Gethsemane: Jesus' Prayer Before Death

Critical Commentary on the Gethsemane Accounts

by Vincent Sapone © After-Hourz.Net 2004

Here we shall evaluate the account of Jesus' prayer before being arrested in the four Gospels. Does the prayer(s) go back to the historical Jesus? Are the accounts harmonious? How could the disciples have known what Jesus prayed if he was so far away?

39Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him.

40On reaching the place, he said to them, "Pray that you will not fall into temptation."

Basic Commentary:

The Gospel of John--like the synoptic Gospels--places a prayer of Jesus right before he is arrested but unlike the other three accounts, John lacks narrative details. No specific location is given, no setting is provided. The next chapter alleviates this some: John 18:1: "When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was an olive grove, and he and his disciples went into it." So some details are supplied after the fact.

The important point is that we will see that John's prayer is much different than that found in the other Gospels and this is because of John's theological outlook on Jesus. Even Luke's prayer differs significantly from the Mathean and Marcan versions.

Luke uses different terminology. The account is set at the "Mount of Olives" whereas Matthew and Mark have "Gethsemane".

Mark and Matthew are are very similar here but Luke does not have Jesus tell the disciples to sit there while he prays. Instead, he tells them to pray that they will not fall into temptation. Matthew v. 41 says the same thing. Mark wrote his first and matthe followed it moe closely where Luke altered it a bit.

33He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled.

34"My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death," he said to them. "Stay here and keep watch."

35Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him.

36"Abba, Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."

41He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed,

42"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

37He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled.

38Then he said to them, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me."

39Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

2"Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.

3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

4I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do.

5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Basic Commentary:

Luke lacks the detail of Jesus going forward with three disciples (Peter and the two sons of Zebedee John and James). Yet he states that Jesus withdrew to about a stone's throw beyond them. This puts quite a bit of distance between them and Jesus. This is probably where v. 35 of Mk and v. 39 of Matthew pick up. Under Marcan priority Luke may have simply seen this extra information as superfluous and excluded it. Theological motivations for the exclusion of some of it, however, are evident.

The wording of the prayer differs in small details between the synoptic Gospels but there aren't any major differences between Matthew and Mark's version. Matthew may tone down the starkness of Mark's account a pinch but they are substantially the same. John's prayer on the other hand is remarkably different. Jesus is not deeply distressed. He is usually presented as in charge, in command and knowing what's going on--even about his "preexistence" in the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John will not as readily have any of a "human" Jesus distressing in the Garden of Gethsemane and asking God to take this cup away. It is inconsistent with the Johannine image of Jesus.

But John does have Jesus troubled at one point. Yet even here Jesus is immediately victorious. John 12:27: "Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28Father, glorify your name!" In the Gospel of John (19:30) it is even Jesus who decided when to die. He "gave up his spirit" after all was fulfilled.

This here is our first genuine internal contradiction. It is a theological one. John includes this prayer of Jesus right before his arrest as do all three synoptics with Jesus' distress in Gethsemane//Mount of Olives. John is not recording an altogether different incident and prayer of Jesus. John is presenting a radically different image of Jesus who prays before being arrested.

John's image is similar to Luke's who will not attribute psychological disarray to Jesus. That is why Luke streamlines the account. Luke does not offer a portrait of Jesus in distress, but of Jesus in command. Luke has no such "I am troubled" unlike Matthew, Mark and John (John's high Christology forces him to quickly overshadow it).

Mark's "he began to be deeply disturbed" is uniquely Markan in the NT. Ekthambeisthai means to be greatly distraught and it occurs in the LXX in Sir 30:9. Raymond Brown writes that "It indicates a profound disarray, expressed physically before a terrifying event: a shuddering of horror. Ademonein, "to be troubled," has a root connotation of being separated from others, a situation that results in anguish. It is not found in the LXX but in the Symmachus version of Ps 61:3, where Aquila reads thambeishai. Not surprisingly, Luke (who would never attribute psychological disarray to Jesus) omits the whole Marcan description; and Matt softens the first verb to lypeisthai, "to be sorrowful" (which is consonant with the following verse where Jesus' soul is very sorrowful, perilypos)." (The Death of the Messiah, v1 p. 153).

As Raymond Brown also wrote, "Luke can acknowledge the suffering of the Son of Man (p:22,44) but refuses to describe Jesus' inner reaction to suffering. This Jesus, who is far from indifferent to the suffering of others (7:13; 7:38 with 47-48; 10:41; 13:11-12), is so at peace with God that he cannot be distraught by the sufferings that are inflicted on him (4:29-30, 6:11-12; 13:31-33). His only concern in that regard is the inevitable divine judgment that such injustice to him will bring on Jerusalem (13:33-34; 23:28). Brown, ibid, p. 157.

