The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14-16

The PASSION in MARK Studies on Mark 14-16 Edited by Werner H. Kelber

with contributions by Norman Perrin John R. Donahue, S. J. Kim E. Dewey Vernon K. Robbins Theodore J. Weeden, Sr. Werner H. Kelber John Dominic Crossan

FORTRESS PRESS

Philadelphia

Biblical quotations from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyrighted 1 9 4 6 , 1 9 5 2 , © 1 9 7 1 , 1 9 7 3 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., are used by permission.

COPYRIGHT © 1 9 7 6 B Y FORTRESS PRESS All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, elec­ tronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Library of Congress ISBN

5407L75

Catalog Card Number

75-36453

0-8006-0439-3

Printed in U.S.A.

1-439

Contents

Abbreviations

ix

Contributors

xv

Preface I.

xvii Introduction: From Passion Traditions to Passion Narrative

1

J o h n R . Donahue, S J . 1. T h e Passion in Preaching and W o r s h i p 2. A Pre-Markan Passion Narrative? 3. M a r k as Author

and Theologian

4 . Conclusion II.

2 8 16 20

Last M e a l : Preparation, Betrayal, and Absence (Mark 1 4 : 1 2 - 2 5 )

21

Vernon K . Robbins

III.

1. Preparation for Entrance into the Passion

22

2. "Table-Intimate" as Betrayer

29

3. T h e Cup o f the Son of M a n

34

4 . Markan " M e a l " Christology

38

T h e H o u r o f the Son of M a n and the Temptation ' of the Disciples ( M a r k 1 4 : 3 2 - 4 2 )

41

W e r n e r H. K e l b e r 1. T h e Sparing o f the Hour

43 v

Contents

vi 2. T h e Sleeping Disciples

IV.

47

3. T h e Narrative Position

50

4 . T h e Markan Dialectic

57

T e m p l e , Trial, and Royal Christology ( M a r k 1 4 : 5 3 - 6 5 )

61

J o h n R . Donahue, S J .

V.

1. T h e G r o w t h of the Tradition

62

2. T h e T e m p l e Saying 1 4 : 5 8

66

3. T h e Christological T a b l e a u 1 4 : 6 1 - 6 2

71

4. Mark's Royal Christology

72

5. Conclusion

78

T h e H i g h Priest's Question and Jesus' Answer (Mark 1 4 : 6 1 - 6 2 )

80

N o r m a n Perrin 1. T h e Retrospective Function of 1 4 : 6 1 - 6 2 in the Gospel

81

2. T h e Prospective Function of 1 4 : 6 1 - 6 2 in the Gospel

VI.

91

Peter's Curse and Cursed Peter (Mark 1 4 : 5 3 - 5 4 , 6 6 - 7 2 )

96

K i m E. Dewey 1. Tradition and Redaction

VII.

96

2. Tradition: Story and Saying

105

3. Markan Concerns

108

4 . Toward a Petrine Trajectory

113

T h e Cross as Power in Weakness ( M a r k 1 5 : 2 0 b - 4 l )

115

Theodore J . W e e d e n , Sr. 1. Crucifixion T h e m e s

116

2. T h e Christological Motif

116

3. T h e T e m p l e Motif

121

4 . Markan Setting and Pre-Markan Tradition

129

Contents VIII.

vii Empty T o m b and Absent Lord ( M a r k 1 6 : 1 - 8 )

135

J o h n D o m i n i c Crossan 1. T h e Tradition before M a r k

IX.

136

2. T h e Tradition after M a r k

138

3. T h e Tradition in M a r k

145

4 . Theological Conclusions

152

Conclusion: From Passion Narrative to Gospel

153

Werner H. Kelber 1. T h e Issue o f a Pre-Markan Passion Narrative

153

2. Christology

160

3. R i v a l Christology

165

4 . T h e Issue of the T e m p l e

168

5. Characters

172

6. M a r k 1 4 - 1 6 and the Gospel

176

Selected Bibliography

181

Indexes

191

Abbreviations

P E R I O D I C A L S A N D SERIALS AER

American

AnBib

Analecta Biblica

Ecclesiastical

Review

AnGreg

Analecta Gregoriana

ASTI

Annual

Bib

Biblica

BibTB

Biblical

BiKi

Bibel

und

Kirche

Bile

Bibel

und

Leben

BJRL

Bulletin

of the John

BR

Biblical

Research

BT

The Bible

BZ

Biblische

BZAW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche W i s -

of the Swedish Theology

Theological

Institute

Bulletin

Rylands

Library

Translator Zeitschrift

senschaft BZNW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche W i s -

CBQ

Catholic

CBQMS

Catholic Biblical Quarterly—Monograph Series

senschaft Biblical

Quarterly

CbrTo

Christianity

Cone

Concilium

Today

CTM

Concordia

CV

Communio

EKKNT

Evangelisch-Katholischer

Theological

Monthly

Viatorum Kommentar

zum

Testament EtHistPhilRel

Etudes d'Histoire et de Philosophic Religieuses

EvT

Evangelische

Theologie ix

Neuen

Abbreviations

X

ExpT

Expository

FBBS

Facet Books, Biblical Series

Times

FRLANT

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

Greg

Gregoriantim

HTR Interpr

Harvard

JBL

Journal

Theological

Review

Interpretation of Biblical

Literature

W

Journal

of the Folklore

JR JTS

Journal

of

Journal

of Theological

Li Mo

Liturgie

und

LingBibl

Linguistica

NovTest

Novum

Institute

Religion Studies

Monchtum Biblica Testamentum

NRT

Nouvelle

NTAbh

Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen

Revue

Theologique

NTS

New

NTSMS

N e w Testament Studies—Monograph Series

Testament

NTSup

Supplements to N o v u m Testamentum

OrBibLov

Orientalia

RB

Revue

Studies

et Biblica

Lovaniensia

Biblique

RBib

Revista

Biblica

(Buenos A i r e s )

RBiblt

Revista

Biblica

(Italiana)

RHPhilRel

Revue

d'Histoire

RHR RivB

Revue

de I'Histoire

Rivista

Biblica

RocTChAT

Roczniki

Teologiczne

RTL

Revue

SBT

Studies in Biblical Theology

ScuolC

La Scuola

SE

Studia

et de Philosophie des

Religieuses

Religions

Chrzescijanskiej

Akademii

Teologicznej Theologique

de

Louvain

Cattolica

Evangelica

I, I I , I I I ( = T U 7 3 [ 1 9 5 9 ] , 87

[1964], 88 [ 1 9 6 4 ] ) ST

Studia Theologica

St A N T

Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

TDig

Theology

TDNT

Theological Dictionary of the N e w Testament

Digest

Abbreviations

xi

TS

Theological

Studies

TU

Texte

Utitersuchungen

TZ

Theologische

UNT

Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

USQR

Union

VD

Verbum

Domini

VigChr

Vigiliae

Cbristianae

VT

Vetus

WoWa

Wort

ZKT

Zeitschrtft

fur Katholische

ZNW

Zeitschrift

fur die Neutestamentliche

ZTK

Zeitschrift

fur Theologie

und

Zeitschrift

Seminary

Quarterly

Review

Testamentum und

Wahrheit Theologie und

Wissenschaft

Kirche

KEY B O O K S A N D ARTICLES BERTRAM

Bertram, Georg. der

Die Leidensgesckickte

Christuskult.

Jesu

FRLANT N F 22.

und

Gottin-

gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1 9 2 2 . BEST

Best, Ernest. Markan

The Temptation

Soteriology.

and the Passion:

N T S M S 2.

The

Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1 9 6 5 . BLASS-DEBRUNNER

Blass, Friedrich and Debrunner, Albert. Grammar

of the New

Testament.

A

Greek

Translated

and revised from 19th German ed. by R o b e r t W . Funk.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1961. BULTMANN

Bultmann, Rudolf. Tradition.

of the

Synoptic

Translated from 3d G e r m a n ed. by

J o h n Marsh. DlBELIUS

The History

Dibelius, Martin.

N e w Y o r k : Harper & R o w , 1 9 6 3 . Botschaft

und Geschichte.

ted by Giinther Bornkamm. gelienforschung.

Tubingen:

V o l . 1: Zur

Edi­ Evan-

J . C. B . M o h r

[P. Siebeck], 1 9 5 3 . DONAHUE

Donahue, J o h n R . Trial

Narrative

Are

You

in the Gospel

Dissertation Series 1 0 .

the Christ?

The

of Mark.

SBL

Missoula, Mont.: Uni­

versity of Montana, 1 9 7 3 .

Abbreviations DORMEYER

Dormeyer, Detlev. tensmodell.

Die Passion

Jesu

als

Verhal-

N T A b h N F 1 1 . Miinster: Aschen-

dorff, 1 9 7 4 . DOUDNA

Doudna, J o h n C. Mark.

The

Greek

JBL M S 12.

of the Gospel

of

Philadelphia: Society of

Biblical Literature, 1 9 6 1 . HAWKINS

Hawkins, J o h n C.

Horae

Synopticae.

tions to the Study of the Synoptic ed.

Contribu­ Problem.

3d

Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker B o o k House,

1968. KELBER

Kelber, W e r n e r H . New

Place

The Kingdom

and a New

in Mark.

Time.

A

Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1 9 7 4 . LlNNEMANN

Linnemann, Eta. FRLANT

Studien

102.

zur

Passionsgeschichte.

Gottingen:

Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1 9 7 0 . MARXSEN

Marxsen, W i l l i .

Mark

the Evangelist.

Translated

by R o y A. Harrisville et al. Nashville, T e n n . : NEIRYNCK

Abingdon Press, 1 9 6 9 Neirynck, Frans. Duality in Mark. to the Study of the Markan

Contributions

Redaction.

Biblio-

theca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 3 1 .

Leuven/Louvain: Leuven University

Press, 1 9 7 2 . PERRIN

Perrin, N o r m a n .

"Towards an Interpretation of the

Gospel of Mark." Pilgrimage.

SCHENK

SCHENKE

Calif.:

1971.

Pp. 1 - 7 8 .

Schenk,

Wolfgang.

New

Markus.

Markus

Modern

Testament Der

Colloquium,

Passionsbericht

nach

Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1 9 7 4 .

Schenke, Ludger. des

and a

Edited by Hans Dieter Betz. Clare-

mont,

Mark us.

Christology

14,

Studien

zur

Tradition 1-42.

Passionsgeschichte

und

Forschung

Redaktion zur

in

Bibel 4 .

Wiirzburg: Echter Verlag, 1 9 7 1 . TAYLOR

Taylor, Vincent. Mark.

2d ed.

The

Gospel

According

to

London: Macmillan, 1 9 6 6 .

St.

Abbreviations TURNER

xiii Turner, Cuthbert H.

"Marcan Usage: Notes, Cri­

tical and Exegetical, on the Second Gospel." JTS

25 ( 1 9 2 4 ) , 3 7 7 - 8 6 ; 26 ( 1 9 2 5 ) ,

145-56,

225-40;

27

(1926),

12-20,

58-62;

( 1 9 2 7 ) , 9-30, 349-62; 29 ( 1 9 2 8 ) ,

28

275-89,

346-61. WEEDEN

Weeden, Theodore J . flict.

WREDE

Mark—Traditions

in

Con­

Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1 9 7 1 .

Wrede, William.

The

Messianic

lated by J . C. G . Greig. Attic Press, 1 9 7 1 .

Secret.

Trans­

Greenwood, S . C : T h e

CONTRIBUTORS

John R.'Donahue, S J . , associate professor of New Testament, Vanderbilt University^Nashville, Tennessee -Vernon K. Robbins, associate professor of Religious Studies and the Classics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign "Werner H. Kelber,.assistant professor of Biblical Studies, Rice University, Houston, Texas Norman Perrin, professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology, Univer­ sity of Chicago :

K i m E. Dewey, doctoral candidate, .Divinity School, University of Chicago Theodore J . Weeden, Sr., professor of New Testament, St. Bernard's Seminary, Rochester, New York John Dominic Crossan, professor of 'Biblical Studies, DePaul University, Chicago

xv

PREFACE

T h e seven authors o f this collection of essays on the M k a n Passion Narrative share the conviction that the key to M k 14—16 lies in a theological interpretation of the text.

T h i s marks a distinct departure

from a long-standing tradition of reading the Passion Narrative as a prime source for the political and legal history of the time of Jesus. W h i l e the essays vary in their utilization of pre-Mkan and non-Mkan material, they belong methodologically in the broad area o f redaction, composition, and literary criticism. Although different authors are bound to express at times differing views on a subject as controversial as the Passion Narrative, it will not escape the reader that there emerges from these essays a remarkably coherent view of the theology of M k ' s Passion Narrative. I wish to express my appreciation to Rice University for a research grant which enabled m e to carry out my duties as editor.

I owe a

special word of gratitude to Professor Niels C. Nielsen, chairman of the Department of Religious Studies, Rice University, who encouraged this project throughout and supported my work in every way possible.

I am

very grateful to Mrs. Josephine Monaghan for her extremely competent typing of a difficult manuscript.

Finally, I wish to thank my wife, Mary

Ann, for her assistance at every stage of this work. Rice

University

September

1975

WERNER H. KELBER

xvii

I.

Introduction: From Passion Traditions to Passion Narrative John R. D o n a h u e , S.J.

Since the advent o f source, form, and redaction criticism, the Synoptic Gospels have been an arena for investigation into the sayings and deeds o f Jesus, the transmission and alteration o f the Jesus tradition by the early Church, and the theological concerns o f the Evangelists.

individual

A l t h o u g h the Passion Narratives form the c l i m a x o f the

Gospels and occupy roughly fifteen per cent o f the Gospel tradition, Gospel research has been directed mainly toward the pre-passioh parts of the Gospels.

Varied reasons explain this situation.

A t the end o f

the last century M . K a h l e r enunciated what became a dogma in G o s p e l research, that the Gospels are Passion Narratives with extended intro­ ductions.

1

Later, M . Dibelius, one o f the founders o f form criticism,

held that the story o f the passion was the longest extended b l o c k o f tradition, prior to the formation o f the Gospels.

2

T h e categories devel­

oped by the form critics such as apophthegm, dominical saying, miracle story, and legend were not easily applied to the Passion Narrative, and form criticism increasingly focused on the teaching

o f Jesus.

Finally,

1. M. Kahler, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ, trans, and ed. C. E. Braaten (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964; 1st German ed. 1 8 9 2 ) , 8 0 n. 112. M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, trans. B. L. Woolf, rev. 2d ed. (New York: Scribner's, n.d.), 180. 1

2

Introduction:

From Passion

Traditions

to Passion

Narrative

not only was the Passion Narrative seen as the most traditional and the most extended block of pre-Synoptic material, but it was also viewed as the most historical part o f the Gospel.

3

B y and large the Passion

Narrative was not regarded as being theologically influenced by the early Church or the Evangelists. In contrast to earlier neglect, the last decade has witnessed an explo­ sion in studies on the growth of the passion traditions.

M k ' s Passion

Narrative is now seen as much a product o f his literary and theological creativity as the first thirteen chapters o f the Gospel.

T h e present in­

troductory essay seeks to describe the major contributions to the study of the M k a n Passion Narrative.

However, since cross and resurrection

were a subject of early Christian preaching and were re-presented in ritual even prior to M k , studies on these pre-Mkan settings for Passion Narrative will also have to be surveyed.

the

Finally, we will indi­

cate some ways in which redaction criticism offers a valuable key for unlocking the theological riches of the M k a n Passion Narrative.

1. T H E P A S S I O N I N P R E A C H I N G A N D W O R S H I P Dibelius, who wrote on the Passion Narratives over a period o f thirtyfive years, was a pioneer in the discovery o f the use o f Old T e s t a m e n t allusions as a creative matrix in constructing the Passion Narrative.

In

line with his conviction that preaching was at the basis o f N e w Testa­ ment traditions, Dibelius wrote: Long before the existence of the books of the Gospels, and long before any connected account of the Passion, the teachers of the community had access to these sources [the Old Testament] and the preachers dealt with these "texts." 4

Old Testament texts served a double function.

O n the one hand, they

helped to show that Jesus died "in accordance with the scriptures"

(1

Cor 1 5 : 3 ) ; on the other hand, they exerted a formative influence on the 3. For extra-biblical references to Jesus' crucifixion, see Josephus, Ant 1 8 , 6 3 - 6 4 ; Tacitus, Annates 15, 4 4 ; The Babylonian Talmud, trans. I. Epstein (London: Soncino Press, 1 9 3 5 ) , V, 281. For an evaluation of extra-biblical data, see J . Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. H. Danby (New York: Macmillan, 1 9 2 5 ) , 1 7 - 6 0 ; X . Leon-Dufour, "Passion [Recits de la]," Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement VI, 1 4 2 1 - 1 4 2 4 . 4. D I B E L I U S , "Die alttestamentlichen Motive in der Leidensgeschichte des Petrus- und des Johannes-Evangeliums," 2 2 3 (my own translation).

The Passion in Preaching

and

3

Worship

tradition since stories were composed to illustrate O l d Testament allu­ sions.

5

Subsequent to Dibelius, C H . Dodd proposed the theory that collec­ tions o f early Christian testimonia,

mainly citations o f P s 2 2 and Isa

5 2 : 1 3 - 5 3 : 1 2 , served as an apology for the passion and also provided a substructure for Christian theology.

6

J . Jeremias and C. Maurer noted

the many allusions to Isa 5 2 : 1 3 - 5 3 : 1 2 in the Passion Narrative and argued that the figure o f the suffering Servant depicted in Isaiah was applied to J e s u s .

7

T h e most complete examination o f the use o f the

Old Testament in the passion apologetic is found in the often over­ looked work o f B . Lindars, New Testament

Apologetic?

W h i l e admitting that the kernel o f the Christian kerygma was the resurrection

(Acts 3 : 1 3 b - 1 5 a ;

4:10-11;

5:30; 10:3SM0;

13:27-

3 0 ) , Lindars states that it was impossible to speak o f the resurrection without attaching some positive significance to the death.

0

T h e earliest

passion apologetic developed from a reflection on Isa 5 3 : 1 2 "His soul was 'delivered up' (paredothe) didonai

in M k ( 9 : 3 1 ;

10:33; 14:21)

to death."

(LXX),

T h e use o f para-

reflects this use o f Isa 5 3 : 1 2 .

T h e early Church had not only to cope with a suffering Messiah, it had to find a warrant for Jesus' shameful death ( c f . Deut 2 1 : 2 2 - 2 3 ) and for the rejection by his own people.

10

Lindars further observes that Isa

5 3 : 3 ( L X X ) , " H e was despised and rejected by m e n " {etimasthe, in some versions exoudendmenos), rejection (exoudenetbe)

but

has influenced the saying o n the

o f the Son o f M a n in M k 9 : 1 2 .

T h e terms

5. Ibid., 2 2 4 - 4 7 . According to Dibelius, the Passion Narrative does not rest on eye­ witnesses who took careful note of the passion events, but on teachers who read the psalms and prophets as sources for an understanding of the passion of Jesus. 6. C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures (New York: Scribner's, 1 9 5 3 ) , 7 2 , 9 2 9 3 , 127. 7. J . Jeremias and W . Zimmerli, The Servant of God, SBT 2 0 (London: SCM Press, 1 9 6 5 ) ; J . Jeremias, "pais theou," T D N T V, 6 5 4 - 7 1 7 ; C. Maurer, "Knecht Gottes und Sohn Gottes im Passionsbericht des Markusevangeliums," ZTK 5 0 ( 1 9 5 3 ) , 1 - 3 8 . The debate subsequent to these publications is not whether Isa 53 influenced the Passion Narrative, but whether the figure of the suffering Servant did and whether Jesus con­ ceived of himself as the Servant. 8. B . Lindars, New Testament Apologetic

(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1 9 6 1 ) .

Neither L l N N E M A N N , S C H E N K B , S C H E N K , nor D O R M E Y E R cites this study.

9. Ibid., 75. 10. Ibid., 7 6 : "It must be remembered that the rejection of the Lord's Messiah by his own people was a wholly new constituent in the picture, even where the death of the Messiah was visualized."

Introduction:

4 exoudeneisthai Old

From Passion

and exoutheneisthai

Traditions

to Passion

Narrative

then suggested reference to

other

Testament texts by equating Jesus with the rejected stone o f Ps

118:22.

u

Lindars thus shows that it was not simply the figure o f the

Servant in Isa 5 3 which influenced the formation o f the passion tradi­ tions, but that reflection on specific texts and on other texts linked through

word

association enabled the early Christians to develop

whole textual network o f O l d Testament reflections on the Early Christian exegesis appears much like the pesher pretation practiced by the Qumran c o m m u n i t y .

a

passion.

mode o f inter­

12

T h e second major body o f texts discussed by Lindars are the psalms. I n the M k a n Passion Narrative clear references to psalms are found in the following places: 14:18

Ps4l:9

15:24

Ps22:18

14:34

Ps42:6, 11;

15:29

Ps22:7;

43:5

15:34

Ps22:l

Ps69:21

15:36

Ps69:21

15:23

109:25

References to Ps 2 2 show a marked concentration in the crucifixion account

(Mk 15:20b-4l),

so much so that Lindars has called this

psalm "a quarry for pictorial details in writing the story o f the Pas­ sion."

