Words of Mark shared by the other evangelists are underlined. Words in blue indicate what is common to Luke and Mattew, in red words of John shared by other evangelists, in green words from Gospel of Peter found elsewhere.

After the presentation of the stage, the evangelists describe the various reactions, both negative and positive, to Jesus crucified. In Mark/Matthew the reactions are only negative. This reflects the pessimistic atmosphere of the whole Gospel of Mark. Matthew follows Mark very closely, making only minor changes. Luke, on the other hand, improves the framework by introducing people who show a neutral attitude and, in the end, a criminal sympathetic to Jesus, an example of Jesus' saving suffering. As for John, he presents us with a mixture of friends, disciples and relatives who stand by the cross and form a believing community, a sign of Jesus' triumph over his enemies.

1. The Threefold Mockery of Jesus (Mark 15: 29-32; Matthieu 27, 39-44; Luke 23: 35-39)

   The following table allows us to identify the variations, minor in Matthew, more important in Luke, compared to Mark. The numbers (1, 2, 3) represent the scenes of mockery in the order in which they appear, the letters (a, b, c) represent respectively the author of the mockery, the content of the mockery and the challenge to Jesus to save himself. The column about Matthew shows only the differences compared to Mark. Note that Luke created a preface to the three mocking scenes by turning Mark's passersby into a people playing a neutral role, then he followed up the mockery by separating the wrongdoers to make one of them a sympathizer; moreover, since he did not hold back Mark's passersby, he had to compensate them to maintain the triad by adding the soldiers.

   	Mark	Matthew	Luke
   			the people observe
   1 a.	passersby blaspheme		rulers sneer
   b.	destroying sanctuary	+ Son of God	Messiah of God; chosen one
   c.	save yourself; come down		saved others; save self
   2 a.	ch. priests, scribes mock	+ elders	soldiers mock
   b.	Messiah, King of Israel	King of Israel	King of the Jews save yourself
   c.	saved others, not himself
   	come down so we believe
   		Son of God be delivered
   3 a.	two co-crucified deride	bandits	one co-hanged wrongdoer blasphemes
   b.			Messiah
   			other co-hanged sympathises; will go to paradise

   1. Mark/Matthew's First Mockery (Mark 15: 29-30; Matthew 27: 39-40)
      • This scene has a great dramatic intensity. Even the simple Jewish passersby, who seem to have never met Jesus before and have not been incited by the religious authorities, begin to blaspheme against Jesus, i.e. to insult him arrogantly. This blasphemy is an inclusion with the beginning of Jesus' ministry where he is accused of blasphemy because he arrogates to himself the power of God to forgive sins (Mk 2, 6-7). Passersby insult Jesus by challenging his power to destroy the sanctuary and rebuild it in three days. With this hostile misunderstanding, the picture Mark paints is consistent from beginning to end.

      • The blasphemy is preceded by the wagging of the head, a movement of the body to express derision, an attitude found in the Old Testament in the wicked toward the suffering righteous (see Psalm 22:8b). And the content of blasphemy is introduced by the Greek swearword of contempt oua, which is translated as "Aha!", omited in Matthew.

      • The content of the first mockery echoes the trial before the Sanhedrin, the accusation of wanting to destroy the sanctuary, an accusation that seems to stick to him. The question is: how could the people on the street know about this accusation? For Mark, this does not seem to be a question his audience could have asked. What is important for the evangelist is to bring the trial back to the forefront, as this chart shows:

        Trial Themes	Marcan Mockeries	Matthean Mockeries
        1. Sanctuary destruction	1.Same	1. same + Son of God
        2. Messiah, Son of Blessed or God	2. Messiah King of Israel	2. King of Israel Son of God

        Mark recalls the first trial with the first mockery, and the second trial with the second mockery. Matthew recalls the theme of both trials with the first mockery, and then repeats "Son of God" in the second mockery. His insistence on "Son of God" can be explained as follows.

        1. When Matthew writes his Gospel, the temple is already destroyed, and the debate with the Jews focuses on the Christological question of the Son of God.
        2. This mention allows him to make an inclusion with the account of Jesus' temptations at the beginning of his ministry, when the devil said to him, "If you are a son of God..."
        3. It finally allows him to echo the Book of Wisdom where the wicked mock the righteous.