Posture of Jesus: Notice how in Mark Jesus "falls to the ground" in distress. Matthew softens this slightly (not easily seen in the English version) as he did the verb "to be sorrowful" above. Matt used the aorist tense of the verb and substituted"on his face".This is the softening. Luke, on the other hand has Jesus kneel down and pray. He will not have Jesus fall to the ground deeply disturbed as in Mark.

Preface of the Prayer

• Mark: Abba, Father, all things are possible for you.
• Matt: My father, if it is possible
• Luke: Father is you desire

There is an increasing trend towards softening here. Matthew includes the clause "if its possible" but negates it with his preface to Jesus' second Gethsemane prayer: My Father, if it is not possible. Jesus is recorded as praying this one twice in Matthew as well (v. 44).

Luke goes further than this. "Luke favors boulesthai when God is the subject: It carries the tone of a preordained divine decision, somewhat more deliberate than thelein. Thus the Lucan Jesus is first of all concerned with the direction of the divine planning before he asks whether in the execution of that plan the cup can be taken from him." (Brown, ibid., p. 171).

John goes even further than Luke. In John the crucifixion of Jesus in not primarily some horrendous suffering and death. It is the uplifting of the Son of Man who will gather all to himself (12:32). In Mark Jesus prays for the cup to be taken. In John after Peter cuts off a man's ear, Jesus commands him: ""Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"

Luke, along with John, presents a differing image of Jesus than Matthew and Mark. This is not a vagary of memory. It is a calculated difference.

Stay here and keep watch: this probably does not refer to "watch for the soldiers coming with Judas". In Matthew Jesus discourages resistance and in Mark he knew they were coming already. He probably did not ask his disciples to watch for the sake of protection. Gregorein is said to have a sense of religious alertness with it along with [here] meaning to stay physically awake. Several other improbable suggestions are posited as well (e.g. Passover night watch--Ex 12:42 but would Mark's audience who had to be explained simple Jewish customs have understood this connection?) but we will not cover them. Most probably, it is an attitude required by the eschatological context of Jesus' death. In Mark it goes back to the parable of the doorkeeper that ends in the eschatological discourse of Mark 13. See especially Mark 13:33 and 13:37.

37Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Simon," he said to Peter, "are you asleep? Could you not keep watch for one hour?

38Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."

39Once more he went away and prayed the same thing.

40When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. They did not know what to say to him.

41aReturning the third time, he said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting?

43An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.

44And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

45When he rose from prayer and went back to the disciples, he found them asleep, exhausted from sorrow.

46"Why are you sleeping?" he asked them. "Get up and pray so that you will not fall into temptation."

40Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?" he asked Peter.

41"Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."

42He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."

43When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy.

44So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.

45aThen he returned to the disciples and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting?

6"I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.

7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you.

8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me.

9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.

Basic Commentary:

Luke lacks the "three trips back by Jesus" just as Luke lacks the "three apostles" who accompany Jesus. Luke, who was dependent upon Mark may have simply found these details superfluous and excluded them from his Gospel.

Notice that Luke adds an angel into the story. He says that an angel came to comfort Jesus, something surprisingly missing from the other two Gospels if their authors knew of it. This would look more like Lukan redactional activity than anything else if not for the textual issues (see below).

We should note that again John differs here significantly. Jesus speaks with authority and power. He prays for his disciples. In the synoptics Jesus prays for himself and his burden. But the Jesus of John is much too powerful to be concerned with his petty self-trials. His soul is troubled only for an instant for him to triumph over it (ch. 12 see above).

In Luke Jesus' disciples fall asleep exhausted with sorrow. As Brown wrote, "Neyrey cites Stoic passages, Cicero, and Philo to the effect that passions like sorrow (lype) in the face of suffering were irrational, sinful and the mark of one out of control. . . . [o]ne can find a dislike for exaggerated sorrow in the LXX, for texts like Gen 3:17 and Is 1:5 portrayed sorrow as a punishment for sin. In 1 Macc 6:8 the very wicked King Antiochus Epiphanes was greatly disturbed and fell into sickness out of sorrow, even as in Mark the very sorrowful Jesus falls on the ground. Luke cannot leave Jesus so open to misunderstanding. Others can weep and be upset by Jesus' suffering 23:27, 48), but Jesus himself cannot. Telling his disciples to pray, he kneels down and prays. It is not accidental that Luke describes Paul in a similar way, for that missionary has learned from the Master. Knowing that he is on the way to prison and affliction (Acts 20:22), and surrounded by weeping disciples, Paul kneels down and prays with them (Acts 20:36-37; see Radl, Paulus 159-68). (Brown, ibid, p. 158.)