13

Other psalms explain different aspects o f the passion: cruci­

fixion as the method o f death

( P s 3 4 ) , Jesus' table fellowship with a

betrayer ( P s s 4 1 , 6 9 , and 1 0 9 ) , and "above a l l the need to account for the collapse o f the whole final demonstration o f Jesus, from the cleans­ ing of the temple to the death on the cross ( P s 6 9 ) "

u

In addition to Lindars's work on explicit allusions to the O l d Testa­ ment, L. Ruppert's studies present a comprehensive analysis o f the motif of the suffering J u s t O n e in the O l d T e s t a m e n t and its influence in the 11. Ibid., 8 1 - 8 4 . Cf. also N. Perrin, "The Use of (para)didonai in Connection with the Passion of Jesus in the New Testament," Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde, ed. E. Lohse et al. (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1 9 7 0 ) , 2 0 4 - 1 2 ; reprinted in A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1 9 7 4 ) , 9 4 - 1 0 3 . Perrin proposes a different picture of the use of Isa 53:12 than Lindars. 12. Elements of the pesher mode of exegesis are: ( a ) freedom with the text, ( b ) the actualization of the text in terms of the interpreter's own experience, and ( c ) the tendency to make a historic narrative of the text. See Lindars, Apologetic, 1 5 - 1 7 , and H. Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1 9 6 3 ) , 7 - 1 1 . 13. Lindars, Apologetic, 90. 14. Ibid., 110.

The Passion New.

1 5

trays a

in Preaching

and

Worship

5

T h i s motif, found mainly in the psalms o f lamentation, por­ figure

as Jesus in the

passion.

Enemies conspire to kill him ( M k 1 4 : 1 ; Pss 3 1 : 4 ; 3 5 : 4 ; 3 8 : 1 2 ;

in much the same situation

71:10),

friends betray him

(Mk

arise ( M k 1 4 : 5 6 ,

14:18,

5 7 , 5 9 ; Pss 2 7 : 1 2 ;

remains silent ( M k 1 4 : 6 1 ; mock

him

109:25).

(Mk

1 6

is not unique.

15:20,

2 9 ; Pss

false witnesses

1 0 9 : 2 ) , the J u s t O n e 3 9 : 9 ) , and enemies

22:7; 31:11;

35:19-25;

69:20;

Ruppert's emphasis on the motif o f the suffering J u s t One W h a t is new in his work is the description o f the various T h e fourth Servant Song ( I s a

portrays the suffering prophet.

Daniel ( 1 1 : 3 3 - 3 5 ; (1QH

35:11;

1 5 : 5 ; Pss 3 8 : 1 4 - 1 6 ;

transformations o f the motif. 53:12)

4 3 ; Ps 5 5 : 1 4 - 2 1 ) ,

2:20-30;

1 2 : 1 - 3 ) , persecutions o f the Qumran

3:37-4:4;

52:13-

T h e suffering o f the pious in community

1 5 : 1 4 - 1 7 ) , and, close to the N e w Testa­

m e n t period, the sufferings o f the Righteous O n e in the W i s d o m o f Solomon ( 2 : 1 2 - 2 0 ;

5 : 1 - 7 ) — a l l represent adaptations and

appropria­

tions o f the motif, under the influence o f historical circumstance and eschatological urgency.

17

In casting many o f the details o f the passion

of Jesus in the mold o f the suffering J u s t One, early Christian "scribes" and preachers were adapting the motif to their own experience as vari­ ous other groups had done before. J u s t as Dibelius was the forerunner of those who studied the influ­ ence o f the O l d Testament on the Passion Narrative, so too, did he stress the eschatological dimension o f the account.

H e writes:

It was not in the healings, or in the parables,.. . but in the Passion that the eschatological event manifested itself which was to point im­ mediately toward the turning of the ages ( W e l t e n w e n d e ) . T h e Passion is the beginning of the end t i m e . 18

Eschatological urgency was a force in the development o f a Passion Narrative, for in the passion the events themselves were the message o f 15. L. Ruppert, Der leidende Gerechte. Eine motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Alten Testament und ztvischentestamentlichen Judentum, Forschung zur Bibel 5 (Wiirzburg: Echter Verlag, 1 9 7 2 ) , and Der leidende Gerechte und seine Feinde. Eine W ortjelduntersuchung, Forschung zur Bibel 6 (Wiirzburg: Echter Verlag, 1 9 7 3 ) , and Jesus als der leidende Gerechte, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 5 9 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1 9 7 2 ) . The last work is henceforth cited as Jesus. 16. Ruppert, Jesus, 1 6 - 1 8 ; DORMBYER, 2 4 9 . 17. Ruppert, Jesus, 1 6 - 2 2 . 18. D I B E L I U S , "Das historische Problem der Leidensgeschichte," 2 4 9 (my own translation).

Introduction:

6

From Passion Traditions

to Passion

Narrative

salvation, while in other parts of the Gospels the events were illustrative of the k e r y g m a .

19

Eschatology and the influence o f the O l d Testament merge in the use of Zechariah in the passion traditions.

J u s t as Isa 5 3 and the psalms o f

the suffering J u s t O n e provided a storehouse for reflection on the suffer­ ing o f Jesus, so were the Messianic and apocalyptic texts o f Zechariah considered suitable for viewing the passion as the prelude to a new age. Jesus' entry into Jerusalem ( M k 1 1 : 1 - 1 0 ) alludes to the coming o f the Prince of Peace ( Z e c h 9 : 9 - 1 0 ) .

T h e blood o f the covenant

(Mk

1 4 : 2 4 ) and the betrayal for money ( M k 1 4 : 1 1 ) refer to Z e c h 9 : 1 1 and 11:12.

T h e explicit citation o f Z e c h 1 3 : 7 as scripture in M k 1 4 : 2 7

shows that Zechariah not only influenced the pre-Mkan tradition, but also its final redaction.

20

T h e Old Testament, therefore, was a creative agent in the formation of passion traditions. sacred text and

In turning to the O l d Testament text as their

the source of their understanding of their

salvation

history, the early Christians were in effect creating a new sacred text and writing their own account o f salvation history—a history which they saw as both fulfillment o f the past salvation history and the beginning o f a new stage in this same history. N o t only was the. death o f Jesus preached by early Christians, it was celebrated in the worship o f the community.

Prime evidence in the

N e w Testament for such a setting is the Lord's Supper paradosis Cor 1 1 : 2 3 - 2 6 , as well as the hymnic f r a g m e n t s

21

of 1

o f Phil 2 : 6 - 1 1 , Col

1 : 1 5 - 2 0 , 1 T i m 3 : 1 6 , and the evocation o f Jesus as a paradigm for confession in 1 T i m 6 : 1 3 .

G . Bertram suggested that the Passion Nar­

rative was formed as a cult legend to celebrate the victory o f the hero whom the community worshiped and with w h o m they were to iden­ tify. zein)

22

In the trial before Pilate, for example, the "wonder"

(thauma-

of Pilate ( 1 5 : 5 ) does not recount history but expresses the reli­

gious awe the believer should have before the L o r d .

23

T h e use of ego

19. Ibid., 2 5 0 . 20. For D O R M B Y E R , 1 1 2 , Mk 1 4 : 2 7 a is tradition and 1 4 : 2 7 b redaction.

SCHENKE,

388, likewise considers 14:27b redactional 21. Cf. J . T. Sanders, The New Testament Christological Hymns, NTSMS 15 (Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 9 7 1 ) , 5 8 - 8 7 , 9 4 - 9 5 . 4

22.

BERTRAM,

5-6.

23. Ibid., 6 5 - 7 1 .

The Passion in Preaching eimi

and

7

Worship

in M k 1 4 : 6 2 makes the trial into the narration o f an epiphany o f

the Lord to the worshiping c o m m u n i t y . G. Schille

25

24

refined and revised the insights o f Bertram.

H e suggests

that the earliest form o f the passion traditions arose from the baptismal liturgy ( c f . R o m 6 : 3 - 6 ) exaltation.

Crucial to his reconstruction is the indication in 1 Cor

1 1 : 2 3 - 2 6 that the agape night when

reflecting a structure o f descent, death, and was a night celebration, commemorating "the

he was betrayed."

B y analogy, the M k a n

"night" o f

1 4 : 1 7 - 1 5 : 1 was formed as a narrative o f the passion events from a cultic perspective.

26

Schille then turns to the time designations o f the

crucifixion account ( 1 5 : 1 , 2 5 , 3 3 , 3 4 ) and argues that they reflect a liturgical practice of three-hour periods o f watching and prayer

(14:38)

on a day following the commemoration o f the supper which ended with a cockcrow ( 1 4 : 7 2 ) .

A final block o f pre-Mkan cultic tradition is

found in the "grave legends" o f 15:42—47 and place references celebration.

(15:42;

16:1-2)

16:1—6.

M k ' s redaction o f these traditions consists in the insertion

of connecting phrases and in the addition o f the Anointing the preparations for the Supper (14:53-65).

T i m e and

reflect an early Christian Easter

(14:12-16)

(l4:3-9)>

and the Sanhedrin trial

W h i l e Schille's insights call attention to possible cultic

references within the Passion Narrative, the uniformity o f style which permeates the narrative as well as the relationship o f the narrative to the rest o f the Gospel militate against the picture o f M k as simply a collec­ tor of cultic traditions.

27

W h i l e the examination o f the setting o f the passion traditions

in

preaching and worship does not explain the final form o f the narrative, it does open a window on important developments o f early Christianity. T h e growth o f the passion traditions is a miniature o f the growth o f early Christianity as a self-conscious religious group.

N e w texts are

formed, symbols (e.g., the suffering J u s t O n e ) are transformed.

Sacred

2 4 . Ibid., 5 5 - 6 1 . 2 5 . G. Schille, "Das Leiden des Herren. Die evangelische Passionstradition und ihr 'Sitz im Leben,' " ZTK 52 ( 1 9 5 5 ) , 1 6 1 - 2 0 5 . 2 6 . Ibid., 1 7 7 - 8 1 . 27. D O R M B Y E R , 1 5 - 1 6 ; R. Scroggs and K. I. Groff ("Baptism in Mark: Dying and Rising with Christ," JBL 92 [ 1 9 7 3 ] , 5 3 1 - 4 8 ) suggest that 1 4 : 5 1 - 5 2 , the young man leaving the linen cloth, and 1 6 : 5 , a young man dressed in a white robe, reflect the baptismal practice of stripping off old garments and putting on new garments symbolic of identification with the suffering and rising Jesus.

Introduction:

8

From Passion Traditions

to Passion

Narrative

stories are created which speak to the present experience o f a group, but root this experience in the time of the beginnings.

A world o f meaning

is created to express the community's consciousness that it belongs to a new t i m e .

28

2. A PRE-MARKAN PASSION NARRATIVE? In addition to the recognition of the influence of the Old Testament and liturgical traditions, there has been a general consensus concerning the existence o f a connected narrative behind M k ' s passion section.

29

T h i s thesis has sometimes been asserted almost in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Dibelius, for example, observed a thematically unbal­

anced Passion Narrative: there are insertions and expansions 12-16,

32-42,

55-65);

Jesus was arrested

before the

(14:2-10,

feast,

which

conflicts with the tradition of a passover meal with the disciples; 1 4 : 2 8 presupposes a resurrection appearance and is in tension with the Empty T o m b narration in 1 6 : 1 - 8 . connected pre-Mkan

Still, Dibelius affirms the existence of a

Passion N a r r a t i v e .

four-stage growth of the tradition:

30

R . B u l t m a n n postulated

a

( a ) a kerygmatic tradition o f Jesus'

suffering and death, ( b ) a short historical narrative o f the arrest, con­ demnation, and execution, ( c ) the addition of originally unconnected stories such as the Anointing and Gethsemane and ( d ) embellishments (e.g., the Sanhedrin t r i a l ) .

3 1

supplementary

F r o m an analysis of the

frequency o f Semitisms and the presence of pericopes which interrupt the flow o f the narrative ( 1 4 : 3 - 9 ,

22-25,

15:2, 6 - 1 4 , 1 6 - 2 0 , 25, 27, 3 1 - 3 2 , 4 0 - 4 1 ) there was an A source and a B source.

32-42;

47-52,

54, 66-72;

V . T a y l o r concluded that

T h e former ( n o t listed h e r e )

represents a straightforward account written for the R o m a n community and the latter ( t h e verses a b o v e ) is based on recollections of P e t e r .

32

28. This suggestion of the sociological context of the growth of early Christian tradi­ tions is developed by J . G. Gager, Kingdom and Community; The Social World of Early Christianity (Englewood Cliffs, N . J . : Prentice-Hall, 1 9 7 5 ) , esp. 11. 29. By way of example, see R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible 29A (Garden City, N . Y . : Doubleday, 1 9 7 0 ) , 787 and 7 8 9 : "Critical scholars of diverse tendencies (Bultmann, Jeremias, and Taylor, to name a few) agree that the Marcan Passion Narrative is composite and that one of Mark's chief sources was an earlier consecutive account of the passion." Cf. also G. Schneider, "Das Problem einer vorkanonischen Passionserzahliing," BZ 2 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 2 2 2 - 4 4 . 30. D I B E L I U S , "Leidensgeschichte," 2 4 9 - 5 1 , and Tradition, 1 7 8 - 2 1 7 . 31.

BULTMANN, 275-84.

32. T A Y L O R ,

653-71.

A Pre-Markan

Passion

Narrative?

9

T h e chief arguments for a pre-Mkan account have been carefully stated by J . J e r e m i a s .

33

H e observes a resemblance between the Synoptics

and J n in their depiction o f Jesus' final week in Jerusalem.and an even greater agreement between J n and M k in the events which follow Jesus' arrest.

Jeremias then postulates a four-stage development o f the Pas­

sion Narrative:

( 1 ) an early kerygma much like 1 Cor 15:3b—5 and

drawn up in Semitic language; ( 2 ) the short arrest; ( 3 ) the long

account

account

b e g i n n i n g with the

which contained in close succession such

stories as the triumphal entry, the T e m p l e cleansing, the Last Supper, Gethsemane, arrestj'trial

before the Sanhedrin, denial by Peter, con­

demnation by Pilate,"crucifixion^and empty grave; ( 4 ) an expansion o f the then existant narrative into the form as we now have it in our Gospels.

34

However persuasive the agreements between J n and M k are for postu­ lating a pre-Mkan Passion Narrative, certain issues must be considered which raise the question as to whether J n : may not have lenown M k a n account.

are in verbal agreement: the ointment of pure nard 12:3);

the 3 0 0 denarii M k

mainomenos)

the

T h e r e are a number of places where only M k and J n

himself

14:5; Jn

12:5);

(Mk 14:3; Jn

Peter warming

(tber-

( M k 1 4 : 5 4 , 6 7 ; J n 1 8 : 1 8 , 2 5 ) ; Peter's going

"into" the courtyard ( M k 1 4 : 5 4 ; J n 1 8 : 1 5 ) ; the cry "crucify h i m " . I n the imperative ( M k

15:14;

J n 1 9 : 1 5 ) ; the purple robe ( M k 1 5 : 1 7 ; J n

1 9 ! 2 , 5 ) ; the mention o f the preparation day ( M k 1 5 : 4 2 ; J n 1 9 : 3 1 ) .

8 5

Secondly,;, it is significant that when J n diverges from the M k a n order and presentation of material, he does so in function o f his own theol­ ogy.

F o r example, J n pictures Jesus during the arrest as possessing

foreknowledge and in control o f the situation ( J n 1 8 : 4 - 9 ) . -

Further­

more, the Fourth Evangelist heightens the guilt o f the J e w i s h officials (Jn 18:14)

and dramatizes the Pilate trial ( J n 1 8 : 2 8 — 1 9 : 1 6 ) ' into an

elaborate scenario illustrating the krisis to pronounce on the world,

30

or judgment which Jesus came

Finally it is significant that like M k J n

intercalates the Jewish trial ( J n ' 1 8 : 1 9 ^ - 2 4 )

within the s t o r y ' o f Peter's

33. J . Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, trans. N. Perrin, 3d ed. rev. (New York: Scribner's, 1 9 6 6 ) , 8 9 - 9 6 . 34. Ibid., 9 6 . Jeremias concludes, "It goes without .saying that these four stages are only milestones in a much more colourful and complicated development." 35. Leon-Dufour, "Passion," 1441—1442. 36. Concerning the theology of these Johannine scenes, see Brown, John, 8 1 7 - 1 8 , 835— 36, 8 6 2 - 6 5 .

Introduction:

10

From Passion Traditions

denial ( J n 1 8 : 1 5 - 1 8 , 2 5 - 2 7 ) — a M k a n composition.

to Passion

Narrative

technique which is characteristic of

37

W i t h the publication in 1 9 7 0 of E. Linnemann's Studien

zur

Pas­

sionsgeschichte

a new stage in the study of the M k a n Passion Narrative

was reached.

She is the first scholar who rejects the thesis of a pre-

M k a n Passion Narrative on the basis of a detailed form critical analysis of the M k a n composition.

She draws a distinction between a report 38

(Bericht)

and an account (Erzablung).

A report consists of discon­

nected items, while an internal and smooth connection is essential to an account.

Linnemann examines each pericope carefully for logical ten­

sions and thematic incongruities.

T h e arrest of Jesus ( 1 4 : 4 3 - 5 2 ) , an

exegetical bulwark for those who hold a pre-Mkan connected Passion Narrative, is selected as a test c a s e .

39

T h e tension between the by­

standers ( 1 4 : 4 7 ) and Jesus' followers described as the twelve

(14:43)

or the disciples ( 1 4 : 3 2 ) seems to presuppose differing traditions of who accompanied Jesus.

T h e armed crowd in 1 4 : 4 3 does not react to the

attack reported in 1 4 : 4 7 .

Jesus' saying that the crowd came to arrest

him as a robber ( 1 4 : 4 8 ) should logically follow 1 4 : 4 3 .

Jesus is seized

in 1 4 : 4 6 , yet allowed to speak freely according to 1 4 : 4 8 - 4 9 .

In ad­

dressing these problems Linnemann suggests three distinct strata which underlie the arrest pericope: ( 1 ) a biographical apophthegm

(14:43,

4 8 , 4 9 b ) , ( 2 ) a report about Judas the betrayer ( 1 4 : 4 4 - 4 6 ) , and ( 3 ) a fragmentary note concerning the role of the disciples during passion (14:47,

50-52).

4 0

Since, according

to

Linnemann,

each

pericope

reveals similar difficulties she concludes that the so-called Passion Nar­ rative is a collection of independent reports (Berichte) rewording of a connected account (Erzablung).

rather than the

M k , in effect, is a

collector and not an author. W h i l e Linnemann's study of the M k a n Passion Narrative began with the Gethsemane story, the massive work of L. Schenke covers 1 4 : 1 42.

4 1

T h e work represents an advance vis-a-vis Linnemann

3 7 . E. von Dobschiitz, "Zur Erzahlerkunst des Markus," ZNW DONAHUE, 38.

27 (1928),

because 193-98;

58-63.

LINNEMANN, 4 5 .

3 9 . Ibid., 4 1 - 4 2 . 4 0 . Ibid., 6 8 - 6 9 .

4 1 . See S C H E N K E . The author has also published a smaller work which covers 1 4 : 5 3 1 5 : 4 7 : Der gekreuzigte Christus, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 6 9 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,

1974).

A Pre-Markan

Passion

11

Narrative?

Schenke distinguishes tradition from redaction on the basis o f a careful analysis o f M k a n language.

H e also suggests a definite setting in life for

the pre-Mkan traditions and relates the Passion Narrative to theological themes found throughout the Gospel.

T h e pre-Mkan tradition consists

of l 4 : 3 b - 8 , 1 2 a , 1 3 - 1 6 , 2 1 b , 2 2 b - 2 4 , 3 2 , 3 3 b , 3 4 , 3 5 a , 3 6 - 3 7 , 3 8 b , 40b,

42.

M k a n redaction

explains the

remaining verses,

although

Schenke does not equate redaction with composition since in redactional sections M k often brings in older material (e.g. 1 4 : 2 5 ) .

4 2

Like Ruppert, Schenke suggests that the suffering J u s t One provided the model for the oldest passion traditions.

43

T h e second level o f

tradition reflects the theology o f a Hellenistic community which con­ ceived o f Jesus as a divine m a n and which M k counters in his redaction. Mk

1 4 : 3 - 9 , for example, stresses the miraculous

foreknowledge o f

Jesus; M k ' s redaction plays down this aspect o f Jesus by

attributing

equal foreknowledge to the woman and making her association with Jesus in suffering a model o f how the Gospel is to be proclaimed. The

addition of 1 4 : 1 7 - 2 1

( t h e prediction o f betrayal)

44

to the fore­

knowledge o f Jesus in 1 4 : 1 3 - 1 6 shows that mere association with Jesus is insufficient for discipleship.

