Mark 14 Footnotes

14:12 The Synoptic Gospels seem to represent the Last Supper as a Passover meal. They also appear to describe Jesus’s death as occurring on the day of Passover. But the Gospel of John places these events on the day before Passover (Jn 13:1; 18:28; 19:14,31-32). All four Gospels agree, however, that the day of the week on which Jesus died was a Friday. Because there were calendrical disputes among first-century Jews, some scholars suggest that Mark and John used different calendars, both referring to the same Friday but as different days of the month. Others argue that when John referred to Passover, he was not referring to the day the Passover meal was eaten but to the entire Festival of Unleavened Bread, which began with Passover (or even, popularly considered, the day before) and lasted for seven days. Thus John’s “preparation day for the Passover” (Jn 19:14) is taken to mean “the Friday of Passover week” (“preparation” being a term used for Friday, the day before the Sabbath; Mk 15:42, Jn 19:42).

14:22-24 The essential historicity of the words of institution is indicated by their reception by Paul as traditional (1Co 11:23). The variation in wording among the accounts is due to the tendency of the Gospel writers to paraphrase in the interest of making a specific point. Just as in the Passover celebration the bread was said to be “the bread of hardship—because you left the land of Egypt in a hurry” (Dt 16:3), though it was not literally such, so Jesus said that the bread was (i.e., represented) his body. This could be a messianic claim, since the eating of the afikoman, a piece of bread broken from the rest at Passover, signifies partaking in the messianic banquet. The words concerning the cup confirm Mk 10:45, showing that Jesus understood his death as that of the atoning Suffering Servant (Is 53:12) and now indicated that his death would establish the promised new covenant of the messianic age (Ex 24:8; Jr 31:31; Zch 9:11). The meal was not intended to be “cannibalistic” but symbolic of the significance of the death of Christ and the ensuing messianic fellowship among his followers.

14:27-31 Mark and Matthew set the prediction of Peter’s denial on the way to the garden of Gethsemane, while Luke set it during the Last Supper. John divided the saying, giving the prediction of Peter’s denial during the Last Supper (Jn 13:36-38) and the prediction of the scattering on the way to the garden (Jn 16:32; see 14:31; 18:1). The historical setting ranged from the Last Supper to the arrival in Gethsemane. The writers of the first three Gospels placed the material as they did for concerns other than pure chronology.

14:30,68,72 Rabbinic sources, which may not necessarily apply to conditions in the first century, both presuppose and disallow keeping poultry in Jerusalem. Thus, even if Jews could not keep their own poultry, roosters from outside the walls of the city could still be heard. In Mark, Jesus told Peter he would deny him “before the rooster crows twice.” In the other Synoptic Gospels, Jesus referred to only one crowing of a rooster (Mt 26:34; Lk 22:34).

14:53 According to the later Jewish rabbinical writings known as the Mishnah, capital cases could not be tried at night and required two consecutive days before verdicts could be rendered. If these criteria were used in the first century, either convention was flouted in this case for expediency’s sake or, more probably, this was not an official trial. The “trial” before the high priest seems to have been an ad hoc gathering of the ruling council demanded by the course of events (i.e., the opportunity afforded by Judas and the desire to do away with Jesus before the feast). Its purpose appears to have been to arrive at a consensus to deliver Jesus to the Romans with recommendation for execution. We must assume that Peter was informed of the proceedings by others in the high priest’s household and related the trial to Mark or that some present at the trial—perhaps Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea—later reported the proceedings to the early church.

14:63-64 Caiaphas probably did not take Jesus’s admission to be the Messiah as blasphemy. He did see as blasphemy Jesus’s claim to be the Son of Man who approaches God’s throne (Dn 7:13-14) and the one who sits at God’s right hand (Ps 110:1), sharing his authority. Later rabbis condemned such an understanding of the Messiah. Threatening the high priest was also related to the charge of blasphemy. According to rabbinic sources (m. San. 7:5), once the judge has heard blasphemy—a capital offense—he is to stand and tear his robes.