§ d 54–71 The Trial of Jesus by the Jews—Again as in Mk 14:53–72; Mt 26:57–75 (cf. 18:13–27) with changes of order, omissions and additions. The Jewish leaders wish to procure a condemnation by the Sanhedrin on the ground of revolutionary Messianic claims which will provide a reason for handing Jesus over to the Roman governor for execution. Mk and Mt give two meetings of the Sanhedrin, one in the night, the other on the morning of Friday; Lk mentions only the second, as usual simplifying and omitting details not necessary to his main purpose. He is concerned to show how Jesus still dominates the whole situation in spite of all appearances to the contrary; cf. 48, 51, 53b, 61, 69. God’s design is being worked out with the complete agreement of our Lord, a thing that puts the prayer and agony at Gethsemani into proper perspective. 54. Agreeing with Mk in describing the arrest and Peter’s following Jesus, Lk here prefers to complete the story of the Apostle and thus anticipates the order of Mk (cf. 3:19 ff.). It will be observed that he spares Peter as far as is reconcilable with the truth. The differences of the four evangelists in recording the denials are not of sufficient weight to alter the tradition of a triple denial; it may easily be supposed that Peter uttered several denials to each of his three questioners. Lagr7487., S. Marc (1911) 380 ff. 61a. This touching and significant detail is recorded by Lk alone. § e 70. The Sanhedrin, in accordance with their plan, demand if Jesus be the Christ (66; but note the additions to the question in Mk 14:61b and Mt 26:63b); he refuses to discuss the point with them (67–68, proper to Lk) but tells them more than they ask for by his quotation from the Scriptures; cf. Ps 109:1, and Dan 7:13. This they seize on immediately in the question of 70, to which our Lord replies openly. They now have evidence to condemn him for blasphemy, but they have not secured the condemnation which would be more useful for handing Jesus over to the governor as a Messianic revolutionary. Lk has thus brought things to the conclusion he desires, with a clear affirmation from our Lord of his Divine Sonship resulting in his condemnation by the Jewish authorities. The condemnation he leaves the reader to infer, unless it be said that he wishes to be historically accurate and so abstains from crediting the Sanhedrin with something they had no real power to do: only the Roman governor had the power of life and death.

§ 770a 23:1–5 Jesus is handed over to Pilate—(Mt 27:2; Mk 15:1–5; cf. Jn 18:28–38). Lk omits the long account in Mt and Mk of the evidence brought by the false witnesses. In the remainder of the Passion narrative he shows more signs of having drawn on sources of his own. His omissions are accounted for by the reasons already mentioned: avoidance of details difficult for a non-Jewish reader, e.g. the Aramaic cry from the cross which caused the hearers to think Jesus was calling on Elias; the custom of demanding the release of a prisoner at the Pasch; the mockery concerning the destruction of the temple, about which Lk has been silent during the trial. Apart from such details he gives all that Mk contains, and none of Mt’s additions to Mk, such as the fate of Judas, Pilate’s wife, the earthquake and resurrection of the dead. His most important additions are: the sending of Jesus to Herod, Pilate’s protest before the Jews, 13–16, the lamentations of the women of Jerusalem, the prayers of Jesus in 34 and 46, the incident of the Good Thief. His insistence on Pilate’s assertions of our Lord’s innocence leads some to conclude that Lk tries as much as possible to exculpate the Roman authorities and thus prepares for his description of their accommodating attitude towards the Church in Ac; but note the callousness of Pilate recorded in 16 and 22. Lk goes to no trouble, however, to spare the Jewish leaders; the accusation they bring against Jesus, 2, after the conclusion of the trial in 22:71 pillories them as men without scruple.

§ b 6–16 Jesus before Herod—The Herod in question is Herod Antipas (son of Herod the Great by Malthace the Samaritan) tetrarch of Galilee since 4 b.c. As the Herod family passed as Jews, doubtless Antipas was in Jerusalem for the paschal feast. This incident, proper to Lk, agrees with what he alone records of Herod in 9:7; cf. 23:8. We gather the impression here that Pilate, something like Gallio in Ac 18:12 ff., merely sees an opportunity of freeing himself from an embarrassing situation; let Herod deal with the man since he belongs to Herod’s jurisdiction. 9. Jesus refuses to answer; ‘truth is of no profit to those who are not sincere’ (Lagrange); he had already called Herod a fox; 13:31–32. 11. Herod’s answer is to treat our Lord as a fool of no account: ‘with his band of soldiers he set him at nought and mocked him, putting on him a fine garment’; λαμπρός means rather ‘shining’ and ‘splendid’ than white (cf. 16:19). It was all part of the effort to show up Jesus’ alleged claim to royalty as something not worth serious consideration, like the similar incident in Pilate’s hall omitted by Lk.