I f the disciple is to avoid condemnation

( 1 4 : 2 1 ) , he must follow the way o f the cross. tion

(l4:22b—24)

originated

in a

45

T h e eucharistic tradi­

Palestinian community

but

was

quickly taken up by Hellenistic enthusiasm in which communion with the divinity was achieved through a ritual meal.

M k adds 1 4 : 2 2 a and

1 4 : 2 5 to m a k e the m e a l into a paschal m e a l which points to the future K i n g d o m and thereby counters the realized eschatology o f the enthusi­ asts.

46

T h e prediction o f Peter's fall ( 1 4 : 2 7 , 2 9 - 3 1 ) is mostly M k a n

redaction and represents simultaneously the high point o f the disciples' misunderstanding and a promise o f a new mode o f discipleship after the 4 7

resurrection

(14:28).

stresses

continued

the

M k ' s redaction o f the Gethsemane pericope "coming" o f

Jesus to

his sleeping

disciples

( 1 4 : 3 9 , 4 1 ) who are meant to symbolize the Christian community to

42.

SCHENKE,

302-306.

4 3 . Ibid., 5 5 0 . 4 4 . Ibid., 1 1 0 - 1 8 . 4 5 . Ibid., 2 7 5 - 8 4 . 4 6 . Ibid., 3 3 2 - 4 7 . 4 7 . Ibid., 3 8 8 - 4 2 3 .

Introduction:

12 whom

From Passion Traditions

Jesus comes as suffering

Lord.

48

to Passion

Narrative

Schenke thus sees extensive

M k a n redaction o f previous passion traditions.

H e further

recognizes

that the M k a n redaction is designed to correct a false Christology and to encourage a particular view o f true discipleship.

49

T h e opinion that M k ' s redaction takes place in dialogue with theolo­ gies o f Hellenistic communities characterizes the work o f J . Schreiber and W . S c h e n k .

50

In his study o f the crucifixion account ( 1 5 : 2 0 b — 4 l )

Schreiber distinguishes

two pre-Mkan

traditions.

T h e first ( 1 5 : 2 0 b -

2 2 a , 2 4 , 2 7 ) characterized by the use o f the historical present is closest to a historical report. 37-38)

51

T h e second ( 1 5 : 2 5 , 2 6 , 2 9 a , 3 2 c , 3 3 , 3 4 a ,

is influenced by Jewish apocalyptic.

T h e darkness which cov­

ers the earth ( 1 5 : 3 3 ) is the pre-creational darkness ( G e n 1 : 2 ) .

Jesus'

cry from the cross ( 1 5 : 3 7 ) , like the voice o f G o d in G e n 1 : 3 , ends the rule o f darkness and inaugurates

the new age.

T h o u g h using motifs

from Jewish apocalyptic, this tradition is anti-Jewish ( t h e implied de­ struction of the T e m p l e in 1 5 : 3 8 ) hidden and revealed redeemer.

and mirrors a Christology o f the

Schreiber locates this second

tradition

in a Hellenistic-Jewish community which has been influenced by Gnosti­ cism/'

2

M k builds on the second tradition and, by his additions (esp.

1 5 : 3 9 - 4 1 ) , portrays the crucifixion o f Jesus as an e n t h r o n e m e n t . Like Schreiber, W . Schenk devotes much narrative.

53

space to the crucifixion

Behind it he finds a "Simon tradition"

( 1 5 : 2 0 b - 2 2 a , 23a,

2 4 , 2 7 , 2 9 b ) and a "seven hour" apocalypse ( 1 5 : 2 5 , 2 6 , 2 9 a c , 3 0 , 3 3 , 34a, 37, 3 8 , 3 9 ) .

5 4

O n the basis o f these two strata Schenk then

divides the whole Passion Narrative and postulates two traditions prior to M k : ( 1 ) a simple narrative which has an apologetic purpose o f proving the innocence of Jesus and which uses frequent O l d Testament allusions, and ( 2 ) an apocalyptic tradition which represents the theol­ ogy o f M k ' s opponents.

55

T h e adherents o f the apocalyptic

48.

Ibid., 5 2 5 - 4 0 .

49.

SCHENKE, 5 6 4 , calls Mk a Seelsorger,

5 0 . See SCHENK; J . Schreiber, Theologie 1967). 51.

S c h r e i b e r , Theologie,

52.

Ibid., 3 4 - 4 1 ,

66-82.

53.

Ibid., 4 1 - 4 9 ,

218-43.

54.

SCHENK, 2 4 .

55.

Ibid,

272-74.

32-33,

62-66.

tradition

i.e., a p a s t o r a l c o u n s e l o r .

des Vertrauens

(Hamburg: Furche-Verlag,

A Pre-Markan

Passion

Narrative?

13

held that the end time had come with the destruction of the T e m p l e and they were living in the fullness of the new age.

M k responds to them by

making 1 0 : 4 5 the leitmotif of his whole Gospel, by spacing portions o f the apologetic tradition in such a way that it counters the apocalyptic tradition, and by adding 1 4 : 2 4 , "my b l o o d . . . poured out for many," as a hermeneutical key to the passion account.

56

T h u s the Passion Narra­

tive composed by M k constitutes a call to belief in a suffering Jesus, and the centurion and the women ( 1 5 : 3 9 — 4 1 ) are symbols o f proper disci­ pleship and confession. T h e most recent and most massive study o f the Passion Narrative has been undertaken by D . Dormeyer.

D u e to the care with which the

analysis is done and the impressive control of secondary literature, his book will become a standard reference tool for work on the Passion Narrative.

Building on the work o f previous authors who attempted to

separate tradition and redaction in the first thirteen chapters, Dormeyer tries to construct a "redactional vocabulary" of the Passion Narrative on the basis of a statistical relationship between terms in the Passion Narra­ tive and their frequency in tradition or redaction.

57

H e then correlates

word studies with analysis o f style (e.g., Semitizing versus more literary G r e e k ) , and genres.

insights

from

form

criticism and

a study o f

different

58

After an investigation of each pericope Dormeyer concludes that the Passion Narrative is made up of three levels: T , a primitive Christian Acts o f a Martyr; R s , a secondary redaction of T , characterized by the addition of dialogue and sayings of Jesus (paschal meal, prophecy of Peter's d e n i a l ) ; and R m k , the final redaction by M k .

5 0

combination of influences from Jewish stories o f martyrdom 6 : 1 8 - 3 1 ; 2 M a c 7 ) which emphasize the death

T is itself a (e.g. 2 M a c

o f the martyr and from

Hellenistic Acts o f martyrs which stress the conduct o f the martyr be­ fore his accusers. O n e motif.

60

T also shows the influence of the suffering J u s t

T h e redaction of T by R s is mainly in the direction o f

Christology which identifies Jesus of Nazareth as the crucified and risen

5 6 . Ibid., 2 7 5 . 57.

DORMEYER,

26-30.

5 8 . Ibid., 3 0 - 5 6 .

5 9 . Ibid., 2 3 8 - 8 7 ; 2 8 8 - 9 0 present a summary of the work. 6 0 . Ibid., 2 4 3 - 4 4 .

Introduction:

14

From Passion

Traditions

to Passion

Narrative

O n e and states that it is in this sense that Jesus is "Messiah," the proclaimer of the coming K i n g d o m .

61

I n the final redaction, R m k uses the

Son o f M a n title to reinterpret the Christology of R s and to portray Jesus as judge of the end time and a model to be imitated in the interim. R m k also introduces the anti-Temple saying o f 1 4 : 5 8 and the splitting of the veil in 1 5 : 3 8 .

I t therefore represents a community which has

separated from J u d a i s m .

62

Summary: T h e survey o f different settings and traditions

underlying

the M k a n Passion Narrative yields a number o f crucial results.

The

very discovery o f a complex tradition history behind the M k a n Passion Narrative casts some doubt on the validity o f postulating an independent and coherent Passion Narrative prior to M k .

T h e hypothesis o f a pre-

M k a n connected narrative, if not completely abandoned, is somewhat shaken.

There

(14:3-9),

is almost

substantial

universal

elements

agreement

of

the

that

passover

the

Anointing

meal

tradition

( 1 4 : 1 2 - 2 5 ) , the prediction of denial ( 1 4 : 2 6 - 3 1 ) , the Sanhedrin trial ( 1 4 : 5 3 - 6 5 ) , and major elements of the crucifixion tradition 41)

have been brought to the narrative by M k .

pericope—whatever

its

original

status—shows

(15:20b-

I n addition, considerable

each Mkan

redaction, and M k is seen as responsible for the connection of pericopes, the very temporal and geographical references which transform isolated reports into a coherent narrative.

-32 and 1 5 : 3 4 - 3 6 , are noteworthy. First, as to 15:29b-32, it is now commonly recognized that the antagonists in this passage are challenging Jesus to demonstrate his Messiahship by an extraordinary miracle, descent from the cross. Christological belief for them is predicated on seeing an exhibition of miraculous power ( 1 5 : 3 2 ) . Another motif reinforcing the divine man christological imagery of our passage is the soteriological motif of saving one's self and saving others ( 1 5 : 3 0 - 3 1 ) . The most puzzling aspect of this motif is the taunt, "he saved others; he cannot save himself" ( 1 5 : 3 1 b ) . Where in the Gospel has Jesus saved others in the theological sense? The reference is likely a flashback to Jesus' ministry of. healing. The word sozein (save) is used by Mk not only in the technical soteriologi­ cal sense familiar to us ( 8 : 3 5 ; 10:26; 13:13, 2 0 ) . It is used also to describe the restoration of health which Jesus effects as a consequence of his healing ministry ( 3 : 4 ; 5:23, 28, 34; 6 : 5 6 ; 1 0 : 5 2 ) . When sozein, i.e., make well, is used in the context of Jesus' miracle working, there is good reason to believe that it denotes not only restoration to physical health but also an implicit soteriological aspect associated with the di­ vine man theological orientation. The fact that sozein on occasions is found in conjunction with cognates of the word pistis (faith or belief: 5:34, 36; 10:52; 1 5 : 3 2 ) and the fact that faith is often associated with efficacious miracle working ( 2 : 5 ; 4 : 4 0 ; 5:36; 9 : 2 3 - 2 4 ) strongly underscore this soteriological significance of the use of sozein in healing miracles:' Consequently, it is my opinion that sozein in 15:30, 31 bears intentionally a divine man soteriological orientation. Jesus is challenged to resort to divine man soteriology. Of course, for the 4

0

4. E.g., E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark, trans. D. H. Madvig (At­ lanta, Ga.: John Knox Press, 1970), 345; S C H E N K , 29. 5. S C M H N K , 52—53; K. Kertelge, Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium, StANT X X I I I (Munich: K6sel, 1970), 29, 39, U 5 , 124-25, 175-78, 197-99; H. J. Held, "Matthew as Interpreter of the Miracle Stories," Tradition and Interpretation in Mat­ thew, trans. P. Scott (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), 180, 189-90, 239, 275-84. 6. According to divine man piety, at least as depicted in the Mkan miracle tradition, belief in the divine man's soteriological power is normally the requisite for the effecting

The Christological

Motif

119

Mkan Jesus, salvation comes not by miraculously extricating oneself out of life-threatening situations ( 1 5 : 3 0 - 3 1 ) but by self-losing ( 8 : 3 4 35; 1 0 : 4 2 - 4 5 ) . One final comment on the divine man christological character of 15:29b—32: the challenge to Jesus to justify faith in him as "the Christ, the King of Israel" by miracle working proof suggests that the christo­ logical title "Christ" is to be understood in this context in terms of a divine man christological perspective. I have argued previously that the same divine man interpretation of the title "Christ" lies behind the Petrine confession (8:29). What both these passages indicate ( 8 : 2 9 ; 1 5 : 3 2 ) , is that in Mk's mind, and likely in the understanding of his community, the title "Christ" was associated with a divine man christo­ logical position in much the same way that the Son of God title was. The probability of this fact is strengthened by the conjunction of the two titles in 14:61, a key Mkan passage in which the divine man Christology is corrected by the Son of Man Christology." 7

The focus on miraculous deliverance encountered in 15:29b—32 is found also in 1 5 : 3 4 - 3 6 . In this case the bystanders are cast in the incredible posture of misunderstanding Jesus' voicing of the words from Ps 2 2 : 1 as a cry to Elijah for intervention (mistaking "Eloi" for "Eli­ jah") and miraculous rescue. In this incident we have one of the rare cases in the New Testament where Elijah functions as a divine man rather than in the more common role of eschatological prophet. That the divine man tonality of this passage is being emphasized is suggested by ( 1 ) the repeated note that Jesus is asking for Elijah's miraculous aid ( 1 5 : 3 5 , 3 6 ) , ( 2 ) the high relief given this divine man perspective in the

of that power (e.g., 2:5. 11-12; 5:25-34; 6:2-6; 9:20-27; 10:46-52; cf. Kertelge, Die Wunder Jesu, and Held, "Matthew as Interpreter"). The reversal of this divine man format in 15:32 (seeing then believing) serves as a caricature of divine man piety and soteriology. 7. W E E D E N , 52-69.

8. The two titles also occur conjointly in the conclusion of the divine man Signs Source (Jn 20:30-31). See R. Fortna, The Gospel of Signs (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer­ sity Press, 1970), 198, 223-34. On "Christ" as divine man title in the New Testa­ ment, see H. Koester, "One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels," Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 188. With regard to Mk, see N. Perrin, A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 108-21. D O N A H U E , 198-200, is convincing in interpreting the title "King of Israel" (15:32) eschatologically (King of an eschatological, true Israel) rather than politically.

The Cross as Power in

120

Weakness

mistaking of " E l o i " for ''Elijah," and ( 3 ) the stark contrast between the psalm-guided

meaning o f Jesus' evocation and the radically different,

divine man interpretation given to that evocation by the bystanders." N o t only arc the Son of M a n Christology and divine man Christology pitted against one another throughout the crucifixion story in a t h e m e / countertheme pattern, but the end result o f this

theme/countertheme

pattern is the discrediting o f divine man Christology and the vindication of Son o f M a n Christology.

T h e divine man Christology is discredited,

first o f all, because its only advocates in the drama are the enemies of Jesus. Even that advocacy is pressed sarcastically.

Second, the manner

in which the advocacy is pressed ironically heightens the image o f Jesus as the sufTcring Son o f M a n .

T h e Son o f M a n Christology is "vindicated

in the course of the narrative, first, by the fact that what happens

to

Jesus in his suffering and death transpires exactly as he predicted would take place.

Second, the Son o f M a n Christology is vindicated because it

alone in the drama conforms to the rubrics o f Old T e s t a m e n t prophecy. T h e final and complete repudiation o f the divine man Christology and the vindication o f the Son o f M a n Christology occurs in the c l i m a x of the crucifixion story, in the confession o f the centurion ( 1 5 : 3 9 ) .

The

centurion in contrast to others in the drama proclaims Jesus to be the Son o f G o d — n o t because Jesus produced a miraculous feat, as Jesus' adversaries require for belief, but because he saw The

only person with

how

Jesus died.'

0

real power at the cross paradoxically verifies

Jesus' christological status not because Jesus awed him with his power but because Jesus died a suffering, "powerless" death.

B y his confes­

sion, particularly via the divine man title "Son o f G o d , " the centurion eviscerates by conceptual reversal divine man Christology.

A s a closing

touch to the whole servanthood theme in the Passion Narrative, M k notes the servant-follower profile o f the women watching "from

the

wings" ( 1 5 : 4 0 - 4 1 ) . U p to this point our discussion has focused on the thematic point and counterpoint in the crucifixion story.

9.

See W E E D E N , 5 8 , 1 6 6 ; L I N N E M A N N ,

I shall next deal with three motifs

148-51.

1 0 . "Seeing" in 1 5 : 3 9 echoes with intended irony the divine man association of "seeing" with miracle working (thus also S c i l E N K , 5 7 - 5 8 ) . Cf. 2 : 5 , 1 2 ; 5 : 1 4 , 1 6 ; 6 : 4 8 - 5 0 ; 9 : 2 0 , 2 5 , 3 8 ; 1 5 : 3 2 , 3 6 . D O N A H U E ' S claim, 2 0 4 , that the centurion's "seeing" sym­ bolically points to the parousia is untenable.

The Temple

Motif

121

which are seemingly unrelated to the two christological viewpoints. These motifs are first and foremost the Temple motif, and furthermore the themes of the three-hour intervals and darkness. I shall establish their connection with the christological point and counterpoint, and in the process inquire into the possible pre-Mkan setting of these Christologies.

3. THE TEMPLE M O T I F

There are a number of mystifying features about the Temple motif that make it difficult to fathom Mk's interest in it. The first problem is the ambiguity 1 4 : 5 7 - 5 9 causes with respect to the proper interpreta­ tion of 15:29, 38 and also with regard to the proper interpretation of Jesus' specific posture toward the Temple in the Gospel. One might argue that the rending of the Temple veil in 15:38 is Jesus' "delivering" on the sarcastic challenge hurled at him in 15:29- The splitting of the veil might suggest that at least part of the boast was "made good." But this hypothesis fails because the Evangelist has made it indisputably clear in 1 4 : 5 7 - 5 9 that the boast of 15:29 was falsely ascribed to Jesus. Did Jesus boast he could destroy the Temple and build it in three days or not? If he did not, what is the import of 1 5 : 3 8 ? 11

12

Similarly, in Mk 1 1 - 1 3 Jesus' attitude toward the Temple and Tem­ ple cult is clearly negative. He opposes the cult and predicts the de­ struction of the Temple. Yet, when one compares this well-attested attitude with the force of 14:56, 5 7 - 5 9 , one is confused. The repeated emphasis on the falseness of the anti-Temple charge leads one to wonder whether the Evangelist is trying to disassociate Jesus from an antiTemple position. Was Jesus opposed to the Temple or not? Did he intend to build a new one himself in three days or not? Moreover, why does 1 4 : 5 8 designate Jesus as the destroyer of the old and builder of the new Temple, whereas 13:2, 14 and 15:38 make no reference to Jesus as 13

11. The rending of the veil is a symbolic reference to the destruction of the whole Temple (see D O N A H U E , 201-203). 12. The focus of these questions is not on the historical Jesus but on the Jesus of the Mkan narrative. The question of historical authenticity (sec LlNNEMANN, 116-19) is quite a different matter. 13. See D O N A H U E , 113-38; K E L B E R , 97-128; cf. L. Gaston, No Stone on Another, NTSup 23 (Leiden: E. J. Drill, 1970), 472-81.

The Cross as Power in

122

Weakness

14

the agent of destruction? Why are there no explicit references to the building of a new Temple aside from 14:58 and I 5:29? The second curious feature of the Temple motif, both in the cruci­ fixion story and the rest of the Gospel, is the close contextual associa­ tion it has with the christological motif. In 1 5 : 2 9 - 3 2 the taunt about destroying the Temple is followed by christological mocking. In 1 5 : 3 8 - 3 9 the splitting of the Temple veil is followed by a christological confession. In the trial narrative the false accusation against Jesus as destroyer of the Temple is followed by an inquiry about his christologi­ cal identity ( 1 4 : 6 1 - 6 2 ) . In Mk 13 the disciples' question about the destruction of the Temple is followed immediately by Jesus' warning about Messianic impostors ( 1 3 : 1 - 6 ) . W e should also note that the christological adoration of the crowd upon Jesus' entry into Jerusalem is followed by Jesus' entrance into the Temple ( 1 1 : 9 - 1 1 ) . Noteworthy, too, is that the christological discussion in 1 2 : 3 5 - 3 7 is explicitly set in the Temple. " 1r>

1

The third striking characteristic of the Temple motif is related to the second. At practically every point at which the motif of the destruction of the Temple is introduced it is eclipsed by the christological motif. In 15:29-32, although Jesus is taunted about a boast to destroy the Tem­ ple and rebuild it, the challenge hurled at Jesus is not to demonstrate his ability to destroy and rebuild the Temple, but to verify his Messiahship by extricating himself from his plight. In 1 5 : 3 7 - 3 9 , if the rending of the veil is meant to have any significance with respect to Jesus' death, it is almost completely overshadowed by the centurion's christological re­ sponse to the death. Similarly, in the trial narrative the Temple motif is dismissed quickly as the narrative moves to the christological question which is the issue the High Priest is primarily concerned about, the only issue to which Jesus responds, and the issue which finally brings about Jesus' condemnation. Likewise, in Mk 13 the christological motif eclipses the Temple motif. The chapter begins with Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the 14. There is a key difference between Jesus proclaiming the end of the Temple and claiming that he is the agent of destruction. 15. Against D O N A H U E , 122-27, and with Gaston (Stone, 213-17, 476) and L I N N E ­ M A N N , 123-24, Mk 12:1-12 does not present Jesus as the creator of a new community (Temple)—unless one reads 14:58 back into the parable. The point of the parable is christological not ecclcsiological. 16. Sec K E L n E R , 93-97, on 11:9-11 and 12:35-37.