   2. The "People" Who Watch (Luke 23: 35a)
      • We have spoken of the influence of Psalm 22:8a on this scene: "All those who watched me (theōrein) made a fool of me (ekmyktērizein)". Luke combines the portrait of Mark with this scene where the people are watching (theōrein). This scene could appear negative, describing curious people enjoying the show. But if we refer to the earlier mention of the people beating their breasts (23: 27), we cannot see a negative attitude. There is also the verb histamai (to stand there) which, in context, simply means: to stand in a place. Luke, therefore, presents us with a group that will be present throughout the crucifixion, and when Jesus died, he writes about them: "And all the crowds that had gathered together to watch, when they saw what had happened, they went away beating their breasts" (23:48). Thus their observation led to repentance, just as it did for one of the wrongdoers, while for others the observation led them to harden their hearts, like the other wrongdoer.

   3. Luke's First Mockery; Mark/Matthews's Second Mockery (Luke 23: 35b; Mark 15: 31-32a; Matthew 27: 41-42)
      • Let's get rid of an ambiguity right away: the "also" in Luke 23:35b ("There were sneering, however (de), also (kai) the rulers") does not mean that the rulers ridiculed Jesus in addition to the people, but that they were standing in the same place as the people, too.

      • In Mark/Matthew, each of the three mocking scenes revolve around a different verb: blaphēmein (blaspheme, insult), empaizein (mock), and oneidizein (to revile), while Luke prefers the order and the words: ekmyktērizein (to sneer), empaizein (mock), and blaphēmein (blaspheme, insult). Luke is the only one to use the verb ekmyktērizein throughout the New Testament, a verb related to the word myktos (nose), which literally means to lift your nose at someone.

      • The second mocking scene in Mark/Matthew is led by the high priests and scribes (and the elders in Mt), thus by the Sanhedrin. For Mark, the repetition of the Sanhedrin's accusations is important, because at Jesus' death, it is on these points that God will rehabilitate Jesus. Luke replaces the chief priests and scribes with the "rulers" (archontes), which enables him to contrast the hostile rulers on the one hand and the observant and repentant people on the other. But behind these chiefs are also the religious leaders, i.e. the Sanhedrin.

      • Let's now examine the titles of Jesus in the mocking scenes.
        • Mk 15, 32 : Messiah, King of Israel
        • Mt 27, 42-43 : King of israel, Son of God
        • Lk 23, 35-37 : Messiah of God, chosen one, (3d mockery) King of the Jews

        Why, in addition to the Messiah, does Mark not take over the title of "son of the Blessed/God", as in the Jewish trial? He opts instead for "King of Israel". Is this then a reference to the Roman trial? But in the latter case, the expression "king of the Jews" was used instead. Why would he now replace "Jews" with Israel? Is it because it is now Jews speaking, and it is their custom to use the expression: King of Israel? Perhaps it is. But this is lending Mark a lot of subtlety. As for Matthew, we discussed earlier his preference for "son of God". Still, it is surprising that he dropped the title Messiah, a title so important to a Jew. Finally, Luke speaks first of "God's Messiah", the title used in his version of Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi (9:20), and then of "the chosen one", a title that appears in his version of the transfiguration (9:35); in other words, the rulers ridicule Jesus using the deepest words that Christians use to designate him in their faith.

   4. The Challenge to Save Himself or Be Delivered (especially Matthew 27: 43)
      • The evangelists offer us different formulations. Let us detail them in reference to which scene of mockery (1, 2, 3).
        1. Save yourself: Mark 1, Matthew 1, Luke 2-3
        2. Others he saved; himself he cannot save: Mark 2, Matthew 2
           Others he save; let him save himself: Luke 1
        3. Come down from the cross: Mark 1-2, Matthew 1-2
        4. He has trusted in God. Let him be delivered if He wants him (Matthew addendum to 2)

        A few remarks are in order.

        • For Mark, the 2nd mocking scene (ii. "...himself he cannot save...") is a way of reinforcing the 1st scene (i. "Save yourself"), but Luke refuses to use a sentence about Jesus' powerlessness, because for him Jesus must remain in control, and he also refuses the theme of coming down from the cross to be saved, perhaps a tautology according to him.

