UPDV Bible Header

UPDV Updated Bible Version

Matthew Chapter 26 — Gethsemane, Arrest, and Trial

Overview

UPDV chapter 26 covers Gethsemane (26:1-11), the arrest of Jesus (26:12-19), the trial before the Sanhedrin (26:20-31), and Peter's denial (26:32-38). This material comes from Matt 26:36-75, Mark 14:46, and Mark 14:62.

Compared to the heavy editorial intervention required in chapter 25, this chapter follows the compiler's text with relatively minor corrections. The passion narrative is the section of the Gospel where the compiler adhered most closely to Mark, and the UPDV's work here is mostly subtractive — stripping Matthean additions to recover Mark's sparer form. The changes cluster in two places: the arrest scene, where the compiler added dramatic material absent from Mark (the "Friend" address, the sword proverb, the twelve legions of angels), and the trial, where the compiler expanded the high priest's question with an oath formula and added temporal and scriptural qualifiers to Jesus' response.

Gethsemane (26:1-11)

"Then Jesus comes with them to a place called Gethsemane, and says to his disciples, Sit here, while I go yonder and pray." Gethsemane (26:1-11) follows Matt 26:36-46 with no changes. The compiler closely reproduces Mark 14:32-42 throughout this section.

The Gethsemane scene is one of the places where the passion traditions converge most tightly. Lane identifies three independent early forms: Mark 14:32-42, John 17:1-18:1, and Hebrews 5:7. The prayer itself — "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will" (26:4) — appears in essentially the same form across the Synoptics. France reads the scene as "a study in human weakness, even in the weakness of the most trusted of Jesus' disciples" — the three prayers of Jesus balanced by three failures of the disciples to stay awake.

The threefold pattern — prayer, return to find them sleeping, prayer again — builds to the resolution at 26:10: "Sleep on now, and take your rest: look, the hour is at hand." Lane reads this as the moment when Jesus' prayer has been answered — not by removing the cup but by confirming the Father's will. The Aramaic address Abba (preserved in Mark 14:36, though the compiler uses the Greek "my Father") is significant: Lane notes "there is no evidence in early Palestinian Judaism" of Abba being used as a personal address to God. The UPDV requires no correction here.

The Arrest (26:12-19)

"And while he yet spoke, look, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people." The arrest (26:12-19) follows Matt 26:47-56, dropping four items the compiler added to Mark's account.

First, at 26:15, the UPDV drops the compiler's "Friend, [do] that for which you have come" (Matt 26:50a) and uses Mark 14:46's narrative: "Then they came and laid hands on Jesus, and took him." D&A confirm the speech is redactional: "This is redactional (but cf. Mk 14:46)." The word "Friend" (ἑταῖρε, hetaire) is distinctively Matthean — it appears only in Matthew among the Gospels (11:16; 20:13; 22:12), always with an edge of reproof. D&A list eight possible translations for the notoriously difficult phrase ἐφ᾿ ὃ πάρει (eph ho parei), ranging from "why are you here?" to "do that for which you are here." The ambiguity itself suggests this is the compiler's creation rather than a preserved saying. The UPDV follows Mark's terse arrest.

Second, at 26:17, the UPDV drops the sword proverb: "for all those who take the sword will perish with the sword" (Matt 26:52b), leaving only "Return your sword to its place." D&A note the proverb is "not editorial but... a traditional line which owes its placement to our author." It has an independent attestation at Revelation 13:10 and echoes Genesis 9:6. In Mark, Jesus makes no verbal response to the ear-cutting — D&A observe: "In Mark, unlike the other canonical Gospels, Jesus fails to respond verbally to the cutting off of the slave's ear: the event has no commentary and no obvious meaning." The UPDV retains the brief command to sheathe the sword (which has partial parallels in Luke 22:51 and John 18:11) but drops the proverb that the compiler placed here.

Third, Matt 26:53-54 (the twelve legions of angels and "How then should the Scriptures be fulfilled?") is omitted entirely. D&A identify v. 53 as "probably an editorial creation" — no parallels exist, and the verse uses distinctively Matthean language (patera mou, arti, interrogatory dokeis). D&A note the number twelve "likely adverts to the twelve disciples: Jesus, who has just rejected armed intervention by the twelve, and who long ago rejected angelic intervention (4:5-7), now rejects assistance from twelve legions of angels." Verse 54 is "a redactional doublet of v. 56a = Mk 14:49." The UPDV removes both.