The Temple

123

Motif

Temple ( 1 3 : 1 - 2 ) . Yet when the disciples ask Jesus for the clue to that event, Jesus responds not with information about the Temple but with information about Christology ( 1 3 : 3 - 6 ) . From that point on, the Temple is referred to only once and then only obliquely ( 1 3 : 1 4 ) . The dominant theme throughout the chapter is Christology ( 1 3 : 6 , 9, 13, 2 1 - 2 7 ) . If it were not for the initial statement about the de­ struction of the Temple in 1 3 : 1 - 2 , and the oblique reference in 13:14, the Temple would play no part at all in the discussion of Mk 13. 1 7

W e need to make one further observation on the relationship between Christology and Temple motifs in Mk. Isolated from their context, the Temple sayings in 14:58 and 1 5 : 2 9 are the only instances in the Gospel in which the Temple motif is not suppressed by the christological motif. Only in these verses do the two motifs stand in an almost mutually supportive interrelationship. In each case the Temple image has been preserved in terms of the "new Temple" so as to communicate the christological (and ecclesiological) message. This same equivalence of Temple theme and Christology occurs in Jn 2 : 1 9 - 2 1 . 18

The fourth curious feature about the Temple motif is that in all cases but three in Mk the word used to refer to the Temple is either hieron or oikos. In the three cases, namely, 14:58, 15:29, and 15:38, the word for Temple is tiaos. What sense can be made out of these mystifying, sometimes contra­ dictory, features of the Temple motif? One thing is clear. If we de­ leted 1 4 : 5 7 - 5 9 and 15:29, 38, the problematic features we have noted would no longer exist. Without these passages the Mkan presentation of Jesus' stance toward the Temple would be free of ambiguity. In the excised version Jesus would emerge as one who opposed the Temple cult and its leaders, anticipated and predicted the destruction of the Temple (along with the city). Yet Jesus would not be linked directly with the Temple destruction per se, nor would he be cast as the builder of a new Temple in either a christological or ecclesiological sense. Such an ex­ cised version would exhibit no positive or mutually supportive correla­ tion between the Temple motif and Christology. Deletion of 1 4 : 5 7 - 5 9 would remove the Evangelist's strange re-

17.

WREDEN,

70-100.

18. See B. Lindars (New Testament Apologetic [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1 9 6 1 ] , 1 0 5 - 1 0 6 ) who discusses the body-Temple equivalence in Jn 2 : 1 9 - 2 2 and the process leading up to the formation of Jn 2 : 1 9 .

The Cross as Power in

124

Weakness

course to redundancy to prove to the reader that the old/new Temple charge against Jesus was contrived, ungrounded in fact. The deletion of 1 4 : 5 7 - 5 9 and 15:29, 38 would remove in the process the uncharac­ teristically Mkan use of the word naos to designate the Temple. Recently J . Donahue has renewed the argument that Mk is respon­ sible for the insertion of 1 4 : 5 7 - 5 9 and 15:29 into the Mkan drama. Donahue contends that Mk affirms the position ascribed "falsely" to Jesus in both passages. Jesus will bring an end to the old Temple and will establish a new Temple, the eschatological Christian community. " Donahue makes this claim on the basis of his understanding of the function of the sayings and the entire Mkan anti-Temple theology in the Mkan Sitz im Leben. According to Donahue, the Mkan community finds itself in the immediate aftermath of the destruction of the Temple and the related events of the Roman-Jewish War (A.D. 6 6 - 7 0 ) . Es­ tranged from Judaism and suffering persecution from Jews, the com­ munity needed a theological rationale for its plight and for the relationship of the Temple destruction to that plight. Some Christians ( 1 3 : 6 , 2 1 - 2 2 ) , drawing upon an anti-Temple tradition attributed to Jesus, have falsely identified the end of the Temple as the eschatological signal for the imminent dawning of the parousia. For Mk this eschato­ logical position is in error. Mk, according to Donahue, does subscribe to Jesus' opposition to the Temple and the prediction of its destruction. But the eschatological value of the Temple destruction for the Mkan community, so the Evangelist tells us, must be delimited to an attestation of God's judg­ ment on Judaism. There is no intrinsic relationship between the de­ struction of the Temple and the return of Jesus ( 1 3 : 1 - 2 7 ) . The reader must forget the Temple and focus attention upon patient waiting for the irruption of the parousia event ( 1 3 : 2 8 - 3 7 ) . Then Jesus will create a new Temple, an eschatological community whose cornerstone is Jesus ( 1 2 : 1 . 0 ) , a community promised by Jesus ( 1 4 : 5 8 b ) and fully manifested at the parousia. Donahue argues that Mk, in opposition to the false eschatology which 1

20

19. D O N A H U E , 77, 134-36, 175-77. See also J . Donahue's essay in the present vol­ ume, "Temple, Trial, and Royal Christology." 20. D O N A H U E , 114, 131, is dependent on Kr.Lni-R, 87-137, in his reconstruction of the Mkan Sitz im Leben with respect to a false eschatology associated with the Temple.

The Temple

125

Motif

Jinks Temple destruction with parousia, takes a traditional saying of Jesus about the destruction of the Temple (see 1 3 : 2 ) and adds a second saying to the first to establish the validity of his own eschatological interpretation. Thus: Mk takes the Temple motif of the original Temple-destruction logion ( 1 4 : 5 8 a ) and turns it into a positive eschatological metaphor for the new community ( 1 4 : 5 8 b ) . Mk then puts this expanded saying into the trial account to remind and assure the reader of Jesus' promise of a new community. He introduces the saying again in 15:29 to play a double function: ( 1 ) to relate "the final deci­ sion to execute Jesus for his opposition to the temple to its carrying out in the crucifixion," and ( 2 ) to put "an incorrect eschatology [linking Temple destruction with the parousia] on the lips of the mockers and an incorrect understanding of Jesus' Passion[circumvention of the cross] . . . as a foil for an eschatology and Christology which he rejects through­ out his Gospel." I support Donahue in his basic thesis that behind the Mkan use of the anti-Temple motif lies an attempt by the Evangelist to discredit an eschatological position which associated the destruction of the Temple with the imminence of the parousia. As should now be obvious, I also concur that Mk is unmasking and attacking a false Christology in his Gospel and that that Christology is being discredited through its sarcas­ tic advocacy in 1 5 : 2 9 - 3 2 . I furthermore agree with Donahue that the use of the Temple saying in 1 5 : 2 9 is, in its placement on the lips of the revilers of Jesus, an attempt to expose the "heresy" of an eschatology linking the destruction of the Temple with the parousia. I dissent from Donahue, however, when he argues that the Temple saying is introduced in 1 5 : 2 9 to relate the issue upon which Jesus was condemned to crucifixion. I find no evidence in the Mkan trial account to argue that the Sanhedrin judgment against Jesus was provoked by his opposition to the Temple. Nor is Jesus' opposition to the Temple identified as a charge in the hearing before Pilate ( 1 5 : 1 - 5 ) . I cannot share the view that the reader, on the one hand, should recognize that the Temple saying as it occurs in 15:29 functions as a foil for a false eschatology yet, on the other hand, should also know that the saying as it appears in 14:58 represents authentic eschatology. Contextual and 21

21.

D O N A H U E , 1 9 7 - 9 8 ; see

also 1 0 3 - 3 7 ,

205-24.

126

The Cross as Power in

Weakness

intrinsic factors related to the Temple boast of 14:58 persuade me that it is being discredited as false eschatology for the benefit of the reader just as the same boast is discredited as false eschatology in 15:29Contcxtually, 1 find this to be so despite the common view that the Evangelist in 14:58 is asseverating that Jesus did claim he would de­ stroy the Temple and build, without hands, another one in three days. If this were in fact Mk's intent, then he has a strange way of proclaiming the truth by convincing the reader of its falseness ( 1 4 : 5 6 , 57, 5 9 ) . The narrative logic of 1 4 : 5 5 - 5 9 leaves the unmistakable impression that it is a malevolent misrepresentation of the Mkan Jesus to attribute to him the old/new Temple claim of 14:58. Furthermore, two distinctive and intrinsic facets of the Temple logion found in 14:58 (and also 15:29) cast Jesus in the role of Temple dcstroycr/rcbuildcr, a role glaringly incompatible with the Mkan Jesus' position elsewhere in the Gospel. The logion 14:58 evinces an inherent instrumental and eschatological continuity. The instrumental continu­ ity is manifest in the fact that Jesus himself is the agent of destruction and rebuilding. The eschatological continuity is evident in the fact that destruction of the old Temple and building of another are conceived as tandem acts accomplished within the imminent eschatological time­ frame of three days. Aside from 14:58 and 15:29, support for such an instrumental and eschatological continuity fails in Mk. As far as the instrumental con­ tinuity is concerned, there is no indication in the rest of the Gospel that Jesus is himself the destroyer of the old Temple, although he clearly predicts its end ( 1 3 : 2 ) . In fact Mk 13 informs us that, in the history between Easter and the parousia, the period in which the Temple is destroyed, Jesus is absent from the world and the Church. This particu­ lar epoch is a negative time, an era of "heresy," both christological and eschatological. It is a period when false claims are made for Jesus' presence ( 1 3 : 6 , 2 1 - 2 3 ) . Jesus, in this schema, only returns when the epoch comes to its destructive end ( 1 3 : 2 4 - 2 6 ) . If, then, he is absent in the epoch in which the Temple is destroyed, he cannot be its destroyer. 2 2

Nor does Mk 13 support the specific instrumental continuity of 14:58

22. WRHDHN, R 5 - 8 9 .

The Temple

Motif

127

and 15:29 by citing Jesus as the builder of another Temple. It is true that after the end of the old epoch Jesus, according to 13:27, 3 3 - 3 7 , will be reunited with his followers in a new community. Yet, if the instrumental imagery of 14:58b is intended here, it is surprising that the Temple motif does not explicitly evidence itself in the depiction of the founding of the community. With regard to eschatological continuity, Donahue and Kelber have persuasively argued that Mk opposes any direct eschatological link be­ tween the destruction of the Temple and the parousia. Mk 13 indis­ putably supports this position by locating the destruction of the Temple as one event, albeit important, among many events in the negative pe­ riod of world history, a period quite separate and distinct from the time of the parousia, a period in which false claims are made with regard to the eschatological import of the Temple destruction. 23

Expanding the discussion, I share, as noted above, Donahue's posi­ tion that both a false eschatology and a false Christology has been placed under attack in 1 5 : 2 9 - 3 2 . Against Donahue I am persuaded that the very same false eschatology and false Christology is being dis­ credited and/or corrected in the trial narrative. Earlier in this essay the argument was made that the christological polemic in the trial and crucifixion is against a divine man Christology. Now, on the basis of what we have seen to be Mk's consistent aversion to the old/new Temple logion, there is reason to conclude that what Mk attacks as eschatologically objectionable in 15:29 is also being attacked by Mk as eschatologically objectionable in 14:58. Thus, the contention that the Evangelist polemicizes against the same Christology and eschatology in the trial and crucifixion scenes is logically warranted. Moreover, the fact that these attacks on Christology and eschatology are contextually interrelated, particularly in the crucifixion, prompts a further deduction. In Mk's mind there is an integral link between the "heretical" advocacy of a divine man Christology and the advocacy of a false old/new Temple eschatology. Support for such a thesis is found when one compares the Mkan treatment of divine man Christology and Temple eschatology in Mk 13 with his treatment of both in the trial and crucifixion accounts. In all three of these key sections of the Gospel

2 3 . K E L B B R , 111—28.

The Cross as Power in

128

Weakness

there is a material link between the subjects of Temple and Christology. In each there is a uniform pattern of response to divine man Christol­ ogy and Temple eschatology. Divine man Christology is repudiated as false and replaced by a Son of Man Christology. In each case an eschatology which associates the destruction of the Temple as a penul­ timate act of Jesus, leading to his ultimate parousia act of full establish­ ment of a new community (Temple), is exposed as fraudulent. All of these factors bring me to this conclusion: Mk is combating a divine man 24

Christology the destroyer

conjoined

with a realized

of the old Temple

eschatology

and builder

of the

which

depicts

Jesus

as

new.

Using this conclusion as a working hypothesis, I think it can be argued ( I ) that Mk used a trial tradition which originally consisted of, among other elements, 14:58 (without reference to the falsity of the charge) and l 4 : 6 l - 6 2 a (without mention of Son of Man Christology); and ( 2 ) that this trial narrative belonged to a divine man tradition. Unfortunately, space limitations do not permit me to marshal a full defense for such an argument. W e can only touch on some reasons for assuming a divine man origin of the trial. As already noted, the christological interchange in the trial ( 1 4 : 6 l - 6 2 a ) before the affixing of the Son of Man Christology ( 1 4 : 6 2 b ) evinces a divine man orienta­ tion. With regard to the old/new Temple logion, it appears likewise at home in the divine man context. I shall elaborate. 25

First, aside from Mt's incorporation of Mk 14:58 and 15:29, the closest parallel to the old/new Temple saying is found in Jn 2 : 1 9 where it is affirmatively cited in the story of the cleansing of the Temple, a story the Fourth Evangelist borrowed from his divine man Signs Source. " Notable in the Signs Source cleansing story is the fact that Jesus' saying is provoked by a challenge to support his Temple-cleansing authority by a sign (miracle). Both the challenge and Jesus' 2

27

24. Sec our discussion above; W E E D E N , 70-100. 25. Narrative logic, theme, and character continuity support an argument for a preMkan trial containing ( I ) two principals, Jesus and the High Priest (14:53, 60, 6 1 , 63); (2) anti-Temple charge (14:58); (3) the High Priest's demand for response to the charge (14:60, now a logically motivated query); (4) the High Priest's christologi­ cal question (14:61b) provoked by an implicit christological claim in the charge; (5) Jesus' affirmative christological response (14:62a); (6) the High Priest's pronounce­ ment of judgment (14:63-4). 26. Fortna, Signs, 145-^17. 27. Thus R. Hultmann, The Gospel of John, trans. G. R. Deasley-Murray et al. (Phila­ delphia: Westminster Press, 1971), 124-25.

Markan

Setting

and Pre-Markan

Tradition

129

counterchallenge exemplify the type of divine man power confrontation which Mk disdains and which he discredits by his sarcastic use of the old/new Temple saying in 15:29Second, one of the closest parallels to the first half of our saying lies in the charge levied against Stephen at his trial (Acts 6 : 1 4 ) . Whether one argues that Lk derived the charge from the Mkan trial of Jesus or from a divine man Stephen tradition, it is clear that in the Acts context the view that Jesus is the Temple destroyer is linked to a divine man Christology. Third, the close conceptual and linguistic (katalyein, oikodome, acheiropoietos) correspondence between 2 Cor 5:1 and Mk 14:58 has been noted. " Is it mere coincidence that these terms and the particular conceptualization characteristic of 14:58 occur only here in Paul, in the context of a letter responding to a divine man challenge (so D. Georgi) in Corinth? It is my opinion that the pre-Mkan trial account belonged to Mk's divine man opponents. In his use of the trial, Mk edits it to convince the reader ( 1 ) that Temple eschatology is fraudulent, and ( 2 ) that Jesus acknowledges christological status only when it is interpreted by Son of Man Christology. 28

2

If this is Mk's way of dealing with the aberrant Temple eschatology of his opponents, why does he permit the reference to the rending of the Temple veil? Does not this notice tend to play into the hands of the opponents' position by its association with the death cry of Jesus, or at least introduce ambiguity into Mkan Temple theology which seems homogeneous up to this point? The answer to this question returns us to a consideration of two important motifs in the crucifixion we have until now delayed: the motifs of three-hour intervals and darkness.

4.

M A R K A N SETTING A N D

PRE-MARKAN TRADITION

There is a growing consensus that the hour and darkness motifs along with the motif of the veil rending and, perhaps, the loud cry motif convey a pronounced apocalyptic orientation. Recently J . Schreiber, E. Linnemann, and W . Schenk have formulated the position that Mk pos­ sessed a crucifixion tradition in which these particular motifs play 28. See J . Schreiber, Theologie des Vertrauent 82; Gaston, Stone, 1 5 4 - 6 1 . 29. See Gaston, Stone, 1 8 5 - 8 6 .

(Hamburg: Turche-Verlag, 1 9 6 7 ) , 66—

The Cross as Power in

130

Weakness

30

important parts. Schreiber and Schcnk have argued, Linnemann to the contrary, that this particular tradition was cast in the apocalyptic format. Schreiber and Schenk contend that in addition to this tradition Mk possessed another crucifixion account, an account shaped from both the "memory" of Simon of Cyrene and Old Testament allusions. This account belonged to a group tracing its origin to Stephen. Schreiber claims that the apocalyptic tradition also came from the Stephen group, a group with a decidedly divine man orientation. 31

I am not so confident as Schreiber, Schenk, and Linnemann are in the ability of redaction criticism to reconstruct the precise content and contex­ tual parameters of the pre-Mkan tradition or traditions. Although I do not believe it is possible to identify more than the general thematic contouts of this tradition, even identifying these contours significantly advan­ ces our understanding and interpretation of Mk's use of the tradition. It may be that Mk possessed a tradition in which Simon of Cyrene played a significant part in aiding God's innocent sufferer. If such a tradition did exist, Mk obviously aligned himself with the theological viewpoint of that tradition. The same cannot be said for an "apocalyptic" crucifixion tra­ dition which Mk likely did possess. The narrative logic of the "apocalyptic" tradition sketches, as Schenk and Schreiber helped me to see, a drama unfolding according to the predetermined plan of God (exact three-hour intervals; 15:25, 33, 34a) in which forces of chaos reassert themselves and sweep over good (de­ feat of God's anointed; 1 5 : 2 5 ) and capture and control God's creation (darkness; 1 5 : 3 3 ) - This conquest of evil is finally halted and abruptly brought to an end by a coup de main, a triumphant loud cry of Jesus (15:34a [ 3 7 ] ) . In the triumphant cry of Jesus, good, reversing its plunge toward apparent defeat, emerges victorious from the cosmic bat­ tle, and seals the final judgment and ultimate destruction of evil (rend­ ing of the Temple veil; 1 5 : 3 8 ) . Schenk hypothesizes that the 3 2

30. The tradition is variously assessed. See Schreiber (Tbeologie, 22-40, 66-82) : 15:25, 26, 29a, 32c, 33, 34a, 37, 38; L I N N E M A N N (137-70) : 15:22a, 24a, 25a, 33, 34a, 37, 38; Sc.m-NK ( 13-24, 37-52) : 15:25, 26, 29ac, 30, 33, 34a, 37, 38, 39 (in part). 31. On the Simon tradition: Schreiber (Tbeologie, 22-33, 6 2 - 6 6 ) : 15:20b-22a, 24, 27; S c i i r . N K (13-36) : I5:20b-22a, 23a?, 24, 27, 29b?; on Mlcan redaction: Schreiber (24-32, 4 1 - 4 9 ) : 15:22b, 23, 29b-32b, 34b-36, 39-41; S c u n N K ( 13-24, 52-64): 15:22b, 23b, 31, 32, 34K-36, 39 (in part), 40-41. 32. Cf. Schreiber, Tbeologie, 33-40, 66-69; SCHENK, 37-52. O. Betz ("phone;'

Markan

Setting

and Pre-Markan

Tradition

131

apocalyptic crucifixion tradition belonged to Christians who avouched a realized eschatology and who viewed Jesus' death as the final end time moment in which the old, evil age was destroyed and the new age of God irrupted in full realization. What I find most striking about Schenk's reconstruction of this tradi­ tion is the correspondence between some of its constitutive elements and key features of the theological posture of Mk's divine man opponents derived from the investigation of the Temple logion in 14:58 and 15:29- As in the case of the opponents' logion, the apocalyptic tradi­ tion avers a realized eschatology manifested by the destruction of the Temple. As in the christological imagery of the logion, the pre-Mkan crucifixion account casts Jesus as the agent of Temple destruction (rend­ ing of the veil by the c r y ) . Furthermore, the christological portrait of Jesus, as Schreiber has seen, comports well with the divine man pattern of martyrdom which in the Christian context culminates in the reversal of fate, with a triumphalist Chtist emerging victorious over his enemies. 33

The similarity between Mk's treatment of the apocalyptic crucifixion tradition, both with regard to its constitutive elements and theological gestalt, and his treatment of his opponents' traditions elsewhere, en­ hances the probability that the crucifixion tradition belonged to his opponents. First of all Mk completely eviscerates the theological thrust of the tradition by the way in which he interweaves it with other ma­ terial to create his crucifixion story. By historicizing the tradition, i.e., setting the death of Jesus in the context of world history ( 1 5 : 1 - 2 0 , 4 3 - 4 5 ) , and even viewing Jesus' death in historical retrospect ( 1 5 : 4 4 4 5 ) , Mk divests the elements in the tradition of their original apoca­ lyptic function. 34

The time notices no longer serve the reinforcement of apocalyptic determinism. They only mark the temporal span of the crucifixion

T D N T IX, 294) suggests that Joel 3:15 ( L X X ) , where Gods voice effects judgment and destruction of the earth, may lie behind Mk 15:37. Cf. Schreiber and Schenk for apocalyptic passages (e.g., in New Testament: 1 Thcss 4:16-17; Rev, passim) where a loud cry connotes triumphant power and judgment. 33. The image of Temple rebuilding does not surface in the Mkan text, although some have mistakenly read it in under the influence of 14:58 and 15:29 (cf. Schreiber, Theologie,

43, 242;

SCHF.NK,

34. Thus S C H E N K , 52-64.

62).