§ c 17–25 Release of Barabbas—(Mt 27:15–23; Mk 15:6–15). It is generally agreed that 17 is a gloss added from Mt 27:15 to explain the sudden introduction of Barabbas in 18. Lk explains who Barabbas is in 25 with proper comments of his own showing the contrast between Barabbas and Jesus; cf. Ac 3:14–15. Barabbas was probably in prison for the very offence of which our Lord was accused by the Jews in 2, i.e. revolt against Roman authority.

§ d 26–32 The Way of the Cross—Omitting all reference to the scourging and mockery by Pilate’s guard, Lk joins Mk and Mt in relating the incident of Simon of Cyrene. Grammatically he makes the Jews lead Jesus out for execution, a fact that leads to the suggestion that he seeks to exculpate the Romans in order to render his Gospel more acceptable to Gentile readers; but the suggestion takes no account of 26 and 47. The women of Jerusalem may be those charitable Jewish ladies who undertook the duty of attending to the last needs of condemned criminals, a thing that would naturally appeal to the heart of our Lord. The Talmud (cf. B. Sanhedrin 43a) tells us that one of the cares of these pious women was to provide spiced wine for the dying men; cf. Mk 15:23. In 28–29 there is strong reminiscence of the predictions of 21:23. 30. Here as in 29 the words of our Lord echo the thoughts of the Prophets in whose language he so often spoke; cf. Is 54:1; Os 10:8; 9:14. The perspective is still that of the ruin of Jerusalem, God’s punishment of the city for the crime it is about to commit. 31. A parable picturing a man so set on kindling a fire that instead of seeking dry sticks he uses green and damp wood; its application is to the present circumstances: seeing that to all appearances divine justice now falls on an innocent person, how will it be when the turn of the guilty comes? Perhaps there is recollection of Ez 20:47. cf. Prov 26:21; 1 Pet 4:17–18.

§ 771a 33–38 The Crucifixion—(Mt 27:33–38; Mk 15:22–27; cf. Jn 19:17–27). 33. ‘When they were come to the place called Cranium’ (Κρανίον, skull). Lk omits the Aramaic Golgolta given as Γολγοθά by Mt and Mk. D7488V has followed V7489g which has turned κρανίον into the Latin equivalent Calvarium. The place of public execution was a rocky eminence; such places are still given the name ras or head by the Arabs. 34a. Proper to Lk; its authenticity is disputed on account of omission by many good MSS, but the weight of probability is in its favour; cf. Ac 7:59. Of whom is Jesus thinking? The Romans? The soldiers, who are Gentiles? The Jews? If the Jews, it would seem that the leaders of the people could not be included, in view of 35 where Lk clearly distinguishes ‘the people’ and ‘the rulers’ (omit ‘with them’ after rulers). The people stand beholding; the rulers stand mocking. Lk here omits the detailed insults relative to the temple, having omitted all reference to accusations about the destruction of the temple during the trial. He joins Mt and Mk in recording the mocking invitation to our Lord to save himself’ if he be the Christ, the chosen one of God’; in Mk ‘the Christ, the King of Israel’; in Mt ‘King of Israel’. 36. The drink offered to our Lord by the soldiers in their rude mockery, vinegar in DV, is ὄξος, the sour wine that was the common drink of the poorer classes; in Mk this is not given until near the end, 15:36, while Mk earlier mentions the offering of spiced wine, 15:23. This is merely another example of Lk’s manner of abbreviating and need create no difficulties for a reasonable exegesis. A further example of his manner is in 38 which he has left till now (before the crucifixion in Mk) where it explains the mocking remark of 37.

