The early church understood Jesus' death as expiatory. This was already thematic in the pre-Pauline faith formulas. It is the testimony of the New Testament writers, including the synoptists, who represent Jesus as understanding his death at the Last Supper as "on behalf of others," that Jesus died for sinners. Many have argued, however, that this does not go back to Jesus himself? But if it does--and I hold this to be the case--how Jesus saw his approaching death becomes an important datum for the reconstruction of the aims of Jesus, without which one's understanding of those aims will be truncated.

    In Jesus research it is often held that the portrayal of Jesus as a preacher of the Kingdom of God is incompatible with that of Jesus as one whose death was expiatory. The second of these themes, though present in the synoptics, is not present in abundance. It is a common hypothesis that this conception developed within the soteriological reflection of the early community and was read back into the traditions of Jesus. I shall explore the possibility, however, that Jesus thought about his impending death in light of his preaching of the Kingdom of God. Having come to the realization that his message would ultimately be rejected and that his ministry would end with his own demise, he developed an understanding of his death in light of his convictions about himself as the preacher of the Kingdom of God. That understanding of his death finds expression most prominently in the words of institution, where Jesus symbolically interpreted his death by means of the elements of the Passover meal.

    The goal of this work is a historical reconstruction of the Last Supper. I shall differentiate, however, using R. G. Collingwood's terminology, between the outside and the inside of the event. The outside of an event is a description of the various empirically observable data constitutive of it. It is represented by the interrogatives of who, what, where, and when. The inside of an event, by far the more important question for historical reconstruction, answers the question why. In reconstructing the inside of the event, one attempts to ascertain the purposes and motives pervading the actions of historical figures. Applying Collingwood's distinctions to Jesus' words and acts at the Last Supper, I shall undertake to reconstruct not only the who, what, where, and when, but also the why. The why turns out to be the New Testament's principal contribution towards Jesus' understanding of his death.

    This investigation begins with a detailed account of how a typical first-century Passover would have proceeded. Jesus' Last Supper was a Passover meal, according to the synoptics. If this is correct--and I shall argue below that it is--, it follows that a detailed reconstruction of a first-century Passover would prove to be essential for reconstructing both the inside and the outside of the event of the Last Supper

    From this investigation into the history-of-religions background of Jesus' Last Supper, I shall move into an examination of the relevant New Testament texts. These are Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20; and 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. The first step is a literary-critical analysis, designed to determine the relative literary priority of the four accounts. I shall then examine the accounts with a view to determining whether they are literarily composite. My results in this matter will have implications for historical reconstruction.

    Next I shall undertake to answer three tradition-historical questions. First, I shall investigate the question of whether the paschal framework of the synoptic accounts of the Last Supper is secondary. The answer to this will have obvious implications for historical reconstruction. (As I said already, I shall conclude that it is not secondary.) Secondly, the tradition- historical problem of the relation of Luke 22:15-18 to the words of institution in Luke 19:19-20 will be dealt with. Finally, I shall take up the question of the relative, tradition-historical priority of the versions of the words of institution. There are enough significant differences between the accounts that one is forced to decide which features of which versions are the more original.

    I reach the point of the work where historical reconstruction becomes possible. The task is to correlate the New Testament material on the Last Supper with my conclusions concerning how a typical first-century Passover would have proceeded, in an effort to reconstruct both the outside and the inside of the event of the Last Supper. The goal, as I said, is to recover as far as possible what actually happened. As far as the inside of the event is concerned, paschal theology is the key to understanding the meaning of the words of institution. In this chapter I shall also deal with objections to the authenticity of the words of institution as reflecting Jesus' understanding of his death.

    It goes without saying that this reconstruction of the outside and the inside of the event of the Last Supper is a hypothesis only. There are numerous occasions for objections throughout the work. Nonetheless, it is my belief that this reconstruction makes the best sense of the data available.