The Cross as Power in

132

Weakness

event. Historicizing the death into the past has deeschatologized the tradition's rcalized-eschatological character of both the death of Jesus and the "prolcptic" Temple destruction. By historicizing the tri­ umphant apocalyptic death cry and transforming it into the anguished prayer of a servant of God victimized by his enemies (Ps 2 2 : 1 ) , Mk has robbed the cry of its triumphalist character. He has turned what was once a climactic moment of apocalyptic reversal into an expiring cry of dereliction. By this same historicizing process, the central role the veil rending played as a symbol of the final apocalyptic vanquishing of the forces of evil has now been obscured by the transformed character of the cry, the "upstaging" of the centurion's confession and the attention given to the faithful followers watching from afar ( 1 5 : 4 0 ^ 4 1 ) . But it is not just in the eviscerating of the theological thrust of the tradition that Mk's treatment of the apocalyptic crucifixion story cor­ responds closely to the way in which he reacts to divine man traditions elsewhere. Mk has in this case, as elsewhere, taken his opponents' material and effectively turned tt into the service of his own suffering Son of Man apologetic. This is particularly evident in the way the cry of the apocalyptic tradition and the veil rending, in conjunction with the centurion's confession, the watching women, and other elements, have been fashioned into a new narrative imagery, an imagery in which the cry and the veil rending have undergone transvaluation. T o help under­ stand the consequence of this transvaluation of imagery we need to turn to some conceptual insights of the structuralist hermeneutic. From what structuralists would call the deep structure of the com­ position there pulsates through the Mkan narrative a dialectic char­ acterized by the clash of two opposing ways to attain and sustain personal well-being. One way seeks well-being by conquest, leading to dominance or destruction of others. Its instrument is coercive, brute power. The other way seeks personal well-being by self-effacement and self-giving love—suffering servanthood—which leads ultimately to selfrealization through self-actualization of others. Whereas authority of the former lies in coercive power, the authority of the latter lies in compassionate, persuasive love. The first way's weakness is in its power. The second way's power is in its weakness. One method by 35

35. Sec Via, Kerygma and Comedy,

1-33.

Markan Setting

and Pre-Markan

Tradition

133

coercive force transforms life into death. The other by the paradoxical mystery of self-giving love transforms death into life. These two contrasting forces clash with each other most prominently in the Gospel after 8:27. It is in the second half of Mk that one finds such diverse figures as the Jewish authorities, the disciples, Darabbas, and the Roman soldiers in pursuit of personal well-being by dominance or destruction of others ( 9 : 3 3 - 3 4 ; 12:12; 14:10; 15:7, 1 6 - 2 0 ) . They gain life by taking life. Set over against these are children, women, Simon of Cyrcne, and, of course, Jesus—those who gain life by life-giving ( 8 : 3 4 - 3 5 ; 9 : 3 5 - 3 7 ; 1 0 : 4 2 - 4 5 ; 1 4 : 3 - 9 ; 1 5 : 4 0 - 4 1 ) . This same dynamic dialectic permeates the Mkan crucifixion narra­ tive. Obviously in the crucifixion scene the champions of coercive power are the Jewish leaders, the soldiers, robbers, and the centurion. By contrast one finds persuasive, self-giving power represented by Simon of Cyrene, the watching women, and Jesus. The most profound mean­ ing of the clash between these two forces, however, lies at an even deeper dimension both in terms of the narrative as narrative and the probable historical/theological trajectory which the materials transversed prior to being woven into the present narrative mosaic. In terms of the historical/theological trajectory, it is apparent, as I reconstruct the Mkan Sitz> that Mk's opponents advocate in their the­ ology (Christology, eschatology) self-actualization through the de­ monstrative use of awesome power. Mk, by contrast, aligns himself with the persuasive love of suffering servanthood. An interesting result ensues when Mk brings these opposing theo­ logical traditions together. The coercive forces in the final compo­ sition ironically become instruments for dramatizing and actualizing the potential of the persuasive force of love. Thus by coercion Simon is com­ pelled to carry Jesus' cross, but in so doing he becomes a model of crossbearing and life-giving discipleship ( 8 : 3 4 - 3 5 ) . The coercive forces directed against Jesus (crucifixion, dividing his garments, derision, etc.) serve to actualize his suffering servanthood. But it is in the transvaluation of coercive images, some drawn from the tradition of Mk's opponents, that the crucifixion story finally on the narrative level discredits the argument for self-actualization via coercive power, and authenticates life actualized by self-giving. The cry of tri­ umph which originally effected the "proleptic" destruction of the Tern-

134

The Cross as Power in

Weakness

pie by divine force now has been transformed into a cry of dereliction. In its transformed state the cry ( 1 5 : 3 4 , 3 7 ) , as we have seen, plays a key role in the suffering-servant portrayal of Jesus' death. In that role the cry is instrumental in causing the surrogate of supreme coercive power (the Roman centurion) to avow paradoxically the power of suffering servanthood. Similarly, through an ironic twist the centurion makes his confession with a christological title, Son of God, which originally certified omnipotence but now through transvaluation attests to total weakness. Likewise, the Temple, symbol of dehumanizing power, caricatured as a den of thieves ( 1 1 : 1 7 ) , is ironically reduced to impotency not by the destructive force of the Roman army or even the mistakenly expected, militant agency of Jesus ( 1 4 : 5 8 ) , but by the powerlessness of his death. And thus it is that the crucifixion story, both on the level of narrative and in the history of the struggle of theological traditions in the Mkan community, dramatizes the mysterious paradox of authentic Christian existence: "Power [life] is made perfect in weakness" ( 2 Cor 1 2 : 9 ) .

VIII.

Empty Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16:1-8)

John D o m i n i c C r o s s a n

The thesis of this essay is that Mk created the tradition of the Empty Tomb ( E T ) as the precise and complete redactional conclu­ sion for his Gospel ( 1 6 : 1 - 8 ) . The argumentation for this must be tripodal so that the failure of any one section will destroy support for the whole. Three interlocked and mutually supportive arguments con­ firm this thesis. First, there are no versions of ET before Mk. Second, those after Mk all derive from him. Third, the E T in Mk is completely consistent with and required by Mkan redactional theology. There are three major presuppositions that need to be explained im­ mediately. First, the primary question addressed to Mk 1 6 : 1 - 8 should not be: what actually happened that morning insofar as this can now be 1

1. For a full discussion of the Easter traditions see: (1) bibliographies: (a) 1940-37. C. M. Martini, // Problema Storico delta Riturrezione negli Studi Recenti, AnGreg 104 (Gregorian University Press, 1959), 158-71; (b) 1957-68, G. Ghiberti, "Bibliografia sull' Escgcsi dei Raconti Pasquali e sul Problema della Risurrezione di Gesu," ScuolC 97 (1969), 68»-84V (2) surveys: F. H. Drinkwater, "Resurrection Chron­ icle," Clergy Review 52 (1967), 960-64; 53 (1968), 258-63; 54 (1969), 251-59, 332-36, 412-19, 621-27; J. J. Smith, "Resurrection Faith Today," TS 30 (1969), 393-419; G. Ghiberti, "Discussione sul sepulcro vuoto," RivB 17 (1969), 392-419. ( 3) recent books: L. Schenke, Auferstehungsverkiindigung und leeres Grab, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 33 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968); E. L. Bode, The First Easter Morning, AnBib 45 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970); C. F. Evans, Resurrection and the New Testament, SBT, 2d Ser. 12 (Naperville, III.: Allenson, 1970); R. H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan, 1971); R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973), 69-129. 135

Empty Tomb and Absent

136

Lord

historically reconstructed from the varying accounts? But rather: what type of language and what sort of story is being told to us in 16:1-8? Not, what is its historical core, but, what is its linguistic function? One has the clear impression that much recent work intends to find that historical core which is therefore presumed as an incontrovertible datum at the start. This article neither presumes nor denies such historicity but it relegates it to. a second stage of the investigation, after, and only after, the study of the linguistic intentionality of the text. The second presupposition applies Occam's razor to traditions: these should be multiplied only when necessary, not just possible. One should not postu­ late divergent and independent traditions as methodological discipline, if textual differences can be as easily explained by redactional creativity on one and the same tradition. A third presupposition is that a presump­ tion is not the same as a tradition. It is possible that those who be­ lieved Jesus was with God might have presumed there was, therefore and somewhere, an empty grave. But this is not yet a tradition of where it is, how it was found, when, by whom, etc. No doubt Mk presumed Jesus had an infancy but there is no tradition of an infancy in Mk as there is in Matthew and Luke. Presumption of fact is not tradition of event. 2

1. T H E T R A D I T I O N B E F O R E

MARK

Recent attempts to separate Mkan redaction from pre-Mkan tradition in 1 6 : 1 - 8 have been far from successful. The rather wan minimum of pre-Mkan tradition that five scholars agreed on was 16:2 and 8a. Such a wide disagreement makes one wonder if there was any such preMkan tradition at all. Is there any clear evidence of its presence before the writing of Mk himself? 1. The Burial. If Jesus was buried by his friends, someone would surely have visited the grave, for example, Joseph of Arimathea. Re3

2. On the basic historicity of the events in 16:1-8 there is a spectrum from totally unhistorical, in I. Broer, "Zur heutigen Diskussion der Grabesgeschichte," BiLe 10 (1969), 40-52; to totally historical (without angels), in W . Nauck, "Die Bedeutung des leeren Grabes fur den Glauben an den Auferstandcn," ZNW 47 (1956), 243-67; to historical (with angels), in P. Gaechter, "Die Engelerscheinungen in den Auferstchungsberichten," ZKT 89 (1967), 191-202. 3. Sec the analyses of L. Schenke, M. Goguel, W . Grundmann, E. Gutwenger, and E. Hirsch given in Bode, Easier Morning, 25, note 1.

The Tradition

before

Mark

137

cent study has shown, however, that the burial tradition bears strong evidence of apologetical change so that an incomplete burial by enemies is being gradually changed into a very complete entombment by friends. The earliest stage of the tradition may still be visible behind Jn 1 9 : 3 1 - 3 2 (burial by the Romans?) and the latest is underlined in Jn 1 9 : 3 8 - 4 1 (burial by disciples). Removal of the body ( J n 19:31, arthosin) may therefore be closer to what actually happened on Easter morning than any presupposed burial of Jesus by his friends and dis­ ciples. 4

2. The Lord's Day. Did the tomb's finding result in Sunday becom­ ing "the Lord's day"? It is just as likely that the phrase "on the third day," as in 1 Cor 15:4 for example, was historicized both prophetically on the lips of Jesus and posthumously as the day of resurrection, there­ fore Sunday as the Lord's day. And it was because of all this that Mk had to put E T "on the third day." 3. 1 Cor 15:4. It has often been argued that Paul's understanding of bodily resurrection demanded ET between the burial and resurrection in 15:4 and that his "on the third day" referred to its discovery. First, even if one concedes a presumption, there is no evidence he had any tradition concerning it. Second, "on the third day" was not intended as historical chronology but as prophetic and/or eschatological symbolism. 5

4. Lk 2 4 : 2 2 - 2 4 . Is this pre-Mkan tradition? It is much more likely to be Lkan redaction to smooth the Emmaus incident into the preceding 2 4 : 1 - 1 2 . First, the narrative moves easily from 24:21a into 24:25." Second, the women of 2 4 : 1 - 1 1 and Peter in 2 4 : 1 2 reappear 4. Fuller, Resurrection Narratives, 54-55. See also I. Broer, Die UrgemeinJe und das Grab Jesu, St A NT 31 (Munich: Kosel, 1972). 5. On the presumption, see E. Gutwenger, "Zur Geschichtlichkeit der Auferstehueng Jesu," ZKT 88 (1966), 257-82, and J. Manek, "The Apostle Paul and the Empty Tomb," NovTest 2 (1958), 276-80, but disputed by M. BrSndle, "Musste das Grab Jesu leer sein?" Orientierung 31 (1967), 108-12. On "the third day" (and Hos 6 : 2 ) , see J. Dupont, "Ressuscite Te Troisieme Jour,'" Bib 40 (1959), 742-61; B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), 59-72; J. Wijngaards, "Death and Resurrection in Covenantal Context (Hos. V I 2 ) , " VT 17 (1967), 226-39; H. K. McArthur, " O n the Third Day,'" NTS 18 (1972), 81-86. On the third day as "the day of divine salvation, deliverance and manifestation," see Bode, Easter Morning, 125. 6. So Fuller, Resurrection Narratives, 105. But P. Schubert ("The Structure and Significance of Luke 24," Neulestamentlicbe Studien fur Rudolf Bultmann, ed. W. Eltester [Berlin: A. Topelmann, 1954], 165-86) holds that all of 24:17-27 is Lkan re­ daction. See also F. Schneider and W. Stenger, "Beobachtungcn zur Struktur der Emmauspertkope (Lk 24, 13-35)," BZ 16 (1972), 94-114.

Empty Tomb and Absent

138

Lord

in 2 4 : 2 2 - 2 3 and 2 4 : 2 4 respectively. Third, four redactional phrases from 2 4 : 1 , 3, 5, 7 reappear in 2 4 : 2 l b - 2 3 (early, find the body, living, third day). Fourth, "a vision of angels" in 2 4 : 2 3 uses a word for vision found only in Lk 1:22, Acts 2 6 : 1 9 , and 2 Cor 1 2 : 1 . Most likely then 2 4 : 2 2 - 2 4 (and possibly all of 2 4 : 1 7 - 2 7 ) is Lkan redaction not pre-Mkan, independent tradition. The general conclusion is that there is no strong or even convincing evidence of pre-Mkan traditions concerning the tomb. Presumptions maybe, but such are not traditions. 2. THE TRADITION AFTER MARK The next question is whether E T in Mt 2 8 : 1 - 1 5 , Lk 2 4 : 1 - 1 2 , and Jn 2 0 : 1 - 1 8 indicate independent traditions or whether these are all redactional adaptations of one original creation. There are four major elements in ET and these can be quite easily separated from one another as already indicated by their presence and/or absence across the texts. In summary format: 7

AT T H E T O M B

Mark

Matthew

Guards ( G T )

28:4, 11-15

Women ( W T ) 1 6 : 1 - 8

28:1-3, 5-8

Apostles ( A T ) Jesus ( J T )

Luke

24:1-11 20:1, 11-13 24:12

28:9-10

John

20:2-10 20:14-18

The argument is that W T originated in Mk and went thence into all the other Gospels. These both adapted W T in their own versions and also added either G T in Mt, A T in Lk and Jn, or J T in Mt and Jn. One discerns in all this a steady desire to replace the Women of Mk with Apostles, and the Messenger of Mk with Jesus himself. A.

GUARDS AT T H E T O M B

(GT)

Mt 2 7 : 6 2 - 6 6 and 2 8 : 4 , 1 1 - 1 5 alone has G T . I accept Fuller's arguments and conclusion: "Bultmann has designated Matthew 2 7 : 6 2 7. It is not adequate to note the resemblances and argue from these to a common origin without also asking if one of the versions is that common origin. See A. Descamps, "La structure des rccits cvangeliques de la resurrection," Bib 40 (1959), 726-29.

The Tradition

after

Mark

139 8

6 6 an 'apologetic legend.' W e cannot but agree." The G T element indicates that there was already Jewish polemic against the Mkan story within the Matthean environment and that G T represents a triangular relationship among Mt, his Mkan source, and his Jewish surroundings. G T is neither prior to nor independent of Mk. 9

B . W O M E N AT T H E T O M B

(WT)

1. Matthew. W T in Mt 2 8 : 1 - 8 can be satisfactorily explained as his redactional handling of Mk 1 6 : 1 - 8 . I accept the argument and conclusion of F. Neirynck: "Matt, xxviii. 1-10 ne suppose aucune tradition evangeliqne autre que Marc xvi. 1-8." 2. The Gospel of Signs ( G S ) . Two important units of recent re­ search must now enter the discussion. First, R. T. Fortna has offered a reconstruction of the narrative source underlying the Fourth Gospel and has termed it the Gospel of Signs ( G S ) . Second, F. L. Cribbs has studied the textual contacts between Lk and J n and concluded: "Fortna's reconstruction of the supposed narrative source underlying the fourth gospel . . . is quite similar . . . to . . . our own delineation of those Johannine passages with which Luke is in agreement against both Mark and Matthew." In other words Lk knew "some early form of the developing Johannine tradition," and the best example of this early form presently available is the GS proposed by Fortna or some modifi­ cation thereof. 10

11

12

13

14

8. Fuller, Resurrection Narratives, 73. 9. See, however, B. A. Johnson, "Empty Tomb Tradition in the Gospel of Peter," HTR 59 (1966),447-48. 10. F. Neirynck, "Les Femmes au Tombeau: fetude de la Redaction Mattheenne (Matt. X X V I I I : l - 1 0 ) , " NTS 15 (1969), 168-90, especially directed against P. Benoit, "Marie-Madeleine et les Disciples au Tombeau selon John 20: 1-18," Judentum, Urcbristentum, Kirche. Festschrift fur Joachim Jeremias, ed. W. Eltester, BZAW 26 (Berlin: A. Topelmann, I960), 14-52. P. Benoit had argued for the originality of JT in Jn over Mt and of AT in Lk-Jn over Mk 16:1-8. 11. R. T. Fortna, The Gospel of Signs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970). See also B. Lindars, "The Composition of John X X , " NTS 7 (1961), 14247, as well as G. Hartmann, "Die Vorlage der Osterberichte in Joh 20," ZNW 55 (1964), 197-220. 12. F. L. Cribbs, "A Study of the Contacts That Exist Between St. Luke and St. John," 7973 Seminar Papers (Cambridge, Mass.: SBL, 1973), I I , 1-93. See also J. A. Bailey, The Traditions Common to the Gospels of Luke and John, NTSup 7 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963), and P. Parker, "Luke and the Fourth Evangelist," NTS 9 (1963), 317— 36. 13. Cribbs, "Contacts," 91 n. 12. 14. Ibid., 92.

Empty Tomb and Absent

140

Lord

The immediate problem, then, is whether W T (only Mary Magda­ lene?) as reconstructed by~Fortna and as hypothetical ly known to Lk is totally independent of Mk. Fortna's GS includes, basically, Jn 2 0 : 1 , 1 1 - 1 2 , but not 2 0 : 1 3 , that is, the dialogue between Mary and the angels. " He considers that 2 0 : 1 3 is a Johannine paraphrase of the source's 2 0 : 2 . The question is whether W T in this source could have come from Mk, however such derivation is to be explained, be it direct or indirect, be it oral or written. 1

Four arguments make an affirmative answer at least possible. Ob­ viously, a fuller understanding of the relationship between GS and Mk will support or destroy the hypothesis. First, another unit of recent research must be introduced. P. Achtemeier has written a very per­ suasive analysis of Mk 4 - 8 which included as a most important item the claim that it was Mk who first united the feeding miracle in 6 : 3 0 44 with the walking on the waters in 6 : 4 5 - 5 2 : "Such evidence renders it increasingly difficult to maintain that the connection of the story of the feeding of the 5,000 and the walking upon the sea antedates Mark, despite the evidence of their connection in John." Indeed, we have to go even further, for Fortna's GS had the feeding in J n 6 : 1 - 1 5 and the walking immediately following it in 6 : 1 6 - 2 1 . If both these schol­ ars are correct, then either G S / J n 6 : 1 - 2 1 is due to Mk 6 : 3 0 - 5 2 or we have a pure coincidental connection of these two incidents in both Gospels. In other words, the relationship of GS and Mk can no longer be presumed to be one of total and mutual independence: GS may have known Mk. 10

17

Secondly, it must be noted that W T in G S / J n is in a state of severe dismemberment. GS is not at all interested in W T but rather in A T and this new element destroys completely the internal coherence of W T . Mary is not even allowed to look into the tomb before she returns a report of its emptiness to the disciples, and it is difficult to imagine what sort of anticlimactic dialogue she might have had with the angels after Peter had visited the empty tomb and we had read G S / J n 2 0 : 9 . Even

15. Fortna, Signs, 139. 16. P. Achtemeier, "Toward the Isolation of Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae," JBL 89 (1970), 265-91, and "The Origin and Function of the Pre-Marcan Miracle Catenae," JBL 91 (1972),198-221. 17. Achtemeier, "Isolation," 282.