Fourth, at 26:19, the UPDV drops "of the prophets" from "the Scriptures of the prophets" (Matt 26:56). D&A note: "Clearly Matthew has assimilated Mk 14:49 — 'Let the Scriptures be fulfilled' — to the formula citations" (cf. 1:22; 21:4). Mark 14:49 has simply "the Scriptures." The addition is characteristic of the compiler's formula-quotation pattern. Stripping the phrase returns the sentence to Mark's exact syntax — "that the Scriptures might be fulfilled" — without leaving a grammatical seam.

The Trial Before the Sanhedrin (26:20-31)

"And those who had taken Jesus led him away to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together." The trial (26:20-31) follows Matt 26:57-68, with three targeted corrections.

At 26:22, the UPDV drops "false" from "the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin sought false witness against Jesus." Mark 14:55 has simply "sought witness" (ἐζήτουν... μαρτυρίαν, ezētoun... martyrian). D&A confirm the compiler added ψευδο- (pseudo-) and explain the theological motivation: the compiler "rewrites Mark according to his polemical presuppositions and implies that the Sanhedrin, violating Torah, did not seek the truth; it rather wanted... only testimony to incriminate Jesus, that is, false testimony." The change creates an ironic reversal from Mark: D&A observe that "Mark says that the Sanhedrin sought true testimony and found false, Matthew says that they sought false testimony and found true." In Mark, the Sanhedrin's guilt lies in pursuing a predetermined verdict despite finding no admissible evidence; in Matthew, the guilt is front-loaded into the search itself. The UPDV follows Mark's more restrained form, where the falsity of the testimony emerges in the telling (v. 23: "though many false witnesses came") rather than being announced in advance.

At 26:26, the UPDV drops the compiler's oath formula from the high priest's question. Matt 26:63 reads: "I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God." The UPDV has simply: "Tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God." D&A confirm: "Matthew has added the first eleven words." The verb ἐξορκίζω (exorkizō, "I adjure") is a Matthean hapax legomenon, and the title "the living God" was already inserted by the compiler into Peter's confession at 16:16. Mark 14:61 has the high priest ask directly: "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" — using a Jewish circumlocution for God rather than an oath formula. The UPDV retains the compiler's "Son of God" phrasing (rather than reverting to Mark's "Son of the Blessed") but strips the juridical oath. D&A confirm that the compiler "altered the unusual 'Son of the Blessed' to 'Son of God'" — a change that "puts the charge in terms of an important title found elsewhere in Matthew and corresponds to the Christian confession." The two titles are referentially equivalent: εὐλογητός (eulogētos, "the Blessed") is a Jewish circumlocution for God, so "Son of the Blessed" and "Son of God" denote the same claim. But Mark's circumlocution is historically more plausible in a Jewish courtroom, where direct naming of God was avoided. The UPDV's retention of the compiler's form is a judgment call — the semantic content is unchanged, but the cultural texture of Mark's Jewish setting is lost. In a chapter otherwise devoted to recovering Mark's sparer form, this is a tension the reconstruction should acknowledge.

At 26:27, the UPDV switches to Mark 14:62 for Jesus' response, with one retention from Matthew. The compiler's Matt 26:64 reads: "You have said: nevertheless I say to you, From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming upon the clouds of heaven." The UPDV has: "You have said. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." Three changes: the solemn "nevertheless I say to you" (πλὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, plēn legō hymin) is dropped — D&A: "this solemn introduction is redactional"; "from now on" (ἀπ᾿ ἄρτι, ap' arti) is dropped — a Matthean addition absent from Mark; and "upon the clouds" (ἐπί, epi) becomes "with the clouds" (μετά, meta), following Mark 14:62. D&A note that Matthew's preposition change "makes for assimilation to the LXX: Dan 7:13 ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν."