§ b 39–43 The Two Thieves—(Cf. Mt 27:44; Mk 15:32b). Lk alone distinguishes the thieves; according to Mk and Mt both join in insulting Jesus. St Chrysostom reconciles the two accounts by supposing that the Good Thief began by insults and was later converted; Augustine prefers the more likely solution that Mk and Mt are speaking in general terms as Lk does when he says that ‘the soldiers’ offered Jesus sour wine to drink. 39b. ‘Thou art the Christ, art thou not? (Then) save thyself and us (too)’; not a confession of faith, but a further example of mockery. 40. What does the Good Thief wish to say? According to some, ‘Dost thou not even fear God seeing that thou art under the same sentence (as we, i.e. the Good Thief and Christ) and wilt shortly appear before him?’ Or better, ‘Thou hast not even the fear of God (in thus allowing thyself to attack him in this fashion) seeing that thou art under the same sentence. But thou and I (suffer) justly, for we are only receiving what we have earned, while this man has done nothing out of place (ἄτοπον)’. The Good Thief associates himself and his companion with Jesus in the same ‘judgement’, κρίμα. It is possible that the two thieves along with Barabbas had belonged to one of those bands of Jewish brigands (their attitude proves they were Jews) which flourished at this period, and whose real motive was rebellion against Roman domination; cf. Jos., Ant. 17, 10, 8; 18, 1, 1. This was the crime of which our Lord was accused, 23:2; cf. 23:19 for Barabbas and his crime of sedition. Perhaps that is the reason why they are all executed together, the two thieves being hurried to their death through the sudden climax in the plot against Jesus, when they doubtless had hoped for the good fortune Barabbas had met with, Lk 23:42–43. Far from demanding the miracle of an immediate descent from the Cross, the Good Thief asks no more than that Jesus will not forget him when he comes as Messias in the glory of his kingdom. Jesus rewards his act of faith and hope by the promise that he will that very day make him to be with him in perfect bliss. In the apocryphal gospels the Good Thief is called Dismas. [‘Paradise’ (LX7490X rendering of ‘Garden’ in Eden, Gen 2:18) signified for the Jews the abode of the blessed. Here, if taken literally in its context, it signifies primarily the limbo of the just, to which Christ’s soul was presently to descend.—J.B.O.]

§ 772a 44–49 Death of Jesus—(Mt 27:45–56; Mk 15:33–41). Note the following additions in Lk to the narrative of Mk and Mt which he has abbreviated: the failing of the sun, 45, the prayer with which Jesus gives up the ghost, 46, and the emotion of the crowd, 48. The cry of dereliction from the cross is passed over, also the opening of the tombs (proper to Mt), and the enumeration of the Holy Women given by Mk and Mt. He anticipates the rending of the veil of the temple, but that is characteristic of his fashion of grouping together events of a like nature. His omission of the cry of dereliction may well be due to consideration for the susceptibilities of the Gentile convert, who will not immediately understand that our Lord is praying very fittingly with all the thoughts of Ps 21 and not merely those of the opening words. For this cry Lk substitutes other words from Ps 30:6; ‘Into thy hands I commit my spirit’, which would leave a very different impression on the mind of a raw Gentile convert. παρατίθεσθαι (commend) means ‘to deposit, give into the care of, bring forward’; cf. Jn 10:17–18. § b 47. Lk differs from Mk and Mt in recording the words of the centurion in charge of the execution squad; he makes the centurion call Jesus ‘a just man’, not ‘a son of God’. Augustine says they both mean the same thing, taking ‘son of God’ in its wide sense. Possibly Lk, realizing how equivocal the phrase ‘son of God’ could be in the mouth of a pagan, deliberately avoided its use. 48. ‘Lk has shown us the crowd first enthusiastic for the death of Jesus, then aghast, 35. Such goodness, such self-forgetfulness in the midst of pain, joined with his readiness to forgive and his piety, nature herself suffering in sympathy with his Passion—the whole spectacle brings about a complete change in the volatile crowd. It is a piece of subtle psychological description’ (Lagr7491., S. Luc 593).