The Tradition

after

Mark

141

when Jn wished to replace this dialogue with his redactional 2 0 : 1 3 he could only create a banal and ungracious repetition of 20:2. Third, there is nothing positively present in G S / J n 2 0 : 1 , 1 1 - 1 2 which indicates an independent tradition. There are, of course, special features which derive from G S / J n 11, the raising of Lazarus, such as the weeping, the face-cloth, etc. " But an independent tradition for W T can be postulated only on the general preliminary hypothesis of total Johannine independence from the Synoptics and this is now severely in question once again. Fourth, there is one element in the GS version which makes very little sense there save as residual debris of a Mkan source where, as we shall see later, it makes eminent redactional sense. In G S / J n 2 0 : 1 2 there are "two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus hod lain, one at the head and one at the feet." This quite anomalous seated position derives from the "young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe" of Mk 16:5. He is not, of course, sitting where Jesus had been laid but instead he points out to the women, "See the place where they laid him" (16:6). 1

The conclusion, even allowing for the general uncertainty of GS and Mk relationships, is that the W T in Mk is most likely the source for the residual W T in GS. 3. Luke. There is no independent W T tradition in Lk 2 4 : 1 - 1 1 . This depends on his own redactional combination of Mk 1 6 : 1 - 8 and GS. 4. John. Again there is no independent tradition for W T but a very thorough redactional amplification of his GS source. 10

C. APOSTLES AT T H E T O M B

(AT)

This element appears only in Lk 24:12 and in Jn 2 0 : 2 - 1 0 . 1. The Gospel of Signs ( G S ) . Fortna has reconstructed GS as omitting any reference to the Other Disciple and as noting Peter's be­ wilderment (from Lk 2 4 : 1 2 ) rather than this Other's faith in 2 0 : 8 . As seen above, A T is clearly intended to bring Peter and not Mary to the forefront of the story even at the expense of narrative consistency. 20

18. See Fortna, Signs, 238-40. 19. See Cribbs, "Contacts," 82-85. 20. Fortna, Signs, 135-38, 245.

142

Empty Tomb and Absent

Lord

Mary is reduced to misunderstanding and the force of the original G S / J n 2 0 : 9 would have meant that Peter did not understand up until that point: "for as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead." It must be stressed that, for writer and reader alike, the message is given clearly and unambiguously by this sentence in 2 0 : 9 What counts for GS is that Peter, scripture, and resurrection are men­ tioned together when first they are mentioned at all. All of which destroys quite firmly the story in Mk 1 6 : 1 - 8 . 2. Luke. A T is present in Lk 2 4 : 1 2 and this verse is here taken as critically authentic as it will be in the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle/ Aland New Testament. Once again, Cribbs has explained this by Lk's knowledge of something like G S / J n 2 0 : 2 - 1 0 as reconstructed above: Lk 2 4 : 1 2 comes from GS. 3. John. A T in Jn 2 0 : 2 - 1 0 is a redactional exaltation of the Other Disciple over Peter. The former arrives first ( 2 0 : 4 ) , looks in and sees first ( 2 0 : 5 ) , and believes first, or only ( 2 0 : 8 ) , while poor Peter is left to enter first and no more ( 2 0 : 6 - 7 ) . All of which is Johannine redaction of his GS source. 21

22

2 3

D. J n s u s AT T H E T O M B

(JT)

This element is found in Mt 2 8 : 9 - 1 0 and in J n 2 0 : 1 4 - 1 8 . 1. Matthew. Once again I presume the argument and conclusion of F. Neirynck that "la christophanie des femmes (vv. 9 - 1 0 ) s'explique au mieux a partir du message angelique de Marc xvi. 6-7." In fact, Mt 2 8 : 9 - 1 0 ( J T ) is an almost complete copy of Mt 2 8 : 1 - 8 ( W T ) and is a totally redactional creation of Mt to offset the negative conclu­ sion of Mk 16:8 and to prepare, transitionally, for his own Mt 2 8 : 1 6 - 2 0 as a new conclusion. 2. The Gospel of Signs ( G S ) . Fortna finds his GS in J n 2 0 : 1 4 - 1 8 but omitting all of 2 0 : 1 5 (gardener) and those parts of 2 0 : 1 7 concern­ ing the ascension. The message of Jesus can no longer be reconstructed. 24

21. K. Aland, "Neue Neutestamentliche Papyri I I , " NTS 12 (1966), 193-210; K. Snodgrass, "Western Non-Interpolations," JBL 91 (1972), 369-79; Bode, Easter Morning, 68-69. 22. Cribbs, "Contacts," 84. 23. See G. F. Snyder, "John 13:16 and the Anti-Petrinism of the Johannine Tradition," BR 16 (1971), 5-15. 24. Neirynck, "Les Femmes," 190.

The Tradition

after

Mark

143

The source ends with Mary's delivery of the message in 2 0 : 1 8 and, Fortna hypothesizes, with a statement of their disbelief. At this point a serious problem arises with regard to the integrated presence of W T -f- AT + J T as postulated by Fortna in his GS. It has two facets and, together, they make it very difficult to feel certain that J T was ever present in GS. First, if the function of A T was to down­ play Mary as the recipient of resurrectional message ( G S / J n 2 0 : 1 ) and to elevate Peter to association with, if not reception of, that crucial faith ( G S / J n 2 0 : 9 ) , why would any J T be present after all this: what would be the content of its message and the function of its presence? GS would seem to have reduced Mary's role to a vision of angels, and it was most likely this alone that she announced back to the disciples in G S / J n 2 0 : 1 8 . Second, and much more important, is the total absence of any J T in Lk. If Cribbs is right that Lk, in effect, knew GS, he would have had to omit J T if such were present in that source. This is not unthink­ able and one might be able to give reasons for it, but it is a difficulty. And it is compounded by the Lkan redactional summary of 2 4 : 1 - 1 2 on the road to Emmaus in 2 4 : 2 2 - 2 4 . Lk's sense of literary style gives this as an undetailed summary, since it is for a stranger, and hence the vague "some women of our company" in 24:22 and "some of those who were with us" in 24:24. But it should be noted that he seems to recall the GS source rather than his own previous redaction of it in 2 4 : 1 - 1 2 . He says the women "amazed us . . . saying that they had seen a vision of angels" which is G S / J n 2 0 : 1 2 rather than Lk 2 4 : 4 . The question is whether Lk would have omitted J T had he known it from GS, and then written his own 2 4 : 2 2 - 2 4 as a summary of the morning's events. Tentatively, then, I shall presume that GS contained only W T A T and that this latter element represented its solution to the problem posed by the W T in Mk 1 6 : 1 - 8 , just as W T - f - J T represented the solution of Mt. 3. John. J T is present in Jn 2 0 : 1 4 - 1 8 as a Johannine composition. Once GS had reduced W T by its creation of A T any message from the angels to Mary would have to be quite redundant. But Jn, as distinct from GS, uses the angels to allow a second statement of her misunder­ standing ( 2 0 : 2 = 1 3 ) and then creates J T not as a message of resurrec­ tion but as one of ascension. Resurrection faith is already clearly established by his reformulation of 2 0 : 7 - 8 , so Mary's message does not

Empty

144

Tomb and Absent

Lord

take precedence over the faith of the Other Disciple but is an interim report pending the arrival "of Jesus to the disciples in 2 0 : 1 9 - 2 3 . There is no danger that Mary's vision of the Lord in 2 0 : 1 5 - 1 8 will become overly important since the Thomas incident in 2 0 : 2 4 - 2 9 puts any such vision in definite second place to the faith of the Other Disciple in 20:8. It is also clear that, as with Mt, Jn has modeled his creation of J T in 2 0 : 1 4 - 1 8 on the preceding W T in 2 0 : 1 1 - 1 3 . 4. Matthew and John. How does one explain J T in both Mt 2 8 : 9 - 1 0 and Jn 2 0 : 1 4 - 1 8 and with both formally modeled on their preceding W T elements in 2 8 : 1 - 8 and 2 0 : 1 1 - 1 3 ? Once again, I would refer to the wider and preliminary problem of Synoptic and Johannine relation­ ship and specifically to the statement of F. Neirynck: "Notons surlout qu'il y a, dans le recit de I'ensevelissemenl, des contacts specifiqnes avec Matthieu." These contacts between J n and Mt make it "une bypothese raisonnable" that, with regard to the burial and the ET at least, Jn not only depends on a tradition like that in the Synoptics but "comme cerlaines resemblances precises semblent le suggerer, une tradition qui s est formee en partie d partir de nos evangiles synoptiques."' 2!i

f

2

E. HISTORY O F T H E TRADITION

Mk, for reasons yet to be seen, created E T containing only one ele­ ment, W T (stage 1 ) . What followed was a combination of acute in­ ability ever to eliminate his W T and equally acute embarrassment with his having ended his Gospel in this fashion. One solution is that of Mt who created J T in 2 8 : 9 - 1 0 in order to mediate a new conclusion in 2 8 : 1 6 - 2 0 (stage 2 a ) . An alternative solution is that of The Gospel of Signs, known to both Lk and Jn, which created A T (just Peter actually) in Jn 2 0 : 2 - 1 0 and Lk 2 4 : 1 2 (stage 2 b ) . These are the obvious two alternatives. Mk created Women and Messenger ( W T ) : Mt replaced Messenger by Jesus ( J T ) and GS replaced Women by Peter ( A T ) . Nobody, however, succeeded in fully eliminating Mk's W T , nobody gave us Jesus and the Apostles at the tomb together. J n combined both these two alternatives ( A T - f - J T ) but his Thomas incident denotes an antiapparition attitude close to Mk's (stage 3 ) . Next, the textual tradition of Mk tried to add in new endings, shorter or longer, in 1 6 : 9 - 2 0 (stage

25. Ibid., 189. 26. Ibid.

The

Tradition

in Mark

145

4). Finally, modern scholarship climaxes this historic dissatisfaction with Mk's work by attempting to compose a hypothetical reconstruction for an equally hypothetical lost ending of Mk (stage 5 ) . This can be schematically outlined as follows: 2 7

/Matthew: G T + W T + J T Mark: W T

/Luke: W T + A T [The

Gospel

of Signs:

WT +

AT

(john: W T + A T + J T To accept this hypothesis, at least as here formulated, one must also accept the possibility of Mkan influence on GS (for W T ) and of Matthean influence on Jn (for J T ) . One must also accept the possibility, which has long embarrassed the tradition and which still continues to do so, that Mk knew exactly what he was doing and did exactly what he wanted in ending his Gospel with and at 1 6 : 1 - 8 .

3. T H E T R A D I T I O N IN

MARK

It was noted above that redaction critics have been quite unsuccessful in obtaining any consensus on the pre-Mkan tradition in 1 6 : 1 - 8 . My thesis has been that there was no such source and that this renders its reconstruction quite problematic. The final stage of the argument is the analysis of 1 6 : 1 - 8 as the complete creation of Mk himself. As an artificial but necessary disjunction content will be examined first, and then form. Function will be determined in the process of studying both these aspects. A. T H E C O N T E N T AND F U N C T I O N O F 1 6 : 1 - 8

This section presumes the basic validity of certain recent redactional research on Mk. It is precisely these studies which make it clear why 27. For recent discussion, see E. Linnemann, "Der (wiedergefundene) Markusschluss," ZTK 66 (1969), 255-87; K. Aland, "Bemerkungen zum Schluss des Markusevangeliums," Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black, ed. E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (Edinburgh: Clark, 1969), 157-80; and "Der wiedergefundene Markusschluss? Eine methodologische Bemerkung zur textkritischen Arbeit," ZTK 67 (1970), 3-13; H.-W. Bartsch, "Der Schluss des Markus-Evangeliums. Ein iiberlieferungsgeschichtliches Problem," TZ 27 (1971), 241—54; J. K. Elliott, "The Text and Language of the Ending to Mark's Gospel," TZ 27 (1971), 255-62; G. W . Trompf, "The First Resurrection Appearance and the Ending of Mark's Gospel," NTS 18 (1972), 308-30.

146

Empty Tomb and Absent

Lord

Mk created and indeed had to create the new ET tradition to conclude his Gospel. I accept the general hypothesis that Mk created the genre Gospel, and thereby created Gospel as we know it, as an intra-Christian polemic against theological opponents characterized by ( 1 ) interest in miracles and apparitions rather than in suffering and service; ( 2 ) very little sym­ pathy with the Gentile mission especially insofar as this questioned the validity of the Law; ( 3 ) an appeal to the authority of the Jerusalem mother Church, based both on the family of Jesus and on the original disciples of Jesus: the twelve, the inner three, and Peter in particular. " If these scholars are basically correct, Mk had a very serious problem in ending his Gospel. If we accept a skeletal sequence such as 1 Cor 1 5 : 3 - 5 a (death, burial, resurrection, and apparition/revelation to Peter) as a creedal summary on which a story might be constructed and the Gospel concluded, Mk would have been forced to end in a way that would negate the polemical thrust of the entire preceding Gospel. He would have had to conclude with an apparition and mandate for Peter/ James and the twelve/Apostles. My thesis is that it was precisely to avoid and to oppose any such apparition to Peter or the Apostles that he created most deliberately a totally new tradition (troditio tradenda not traditio tradita), that of ET. This can now be detailed verse by verse. 1. 1 6 : 1 . The names of the women are already known from other tradition in 15:40. Their purpose is explained by postulating an inade­ quate burial in 1 5 : 4 2 - 4 6 , although there was no indication of such inadequacy there: note the agorasas of 1 5 : 4 6 which Mt 2 7 : 5 9 and Lk 2 3 : 5 3 wisely suppress. 2. 16:2. The phrase lian proi of this new "Galilean" (see 1 6 : 7 ) dawn and mission recalls the inaugural one in 1:35 with its proi ennycha 2

28. A. Kuby, "Zur Konzeption des Markus-Evangeliums," ZNW 49 (1958), 52-64; J. B. Tyson, The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark," JBL 80 (1961), 261-68; J. Schreiber, "Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums," ZTK 58 (1961), 154-83; E. Trocme, La Formation de I'&vangile selon Marc, fitHistPhilRel 57 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1963), 1 0 0 - 1 0 9 ; U. Luz, "Das Geheimnismotiv und die Markinische Christologie," ZNW 56 (1965), 9-30; E. Schweizer, "Zur Frage des Messiasgeheimnisses bei Markus," ZNW 56 (1965), 1-8; L. E. Keck, "Mark 3, 7-12 and Mark's Christology," JBL 84 (1965), 341-58; K. Tagpwa, Miracles et tivangile, EtHistPhilRel 62 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1966), 174-85; N. Perrin, "The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition," BR 13 (1968), 3-25 (see 2 1 ) , and "The Creative Use of the Son of Man Traditions by Mark," USQR 23 (1968), 357-65 (see 357); J. D. Crossan, "Mark and the Relatives of Jesus," NT 15 (1973), 81-113. And sec most especially W E E D E N , and K E L D F . R .

The Tradition

147

in Mark

lion anastas. Mk alone uses lian of time in the New Testament. And just as "Simon and those who were with him" ( 1 : 3 6 ) wanted to keep him there that first morning, so also they will fail his message now ( 1 6 : 7 - 8 ) . Note how Lk 4:42 restates Mk 1:36 so that it is the crowds that wish to detain him and not the disciples. But in 1:35-38 and in 1 6 : 1 - 8 the call of Jesus is: "Let us go" and in both places it encounters resistance. The phrase te mia ton sabbaton is also important. By means of his three indications of time in 15:42 (prosabbaton: not in Mt 27:57, 62 and Lk 2 3 : 5 0 ) , 16:1a (diagenomenon ton sabbaton) and 16:2 (te mia ton sabbaton), Mk has given a harmonized chronology with the "three days" of the prophecies in Mk 8 : 3 1 , 9:31 and 1 0 : 3 3 - 3 4 . Three days: before the sabbath, the sabbath, the first day after the sabbath. 3. 1 6 : 3 - 4 . The dialogic style recalls such places as, for example, 4 : 4 1 . Since the tradition had securely closed the tomb with 15:46, Mk, having used 15:47 as preparation, now reopens it in almost verbatim language in l 6 : 3 - 4 . " 4; 16:5. There are three significant points: the messenger, his posi­ tion, and his dress, ( a ) Messenger. This is the crux of the discussion and it presumes two important recent studies. A. Vanhoye linked together the neaniskos of 1 4 : 5 1 - 5 2 and 16:5 as symbolic representa­ tions of Jesus himself who leaves in his enemies' hands the burial sin­ don (twice in 1 4 : 5 1 - 5 2 ; elsewhere in the New Testament only from Mk 1 5 : 4 6 ) and reappears robed in victorious white ( 1 6 : 5 ) . But R. Scroggs and K. I. Groff have argued that one must go even further than this since in the two cases the neaniskos both represents Jesus and is clearly distinguished from him: in the garden by Jesus' concomitant presence and in the tomb by the reference to Jesus' absent body. The authors conclude: "The neaniskos is a representation of the exalted Christ because he symbolizes the believer who, now baptized, partici2

30

31

29. E. Dhanis, "L'ensevelissement de Jesus et la visite au tombeau dans 1'evangile de saint Marc (Mc. X V , 4 0 - X V I , 8 ) , " Greg 39 (1958), 367^110. 30. A. Vanhoye, "La fuite du jeune homme nu (Mc 14, 51-52)," Bib 52 (1971), 401-406. See also J. Knox, "A Note on Mark 14, 51-52," The Joy of Study, ed. S. E. Johnson (New York: Macmillan, 1951), 28; H. C. Waetjen, "The Ending of Mark and the Gospel's Shift in Eschatology," ASTl 4 (1965), 114-31. 31- R. Scroggs and K. I. Groff, "Baptism in Mark: Dying and Rising with Christ," JBL 92 (1973), 531-48.

Empty Tomb and Absent

148 2

Lord

pates in the resurrection of Christ."* To this I would add only one qualification. The neaniskos-messcnget is not just the Christian initiate in general. It is the neophyte in the Mkan community and therefore it is that community itself, including Mk. It is not the risen Lord and neither is it some accidental angel who delivers the message: it is the Mkan community of those reborn in the resurrected Christ, ( b ) Posi­ tion. This is now immediately clear. Christ was seated at the right hand of God in Mk 12:36 and 14:62, and this is proleptically promised to the Mkan community by the position of the messenger (see also Col 3 : 1 - 1 3 ; Eph 2 : 4 - 6 ) . ( c ) Dress. The white robe (stole leuke) is that worn in heaven (Rev 6 : 1 1 ; 7:9, 13, 1 4 ) and the periheblemenos of 16:5 is likewise a heavenly description (Rev 7:9, 1 3 ) . It should also be noted that Mk 9 : 3 , as against Mt 17:2 and Lk 9 : 2 9 , stresses the whiteness of Jesus' dress at the transfiguration; and Mk also omitted any mention of Jesus' face, as also against both Mt and Lk, thereby keeping transfiguration and tomb closer together. 5. 16:6. The verbs exethambethesan ( 1 6 : 5 ) and ekthambeisthe ( 1 6 : 6 ) are exclusively Mkan in the New Testament and are always omitted or changed by the other Synoptics. The names Jesus receives are also significant. Nazarenos is almost exclusively Mkan in the New Testament. It recalls the opening 1:9 and, looking forward to the mention of Galilee in 16:7, underlines Jesus as the Galilean, the nonJerusalemite. The term ton estaurdmenon is almost titular and is found elsewhere only in Paul: 1 Cor 1:23; 2 : 2 ; Gal 3 : 1 . For Mk, Jesus is the Crucified One and Jesus is the Galilean, and both titles beckon also to the followers of Jesus. The basic resurrection faith is given in the Sgerthe. The codicil, "he is not here; see the place where they laid him," is another connective between the burial tradition in 15:46, the redactional comment in 15:47, and the new unit of the ET. It also underlines the negativity of presence intended by Mk's formulation: "he is not here." 6. 16:7. The preceding verse announced Jesus as the Crucified and Risen One. But this announcement is followed by a command and this is a second crucial point in the Mkan creation of 1 6 : 1 - 8 . It must be stressed that the message is not about the resurrection. Mt 2 8 : 6 noted 32. Ibid., 5 4 3 .

The Tradition

in Mark

149

this long ago and changed Mk 16:7 so that it included the message of the resurrection. Two separate points, ( a ) Recipients. These are given as "tell his disciples and Peter" which is almost unique in the New Testament where Peter, if present, is almost always in first place (Peter and . . . ) . The reason is because this formulaic precedence does not highlight Peter enough for Mk's present intent. Not just: tell Peter and the disciples; but: tell the disciples, and especially Peter. In other words, Peter is singled out not only as being in authoritative first place but as especially designated to receive this message, ( b ) Message. Once again I presume recent studies on "Galilee" in Mkan theology. Galilee is both place and symbol and the latter because first the former. Galilee is the past of Jesus' own dual mission on both sides (Jews/Gentiles) of the lake. It is the present of Jesus' call through the Mkan community to the Jerusalem community to inaugurate a mission to both Jews and Gentiles, and it is all that has happened since their failure to heed that call. And it is the future of Jesus' eschatological return to those who have participated in the preceding call. The proagei of 16:7 had already been promised the disciples in 14:28. But the verb also recalls, the more ominously, the proagon of Jesus in 10:32 where he led them (and they failed to follow) up to suffering and death at Jerusalem. 7. 16:8. The reaction of the disciples to Jesus' leadership toward Jerusalem in 10:32 was ethambounto and ephobounto. So also now with the women. This is no temporary response of numinous awe as the other Synoptics were easily able to recognize, and so they changed their Mkan source quite drastically in Mt 2 8 : 8 and Lk 2 4 : 8 . Flight, fear, and silence end the Mkan story. The women, the relatives of Jesus (cf. 3 : 3 4 - 3 5 ; 6 : 3 ) , fail to communicate the message. In plain words, the Jerusalem community led by the disciples and especially Peter, has never accepted the call of the exalted Lord communicated to it from the Mkan community. The Gospel ends in a juxtaposition of Mkan faith in 1 6 : 6 - 7 and of Jerusalem failure in 1 6 : 7 - 8 . 33

33. On Galilee and the Gentile mission, see G. H. Boobyer, "Galilee and Galileans in St. Mark's Gospel," BJRL 35 (1953), 334-48; C . F. Evans, " I will go before you into Galilee,' " JTS 5 ( 1954), 3-18. On Galilee and the parousia, see R. H. Lightfoot, Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1938); MARXSEN, 54-116; N. Q. Hamilton, "Resurrection Tradition and the Composition of Mark," JBL 84 ( 1965), 415-21. But most especially, see KELBER.

