17. Immanuel Kant is frequently cited in this connection by many authors: “Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason,” II.1.c., in idem, Kant: Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason: And Other Writings, trans. Allen Wood, et al., Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
18. Cf. the comprehensively informative work of Karl-Heinz Menke, Stellvertretung. Schlüsselbegriff christlichen Lebens und theologische Grundkategorie (Einsiedeln: Johannes, 1991), 17. At this point he refers to Dorothee Sölle, Stellvertretung. Ein Kapitel Theologie nach dem “Tode Gottes,” 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Kreuz-Verlag, 1982), English: Christ the Representative: An Essay in Theology after the “Death of God” (London: SCM, 1967).
19. Or “you can because you must.” Cf. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason and Other Works on the Theory of Ethics, trans. Thomas Kingsmill Abbott (London: Longmans, Green, 1898; repr. Charleston, SC: Forgotten Books, 2008), 25: “He [= one who in a difficult situation and must decide according to conscience—Author] judges, therefore, that he can do a certain thing because he is conscious that he ought, and he recognizes that he is free—a fact which but for the moral law he would never have known.” Apparently “you can because you should/must” was later abstracted from this text. At any rate, in 1942 Walter Schmidkunz edited a collection of Kant citations in the Münchner Lesebogen 11, titled “I. Kant, Du kannst, denn du sollst. Vom Ethos der Pflicht.” The phrase in the title did not, however, appear within the collection. I am grateful to Fr. Giovanni Sala, SJ, for this information.
20. I thank Ludwig Weimer for this formulation.
21. Cf. Gese, “The Atonement,” 95–96, 106.
22. For an extended discussion of this point see Lohfink and Weimer, Maria, 37–64.
23. Dag Hammarskjöld, Markings, trans. Leif Sjöberg and W. H. Auden (New York: Ballantine Books, 1983), 173.
24. Thus, e.g., Jürgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Kapitel 11–21, ÖTK 4/2 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981), 592.
Chapter 17
1. Cf. Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, Part 2, HTKNT II/2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 21.
2. Cf. Gerhard Lohfink, Das Vaterunser neu ausgelegt, Urfelder Reihe 7 (Bad Tölz: Verlag Urfeld, 2007), 29–34. Still fundamental is Joachim Jeremias, Abba. Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 15–67. Available in English in idem, Jesus and the Message of the New Testament, ed. K. C. Hanson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), esp. 39–74.
3. Ps 11:6; Isa 51:17, 22; Ezek 23:32-33.
4. Cf. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Jesus und das Judentum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 588. The references for Celsus and Julian can also be found there.
5. Cf. in the Old Testament the distress of the prophet Jeremiah (e.g., Jer 20:7-18) and in the New Testament Paul’s statements about himself (e.g., 2 Cor 4:7-18).
6. Thus, probably correctly, John 18:12-15.
7. Thus Hengel and Schwemer, Jesus und das Judentum, 593.
8. Cf. esp. Josef Blinzler, The Trial of Jesus: The Jewish and Roman Proceedings against Jesus Christ Described and Assessed from the Oldest Accounts (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1959), 117–21; also 86–89. In my description of Jesus’ last day I am grateful to be able to follow this foundational work in many details.
9. Cf. in the Old Testament: Num 35:30; Deut 17:6; 19:15.
10. Thus Mark 8:29-30; 9:7-9.
11. The suggestion that Jesus did not use the Son of Man title is utterly unfounded. It appears in the New Testament almost nowhere but on the lips of Jesus. And later Christology had no idea what to do with the title. Cf. the persuasive and well-considered presentation in Hengel and Schwemer, Jesus und das Judentum, 526–41; see also chap. 19 below.
12. Cf. m. Sanh. VII, 5. The command, however, is older than the law in the Mishnah: cf. 2 Kgs 18:37–19:1.
13. There is no basis in the Markan text for two different meetings of the Council; it is also improbable that the Sanhedrin only assembled in the early morning, as supposed by Willibald Bösen, Der letzte Tag des Jesus von Nazaret. Was wirklich geschah (Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 174–77.