§ c 50–56 Burial of Jesus—(Mt 27:57–61; Mk 15:42–47; cf. Jn 19:38–42). Lk’s more lengthy description of Joseph recalls the pious group with which he opens his Gospel: a morally good man, a faithful observer of the Law, one of those who look for the redemption of Israel in the true spirit of the Scriptures. The attention here to topographical detail is surprising until we remember 1:1–4; Mt adds that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus. He was also a member of the Sanhedrin and had voted against the condemnation of Jesus, or at least had absented himself from the session. Jn 19:38–39 associates him with Nicodemus, another Sanhedrite, Jn 7:50. 53. Lk insists, with the aid of three negatives in Greek, that the tomb had never been defiled by the presence of another corpse, as though wishing to contrast the reverence of the disciples with the opposite attitude of our Lord’s enemies. 54b. ‘The Sabbath began to dawn’, ἐπέφωσκεν ‘was shining’; a curious phrase because it was still the Parasceve, which did not end until sunset on the Friday when according to Jewish reckoning the Sabbath commenced. It is suggested that Lk is referring to the common Jewish custom, well-known among their Gentile neighbours, of lighting lamps as soon as the Sabbath began.

§ 773a 24:1–53 The Resurrection and Ascension—‘Each of the four evangelists relates in his own way how the tomb of Jesus was found empty, to the great astonishment of Christ’s friends. Mt and Mk are the most alike. Lk is usually closer to Mk. As for Jn, he goes his own way but is in agreement with Mk concerning the search made by St Peter. The difficulty of harmonizing the four accounts has been greatly exaggerated. Nothing is more simple provided we do not stick at unimportant details, provided also we pay attention to the way in which each Gospel was composed’. (Lagr7492., GJC II 283). The main difference between Lk and the other Synoptists is that he omits the appearances of Jesus in Galilee, confining himself to those in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem; but it is unbelievable that he was ignorant of the former, recorded by Mt, Lk and Jn. We have to recall once more what was Lk’s aim, remembering that he differs greatly from Mt and Mk in showing that the ministry of Jesus was by no means confined to Galilee. Throughout his Gospel it is clear that Lk has his eyes fixed on Jerusalem, whither the ministry inevitably leads by the design of Providence and according to the prediction of Scripture, 13:33. In his ‘second treatise’ he will show how the Gospel message spreads from Jerusalem throughout the Roman world until it finally reaches Rome, the centre of the Gentile world. With this in view, there was no special need for his purpose to add details about the appearances in Galilee once he had demonstrated the truth of the Resurrection by means of the appearances at Jerusalem. He has a thesis, and we have seen how much he dislikes multiplying details and incidents of a similar character once his object is attained.

§ b 1–12 The Empty Tomb—(Mt 28:1–10; Mk 16:1–8; cf. Jn 20:1–18). The general lines of Mk’s story are followed with the differences to be noted. The chapter-division here breaks into the sequence of the narrative; this section should begin at 23:55. We have seen that Lk omits to join Mk and Mt in the enumeration of the Holy Women; with his usual foresight he leaves that until the moment when they are to give their testimony of the Resurrection to the Apostles and the disciples, (9–10), when he substitutes the name of Joanna (cf. 8:3) for that of Salome in Mk 15:40. He is not interested in the problem of rolling back the heavy stone; it is sufficient for his purpose to say that it was found removed; he adds that in entering the women saw the body of Jesus was gone. That is the main fact which Mt and Mk leave to be understood while they concentrate on the angelic apparition. Instead of Mk’s ‘young man’ and Mt’s ‘angel of Yahweh’, two men appear suddenly, ἐπέστησαν (cf. 2:9; Ac 12:7; 23:11 for similar description of supernatural apparitions) who both speak. 3. ‘The Lord Jesus’; first and only appearance of this title in the Gospels, of common use in Acts and Epistles. 6. Galilee is introduced, as in Mk, but with a different purpose; here it serves merely as a stepping-stone to Jerusalem, from now the centre of the Gospel. § c 9. Difficult to reconcile this with Mk 16:8 where the women flee in terror without saying a word of the incident, contrary to Mt 28:8. The explanation may well lie in the fact that there is a clear break in Mk 16:8 (the sentence is not complete) and we are so far ignorant of how the original Mk continued. In view of what is known from the other Gospels, we may surmise that the women recovered from their natural fright in time to hand on the message in the way that Lk describes. 10. The lack of agreement about the number and the names of the women is a difficulty only for those who wish the Gospel to be a full and exact account of all the details; but human documents are not written in that way. Here as elsewhere, the thing to be noted is the remarkable independence shown by Lk where he could have copied Mk slavishly had he wished. The discrepancies, far from casting doubt on the reality of the facts, are on the contrary strong arguments in their favour (cf. Lagr7493., GJC I xi ff.). 12. Some critics wish to eliminate this as a gloss from Jn 20:3–10; there are verbal resemblances with Jn 20:5 and the verse is wanting in certain of the ancient versions. But MS authority guarantees its authenticity; moreover it comes well in Lk after 11, serving to distinguish Peter from the incredulous attitude of the rest. Peter’s conclusion from the situation of the grave-clothes is that the body has not been stolen. Thieves would not have stayed to unwrap the corpse. A more complete description in Jn 20:6–7.