Empty Tomb and Absent

150

Lord

B. T H E FORM AND F U N C T I O N O F 1 6 : 1 - 8

It has been argued that the content of 1 6 : 1 - 8 served functionally as an anti-tradition to the creedal statement that the Risen Lord had ap­ peared to Peter and/or James and to the twelve and/or the Apostles. One images some such aphorisms as those now contained in 1 Cor 15:5-7. But while this explains the content of 1 6 : 1 - 8 , it does little to explain the form of Mk's creation. Why did he compose it in this format and not in some other possible one? n1

The answer to this question involves a wider interpretation of the tradition of risen appearances which can only be indicated but not ar­ gued in detail. First, the historical sequence and development of the appearances tradition was from creedal statement (as in 1 Cor 1 5 : 5 - 7 ) to creedal story as stages in the articulation of Easter faith. Second, one example of such creedal stories is the walking on the waters in Mk 6 : 4 5 - 5 1 . This is especially important because we are certain that Mk knew at least this one no matter what he knew about any other such stories. Third, the form of Mk 1 6 : 1 - 8 is derived directly and delib­ erately from that of 6 : 4 5 - 5 1 . Both form and content of 1 6 : 1 - 8 coalesce as an anti-tradition to any concluding story of an apparition to the apostles or to any one of their leaders. One important point must be stressed in all this. Before Mk wrote his Gospel there was no "be­ fore" and "after" Easter. Hence a community confessed the revelatory and salvific presence of its exalted Lord either in brief statement or longer story but nobody asked questions such as: did this story happen in the "earthly" or the "risen" life? Only after Mk would all such stories have to be located either before or after Easter (or both: Lk 5 and J n 2 1 ) . Hence Mk 6 : 4 5 - 5 1 is not an accidentally "misplaced" resurrection apparition but a deliberately "placed" one, placed by Mk (and J n ! ) safely in the earthly life of Jesus he had created. The proof for this thesis can be clarified by recalling the form critical study of C. H. Dodd on the appearances of the Risen Christ. Apart from internal weaknesses due to the lack of redactional sophistication, 35

See W E R D H N , 4 7 - 5 0 , 1 0 2 - 1 1 ; Hamilton, "Resurrection Tradition." 3 5 . C. H. Dodd, "The Appearances of the Risen Christ: An Essay in Form-Criticism of the Gospels," Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. li. Lightfoot, ed. D. E. Nincham (Oxford: Dlackwell, 1 9 5 5 ) , 9 - 3 5 . 34.

The Tradition in Mark

151

the article has one serious external problem. Dodd had noted that the form postulated for the risen appearance stories reappears in the walk­ ing on the waters in Mk 6 : 4 5 - 5 1 and Jn 6 : 1 6 - 2 1 and that "so striking a similarity" has to be explained either by its being a "transplanted" risen appearance or by its being "influenced" by these later stories. But what has been missed completely is the fact that there is an even closer formal similarity between Mk 1 6 : 1 - 8 and Mk 6 : 4 5 - 5 1 than between either of these and the risen appearances. This can be indi­ cated schematically using the five basic formal elements of Dodd but adding a final sixth one, the Result. Here is the outline: 86

Formal Elements (Dodd)

Walking on Sea: Mark

Tradition of Empty Tomb J T : Matt J T : J o h n W T : Mark

Situation

6:45-48a

16:1-4

28:8

20:14a

Apparition

6:48b

I6:5abc

28:9a

20:14b

Greeting (Address)

6:50b

16:6

28:9b

20:1516a

Recognition (Response)

6:49-50a

I6:5d

28:9c

20:16b

Command

(6:51b?)

16:7

28:10

20:17

Result

6:51c

16:8

-

20:18

Two notes. First, the formal sequence is followed, as Dodd outlined it, by the two J T columns but there is a reversal of his elements of Greeting and Recognition in both the walking on the sea and the ET units in Mk. This means that these two Mkan pericopes are in very close formal parallel and are much closer to one another than either is to the other stories cited by Dodd. Second, one cannot note formal similari­ ties such as these without asking functional questions, which Dodd does not, such as: why is Mk 1 6 : 1 - 8 so formally similar to 6 : 4 5 - 5 1 and why are other traditions of risen appearances also somewhat similar to 36. Ibid., 24.

152

Empty Tomb and Absent

these two stories? waters

Lord

Is it possible, for instance, that the walking on the

( M k and J n ! ) is the formal basis for the risen

appearances

tradition Dodd has investigated?

4. THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS It is most probable that Jesus was buried by the same inimical forces that had crucified him and that on Easter Sunday morning those who knew the site did not care and those who cared did not know the site. T h e major reason for this conclusion is that the tradition has protested too much: an indifferent burial by R o m a n soldiers becomes eventually a regal entombment

by his faithful

followers

(cf. J n

19:31-32

and

38-41). Easter faith, the belief that Jesus is with G o d and that the crucifixion was not divine rejection but divine acceptance, arose in a manner more and no less inexplicable than all faith before or after it. earlier stage it appeared in creedal statements 15:3-7.

no

A t an

in such places as 1 Cor

I n a different manner, and presumably at a later stage, it

appeared in creedal stories

in narratives such as M k 6 : 4 5 - 5 1 .

confesses, in story, that Jesus has conquered the waters o f death comes, at dawn, to save his followers from danger and despair. from or around such stories that the Apparition tradition

This and I t is

developed.

B u t it is clear that such apparitions, or apparition-stories, are the effects of Easter faith and not its cause or even its occasion.

T h e cause was

God, the occasion, the crucifixion o f Jesus. M k ' s theology was very different.

Jesus does not return in apparition

to save his own from danger before the parousia.

Instead o f the present

Jesus of the Apparition tradition, he offers us an absent Jesus in his newly created anti-tradition o f the E T .

O n earth there are no appari­

tions but only the harsh negative of the E T and the Lord who "is not here."

And there is the stern challenge of the M k a n community in

Galilee that calls in vain to the Jerusalem community to obey its Lord by preparing for his return in suffering, in service, and in mission to the world.

IX.

Conclusion: From Passion Narrative to Gospel Werner H. Kelber

T h e purpose o f this final chapter is to summarize the major conclusions of the preceding essays, to develop their implications for interpreting the M k a n Passion Narrative and the Gospel as a whole, to consider some points o f relevance for systematic theology, and to indi­ cate future directions for M k a n research.

1. T H E I S S U E O F A P R E - M A R K A N P A S S I O N

NARRATIVE

It is a chief feature of these essays on the M k a n Passion Narrative that each author links his interpretation o f a passion unit with motifs and material from the pre-passion section o f the Gospel.

I n each case

the author takes hermeneutical clues for an understanding o f a passion pericope from M k 1 - 1 3 .

W e shall briefly review the seven exegetical

essays from this perspective. R o b b i n s views the Last Supper ( 1 4 : 1 2 - 2 5 )

as M k ' s answer to an

intra-Christian dispute over meal Christology which was highlighted in the two Feeding Stories ( 6 : 3 0 - 4 4 ; 8 : 1 - 1 0 ) .

T h e dating of the "first

day o f Unleavened Bread" ( 1 4 : 1 2 ) is polemically directed against the "leaven" o f misunderstanding perpetuated by the disciples, Herod, and the Pharisees ( 8 : 1 4 - 2 1 ) .

T h e motif o f bread which had played a key

role in the meal controversies ( M k 6 - 8 ) is interpreted by Jesus' body ( 1 4 : 2 2 ) , and the cup motif which had earlier figured in Jesus' predic­ tion o f the disciples' martyrdom

(10:35-40) 153

is likewise used in refer-

154

Conclusion:

ence to the death o f Jesus ( 1 4 : 2 4 ) . (14:25)

From Passion Narrative

to

Gospel

T h e last verse o f the Supper scene

continues the M k a n K i n g d o m theme

( 1 : 1 4 - 1 5 ) , while the

M k a n leitmotif Gospel ( 1 : 1 , 1 4 ) is taken up in the Anointing story ( c f . 1 4 : 9 ) and again interpreted through Jesus' burial and death. K e l b e r views the Gethsemane story ( 1 4 : 3 2 - 4 2 ) passion Christology and discipleship failure. tology ( 8 : 3 1 ; 9 : 3 1 ; 1 0 : 3 3 - 3 4 )

as a culmination o f

M k ' s Son o f M a n Chris­

progresses systematically to a peak in

1 4 : 4 1 , the Gospel's last suffering Son o f M a n saying.

T h e "coming" o f

Judas for the purpose o f "delivering up" Jesus literally recalls the "com­ ing" o f the K i n g d o m o f G o d ( 1 : 1 5 ) . passion

T h e motif o f "the hour" o f

( 1 4 : 3 5 , 4 1 ) brings to mind "the

Jesus' parousia

(eschatological) hour" o f

( 1 3 : 3 2 ) , and Jesus' prayer for the removal o f "this

cup" ( 1 4 : 3 6 ) revives the earlier controversy over the drinking o f "the cup" ( 1 0 : 3 8 - 3 9 ; cf. 1 4 : 2 2 ) .

T h e singling out o f the three confidants

( 1 4 : 3 3 ) presupposes their initial appointment by name-giving

(3:16-

1 7 ) and continues a characteristic M k a n feature o f m a k i n g the three privileged witnesses o f crucial events

(5:35-43;

9:2-8).

T h e dis­

ciples' inclination to sleep ( 1 4 : 3 7 , 4 0 , 4 1 ) bids defiance to Jesus' ear­ lier warning

not to sleep

(13:35-36),

suffering Son o f M a n ( 1 4 : 3 7 )

and

Peter's resistance to

a

is in keeping with his deficient Christ

confession at Caesarea Philippi ( 8 : 2 9 - 3 1 ) . Donahue explains Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin ( 1 4 : 5 3 - 6 5 )

as a

complex weaving together o f the M k a n death theme, T e m p l e theology, and royal Christology.

T h e condemnation ( 1 4 : 6 4 )

of references to the death plot

( 3 : 6 ; 11:18;

concludes a series

12:12;

14:1).

Mk's

dramatization o f Jesus' conflict with Jerusalem ( 3 : 2 2 ; 7 : 1 ) and opposi­ tion to the T e m p l e ( 1 1 : 1 - 1 4 : 1 )

reaches a new height in the first half

of the T e m p l e saying ( 1 4 : 5 8 ) , and the Evangelist's concern for the eschatological community ( 1 : 1 6 - 2 0 ; 3 : 1 3 - 1 9 ; cf. 1 4 : 2 8 ; 1 6 : 7 ) finds expression in the second half o f the T e m p l e saying ( 1 4 : 5 8 ) .

The High

Priest's identification o f Jesus ( 1 4 : 6 1 ) employs characteristically M k a n titles: Christ ( 1 : 1 ; 8 : 2 9 ) and Son o f the Blessed, i.e., Son o f G o d ( 1 : 1 ; 3 : 1 1 ; 5 : 7 ; cf. 1 5 : 3 9 ) . Hellenistic theios

M k uses this latter title, Son o f G o d , not in a

aner sense, but in a Jewish, Messianic sense and hence

in agreement with the Gospel's paradigmatic K i n g d o m theme 15).

(1:14-

W h i l e the H i g h Priest ironically affirms the Kingship o f Jesus

( 1 4 : 6 1 ) , Jesus' own confession ( 1 4 : 6 2 ) also confirms his royal identity

The Issue of a Pre-Markan

Passion

155

Narrative

by pointing to future enthronement and coming.

M k 1 4 : 6 1 - 6 2 , there­

fore, constitutes Jesus' formal identification as royal K i n g o f the end time as outlined in 1 : 1 4 - 1 5 . Perrin traces the three christological titles which coalesce in 1 4 : 6 1 6 2 and defines Jesus' confession as a M k a n christological T h e Christ title, headlined in the superscription

summary.

( 1 : 1 ) but misused by

Peter ( 8 : 2 9 ) and the mockers ( 1 5 : 3 2 ) , receives Jesus' confirmation in 14:61-62.

Son of the Blessed, i.e., Son o f G o d , continues a long­

standing M k a n interest in this title ( 1 : 1 , 1 1 , 2 4 ; 3 : 1 1 ; 5 : 7 ; 9 : 7 ; 1 4 : 6 1 ) which reaches its final resolution only in the centurion's (15:39).

confession

T h e combination o f these two titles in 1 4 : 6 1 deliberately

echoes their coexistence in the superscription

(1:1).

Jesus' own con­

fession through the Son o f M a n title concludes M k ' s three-stage Son o f M a n Christology.

After Jesus' pronouncement o f his earthly authority

( 2 : 1 0 , 2 8 ) , of his suffering identity ( 8 : 3 1 ; 9 : 3 1 ; 1 0 : 3 1 , 4 5 ; 1 4 : 2 1 , 4 1 ) and his apocalyptic future ( 8 : 3 8 ; 1 3 : 2 6 ) , the m o m e n t has arrived to complete his identification as Son o f M a n in the trial scene. Messianic claim formula ego eimi

The

characterizes the confession before

the H i g h Priest as the breaking o f the Messianic Secret ( 1 : 3 4 ; 3 : 1 1 - 1 2 ; 8:30;

9:9,

30-31).

If

retrospectively

the

confession

summarizes

M k a n Christology, it functions prospectively by anticipating what is yet to come in the Gospel's story:

Jesus' crucifixion-enthronement

and

parousia. D e w e y observes a thematic reenactment o f the

Caesarea

Philippi

incident ( 8 : 2 7 - 3 3 )

in the combined scene o f Peter's denial and Jesus'

trial ( 1 4 : 5 3 - 7 2 ) .

B y virtue o f the intercalation o f the trial

65)

into the denial story ( 1 4 : 5 3 - 5 4 , 6 6 - 7 2 )

(14:55-

M k invites comparison

between Peter's rejection o f Jesus and Jesus' Son o f M a n confession which incurs the death sentence.

A t Caesarea Philippi likewise Jesus makes a

suffering Son of M a n confession ( 8 : 3 1 )

which exposes the inadequacy

of Peter's preceding "confession" ( 8 : 2 9 ) .

Peter's specific denial o f Jesus

as Nazarene ( 1 4 : 6 7 ) , furthermore, links up with Jesus' Nazarene-Galilean identification which provides a frame for the Gospel ( 1 : 9 , 2 1 - 2 8 ; 16:6-7).

B y denying Jesus as Nazarene-Galilean, Peter negates his own

Galilean identity ( 1 4 : 7 0 - 7 1 ) and thus deprives himself and his followers of the promised Galilean future ( 1 4 : 2 8 ; 1 6 : 7 ) .

H e n c e Peter becomes

subject to Jesus' curse as he did at Caesarea Philippi ( 8 : 3 3 ) , not paying

156

Conclusion:

From Passion Narrative

to Gospel

attention to Jesus' explicit warning ( 8 : 3 8 ) . Peter's denial in conjunction with Jesus' confession in the trial is thus a variation of the Peter-Jesus confrontation of Cacsarca Philippi. Weeden finds the Mkan theme of Jesus the miracle worker polemi­ cally reintroduced into the crucifixion story ( I 5 : 2 0 b - 4 l ) . Doth the contemptuous challenge of the passers-by ( 1 5 : 2 9 - 3 3 ) and the mocking by the bystanders ( 1 5 : 3 4 - 3 6 ) revive the image of Jesus the miracle worker (throughout 1 : 2 1 - 8 : 2 6 ) by playing out the miracles against the cross. The use of Christ by the passers-by reflects the christological misconception foreshadowed in Peter's Christ "confession" ( 8 : 2 9 ) . Moreover, Weeden uncovers in two Temple sayings ( 1 4 : 5 8 ; 1 5 : 2 9 ) an eschatological viewpoint—correlation of Temple destruction with Jesus' parousia—which the Evangelist opposes in Mk 13. In sum, Weeden detects a polemical strand in the Passion Narrative which appears to be in continuation of Mk's pre-passion argument against a specific type of Christology and eschatology. Crossan argues the thoroughgoing redactional nature of the Empty Tomb narrative ( 1 6 : 1 - 8 ) both on the basis of the history of tradition and in view of a thematic coherence with the minutiae and fundamentals of Mkan theology. As for the details, for example, Jesus' journey to Galilee defined by the term proagei ( 1 6 : 7 ) is in continuation of his earlier journey to Jerusalem ( 1 0 : 3 2 : proagon autous ho lesous), while the women's reaction to the Galilean invitation ( 1 6 : 8 : ephobounto gar) equals the followers' previous response to Jesus' leadership role ( 1 0 : 3 2 : kai hoi akolouthountes ephobotmto). The three time references follow­ ing Jesus' death ( 1 5 : 4 2 ; 1 6 : 1 , 2 ) create a time-frame which brings the date of the resurrection into harmony with that announced in the pas­ sion predictions ( 8 : 3 1 ; 9 : 3 1 ; 1 0 : 3 3 - 3 4 ) . As for the fundamentals of Mkan theology, 1 6 : 1 - 8 enunciates the Mkan motifs of Jesus' absence from the community ( 4 : 1 3 - 2 0 , 2 6 - 2 9 ; 1 3 : 1 - 2 3 ; 14:7, 2 5 ) , the Galilean reorientation ( 1 : 1 4 - 1 5 ; 1 4 : 2 8 ) , and discipleship failure (1:35-38; 4:40-41; 6:52; 8:14-21; 8:32-33; 9 : 5 - 6 , 3 2 ; 1 0 : 3 5 - 3 7 ) . 1

What follows from these studies may be summed up in three theses: ( 1 ) Virtually all major (and a multiplicity of minor) Mkan themes

1. On the following, sec also J. Donahue's introductory essay, "From Passion Tradi­ tions to Passion Narrative," to this volume.

The Issue of a Pre-Markan

Passion

Narrative

157

converge in Mk 14-16. The major ones are: passion Christology, meal Chrisotlogy, titular Christology, Messianic Secret, Temple theol­ ogy, Kingdom eschatology, discipleship failure, Petrine opposition, antiJerusalem theme, Galilean thesis, the leitmotif Gospel, as well as a christological, eschatological undercurrent. ( 2 ) Mk 14-16 constitutes a theologically inseparable and homoge­ neous part of the Gospel whole. Thematically, Mk 1-13 dovetails into Mk 14-16. The passion section of the Gospel can neither be compre­ hended nor defined as a theological unit set apart from the remainder of the Gospel. The very term Passion Narrative may therefore not ade­ quately reflect the nature of Mk 14-16, if the latter is viewed as the culmination of all major Mkan theological themes. ( 3 ) The understanding of Mk 14-16 as a theologically integral part of the Mkan Gospel calls into question the classic form critical thesis concerning an independent and coherent Passion Narrative prior to Mk. Thematically it is difficult to identify a major non-Mkan thrust or theme in Mk 14-16, let alone extrapolate a coherent pre-Mkan source. In addition, the authors observe a very intense redactional activity in Mk 14-16. The Evangelist inserts the Anointing story into a context of hostility toward Jesus; he takes a tradition of Jesus' words about bread and cup and develops it into a Last Meal scene; he adds the largely redactional section dealing with Jesus' prediction of Peter's de­ nial and the return to Galilee; he composes the three-stage Gethsemane narrative out of a lamenting Jesus saying or prayer; he creates Jesus' trial (including Jesus' words of confession) before the Sanhedrin out of a story about Jesus' presentation before Jewish officials; he expands a short story of Peter's denial into a lengthy, three-stage account and intercalates it into the newly created trial narrative; he rewrites a cruci­ fixion tradition; and he composes the Empty Tomb story as a fitting conclusion to his Gospel. Mkan vocabulary, Mkan stylistic features, and Mkan compositional techniques further corroborate the impression of the overall Mkan literary character of Mk 14-16. We will again sum up our conclusions in three theses: ( 1 ) Prom the perspective of the history of tradition there exists no appreciable difference between Mk 14-16 and what is known about the literary genesis and composition of Mk 1-13. Mk is no more traditionbound in Mk 1 4 - 1 6 than he is in Mk 1-13. He edits and unifies

Conclusion:

158

From Passion

Narrative

to

Gospel

individual traditions, composes new material, and creates the total nar­ rative sequence in M k 1 4 - 1 6 in the same manner in which he edits and unifies individual traditions, composes new material, and creates the total narrative sequence in M k 1 - 1 3 . (2) upon

No single Mk.

pre-Mkan

tradition

exercises

an authoritative

influence

T h e Evangelist refashions and composes a narrative in view

of his current situation and in the interest of a religious response to it. H e is master over his traditions and pays no deference to an alleged time or tradition-honored Passion Narrative. (3)

Mk's literary

achievement

pel out of a multiplicity

of disparate

is to compose tradition

what

units.

he calls

the

Gos­

His literary activity

is ill-defined in terms of a prefixing of a lengthy introduction to an authoritative passion source, and it is amiss to consider the passion section of the Gospel as a literary the Gospel.

unit set apart from the remainder o f

T h e issue is not why Jesus' passion demanded an early pre-

M k a n connected narrative form, because it did not, but the issue is why M k created the Gospel whole in its present form. T h e theological and literary conclusions derived from these studies on M k 1 4 - 1 6 show that the M k a n Passion Narrative does not constitute the exception to the form critical canons which govern the formation of the Synoptic tradition.

