Analysis of the Death on the Cross
Each author in his own way gauges the events, the crowd (or lack?), and delivers the story as if the reader already had at least minimal knowledge of what had happened. But it is important to remember that these are indeed three different accounts of presumably the same event, with some key differences which serve to show the event in three different lights. The death on the cross, the climax really of all three accounts, can illustrate some of the striking similarities and differences between the three gospels. I shall consider each in turn, focusing specifically on three instances, and keeping in mind the Two (Four) Source Hypothesis, which assumes Mark to be the eldest of the gospels. It also assumes that Matthew and Luke are extensive, sometimes verbatim copiers of Mark’s work, but also utilize Q, an unattested collection of relatively unknown composition (except for what may or may not be represented in Matthew and Luke). Matthew additionally works from a collection specific only to him, and Luke in turn does likewise with his own specific collection.
Mark, Associated Press Unelaborated, to the point, yet as thorough as he felt he ought to be, Mark could have been the AP’s ancient Palestine/Judean correspondent. His sometimes terseness can be a drawback for a reader who is not in touch with the two-thousand year old context. His undecorated style is sometimes criticized as harsh and unsophisticated, but I think that that assumes that all authors are interested in hoity-toity dialogue, and that for something to be important, it must also be unbelievably well-written. This approach seems a little unfair. It appears that regardless of Mark’s style, it does the job: after all, it survived two thousand years when some of the best of Roman authors have works that are now only represented in fragments of sentences at best. So let us get down to business, beginning at 15:33.
I believe that Mark begins with either a present or aorist tense genitive absolute judging from the English wording here. If it is a genitive absolute, it establishes without a doubt, according to Mark, the time when the darkness begins. He also specifies exactly how long this darkness lasts. I find this approach authoritative and matter-of-fact. Matthew and Luke have varying degrees of clarity. Matthew says that the darkness occurs ‘from noon on,’ and Luke seems pretty ambiguous, as if he feels like it does not even matter really what time it is, just that the event occurs as a mystical sign. This is also one point where, despite the three different approaches as to what time the darkness really began, they all three agree verbatim that a darkness lasted until three o’clock in the afternoon. So since we are assuming the Two (Four) Source Hypothesis, we must find some reason for why Matthew and Luke soften the time of the beginning of the darkness.
Since Mark is assumed to be an earlier source, he is closer chronologically to the event. Other sources later available to Matthew and Luke may have disagreed on a timeline for the darkness, leading to the ambiguity present in these later gospels. Matthew’s change does not in fact change the flavor much, but Luke’s is odd. He thinks that the time of the darkness cannot be exactly pinpointed. Perhaps this is as a result of source L showing itself as a comparably credible source to Luke, modifying the more definitive Markan wording. Matthew, Reuters One might have assumed that Matthew includes the bizarre story of the giant earthquake producing walking saints ‘who had fallen asleep’ because he was there, on the ground among the saints, getting the exclusive from harried townsfolk to who these raised saints appeared. Matthew, by his account, could have been standing right next to the AP reporter for the cross scene, but was not content to get the news from only one scene, so he either raced into town to get another angle (inventing it himself), or contacted a reporter already there (utilizing source M).
Neither Mark nor Luke discusses walking saints, so apparently they were completely scooped, lacking source M-or else neither gave credibility to the news angle. This story of the saints is probably only so explicit in Matthew’s special source M, which would explain why neither Mark nor Luke has it. It is really rather strange that Matthew even has it in the first place, as it has the sense of a somewhat disjointed insertion. It feels different than the previous dialogue, perhaps lending more weight to the different reporter in town idea, or utilization of M. It does, however, relate the occurrence of Jesus’ death with important Jewish saints, validating the cause of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, an overwhelmingly important point throughout Matthew. Luke, PBS Luke provides the story behind the story, the personal feelings. His account of the death on the cross is gentle, kind, a little sad, but in the end uplifting, like a good PBS special.
It seems to assume that you have heard the other accounts of what happened, but is interested in giving you the perspective you did not heretofore know existed. The large chunk of material where Jesus asks God rather frantically why he has forsaken him is missing in Luke. It is not important. What is important is that you get a glimpse, not of, perhaps, his less admirable humanity, but of his great strength of character and perfect acceptance. Luke’s Jesus is almost completely unable to ask God such a doubting question, because Luke’s Jesus has perfect faith and understanding of the situation. What Jesus says instead is that he commends his spirit to his father. There can be no question of the fulfillment of purpose, whilst the other accounts are fulfillments of prophecy. Jesus went willingly in the prophetic fulfillments, but gladly as well in the fulfillment of purpose. Luke is very careful on this point.
An additional, and just as important difference between Luke and the other two gospels is the decision by the centurion (& co. in Matt.) that something really important occurred at the moment of death. Matthew and Mark agree exactly: ‘Truly this man was God’s Son!’ But Luke heard it differently. He heard the centurion say, ‘Certainly this man was innocent.’ Which was it? Perhaps both. At first glance it appears that Luke is making an omission, that he is not saying that the centurion et alii has just recognized that this man was God’s son. But in fact a careful reading can suggest otherwise. This account, when taken in the context of the entire Luke narrative, may be less alarming than initially thought. After all, Luke has demonstrated through words and deeds that this man was no mere man, but the son of the only and most powerful God.
In Luke, Jesus is barely a man at all. By the end of Luke, the statement of Jesus as the son of God would be rather redundant. So the statement put in place that Jesus was proclaimed innocent by the wise centurion must be significant because of its substitution. The Greek word translated as ‘innocent’ is translated as if it were applied as a court or law term. And upon this judgment, the crowds watching the spectacle react as if they realize the centurion’s judgment is true, and that they have therefore made a grave mistake. This material is not present in either Mark or Matthew, and so must therefore come from source L. I also think that before and after the L insertion, either Matthew and Luke used Q, or Luke viewed Matthew’s account, because of the similar syntax of the setup for the pronouncement of the centurion, and the denouement of the women as witnesses.
When all of the differences of the scene of the death of the cross are viewed together, an interesting progression of the character of Jesus appears. In Mark, presumed by Two (Four) Source Hypothesis to be the first written, Jesus is a man chosen, touched by, and son of mortal woman and God. In Matthew, the mortal woman part can be shunted off except as prophecy fulfillment; what is really important is that Jesus is God’s son, a demigod with the form of a man, the feelings of a man, but a job to do and special powers to help him along. In Luke, Jesus is God on earth brought forth by his human mother agent. She produced almost nothing human in him except his form and physical functioning. Jesus progresses through the gospels from the more sensational to the more profound.
Rather than choosing one authority as eminent over the others as many tend to do today with news sources, the tradition has been to conflate all three gospels together as equally authoritative, separate facets of the same jewel. The average reader assumes this to be an accurate approach, but the fact is that using historical and critical reasoning cannot determine this assumption of accuracy to be correct, for want of evidence. Neither can the material shared by all three gospels be assumed to be more correct than unshared information, because the three works do not represent the number of works not accepted into the official canon which may deal with the same situation. At least many other ancient works must be taken with similar grains of salt.