        • Psalm 22 again has an influence here, but this time v. 9:

          9a He hoped in the Lord; let Him deliver him;
          9b Let Him save him because He wants him.

          The reference to 9b ("Let Him save him") has been adapted to Jesus, since he claims to be a son of God, and therefore has become: let him save himself. Matthew, on the other hand, probably has another Scripture passage in mind, Wisdom 2 :

          17a Let us see if his words are true,
          17b and let us test (peirazein) what will be his outcome,
          18a For if the just one is God's son,
          18b He will help him and deliver him from the hand of those standing against him.

        • The theme of salvation is also part of Jesus' ministry, for he did indeed save people, especially from death (Mk 5:23; Lk 8:50). But the fact that Jesus' opponents ask him to be saved from death shows a gross ignorance of his teaching: "For whoever wants to save his life will lose it..." (Mk 8:35). And the phrase in Matthew is ironic ("let him come down from the cross, and we shall believe"), for if Jesus did so, he would lose all credibility. For Matthew, if we refer to his accounts of temptation, it is by refusing the devil's request to throw himself down from the pinnacle of the temple that he shows that Jesus is truly a son of God, and now it is by refusing to come down from the cross that he shows the same thing.

   5. Luke's Second Mockery (Luke 23: 36-38)
      • Since Luke initially replaced Mark's hostile passersby with people playing a neutral role, he must add a character to keep a triad for mocking: they will be soldiers, and according to the context, Roman soldiers. This is consistent with Jesus' announcements of the passion where the Gentiles will mock him. The title used for the mockery is King of the Jews, echoing the accusation before Pilate. Thus, just as in Mark the mockery progresses from the passersby to the chief priests and scribes, in Luke it progresses from the Jewish leaders to the Roman soldiers. Let us propose a few remarks.
        1. While Mark offers four moments (1. at the Jewish trial by Jews, 2. at the Roman trial by soldiers, 3. at the cross by Jews, and 4. by someone at the moment Jesus dies) when Jesus is mocked, Luke reduces them to two (before the Jewish trial by Jews and on the cross by Roman soldiers), moved by his usual sense of order and his horror of duplicates.

        2. Luke writes: "The soldiers coming forward (proserchesthai)", because these soldiers had remained until now in the background. These soldiers bring vinegar wine (oxos). This is a dry, coarse, diluted red wine, usually drunk by Roman soldiers. The verb "to bring forward" (prospherein) often refers to a gift being brought (see Mt 2:11 on the gift brought by the Magi from the East), but here it is a burlesque gift, and so the scene becomes a scene of mockery. We will remember that Mark shows us two scenes where Jesus is offered a drink. Again, Luke simplifies things with only one scene, inspired by the second offering of a drink in Mark.

        3. Now Luke refers to the inscription above Jesus' head. This inscription helps to explain where the mockery in the mouth of the soldiers comes from: the king of the Jews. From then on, the inscription is no longer simply a note of information about the reason for the condemnation, but becomes a source of derision about Jesus' claims, a derision accentuated by the expression: "this one," or "that fellow".

        To conclude, it is likely that this scene with the Roman soldiers is a creation of Luke, showing his usual flair for reorganizing and simplifying Mark's material by avoiding repetition, and giving us a more fluid narrative sequence.

   6. The Third Mockery (Mark 15: 32b; Matthew 27: 44; Luke 23: 39)
      • Mark, followed by Matthew, now brings to the foreground the bandits briefly mentioned at the beginning of the crucifixion. The scene is very short, the shortest of the mocking scenes, centred on the verb oneidizein (to revile, to reproach) in the imperfect, to underline the continuity, accompanied by the adverb "also", which gives caustic force to the whole: even the co-crucified outraged him. Note that Mark does not repeat that they are bandits nor does he specify what they say: he is not interested in their crime or the content of the insults, but simply in the fact that even people in a miserable state are insulting him. On the cross, Jesus has no friends, he is totally alone and surrounded by enemies, like the righteous man of the Old Testament (Ps 69:10; 89:51-52; Wis 5:3).

