Luke 23 Footnotes

23:7-12 The historicity of the hearing before Antipas is questioned by many, but it is not clear why Luke would invent the story. (The theory that he wanted to produce the “fulfillment” of Ps 2 found in Ac 4:25-28 does not seem sufficient, especially since both Pilate and Herod found Jesus innocent.) The historical plausibility of a Roman governor seeking the assistance of Herod in determining questions of Judaism is confirmed by Ac 25:13–26:32. Though the mocking Jesus received in Herod’s court was similar to that rendered by Pilate’s soldiers in Mk 15:16-20, the version in Luke is different enough to conclude he did not construct the former event from the latter. That is, Luke had a source for this material, perhaps Manaen, foster brother of Antipas (Ac 13:1).

23:12 Sometime early in his career as governor of Judea, Pilate had been opposed before the Emperor Tiberius by a letter from a delegation of Jews that included Herod Antipas. They objected to Pilate’s placing of honorific shields in Jerusalem, and Tiberius angrily commanded Pilate to remove them. Pilate’s fortunes with the emperor were further damaged when his patron, the anti-Semite Sejanus, was deposed by Tiberius in AD 31. Pilate’s action in including Antipas in the trial of Jesus may have been intended as an “olive branch.” But this requires a date of AD 33 for the crucifixion, not nearly as likely as AD 30.

23:27-31 Many think Jesus would not have stopped to utter these words and that Luke created them. But Luke had already reported Jesus’s prophecies of Jerusalem’s destruction, so including another here seems to serve no theological or narrative purpose. This, taken with the Semitic elements of Jesus’s words, argues that they predate Luke and are likely to be historical.

23:34 It is unclear whether the prayer was originally part of Luke. The oldest manuscripts omit it. This prayer seems to be at odds with Jesus’s warning to the women of Jerusalem (v. 30). This implies at the least that one or the other was not originally a part of Luke. If both sayings go back to Jesus, then Jesus was not asking that the consequences for his rejection be prevented but that the individual guilt of those involved in his mockery and death be forgiven.

23:39-40 Both Mt 27:44 and Mk 15:32 state that the criminals crucified with Jesus mocked him. Only Luke tells us of one’s repentance. Over the course of a crucifixion that lasted for several hours, the second criminal apparently became impressed with Jesus’s demeanor and speech and changed his view of him.

23:44-45 Luke was not asserting that a solar eclipse took place (a physical impossibility at Passover, which occurs during a full moon). The word he used (Gk ekleipo¯) merely means the sun was obscured. The physical cause of the darkness may have been thick clouds or a sandstorm, but the Gospel writers were interested in the phenomenon not for its physical but for its theological meaning. Similarly, darkness does not cover the entire “world” but the “whole land,” that is, of Judea or of the region of Jerusalem (Gk ge can mean “earth” or “land”).

23:46 The final words of Jesus are recorded differently in the Gospels. The saying recorded at Mt 27:46 and Mk 15:34 (“My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?”) is certainly historical, since the early church would not invent such a saying for Jesus (see Mt 27:46). The saying recorded by Luke (“Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit”) should also be taken as historical, since it finds echoes in Mt 27:50 and Jn 19:30. John’s record of the words, “It is finished” seems to precede this statement. Thus Jesus apparently first gave the cry of dereliction. Later, immediately before dying, He cried aloud, “It is finished!” and committed his spirit to God.

23:47 Luke recorded the centurion’s words differently than Matthew and Mark, both of whom had him declare Jesus to be “Son of God.” The centurion may have said both things. More likely, Luke was summarizing the centurion’s point, since the term he used (Gk dikaios, “righteous, innocent”) occurs frequently in Luke’s writings, and the motif of Jesus as an innocent sufferer is common in Luke and Acts. Historically, though the centurion may have used “Son of God” language, it probably expressed his conviction that Jesus truly was a King and thus innocent of the charges upon which he was crucified (Mk 15:39).