Luke however, does have Jesus in anguish and he is comforted by and angel. Yet the textual authenticity of these two verses is in serious question. Scholarship is divided on the issue with a number of academicians favoring both sides. For a detailed treatment of the textual issues (pro and con) I recommend Raymond Brown's treatment of the issue (Death of Messiah, v. 1 pp. 180-186).

I do not think the passage was originally Lucan but the evidence is not entirely decisive either way. Whether included originally by Luke or not has no bearing on anything written in the above study. Three issues will be covered here:

How could Luke portray Jesus in agony? This is one of the crucial arguments against Lucan authorship but granted the text is original, Brown wrote the following: "the Greek agonia often meant the kind of agony that a runner in an athletic contest experienced just before start. Agon originally meant the place of an athletic contest, and then the contest itself. An athletic parallel an explanation for the profuse sweat that follows. The runner is tensed up to begin the trial, and sweat breaks out all over his body. In such an interpretation, the peirasmos or great trial, which Jesus now knowingly will enter, resembles an athletic contest. Gamba ("Agonia" 162) compares the strengthening role of the angel to that of a trainer who readies the athlete; the prayer of Jesus is the last-minute preparation. Unlike the disciples who sleep, Jesus is now poised at the starting line." (ibid. p. 189).

This is rejected by some as fantastic conjecture but IV Macc compare Eleazer (a martyr) to a noble athlete. 9:8 speaks of the prize of virtue to be won after suffering and 11:20 envisions torture as a contest [agon] "befitting holiness in which so many of our fellows, because of their piety, have been summoned to an arena of suffering. Paul also uses athletic imagery in 1 Thess 2:2 [agon] in 1 Cor 9:25 also the pastorals 1 Tim 6:12 and 2 Tim 4:7 and also, very importantly, possibly references in the book of Hebrews which may parallel the Gethsemane prayer.

Why have Jesus strengthened only to then pray more earnestly? This is a shift that has caused some to wonder whether v. 44 follows logically from v. 43. But in Col 1:29 Paul agonizes after being "energized" by God and if one understands the second Lucan prayer to have a different (even if slight) focus then the problem diminishes some (see Brown, ibid. pp..188-190).

Drops of sweat like blood : A possible meaning of this incident is reported by Brown: "In IV Macc 6:6 the martyr Eleazar is pictured as "flowing with blood"; in 6:11 his face is "bathed in sweat"; in 7:8 he is held up as an example for others to defend the Law "with their own blood and with their noble sweat in sufferings unto death." ( ibid).

So these two verses, if authentic (I am not convinced they are) can fit in with the Lucan model of Jesus clearly evident in this study thus far.

How do we know what Jesus Prayed?

One other issue emerges here. How do we know what Jesus prayed if he was so far away and his disciples were sleeping? This is often presented as a contradiction. Richard Carrier supported Macdonald on this in passing here

How does Mark know what Jesus said when he was alone at Gethsemane?

Robert Price also argues this as well here:

Second, we have to ask how Mark could have known what Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, since Mark has taken care explicitly to eliminate any witnesses from the scene. As Jesus prays he is far enough away from even the three closest disciples, Peter, James, and John, not to know that they are asleep till he returns to where they await him, and the other eight are even further away. Mark "knows" what Jesus prayed in Gethsemane because he made it up. He is the typical "omniscient narrator" of a piece of fiction. McDowell and company never even notice such things because, deep down, they cannot bring themselves to look at the Bible through any other lenses than those provided by the doctrine of biblical inerrancy which presupposes that the Bible's statements are all factually accurate because they are the product of a literally omniscient narrator-God Almighty. Here as everywhere, apologists can hardly veil the fact that what they are really doing is to offer after-the-fact rationalizations for a position taken on other grounds entirely.

I use these two examples as both of these scholars are considered "heavyweight skeptics." First we must avoid uncritical harmonization and assume both Matthew and Mark have them [the trio] "a stones throw" away from Jesus. Mark merely records that they "went a little further." When Jesus returns one of the times he asks "could you not keep watch for one hour?"

This means that Jesus must have been praying intensely and for a very long time. We cannot read this account with a wooden literalism and assume that Jesus' followers instantly fell asleep, heard nothing and then Jesus came back. Jesus prayed (presumably) for hours. The text of Mark records about one minute of prayer (less than 1%). Its not unreasonable to think the beginning of Jesus' prayer and the text cited by Mark "could" have potentially had an accurate line of transmission. Either they heard it before the fell asleep or a disciple awoke for an instant and heard it. Plus if Jesus was in distress this would have been obvious to them by facial expression and body language alone. Before they fell asleep they might have heard Jesus saying this. He could have been saying it as he walked off. I think even Luke's "stone throw" distance is not so improbable as to be impossible.