      • Luke's version has significant differences. Above all, Luke takes the trouble to repeat that they are wrongdoers. Why are they wrongdoers? It means that they are sinners. By forgiving one of the men who were suspended with him (kremannyai, a verb used several times by Luke in connection with the death of Jesus, a common term in Deuteronomy for the punishment of a major offense) and who repents, Jesus not only shares the fate of the unfortunate, but he has mercy on the sinners and heals them: In this he is the Savior and Messiah, and truly answers the question of the other condemned man: "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself, and us too".

2. The Salvation of the Other Wrongdoer (Luke 23: 40-43)

   The following episode allows Jesus to say his last words to someone, in this case someone who recognizes himself as a criminal. Where did Luke get this episode that the other Gospels totally ignore? Some biblical scholars have suggested that Luke might have had access to a source similar to the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, which he combined with Mark's account, forgetting that Peter's Gospel was most likely written after the Gospels and is inspired by them. Other biblical scholars have imagined that there was a collection of Jesus' words beginning with : "Amen, I say to you..." which Luke would have taken up and adapted to his theology. It is more likely that we are looking at a pure creation of Luke that fits his theology in three ways.

   1. To continue to offer a positive side to the whole mockery scene
   2. To present another impartial witness on the innocence of Jesus, after Herod and Pilate, and before the Centurion at the time of his death
   3. To describe another example of healing forgiveness, putting into practice the inaugural discourse in the synagogue of Nazareth: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me... He has sent me to proclaim deliverance to the captives ... to proclaim a year of the Lord's grace" (4:18-19).
   1. The Other Wrongdoer Speaks to His Blaspheming Companion (Luke 23: 40-41)
      • Luke likes to present two characters that he contrasts: Martha and Mary, the rich man and Lazarus, the Pharisee and the publican, John the Baptist and Jesus. This is still the case here. Luke seems to be inspired by the story about Joseph in Genesis 40, where the cupbearer of the king of Egypt and his baker, both convicted of crimes, are contrasted and end up in the same prison as Joseph. When Joseph interpreted the cupbearer's dream and told him that the Pharaoh would raise him up and give him his job back, he said to him, "Remember me... when it will be well with you and act (do) mercifully toward me". This last word will become: "Remember me whenever you come into your kingdom" under the pen of Luke.

      • In this episode we find Luke's vocabulary, beginning with epitiman ("the other rebuking him"), a verb he used in the scenes where Jesus faces the demon (4:35, 39, 41). Then there is the word krima ("you are under the same condemnation"), a word related to the verb Pilate used at the end of the trial: "And Pilate gave judgment (epikrinein) that their petition was granted" (23:24). Finally, the criminal confesses: "and indeed we justly (dikaiōs)", just as the centurion confessed at the death of Jesus: "Truly, this man was a righteous man (dikaios)". And he adds: "but he did nothing disorderly (atopos)", the word atopos being a very rare word, and used only by Luke in the Gospel-Acts. Here, one might ask: how could this wrongdoer know that Jesus did not do anything disorderly, since this is the first time he sees him? For Luke, we are on the symbolic level where only those who want to remain blind do not see and do not recognize the truth; for others, everything is transparent (see Acts 3:17).

      • And let us end with the question: Does Luke want to introduce us to a case of metanoia (repentance), i.e. would Jesus' forgiveness follow his repentance? Just as in the case of the prodigal son where the Father restores him to these rights even before he completes his confession, or the general forgiveness offered on the cross, forgiveness is offered even before any gesture of metanoia in Luke.

   2. The Other Wrongdoer Speaks to Jesus (Luke 23: 42)
      • "Jesus, remember me whenever you come into your kingdom". The way the wrongdoer addresses Jesus is amazing: addressing Jesus without any title of reverence is unique throughout the New Testament. Such familiarity is probably intended by Luke to reflect the sincerity of the wrongdoer's request. And perhaps there is also an ironic note: the first person to express such trust in Jesus to the point of establishing a familiar relationship is a criminal who is also the last person to speak to him.