§ 774a 13–35 Apparition on the Way to Emmaus—Proper to Lk except for a brief summary in Mk 16:12. Lk alone records the share taken by a larger group of disciples in the ministry of Jesus; here the same group plays its part in the important task of witnessing to the Resurrection (cf. Ac 1:21–22). These two are of those mentioned in 9 but not Apostles; cf. 33. They are not obeying the instruction to go to Galilee, Mk 16:7; Mt 28:7, and there meet the risen Jesus; they are going in the totally different direction of Emmaus, lying W. of Jerusalem, and the sequel leads to the conclusion that their faith is shattered. The site of Emmaus is a matter of much dispute on account of the division of the MSS between the readings 60 or 160 furlongs σταδίοι; cf. § 82c. Nearly a dozen places have been suggested, but only the following three are new considered: the modern Amwas, lying about 20 m. W. of Jerusalem, which still retains the ancient name though it was called Nicopolis during the 3rd cent. a.d.; Koliniyeh, about 5 m. west, claimed to be the Emmaus mentioned by Josephus, B.J. 7, 6, 6; El Kubeibeh, about 7 m. west. The first is the traditional site, though the majority of MSS give 60 σταδίοι and the longer distance seems difficult to reconcile with the Gospel story of the quick return of the two disciples. El Kubeibeh is almost exactly 60 σταδίοι, but its claim to be the site cannot be traced back beyond the time of the Crusades. § b 16. Failure to recognize Jesus may have been due to divine intervention, or possibly because of the characteristics of the glorified body; cf. Mk 16:12; Jn 20:14; 21:4. 18. Another, or possibly the same Cleophas, written Κλωπᾶς in Jn 19:25. Much speculation about the other disciple; Origen says he was Simon Peter (cf. 34), while some have thought it was Lk himself, perhaps because of the old and improbable tradition that he was one of the Seventy-Two. 19–21. An excellent summary of the effects of Jesus’s ministry on the different classes: the people, the Jewish leaders, the disciples. 21b. This and the following verse give the impression that they had waited till the third day to see whether Jesus would fulfil his promise of resurrection, and were disappointed. The argument of 22–24 seems to be this: If the women saw the angels, why did not the men-folk see them, the Apostles being so much the more important than the women? And if Jesus had really risen why had he not shown himself? 25. The reproach is directed against their want of intelligence; ἀνόητοι cf. Gal 3:1. They are like the Jews who have read in the Prophets only the pleasant and glorious things about the Messias; but they must believe ‘all’, the pleasant and the unpleasant. Our Lord proceeds to give them a lesson in exegesis from ‘Moses and all the Prophets’, reminding us of the presence of Moses and Elias at the Transfiguration and the subject of their talk with Jesus; 9:30–31. The important thing is to welcome the Messias preordained by divine decree, not the Messias of their grandiose dreams. § c 29. ‘Far spent’ is too strong; the day (i.e. the sun) begins to decline from midday. 30. Augustine interprets the action of Jesus as the celebration of the Eucharist and many follow him; but modern Catholic exegesis tends to favour the contrary opinion. The key seems to be in 35. ‘The breaking of bread’ seems to have been an accepted term for the Eucharist: Ac 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor 10:16. Some hold that it is the miracles of the multiplication of bread that are envisaged here (cf. 9:16) especially as Lk does not make our Lord celebrate the Eucharist with his Apostles at his later appearance the same evening, when, 41–43, it is an ordinary meal that he partakes with them; but it must be observed that the later eating is intended for a very different purpose. Another opinion is that the disciples recognized Jesus merely from his characteristic way of breaking bread while eating, perhaps with a blessing. Or did they now notice the marks of the nails? 33. In Jn 20:24 only ten of the Apostles were present at this first appearance; but ‘the Eleven’ had become a general term, like ‘the Twelve’ previously. 34. ‘Saying’; grammatically agreeing with the Eleven and the rest, though another reading (with little authority) makes it agree with ‘they’, i.e. the two disciples; hence Origen’s opinion that the companion of Cleophas was Simon Peter. Confirmation of 34 in 1 Cor 15:5.