We do not even know how loud Jesus was praying. If he was distraught he could have been higher up on the decibel level. Voice travels a long way when you aren't in a busy city. Being alone in the dark where nothing is stirring would allow a person's voice to travel far and be heard. It is even possible that Luke's a stones throw is a shorter distance than Mark's a little. It is possible Luke was trying to alleviate misunderstanding by solving for how the disciples knew what Jesus prayed by saying "a stone's throw".

Here I reject the uncritical skepticism offered by even some serious academicians. Don't be confused, I am no inerrancy advocate and reject uncritical harmonization attempts. But I also reject uncritical skepticism. To tell a Christian this account is historically problematic is ridiculous. A simpler solution exists. The apostles could have asked Jesus, after he rose from the dead what he was praying about, as he looked so troubled to them. Thus, a line of transmission is certainly available. The question is where does history end and where do apologetics begin? This solutions clearly looks like the latter.

Nothing of what I wrote suggests that I accept the story is true or happened the way the passion narratives describe it. Rather, I point out that there "could" have been a line of transmission for the tiny bit of material found in Mark's Gethsemane pericope. I will come back to the historicity of this incident later. For now it would be prudent to point out a cardinal rule which states that ancient historians (and even some modern ones) often supplemented their narratives with speeches that have no possible line of transmission:

"Josephus, for example who was a very self-conscious historian, and who was also fairly accurate, claimed, in retelling biblical history, that he added nothing and omitted nothing (Antiq. 1.17; cf. Antiq. 4.196; 20.260-261). In fact he omitted a great deal and added numerous items. He attributed to Moses, for example, the commandment to gather each week to study the law (Against Apion 2.175). This represents first-century practice but cannot be found in the Bible; and Josephus, if pressed, would have granted that to be true. He knew the Bible extremely well, and further he knew that many of his readers were equally well versed in it. Then why ascribe to Moses new commandments? We cannot precisely recapture his mental processes, but perhaps they went like this: It is an established tradition in our religion that we gather in synagogues on the Sabbath to study the Scripture; this has been true as far back as anyone can remember; Moses himself must have intended it; I shall use a shortcut and say that he commanded it.

Ancient historians regularly supplemented their narratives with freely created material of various kinds. They paid especial attention to the creation of suitable speeches for their heroes. Staying with Josephus, we may comment especially on the great speech which he attributes to the rebel leader Eleazar just before he and other defenders of Matsada committed suicide rather than be captured (War 7.323-336, 341-389). Eleazar's speech holds up the ideals of Josephus himself (though Josephus did not live up the them); and this, the concluding event of the last battle of the great revolt, is marked by suitable oration, though Josephus could not have known what Eleazar had actually said.

We should not exult too much over ancient historians. Below the very top level of academic biography modern authors frequently attribute statements to their subjects when, in the nature of the case, there could be no possible line of transmission. Most modern readers accept this, since the story is presented smoothly and authoritatively, without noting the absence of evidence. Ancient author's wrote in this way--only more so."

Studying the Synoptic Gospels, E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, p. 37.

We think that the entire speech of Jesus in John 17 (as are most of the other Johannine discourses) is pure creativity after years of theological meditation and reflection on the person of Jesus. In this scenario, later theological views of Jesus are being projected back onto the mouth of the historical Jesus. We will come back to the historicity of Gethsemane later.

41bEnough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

42Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!"

In John Jesus contines to pray about others in grandoise monologues. The mode of discourse is drastically different in John and the Synoptic Gospels. After the prayer John 18:1 reads:

1When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was an olive grove, and he and his disciples went into it.

Basic Commentary:

Judas is introduced in John in this next scene just as the synoptic Gospels introduce him after Jesus' prayer. Thus far there is a high degree of consistency between Matthew and Mark which is not surprising given Marcan priority. There are also differences, theological ones, e.g. Luke not attributing the psychological disarray found in Mark to Jesus). This is not a vagary of memory, its a calculated theological difference. Luke seems to have slimmed down his account (presumably) for stylistic reasons and/or possibly because he esteemed the Twelve such a great deal that he didn't want to portray them as falling asleep so many times. Mark has no problems doing this. He makes it a habit and programmatically denigrates the apostles all throughout the Gospel.

