Luke 23:46–47
is a fake. Studying the Diatessaron has taught me what a gross misreading we’ve been guilty of. The same gross misreading, in fact, that reveals the truth about the Shroud.
My discovery is outlined in the proof enclosed here. Please read it carefully, as this is what I’ll be telling your friends at the Casina. In the meantime, I send my best to Michael, who I know has become your close follower.
John 19:34
In friendship,
Ugo
This time, reading the text makes me jumpy with anxiety. Something here isn’t right. Four days after Ugo wrote this, he sent me a frantic final e-mail. The same day he wrote this, he left Simon an irate voice message. The calm, eager Ugo of this letter is a front. An illusion.
Why send such a message through the mail? Why openly discuss the Orthodox gathering at the Casina? It seems almost intended to draw attention to the meeting. And if Ugo was the one who put this meeting on Cardinal Boia’s radar, causing all the last-minute heightening of security and change of venue to Castel Gandolfo, then either he was being careless or he was being spiteful.
Ugo claimed a proof was enclosed here, but Boia said no other page was found in the envelope. Read it carefully, Ugo said in his voice message. He repeated those same words in the letter itself. And I have a feeling that if I do, I will somehow find the proof right before my eyes.
I scan the gospel verses in the side column, wondering what I’ve missed. Ugo and I used this homily paper during his lessons. When two gospels would tell the same story in different ways, Ugo would write down the parallel verses and compare them. It makes me wonder if the body of the letter here is just a sideshow, a distraction. If the progression of the verses is what really matters.
I dig into the column on the left. The first is Mark 14:44–46, which describes how Jesus was arrested before his trial. An armed mob appeared, and Judas identified Jesus to the authorities with the infamous kiss of betrayal. Matthew and Luke agree with Mark’s version of events, but Ugo’s very next selection is John’s version. In it, Judas doesn’t kiss anyone. Jesus steps forward on his own, and the mob demands to know who Jesus of Nazareth is. In an eye-opening twist, Jesus’ two-word answer—“I AM”—makes the whole mob suddenly fall to the ground.
John is making a theological point: “I AM” is the mystical name of God Himself. In the Old Testament, Moses hears the burning bush command: “Say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” The point is that Jesus is this same God. But Ugo must be making a point, too: Mark’s verse shows that John’s verse is theological. It expresses a spiritual truth, but it never really happened.