§ d 36–43 Appearance at Jerusalem—Cf. Jn 20:19–23. ‘It is I: fear not’ is a gloss; perhaps also ‘Peace be to you’ has been added from Jn 20:19, 21, though there is good MS authority for the latter. 37. This may seem strange after the foregoing, but Lk always insists on the natural fear that results from a supernatural manifestation, 1:12; 2:9; 4:36; 5:10, etc. 42. ‘and a honeycomb’, probably a gloss. Our Lord retained the imprint of the five wounds in his glorified body as a proof of his identity and also as a sign of his triumph over death. His glorified body retained all its physical reality, including its tangibility and its normal organs, as is shown by his eating the proferred food. On the qualities of the risen body, cf. 1 Cor 15 passim.

§ 775a 44–49 Last Instructions—These last words of Jesus, proper to Lk, demonstrate the consistency of the writer and justify the claim with which he began, that he would set down all things ‘in order’: not a chronological, but a logical order which would show the enchainment of the events described. From the beginning he insists on the fulfilment of the divine plan in the life of Jesus; he ends on that note. Hence these final instructions weld together the past, i.e. the Scriptures, with the future, i.e. the mission of the Apostles, in the person of Jesus. The sending out of the Apostles is put by Mt at the post-Resurrection reunion in Galilee (in Jerusalem apparently by Jn 20:21); but these concluding verses of Lk furnish us with a final example of his manner of composition: he arranges his material with more concern about the sequence of ideas than about time and place. But for that we might imagine that this instruction and the Resurrection, and even the Ascension, all took place on the same day. It is to be borne in mind also that Lk, careful writer as he is, already knew what he was to write in his further treatise; there these events are put into their proper perspective, Ac 1:1–10. § b 44. ‘Words’ means here events rather than the things about to be spoken of, i.e. ‘fulfilled words’. What follows is a repetition of the instruction given to the disciples at Emmaus, 19–27. ‘Here Christ reveals the meaning of Scripture (cf. Rom 10:4): first with regard to Christ himself, secondly with respect to the work to be accomplished in his name by others.… It is Christ’s part to suffer, but as the Christ he must rise again.… The victorious Christ to whom God had promised the nations for his inheritance almost disappears from the scene of this world; but if the nations are to be invited to repentance in his name, it is because they are to obtain pardon through his sufferings’ (Lagr7494., S. Luc 614). 47. With the mention of ‘penance unto the remission of sins’ Lk has very fittingly brought us back to the beginning of his Gospel; cf. 1:17, 77; 3:3. 49. Written with a view to Ac 2:1–4; cf. Ac 1:4; 2:33. ‘Power from on high’ recalls ‘the power of the most high’ in 1:35; God himself is the chief operating agent in either case, for all has to do with the same object.

§ c 50–53 The Ascension—Cf. Mk 16:19–20. The way in which Lk here abbreviates the history of the forty days after the Resurrection is characteristic, and perhaps an indication of the fact that he intends to return to the subject. 50. ‘He led them out towards Bethany’; in Ac 1:12 he led them a Sabbath day’s journey; Bethany is twice that distance; cf. Jn 11:18. Hands lifted up to bless in the traditional fashion, Lev 9:22; cf. Gen 48:14. 51. ‘And was carried up to heaven’; words of doutbful authenticity, perhaps added from Ac; but there is not the slightest doubt about Lk’s meaning. He has now carried his Gospel to the point indicated in 9:51. 53. Omit ‘praising’ as a rejected reading of the Gk. The Gospel ends as it began, in the temple. There are still many things to happen before the disciples are forced by circumstances to understand that the paths of the Church and Synagogue lie in different directions.