      • The expression: "you come into (eis/en) your kingdom", presents a problem of textual criticism, as a number of versions have the preposition eis (into), i.e. Papyrus 75, Codex Vaticanus and the Old Latin, while other versions have rather en (in), i.e. the koinē, including the codices Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus. For some biblical scholars, the choice of preposition has a theological impact.
        1. With eis (into), the wrongdoer believes that Jesus is about to enter his kingdom. Used 25 times in Lk-Acts, it means to arrive at a place. There is no need to ask the question: How could this criminal know that Jesus had a kingdom that he was about to enter? Rather, the question is how did the reader of Luke around the year 80 understand the sentence? The reader knew that Jesus had gone to heaven (Acts 1:9-11; 7:56) and that he had assigned places in that kingdom (22:29-30). When did this entry into heaven take place? Luke mentions Easter Sunday (Luk 24: 51) and forty days later (Acts 1: 3.9-11). The very fact that he proposes two moments opens the possibility of a third moment, immediately at his death, as Hebrews 10-13 understood it, and even Luke 24:26, since the verb is in the past tense for Easter Sunday.

        2. With en (in), the wrongdoer would be saying, "Remember me when you reign in your kingdom," and thus would refer to the parousia of Jesus, i.e., his return in glory. And we can find several references where, for Christians, the kingdom designates the end of time, as in the prayer of the Our Father: "Your kingdom come" (Lk 11:2).

        The question then is: 1) Does Jesus, when he dies, bring the wrongdoer with him directly into heaven to enter the kingdom, or rather, 2) does Jesus, after his death, go to heaven, and then return with royal power to seek the wrongdoer and bring him to heaven? Since in Jesus' mouth we have the word "today", option 1) is the most plausible, and so eis is probably the original preposition: the wrongdoer expects God to rehabilitate Jesus today, and to remember him now.

   3. Jesus' Response to the Other Wrongdoer (Luke 23: 43)
      • "Amen, I say to you, this day with me you shall be in paradise" By asking Jesus to remember him, the wrongdoer is basically asking to follow Jesus. Jesus' response, introduced by "Amen", gives him a solemn air and reveals much about the Lucan understanding of Jesus' clemency. For the word "today" is to be taken literally, even though it also describes the beginning of eschatological time. Jesus' response goes beyond what the wrongdoer has asked, i.e. to remember him: he will be with Jesus, he will share his intimacy, like every disciple, as Jesus expressed it at his last supper: "You are the ones who have remained with me in my trials all the time" (Lk 22:28). This means that the wrongdoer will share in his Paschal victory, as Paul expressed it in his own way: "So we will be with the Lord always" (1 Thess 4:17; see also Phil 1:23; 2 Cor 4:17).

      • "Paradise". There has been much discussion about the meaning of this word. It comes from the Hebrew pardēs, borrowed from the Persian word pairi (about), and daêza (wall), and thus refers to a walled enclosure, and three times in the Old Testament to a garden (Neh 2:8; Eccles 2:5; Cant 4:13). But what is its meaning in the mouth of Jesus? Does it represent the heaven in which Jesus lives eternally with God, or rather a kind of inferior and temporary state? Let's analyze both cases.
        1. For some biblical scholars, the paradise we are talking about here is not the heavenly dwelling place of God, for the following reasons:
           • Many occurrences of the word imply a lesser form of closeness to God: Gn 2:15 where God walks with Adam and Eve, or again 2 Cor 12:2 where Paul relates that in a moment of ecstasy he was taken up to the third heaven (see 2 Enoch 8 where paradise is the equivalent of the third heaven).
           • Il cannot have true salvation until Jesus has risen from the dead, so the wrongdoer cannot taste the presence of God on Good Friday (see Mt 27:52-53 where the dead are raised and enter Jerusalem after Jesus' resurrection).
           • The wrongdoer cannot go to the highest heaven because he has not clearly expressed repentance.

        2. Conversely, more biblical scholars believe that paradise here refers to bliss with God, for the following reasons.
           • Since the beginning of Judaism, Paradise and Eden designate the ultimate happiness (see Isaiah 51:3 where the future glory of Zion is compared to an Eden, the garden of the Lord; see also the Psalms of Solomon 14:3 where the Lord's Holy One lives forever in the garden of the Lord).
           • This meaning of paradise corresponds to the request of the wrongdoer, who is certainly not looking for an inferior celestial world
           • It is inconceivable that after his death Jesus went to an inferior heavenly world.
           • "Being with me" has the same connotation as "being with the Lord" in 1 Thess 4:17 or 2 Cor 5:8.
           • The story of Lazarus and the rich man (Lk 16:19-31) speaks of two worlds after death, Hades where the rich man lies, and the bosom of Abraham to which Lazarus has a right, and there is no reason to think that this bosom of Abraham is temporary.
           • Nothing opposes the vision of a completely gracious action of God towards the dying person, as seen in the Babylonian Talmud ’Aboda Zara 18a where God gives eternal life to both the rabbi and his persecutor.
           • Revelation speaks of God's paradise (2:7) and sees it as a place where one sits with Christ on his throne (see 2:11,26; 3:5,21)