The UPDV retains the compiler's "You have said" (σὺ εἶπας, su eipas) rather than reverting to Mark's "I am" (ἐγώ εἰμι, egō eimi). This is a notable choice. Mark's direct affirmation is, as France puts it, "the more remarkable" given the secrecy theme that runs through Mark's Gospel — this is the one moment where Jesus openly claims to be the Messiah. D&A confirm that "You have said" is still affirmative in Matthean usage (cf. 26:25; 27:11) and note that it "puts responsibility upon Caiaphas, who 'knows the affirmative answer is obvious': he must live with the consequences of knowing the truth." Evans reports that Taylor argued Mark may have originally read σὺ εἶπας ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι ("You have said that I am") — a reading attested in several manuscripts — which would make Matthew's form not a redactional change but a preservation of the longer original. The evidence for this is thin: the overwhelming consensus is that Mark's ἐγώ εἰμι is primary, and that Matthew softened it to fit his redactional pattern of making accusers articulate their own guilt (cf. 26:25, where Judas asks "Is it I, Rabbi?" and Jesus replies "You have said"). D&A explain the change as deliberate: the compiler "wished to assimilate the trial before the high priest to the trial before Pilate" (27:11), and the second-person form "puts responsibility upon Caiaphas." The UPDV's retention of the compiler's form here is a departure from its subtractive methodology — similar to the retention of "Son of God" above, it preserves a Matthean redaction for its theological weight rather than reverting to the Markan baseline. The methodological tension is real: in a chapter that otherwise strips the compiler's additions to recover Mark, these two retentions at the climax of the trial protect the compiler's Christological framing.

Peter's Denial (26:32-38)

"Now Peter was sitting outside in the court: and a female slave came to him, saying, You also were with Jesus the Galilean." Peter's denial (26:32-38) follows Matt 26:69-75 with no changes. The compiler closely reproduces Mark 14:66-72 here.

The denial scene intercalates with the trial — Peter's failure set against Jesus' steadfastness. France reads the structural contrast: "each will be under pressure, but whereas Jesus both in his silence and in his final dramatic utterance will stand firm, Peter will crumble." The three denials escalate: a private question from a slave girl, a public identification by another, and then the bystanders' accusation based on Peter's Galilean dialect — Lane cites Talmudic evidence (TB Erubin 53b) that Galileans "were unable to distinguish between the several guttural sounds that are so important an element in Semitic languages."

Peter's final cursing and swearing (26:37) culminates in "I don't know the man" — an avoidance of Jesus' name that, as Lane notes, "exposes the Lord to the contempt envisioned in Ch. 8:38." The rooster crows, Peter remembers, and he goes out and weeps bitterly. The UPDV requires no correction here: the tradition is uniform across the Synoptics.

What the UPDV Removes from This Section

  • Matt 26:50a ("Friend, [do] that for which you have come"): Dropped. D&A: "This is redactional." The word ἑταῖρε appears only in Matthew. Replaced by Mark 14:46's terse arrest narrative.
  • Matt 26:52b ("for all those who take the sword will perish with the sword"): Dropped. D&A: "not editorial but... a traditional line which owes its placement to our author." Independently attested at Rev 13:10 but absent from Mark's arrest scene.
  • Matt 26:53 (twelve legions of angels): Omitted. D&A: "probably an editorial creation." No parallels. Distinctively Matthean vocabulary.
  • Matt 26:54 ("How then should the Scriptures be fulfilled?"): Omitted. D&A: "a redactional doublet of v. 56a = Mk 14:49."
  • Matt 26:56 — revised: "of the prophets" dropped. D&A: "Matthew has assimilated Mk 14:49 to the formula citations."
  • Matt 26:59 — revised: "false" dropped from "false witness." D&A: "pseudo- has been added to martyrian." Mark 14:55 has simply "witness."
  • Matt 26:63 — revised: oath formula "I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us" dropped. D&A: "Matthew has added the first eleven words." Hapax legomenon. Mark 14:61 asks directly without oath. The compiler's "Son of God" is retained over Mark's "Son of the Blessed" — referentially equivalent but culturally less precise.
  • Matt 26:64 — revised: "nevertheless I say to you" dropped (redactional); "from now on" dropped (Matthean addition); "upon the clouds" changed to "with the clouds" (Mark 14:62). The Matthean "You have said" is retained over Mark's "I am" — a departure from the subtractive methodology that preserves the compiler's Christological framing.

References

  • Davies, W. D. and Dale C. Allison Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. 3 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–1997.
  • Lane, William L. The Gospel according to Mark. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
  • Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27–16:20. Word Biblical Commentary 34B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001.
  • France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
  • Collins, Adela Yarbro. Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.
  • Brooks, James A. Mark. New American Commentary 23. Nashville: Broadman, 1991.
  • Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
  • Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel according to St. Mark. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1966.