14. An overview of the shifting discussion on this point can be found in Pesch, Markusevangelium, Part 2, 418–19.
15. In the Fourth Gospel account Jesus’ scourging precedes the death sentence (John 19:1; cf. Luke 23:16). In that case it would have been a final attempt on the part of Pilate to avoid sentencing Jesus to death.
16. See b. Sanh. 43a: “When one is led out to execution, he is given a goblet of wine containing a grain of frankincense, in order to benumb his senses, for it is written, Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto the bitter in soul” (Sanhedrin, trans. Jacob Schachter and Harry Freedman, ed. Isidore Epstein [London: Soncino, 1987]).
17. Thus Hengel and Schwemer, Jesus und das Judentum, 617; Schalom ben Chorin, Brother Jesus: The Nazarene through Jewish Eyes (Atlanta: University of Georgia Press, 2001), 184.
18. 11Q Temple 64, 6-10. Cf. Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 155–56.
Chapter 18
1. Only in the so-called canonical ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), which, however, stems from the second century, is anything said (at v. 14) about the eleven (disciples).
2. Since there is probably an existing tradition behind John 16:32 the redactional tension with John 20, in which the disciples remain in Jerusalem after all, need not exclude this interpretation.
3. See in detail Gerhard Lohfink, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu. Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhungstexten bei Lukas, SANT 26 (Munich: Kösel, 1971), 262–65.
4. Cf. Luke 24:6 (which retains a reminiscence of Galilee) with Mark 16:7.
5. “Disclosure situation” is the phrase used by Ian T. Ramsey, Wilhelmus A. de Pater, and others. It refers to a moment in which, through a concrete event, a new view of things suddenly appears. For extensive discussion, see Tullio Aurelio, Disclosures in den Gleichnissen Jesu. Eine Anwendung der disclosure-Theorie von I. T. Ramsey, der modernen Metaphorik und der Theorie der Sprechakte auf die Gleichnisse Jesu, RST 8 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1977), 28–41.
6. The natural aspect of genuine visions is treated extensively in Karl Rahner, Visions and Prophecies, trans. Charles H. Henkey and Richard Strachan (London: Burns & Oates, 1964).
7. Cf., e.g., Pss 16:10-11; 17:15; 27:13; 41:13; 49:16; 73:24; 143:7. All these passages oscillate between hope for newly given life in this time and hope for life beyond the bounds of death. The speaking subject is always an individual.
8. John 12:32; Acts 2:33; 5:31; Rom 1:4; Eph 1:20-22; Phil 2:9; Heb 1:3; 2:9; 5:5-6; 8:1; 10:12-13.
9. Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9; 3:21; 1 Tim 3:16.
10. Luke 24:34; Acts 10:40; Rom 4:24, 25; 8:11; 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:4; Gal 1:1; 1 Thess 1:10; 1 Pet 1:21, and frequently elsewhere.
11. Thus Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, Part 2, HTKNT II/2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 529.
12. The Hosea passage is cited nowhere in the New Testament, and even possible allusions are uncertain.
13. Cf. Matt 28:9-10; Mark 16:9; John 20:11-18.
14. For the opponents’ assertion of theft of the body, see Matt 28:11-15; for transfer by a gardener, see John 20:15. The sudden and unexplained appearance of the “gardener” in the text is an allusion to the polemic of the Jewish opposition.
15. “A sign” because the fact of the empty tomb is not the resurrection itself. The earliest Christian tradition held that opinion also. In all four gospels the meaning and significance of the empty tomb must first be explained by angels.
16. The Jewish texts, especially those of Philo, are handily summarized in Rudolf Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, Vol. 1, EKK V/1 (Einsiedeln: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986), 101–2.
17. Paul speaks of this in 1 Corinthians 14 in the same terminology: lalein gl