        Thus, we must conclude that paradise refers to being with Christ and sharing in the complete presence of God.

      • What is Luke's message with this scene? The catechesis is about the unconditional grace of God exercised by and in Jesus who, throughout his life, never ceased to forgive sins (5:20; 7:48) and brought salvation (19:9). The very fact that Jesus speaks with such authority shows that he possesses the very power of God to judge, and that he exercises it graciously. Some biblical scholars have contrasted this theology where Jesus simply seems to bring the wrongdoer with him, regardless of his death, with Paul's theology where it is the death of Jesus that brings forgiveness. This is forgetting that it is only after his death that Jesus will be able to bring the wrongdoer with him. And it is forgetting that, for Paul, the death of Jesus is above all a gratuitous gesture of love, while we were sinners (see Rom 5:6-8). Thus Luke continues his series of gestures of clemency in the account of the passion, which is expressed in the arrest of Jesus with the healing of the servant's ear, in the meeting with the sons of Jerusalem, and now with one of the criminals crucified with him.

3. Friends and Disciples Near the Cross (John 19: 25-27)
   1. Those Standing Near the Cross (John 19: 25)
      • "But there were standing near the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene". In this enumeration of persons, two groups must be distinguished: on the one hand, those who are named and who will not subsequently play any role, and on the other hand the mother of Jesus and the beloved disciple to whom Jesus will speak. The first group occupies verse 25, the second group occupies verses 26-27. According to the way the punctuation is done, we could have two (1. Jesus' mother = Mary of Clopas, 2. then his mother's sister = Mary Magdalene), three (1. Jesus' mother, 2. his sister Mary of Clopas and 3. Mary Magdalene), or four women (1. Jesus' mother, 2. Jesus' mother's sister, 3. Mary of Clopas, 4. Mary Magdalene). The most likely is that we are in front of four women. Why not explicitly name the mother of Jesus? Probably, she plays a symbolic role, like that of the beloved disciple.

      • How does the list of women near the cross in John compare to the list in the Synoptics? The following table compares the four evangelists according to three moments: I. The death of Jesus, II. The burial, III Easter. The horizontal lines (A to E) identify the main characters. The numbers associated with the characters (1 to 5) indicate the order in which they appear.

      	John		Mark			Matthew			Luke
      	I	III	I	II	III	I	II	III	I	II	III
      	19: 25 : before death	20: 1-2 : Easter	15: 40-41 : after death	15: 47 : burial	16: 1 : Easter	27: 55-56 : after death	27: 61 : burial	28: 1 : Easter	23: 49 : after death	23: 55 : burial	24: 10 : Easter
      A	4. Mary Magdalene	1. Mary Magdalene	1. Mary Magdalene	1. Mary Magdalene	1. Mary Magdalene	2. Mary Magdalene	1. Mary Magdalene	1. Mary Magdalene			1. Mary Magdalene
      B	3. Mary of Clopas		2. Mary, mother of James the youger and of Joses	2. Mary of Joses	2. Mary of James	3. Mary mother of James and Joseph	3. the other Mary	2. the other Mary			3. Mary of James
      C	2. his mother's sister		3. Salome		3. Salome	4. mother of the sons of Zebedee					Joanna
      D		2. "We"	4. many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem			1. many women who had followed Jesus from Galilee			2. the women who were following with him from Galilee (see 8:1-3)	1. the women who had come with him out of Galilee	4. the other women
      E	1. his mother 5. disciple whom Jesus loved								1. all those (masc.) known to him

      • Some observations are in order. Mary Magdalene is the figure that comes up most often. In line B, another woman called Mary appears quite often, and it would be legitimate to identify this woman presented as the mother of James and Joseph with the one also called: Mother of Clopas. As for line C, there is unfortunately nothing to connect the sister of the mother of Jesus with the mother of the sons of Zebedee, and even less with Joanna. Finally, in line E, we have in Luke: "all those known to him". Who are they? The Gospel only seems to suggest that beyond the Twelve there were other disciples, and for John the beloved disciple would be one of them. But this fact cannot explain the presence of the mother of Jesus near the cross in John; it is better to see it as a theological statement. Finally, let us note that no Gospel, except John's, speaks of the mother of Jesus.

