The former Jesuit turned biblical critic John Dominic Crossan has written that the Passion accounts in the New Testament canon and outside it are "prophecy historicised". (Who Killed Jesus, p. 10) Crossan argued his thesis, in part, by looking at non-Gospel material on the Passion, which cited the Old Testament but bypassed the Gospel as a source.
Among the sources for the Passion were (second) Isaiah and certain of the Psalms. Among the non-Gospel material which cited such sources for the Passion was the Epistle of Barnabas. This project will help Crossan out, by looking at one Passion citation embedded within an early epistle from the community of Rome to that of Corinth, commonly known as "1 Clement".
The Roman church in the "Clementine" epistle was exhorting the Corinthian church, recently taken over by a faction of youth, to reconcile with its ousted elders and to observe more humility. In 1 Clement 16, the Romans reminded Corinth, and us readers, that the Lord Christ Jesus himself had come with humility.
To that end, 1 Clement 16 did not cite any particular Passion narrative, but instead cited two quotes from the Old Testament. The first, on the authority of the Holy Spirit, covers Isaiah 53:1-12. The second, on the authority of "He Himself", covers Psalm 22:6-8. Both are from the Greek translation "LXX", in which the latter is numbered "21:7-9".
The first quote is a report from "we" Israelites speaking of a man in what the Roman Christians would consider Israel's future and Christianity's recent past. This man is "like a root in thirsty ground", with "no attractiveness", "of stripes and toil", "dishonoured and not blessed" (Cl 16:3 = Is 53:1):
4 This is he who bears our sins
and suffers pain for our sakes,
and we regarded him as subject to toil and stripes and affliction.
5 But he was wounded because of our sins,
and has been afflicted because of our transgressions.
The chastisement that resulted in our peace fell upon him,
by his wounds we were healed.
6 We all went astray like sheep,
each one went astray in his own way."
1 Clement understood, and expected the Corinthians to understand: that Jesus had been whipped ("stripes"), not by his own followers but for their sake; and that Jesus's followers had gone astray.
1 Clement cited beyond that passage, further promising eschatological rewards for those who stayed humble like that man. The notion that Jesus was a "scapegoat", taking on the sins of his oppressors, did not feature in 1 Clement 16's narrow argument (although the epistle elsewhere did believe it).
Then, in 1 Clement 16:16, the Romans cited Psalm 22 "All those who saw me [Jesus] mocked me... they shook their heads saying 'he hoped in the Lord, let him deliver him'
".
1 Clement's aim here was to apply a less violent form of abuse and dishonour
from the Bible to the Corinthian youth,
more relevant to their current state.
The epistle of Peter made a similar argument as did 1 Clement, 1 Peter 2:18: "servants, accept the authority of your superiors". For this 1 Peter cited the same text of Isaiah as did 1 Clement, 1 Peter 2:21-25. Both 1 Peter and 1 Clement cited Jesus as the example of the patient servant. Both also knew that Jesus did this to be a scapegoat for sin (1 Peter 2:24). However neither was interested in developing that last metaphor.
1 Clement's innovation was to take the physical abuse of Jesus which 1 Peter had pulled from Isaiah 53, and to verbalise it with Psalm 22.
As for the Gospels, Crossan felt that his main argument was in chapter four, that the Gospels used the Scripture-based scapegoating of Jesus to construct their biographical Passion accounts:
"if I cannot persuade you in this chapter then I doubt if I can do it anywhere else
".
Crossan argued that the Gospels framed the abuse of Jesus, physical and verbal, so as to fulfil the Scriptures.
Crossan's main text was the late first century Epistle of Barnabas, of which 7:6-12 tracked the Passion against the scapegoat ritual of proto-Mishnaic tradition (Crossan p. 121-4), which itself mixed Leviticus with Isaiah 1:18. Barnabas pulled in second Isaiah's suffering-servant poetry as well, with its verse 50:6.
Crossan called Barnabas 7 "the classic example of passion prophecy before, apart from, and without passion narrative
".
Barnabas went further than 1 Peter; he related the Isaiahwic scapegoat imagery, held in common among then-still-mostly-Jewish Christians, to proto-Mishnaic theory and practice. Partly that was because 1 Peter's interest was exhortative, with no interest in discussing why Jesus had to suffer as he did; instead explaining one theme by which he had suffered: humility. But mostly, 1 Peter just had a more primitive understanding of the Passion than did Barnabas. As Hebrews had attempted to systematise Christian theology (like Paul's) in terms of the Jewish temple, so Barnabas did for Christian Passion accounts (like 1 Peter's) in terms of the Jewish scapegoat.
Barnabas did not use Psalm 22 but the Gospels did. Crossan noted Psalm 22:8-9 in Mark 15:29-30 (p. 134), that the passersby "shook their heads" and mocked "save yourself". (This verse is not in John 19:18-30 or Peter 4:1-5, but John 19:24 and Peter 4:3 cited Psalm 22:18.)
The passion was of interest to many late first century Christians, such as 1 Peter, 1 Clement and Barnabas. All took the Passion's historicity as given, and believed that it was the fulfilment of Isaiahwic prophecies.
1 Clement 16's juxtaposition of Isaiah 53 with Psalm 22, as Barnabas's of Isaiah 50 with Leviticus, represents a second phase: that Jesus bore witness of his own suffering in non-prophetic books as well. If so, then passion recitals would have to take this witness into account.
1 Clement's innovation places that epistle in the generation after 1 Peter, contemporary with Barnabas, and prior to all the known Gospels of the Passion.
Any thoughts? e-mail me :^) zimriel@sbcglobal.net
The first version of this project was written Good Friday (21 March) 2008. On the next day I had to incorporate 1 Peter.