At the very least, it would be a bold person who dismissed the impact of the word on people down through the centuries, and sought to marginalise it as part of a minor narrative with little significance beyond itself. Hudson Taylor is just one example of a person who came to faith through the word - and went on to evangelise China. Worth considering, I’d have thought.

This has nothing to do with the impact of the word. It has to do with what Jesus meant when he spoke it. My point is simply that the context suggests quite strongly that there is some connection with Psalm 69 and, indeed, that Jesus intentionally evoked that narrative when, knowing that the bowl of vinegar was there, he said, ‘I thirst’.

I disagree that Psalm 69 constitutes a minor narrative with no significance beyond itself. That is far too dismissive. But the more fundamental point is that it should matter to us what Jesus meant by the word (rather than the theological hyperbole that has subsequently been attached to it), and the best clues to that are in the context. Why shouldn’t Jesus again (cf. Mk. 15:34) deliberately recall a psalm in order to interpret his death and express his confidence in his Father? Would it have been a minor narrative for him?