      • Finally, we must recognize the disagreement between John and the Synoptics concerning the time and place of the women's presence. For John, these women are very close to the cross and before Jesus died. On the other hand, for Mark, the women are watching from a distance after Jesus died. It can be hypothesized that John's interest is centered on the scene he prepares with Jesus' mother and the beloved disciple, and that in doing so he is forced to bring the other women named by tradition closer to the cross, perhaps betraying his source that put them at a distance from the cross; Mark and John did not know each other, but they probably drew from the same tradition, and Mark better respected the original context. John's interest is primarily theological, and by bringing the women closer to the cross, he can better translate that Jesus lifted up on the cross is drawing all people to himself.

   2. The Mother of Jesus and the Beloved Disciple (John 19: 26-27)
      • "So Jesus, having seen his mother and the disciple whom be loved standing nearby, says to his mother, 'Woman, look: your son'. Then he says to the disciple, 'Look: your mother'". The fact that the Gospel first names his mother suggests that she is the first focus of the episode. However, the last time we heard of her was at the wedding at Cana (2:1-12), when Jesus, also using the word "woman" to refer to his mother, first disassociated himself from her when she was concerned about the needs of the participants in the marriage, giving priority to the hour assigned to her by the Father, but acting after she had said, "Whatever he tells you, do it", a phrase that expresses a new relationship. Now the hour has come, and the expression "behold" has the character of a revelation: it is the expression of her last will before he dies, an empowerment that reveals and enables a new relationship, on the same level as Psalm 2:7: "You are my son, today I have begotten you".

      • We must immediately eliminate a misinterpretation that has gone on for centuries: Jesus' request would be of filial piety, i.e. it would be reduced to asking the beloved disciple to take care of his mother so that she would have a roof over her head. This is to completely ignore the perspective of John who denounces those who are preoccupied with the flesh and family relationships (2:4). There is also another interpretation of this scene that must also be eliminated, this time theological: following the example of Eve who is presented as the mother of the living, the mother of Jesus would be presented as the new Eve, the mother of all believers, and the beloved disciple would be offered to her to replace the crucified Jesus. To this interpretation was added all the symbolism of the Revelation of the woman treading the serpent (Rev. 12:5.9.17). Another interpretation that still needs to be eliminated relies on Revelation 12:2 to present Mary here as the figure of the Church and the mother of Christians. All these interpretations make the mistake of focusing on the symbolism of the figures present, whereas the emphasis of the evangelist is not on these figures, but on the new relationship between them.

      • "And from that hour the disciple took her to his own". The expression "took her to his own" does not mean "brought her to his house to take care of her as if she were his mother". The evangelist, as we have said, is not at the level of the "flesh", but at the theological level; he has already denounced those he considers "of the earth", and therefore non-believers. To understand the expression "took to his own", it is necessary to know that the beloved disciple is the disciple par excellence: "his" is the quality of disciple that Jesus seeks. Therefore, the mother of Jesus passes from a biological relationship, which is natural for a mother to her son, to a spiritual relationship, of the same type as that of the beloved disciple to Jesus.

      • There is a similar scene in Mark (3:31-35) when the mother of Jesus and her brothers want to see him in order to be rejected by the words: "Whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother"; there is a separation between the biological family and the spiritual family. Luke (12:46-50) reinterpreted this scene to eliminate the separation and make his mother and brothers models of disciples, who listen to the word and keep it. In his own way, John does the same thing, transforming natural human relationships into discipleship, through the mother of Jesus who enters into the same kingdom as the beloved disciple.

