., 243-45).
813