Final Thoughts

Old Testament Parallel:

"More obviously, however, several of the evangelists are echoing the Ascent of Olives references in II Sam 15:30. Absalom had led Jerusalem to revolt against David with the help of Ahithophel, David's trusted counselor who deserted him; and so David went out (15:16: exerchesthai), crossed "the winter-flowing" Kidron (LXX 15:23), went up the Ascent of Olives, wept there, and prayed to God. As Glasson ("Davidic"), Trudinger ("Davidic") and others have pointed out, this David narrative in II Sam 15 constitutes the background of the Synoptic scene where Jesus goes to the Mount of Olives, soul sorrowful, praying to God, betrayed by a trusted member of the Twelve (a parallelism that Matt 27:5 heightens by having Judas hang himself, even as did Ahithophel in II Sam 178:23--the only two biblical figures to do so). John, who does not mention the Mount of Olives, echoes II Sam 15 as well, since "across the Kidron valley" is literally "across the winter-flowing Kidron," i.e., a wadi or arroyo that has flowing water only in the winter when it rains." (Brown, ibid.)

Historicity:

Historicity here is a tricky business. It is possible that Jesus prayed before he died and Christians knew this. They then attached a prayer they deemed apropros. Its possible all of it is invented. It is possible that just the saying of Jesus came from elsewhere and was plugged into this fictional context. Even more possible is that the account was patterned off of King David who was also betrayed by a confidant and prayed similarly.

Important for questions of historicity is the Gospel of John and the epistle to the Hebrews. John has some material that parallels Mark's Gethsemane account scattered across chapters 12, 14 and 18. Hebrews chapter 5 reads: "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission." Though short, Brown lists 10 points of comparison between Hebrews and the Gethsemane prayer (p. 231) and 6 points between Hebrews and the prayer on the cross (Mark 15:34).

At best we could have three independent witnesses here to the tradition behind an early Gethsemane type prayer. This makes it very possible that early Christians had a tradition of Jesus praying but didn't know the precise time or location nor probably the exact words, decided to place it where they thought best. This (John, Mark and Hebrews) would make the material early indeed, but early does not mean "goes back to the historical Jesus".

In reality Jesus certainly prayed as did all first century Jews and he did so often. Here some may also invoke the embarrassment criteria here in that Matthew toned down Mark's account slightly, and so did Luke who found it especially objectionable. It also can be said to conflict with Johannine theology who independently knows it as evidenced by its scattering. Even if much of its starkness is Marcan, the overall flow of it is still inconsistent with Lucan and Johannine images of Jesus. The Epistle to the Hebrews would make it multiply attested in both source and form (epistle and narrative gospel!). These two overlapping media makes the attestation stronger. This also, naturally means that the material is pre-Markan.

Yet there is still a lot of difficulty with this prayer. The scene's Old Testament allusions are one not to mention the portrayal of the disciples goes entirely with the grain of Mark here. One important aspect of the historicity of this deals with Jesus' knowledge of his death. But even naturalistis scenarios where this is possible can be conceived so it cannot be a deciding factor.

In some reconstructions it is not believed Jesus knew in advance he would die (contra Brown, Wright, et al.). It is believed that Jesus' death took him as a surprise. With this consideration in mind it makes it extremely difficult for Jesus to have prayed in advance for the "cup" which he knew nothing about to be taken from him. The argument might go something like this: Jesus was crucified and his followers were not. They scattered and Rome would have crucified Jesus' followers as well as himself if the reason for his crucifixion had to do with his teaching or political outlook. Jesus was harmless and Pilate knew it. But Jesus was probably crucified because of things others were saying about him (good or bad). (See Fredriksen's Jesus of Nazareth for further argumentation on this issue).

Thus, some will dismiss the Gethsemane prayer in its entirety. It is "possible" that Jesus was actually betrayed by one of his own and caught wind of his death (through nonsupernatural means) before it was to happen and thus prayed a prayer but the exact wording is now lost. The Gethsemane prayer as it is now framed in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke is unverifiable and has a few problems. The setting, scenes and content all are stained thoroughly by their respective author's theological image of Jesus and by the Old Testement context of King David.

Jesus may have, in theory, got wind of his unexpected death before it occurred (through whatever mode) and that would make a prayer for deliverance on his part more likely. But since we cannot tell if Jesus did get somehow get wind of his impending death and many do not believe he knew of it in advance this prayer, rather, a potential historical core of or in it, cannot be validated without that advanced knowledge.

The final judgment: the evangelists frameworks are largely their own compositions. They cannot be taken as historical and the Gethsemane prayer is firmly embedded into these constructs. Whether or not underneath all this theological baggage there was an historical core cannot be known since Jesus knowledge about his own fate cannot be known: non-liquet is the judgment.

Vinnie

Featured Writings