      • Finally, just as Luke wanted to end the passion story on a positive note with the other wrongdoer who is promised paradise, John does the same thing, but in a different way: it is not paradise that is promised, but the pursuit of a new relationship on this earth; the gift of the Spirit that enables new community relationships takes place at the cross, opening the door to a much larger spiritual family, called to grow continually. That is why Jesus will say later, "It is finished".

1. Historicity
   • We must remember that a crucifixion was a public event to make people think. So we can be sure that there were people around the cross, first of all soldiers, of course, but also curious people and people passing by, since the place was near the city gate. All the evangelists speak of the presence of the soldiers, which is quite probable; Mark refers to them as "they," Matthew specifies that their role was to stand guard, John develops the account of the sharing of clothes, a customary custom, and Luke transfers to the cross the scene of mocking that took place earlier in the others. With respect to passersby, Luke presents them as neutral observers, which is quite plausible, and Mark and Matthew as people who expressed utterly gratuitous contempt, no doubt to echo passages in the Old Testament where the righteous are despised; all the references to the Old Testament is impeding us to make a decision to determine if we are facing real memories of events around the Golgotha.

   • The presence at the cross of a certain number of members of the Sanhedrin is not impossible, especially if one accepts as historical the presence of Joseph of Arimathea, one of its members. Some biblical scholars have objected to the presence of the High Priest and the priests at the cross because, being on the eve of the Passover, they had to be busy in the temple immolating the lambs. But recognizing that Mark allows himself to add the scribes to the group, and Matthew the elders, all this leads us to conclude that the evangelists describe quite freely the continuation of the activities of the Sanhedrin, without referring to precise recollections, which makes it impossible to make a precise historical judgment.

   • The historicity of the mockery coming from the co-crucified is a real problem. Of course, all the Gospels admit that there were co-crucifixions. And it is not impossible that they expressed contempt for this Jesus who had religious pretensions. In Mark and Matthew there are no words in their mouths, while Luke 23, 39 puts the same words in the mouth of one of the criminals as in the first and second mocking scene. We can conclude that we have no precise memory of their insults to Jesus and that we rather try to represent the just being mistreated by the unjust. On the other hand, the scene of the wrongdoer in dialogue with Jesus defies any historical judgment. Obviously, it is impossible to demonstrate that this never happened. But it would be difficult to explain his absence in the other Gospels. It is more plausible to imagine that Luke adapted a word of Jesus from the collection of "Amen" and perhaps pronounced under different circumstances.

   • The most difficult scene to judge historically is that of the mother of Jesus and the beloved disciple around the cross (John 19:25-27). Of course, the fact that it fits so well with John's theology on the existence of a believing community even before Jesus' death does not automatically disqualify it. But it does contradict the assertion in the other Gospels that Jesus' friends stood, not near the cross, but at a distance, and especially that Jesus' mother was totally absent from Golgotha. It also contradicts the Roman testimony that parents were forbidden to approach the crucified (Suetonius, Tiberius 61:2; Tacitus, Annals 6:19). Also, there is no evidence that such a scene took place at the cross.

2. Some Added Theological Notes
   • Mark, followed by Matthew, presents us with three mocking scenes that show a dramatic progression and a theological dimension. The mockery takes up the themes of the trial before the Sanhedrin (destruction of the sanctuary and messianic title) with the ridicule of prophetic claims, and concludes with the veil of the sanctuary being torn and the confession that he is a son of God, confirming the claims of Jesus. Thus, these mockeries clarify the primarily religious nature of the conflict, and in the end one no longer hears the political accusation.

   • Luke offers us a completely different portrait where his aversion to totally negative paintings appears. Generally speaking, he distinguishes between those who truly oppose Jesus, the leaders, and the others, the people. And the mocking scenes end with the wrongdoer who obtains grace from Jesus, the typical face of God in Luke. And these scenes of mockery have a common theme, the challenge to "save", a challenge taken up with the scene of the wrongdoer who experiences salvation.

   • The way John reorganizes the activities of the cross gives us a theological and dramatic sequence. Jesus reigns as a sovereign on the cross, already victorious before the three groups. There is a progression from the hostility of the high priests who consider him an impostor king, through the soldiers who consider him a criminal, to the faithful family and friends who receive a new status because of Jesus' love. The whole ends on a positive note of success: despite the rejection of many, a new family of God's children is created.