W h i l e it may not be possible at this point in the

discussion to win a firmly grounded agreement, the thesis of a M k a n creation of the Gospel whole out of a multiplicity o f individual tradition units is more probable than that of M k the writer of an introduction to a given Passion Narrative.

2

The issue of a pre-Mkan Passion Narrative hinges in part on an assessment of the relationship between the Gospels of J n and Mk, for a striking re­ semblance between the Johannine and Mkan Passion Narratives has been used as corroboratory evidence for the existence of a pre-Mkan passion source. T h e three authors who touch on this issue discount a Johannine-Mkan dependence on a pre-Mkan source and suggest instead a relationship of some sort between J n and M k . 3

2. The thesis of an independent, pre-Mkan Passion Narrative has recently been ques­ tioned by LINNEMANN; E . Giittgemanns, Oftene Fragen zur Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Munich: C. Kaiser, 1 9 7 0 ) , 2 2 7 - 2 9 ; H. C. Kee, Jesus in History (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1 9 7 0 ) , 274; P. J . Achtemeier, Mark, Proclamation Com­ mentaries (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1 9 7 5 ) , 8 2 - 9 1 . 3. On the following, see also J . Donahue's introductory essay, "Passion Traditions," to this volume.

The Issue of a Pre-Markan

Passion

Narrative

159

Dewey observes that J n in his treatment of the denial story specifically appropriates material from Mk, as well as from M t and Lk.

Most spec­

tacularly, J n intercalates the denial story into Jesus' trial in the manner of Mk. Kelber argues that the caesura between the Mkan Gethsemane and arrest stories, a break traditionally taken as an indication for the commencement of a pre-Mkan passion source, is of Mkan making and not source-conditioned.

He

also indicates that the fragmentation of the Gethsemane tradition in J n is the result of Jn's theologia

gloriae,

while the extant fragments are for the most

part taken from the Mkan account.

Crossan is convinced that in the case of

the Empty T o m b story the Signs Source may have played an intermediary role between M k and J n , but he also recognizes contacts between J n and Mt. The

evidence in favor of a M k - J n relationship consists of close verbal

agreements, resemblance in story traditions, and parallel sequence structures.

4

This evidence may be evaluated in terms of Johannine knowledge of Mk, but it must not be pressed toward Johannine dependence on Mk.

According to

Dewey's observation, J n works selectively with elements taken from a broad spectrum of the Synoptic tradition, and not in sole reliance upon one single source.

Similarities and correspondences between J n and M k must therefore

not be taken as an argument for a single underlying source, but rather as evidence for floating traditions and creative Synoptic interchange. 4. The following authors argue for a Jn-Mk relationship in varying degrees: B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to John (London: John Murray, 1 9 0 8 ) , C L X V I CLXVIII; F. W . Worsley, The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1 9 0 9 ) , 2 3 ; B. W. Bacon, The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate (New York: Moffat, Yard and Co., 1 9 1 0 ) ; B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1 9 2 4 ) , 3 9 3 - 4 0 1 , passim; H. Windisch, Johannes und die Synoptiker, U N T 12 (Leipzig: J . C. Hinrichs, 1 9 2 6 ) ; W . F. Howard, The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation (London: Epworth, 1 9 3 1 ) ; M. Goguel, "Did Peter Deny His Lord? A Conjecture," HTR 2 5 ( 1 9 3 2 ) , 1 - 2 7 , esp. 9, 12; R. M. Grant, "The Fourth Gospel and the Church," HTR 35 ( 1 9 4 2 ) , 9 5 - 1 1 6 , esp. 9 5 ; C. K. Barrett, The Gospel Ac­ cording to John (London: SPCK, 1 9 5 5 ) , and "John and the Synoptic Gospels," ExpT 85 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 2 2 8 - 3 3 ; R. H. Lightfoot, St. John's Gospel, ed. C. F. Evans (Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press, 1 9 5 6 ) , 2 6 - 4 2 ; E. K. Lee, "St. Mark and the Fourth Gospel," NTS 3 ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 5 0 - 5 8 ; S. Ivor Buse, "John V.8 and Johannine-Marcan Relationships," NTS 1 ( 1 9 5 4 ) , 1 3 4 - 3 6 , and "St. John and the Marcan Passion Narrative," NTS 4 ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 2 1 5 - 1 9 , and "St. John and the First Synoptic Pericope," NovTest 3 ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 5 7 - 6 1 , and "The Gospel Accounts of the Feeding of the Multitudes," ExpT 7 4 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 1 6 7 - 7 0 ; A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Johannes, 3d ed. (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, I 9 6 0 ) , 1 4 4 , 1 6 5 , 2 6 3 , 2 6 5 , passim; E. Stauffer, "Historische Elemente im vierten Evangelium," Bekenntnis zur Kirche: Festschrift fur E. Sommerlath (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, I 9 6 0 ) , reprinted in Homiletica en Biblica 22 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 1-7; P. Guichou, Evangile de St. Jean (Paris, 1 9 6 2 ) 10; H. M. Teeple, "Methodology in Source Analysis of the Fourth Gospel," JBL 81 ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 2 7 9 - 8 6 ; C. W . F. Smith, "Tabernacles in the Fourth Gospel and Mark," NTS 9 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 1 3 0 - 4 6 , esp. 1 3 5 - 4 2 ; H. Balmforth, "The Structure of the Fourth Gospel," SE II (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1 9 6 4 ) , 2 5 - 3 3 , esp. 33; J . Blinzler, Johannes und die Synoptiker, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 5 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1 9 6 5 ) ; N. Perrin, The New Testament: An Introduction (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1 9 7 4 ) , 2 2 6 - 2 9 , and A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 2 2 - 2 8 ; W . G. Kiimmel, Introduction to the New Testament, trans. H. C. Kee, 17th ed. rev. and enlarged (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1 9 7 5 ) , 2 0 2 - 2 0 4 , 2 1 1 .

160

Conclusion:

2.

From Passion Narrative

to

Gospel

CHRISTOLOGY

T h e Gospel's three principal christological titles, Christ, Son of G o d , and Son o f Man, continue into M k 1 4 - 1 6 and receive conclusive defini­ tion in the passion drama.

T h e three titles converge in Jesus' confes­

sion before the H i g h Priest ( 1 4 : 6 1 - 6 2 ) , and the Son o f G o d title is resumed by the centurion's confession ( 1 5 : 3 9 ) .

I n addition one new

title, i.e, K i n g , is introduced in M k 15 and placed in control over the events leading up to and including the crucifixion ( 1 5 : 2 , 9, 1 2 , 1 8 , 2 6 [ 3 2 ] ) . From the perspective o f titular Christology, therefore, the cen­ tral title, K i n g , is framed by Jesus' Son o f M a n confession and

the

centurion's Son of G o d confession. T h e H i g h Priest's question ( 1 4 : 6 1 ) links up Christ with Son o f the Blessed, i.e., Son o f God.

B o t h titles had up to this point been in

suspense or under suspicion ( D o n a h u e , P e r r i n ) .

Peter's Christ confession

is rejected by Jesus apparently on grounds that it lacks the dimension o f suffering ( 8 : 2 9 - 3 1 ) .

T h e title Son o f G o d is the address to Jesus not only

by G o d ( 1 : 1 1 ; 9 : 7 ) but also by the demons ( 1 : 2 4 ; 3 : 1 1 ; 5 : 7 ) .

Further­

more, this title is issued in private ( 1 : 1 1 ) , is not to be disclosed until a future appointed time ( 9 : 9 ) , and is stamped with the seal o f secrecy (3:12).

I t is not until his confession before the High Priest

(14:62)

that Jesus gives personal affirmation to his status as Christ and Son o f God.

H e confirms these two titles by means o f the third one, Son o f

M a n , which is defined by its eschatological quality.

T h i s Son o f M a n

saying, the last of its kind in the Gospel, concludes the M k a n Son o f Man

Christology which encompasses the epiphany

exousia 41)

( 2 : 1 0 , 2 8 ) , his passion identity

o f Jesus'

earthly

(8:31; 9:31; 10:33;

14:21,

and its soteriological significance ( 1 0 : 4 5 ) , as well as his eschato­

logical future ( 8 : 3 8 ; 1 3 : 2 6 ) . These three titles in conjunction summarize M k ' s titular Christology, and the Messianic claim formula, ego eimi,

characterizes this first and

last confession o f Jesus as the break or disclosure o f the Messianic Secret ( D o n a h u e , P e r r i n ) .

O n the face o f it no new christological truth

is revealed by 1 4 : 6 1 - 6 2 .

W h a t had been communicated in private,

kept in secret, or misunderstood patently was always meant to be under­ stood by the readers o f the Gospel.

O n the discourse level, secret and

private testimonies are fully disclosed, and the readers are meant

to

161

Christology

profit from the misconceptions surrounding the identity o f Jesus in the Gospel.

O n the story level, however, it is significant that Jesus' full

identity remains unconfirmed until this specific m o m e n t in the Gospel's story.

B y m a k i n g his one and only full confession at his trial Jesus

incriminates himself before his accusers. indeed causes the death sentence

His confession provokes and

(14:63-64).

T h e latter does

not

follow from political or judicial reasoning, but out o f the logic o f M k a n Christology.

T h e death sentence must result from Jesus' confession,

just as his confession must be confirmed by the death sentence, because the full identity o f Jesus as Christ, Son o f G o d , and Son o f M a n is established "during and in the light o f the passion" ( P e r r i n ) . A s the three titles were assembled in 1 4 : 6 1 - 6 2 under the prompting of M k a n Christology, so does also the emergence o f the title K i n g in M k 15 result from the Evangelist's christological reflection ber). 30-32;

(Perrin, K e l ­

T h i s royal title which according to 1 : 1 4 - 1 5 ( c f . 4 : 1 1 , 2 6 - 2 9 , 10:23-27;

11:9-10)

could be expected to be the

authentic

designation o f Jesus is withheld until the crucifixion events because for Mk, Jesus is K i n g through suffering and cross.

T h e ambiguity surround­

ing the title ( K e l b e r ) is rooted in the paradoxical nature o f M k ' s royal Christology: Jesus is the crucified K i n g .

T h e crucifixion o f the two rob­

bers "one on his right and one on his left" ( 1 5 : 2 7 ) enhances the imagery of enthronement.

T h e cross becomes a means o f accession to royal power.

M k offers neither description nor mention o f Jesus' physical suffering, and yet the crucifixion is anything Christology.

but the dramatization

o f docetic

Jesus does suffer, but his suffering is o f a quality which

exceeds that of physical pain.

T h e cross marks his defeat by the forces

of evil and his abandonment by G o d .

G l o b a l darkness ( 1 5 : 3 3 )

bolizes the triumph o f darkness and the demonic seizure of power.

sym­ 5

At

the cross demonic forces reach the height o f their power, and Jesus is crushed by those very powers which he himself had come to exorcise. T h e cries o f dereliction ( 1 5 : 3 4 ) and expiration ( 1 5 : 3 7 ) likewise depict Jesus as being overpowered by the forces o f evil. (phone

me gale)

B o t h are "loud cries"

which are uttered in the state o f demonic possession

5. J . Schreiber, Theologie des Vertrauens (Hamburg: Furche-Verlag, 1 9 6 7 ) , 3 8 - 3 9 , 9 5 , 118, passim; F. W . Danker, "The Demonic Secret in Mark: A Reexamination of the Cry of Dereliction ( 1 5 , 3 4 ) , " ZNW 61 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 5 0 - 5 1 .

Conclusion:

162 (cf. 1:26; 5 : 7 ) .

6

From Passion Narrative

to

Gospel

A s Jesus' own authority formerly caused demons to

convulse, so does the demonic presence make him suffer at the cross. Engulfed by demonic darkness and overcome by the powers o f evil, Jesus suffers the absence o f G o d , for the cry o f dereliction is not shouted in triumph but out o f absolute powerlessness ( W e e d e n ) .

W i t h it M k ' s

passion Christology ^is raised to a new and piercing level. "delivered up"

(14:10,

Jesus is

11, 18, 2 1 , 4 1 , 4 2 , 4 4 ; 1 5 : 1 , 10, 1 5 )

not

merely into the hands o f the J e w i s h - R o m a n power structure, but beyond that into demonic darkness and God-forsakenness.

God's

noninterfer­

ence at the cross, his abandonment o f Jesus in the hour o f greatest need constitutes the ultimate depth o f Jesus' suffering.

Rejected by his fol­

lowers, taunted by his enemies, derided even by those who suffer

the

cross next to him, delivered into the hands o f Satan, and abandoned by God, Jesus paradoxically fulfills his royal mission. tity is cited by the titulus

His Messianic iden­

over the cross ( 1 5 : 2 6 ) because it is consum­

mated in total abandonment on the cross. D e a t h coincides with ( o r effects) the rending o f the T e m p l e curtain ( 1 5 : 3 8 ) and causes the centurion's confession ( 1 5 : 3 9 ) .

The moment

of absolute powerlessness generates a "transvaluation" o f the symbols o f power and weakness, and life and death ( W e e d e n ) .

T h e T e m p l e , es­

tablished representation o f life, comes to an end, and Jesus' true identity is confirmed in view o f his death.

As yet no human being has testified

to Jesus as Son o f G o d until this m o m e n t o f God-forsakenness.

The

centurion "sees" that "the m a n was Son o f G o d " in the circumstances surrounding the crucifixion and by the manner o f Jesus' dying.

Defeat

by the demons and abandonment by G o d reveals his Sonship o f G o d . A s Son o f M a n Jesus incurs the death sentence, as K i n g he is cruci­ fied, and as Son of G o d he dies in powerlessness. T h e cross, therefore, becomes the ground o f Easter hope, for it is not by resurrection but in abandonment by G o d that Jesus is appointed Son of God, K i n g , and Son o f M a n . cross, but the cross is the conditio

I t is not Easter that vindicates the

sine qua non of Easter.

If the cross is the moment of epiphany and the primal datum of faith for Mk, what is the role of resurrection? Mk 1 6 : 1 - 8 opposes the view that the resurrection could either be ground for faith or proof of Jesus' presence in the 6. Danker, "Demonic Secret," 5 1 - 5 4 . Phone megale occurs four times in Mk, twice in exorcism stories (1:26; 5 : 7 ) , and twice in the crucifixion story ( 1 5 : 3 4 , 3 7 ) .

Christology

163

community (Crossan). This is contrary to the classic concept of resurrection Christology which in recent times has been forcefully argued by W . Pannenberg. In his systematic assessment of M k 1 6 : 1 - 8 Pannenberg makes five fundamental affirmations: ( 1 ) Mk 1 6 : 1 - 8 is an Easter tradition in the sense that it testifies to the historicity of the Empty Tomb and provides the presupposition for the resurrection kerygma. By rejoinder we would suggest that Mk 1 6 : 1 - 8 is not an Easter tradition which promotes Easter faith and the resurrected Lord in the community. T o the contrary, these verses form an anti-apparition tradition or an "anti-tradi­ tion of the Empty Tomb" (Crossan). Not the presence of the resurrected Lord is emphasized, but the "negativity of the presence" then and thereafter (Crossan). T h e angel identifies Jesus as Nazarene, the Crucified One, and points to his resurrection as the ground for his absence ( I 6 : 6 d : egertbe, ouk estin bode). M t ( 2 8 : 6 ) and Lk ( 2 4 : 6 ) reverse the Mkan logic: Jesus' ab­ sence in the tomb becomes the ground for his resurrection. T h e Empty T o m b tradition, as conceived by Pannenberg, is thus the Matthean and Lkan theologi­ cal corrective of the Mkan anti-appartion tradition. 7

( 2 ) In Pannenberg's view, the disciples could never have proclaimed the resurrected Lord on grounds of the Empty T o m b unless they had indeed witnessed the tomb empty. In contrast to 1 Cor 1 5 : 3 - 5 , M t 2 8 : 1 - 1 0 , 1 6 - 2 8 , and Lk 2 4 : 1 - 1 1 , 1 3 - 3 5 , 3 6 - 4 9 , the disciples in Mk do not witness the Empty Tomb, do not even learn of its existence, do not experience the resurrected Lord, and pro­ claim nothing regarding Jesus or the tomb in the closing scenes of the Gospel. M k 1 6 : 1 - 8 purposely deprives Peter and the disciples of a resurrection ap­ pearance of the risen Lord (Crossan). ( 3 ) Pannenberg argues that Mk 1 6 : 1 - 8 was part of a pre-Mkan Passion Narrative. According to Crossan, however, 1 6 : 1 - 8 is Mkan redaction deliberately de­ signed to communicate Mk's anti-apparition Christology. Even i f one wishes to postulate the existence of a pre-Mkan Passion Narrative, Mk 1 6 : 1 - 8 was not part of it. ( 4 ) Pannenberg states that 1 6 : 1 - 8 can be traced back to Jerusalem since the pre-Mkan Passion Narrative originated as a local Jerusalem tradition. While the existence of a pre-Mkan Passion Narrative is doubtful, as argued above, its Jerusalem origin is wholly unproven. In its present form 1 6 : 1 - 8 is not a Jerusalem tradition, but rather an and-Jerusalem tradition. W h a t might at best be argued is that Mk by withholding the resurrection appearance from 7. W . Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, trans. L. L. Wilkins and D. A. Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1 9 6 8 ) , 8 8 - 1 0 6 . Pannenberg has admirably utilized current New Testament scholarship in his systematic theological enterprise. The above observations are meant to indicate the impact of Mkan redaction critical studies on a theology of the stature of Pannenberg's.

Conclusion:

164

From Passion Narrative

to

Gospel

the disciples may be reversing what used to be a Jerusalem-type pre-Mkan Empty T o m b tradition. B u t Crossan argues that there never existed pre-Mkan traditions regarding the Empty Tomb, only apparition stories such as M k 6:45-51. ( 5 ) Pannenberg believes that the inconclusive ending of the Mkan Gospel points to a missing Easter account, i.e., an apparition of Jesus in Galilee. Nothing is lacking after 1 6 : 1 - 8 , however, according to the Gospel's dra­ matic logic. The disciples cannot experience the resurrected Lord because they did not follow the Crucified One. T h e Gospel is complete in itself by deliberately not recording an apparition event. I n M k the resurrection is strictly subordinated

to the crucifixion.

T h e Evangelist makes his Gospel culminate in a passion account, not in a narrative o f Jesus' resurrection appearance!

T h e resurrection ensues

from death in godforsakenness and marks the beginning o f Jesus' ab­ sence from the community.

Rooted in the cross the resurrection does

not in itself carry soteriological significance. A Christology which peaks in the lowness o f the cross, subordinates resurrection to crucifixion, and refrains from displaying the Resurrected O n e ( w h i l e stressing his absence) is too harshly focused on the paradox of negation to be o f enduring attraction.

M t , Lk, and J n ( i f we may

assume a M k - J n relationship), each in his own way, digress from M k a n Christology.

O n one point all three are agreed: a Christology devoid of

apparition scenes is intolerable. I n what sense does Mk's' Christology of the cross communicate to the readers o f the Gospel?

T h e anti-apparition thrust of 1 6 : 1 - 8 is notice­

able elsewhere in the Gospel.

T h e eucharistic tradition

(14:22-25)

centers on Jesus' death and culminates in the announcement absence until some future point in time ( R o b b i n s ) .

o f his

M k 13 defines the

M k a n time-frame between Easter and parousia as a period o f wars, T e m p l e destruction, flight, heresy, and the absence o f Jesus ( W e e d e n ) . T h e parables in M k 4 portray the M k a n present as a twilight zone afflicted by persecution and the onslaughts o f Satan.

T h e absence o f

Jesus is thus a presiding feature in the M k a n Gospel.

If, as most

contributors to this volume agree, the Gospel was composed in

the

aftermath o f A.D. 7 0 , M k ' s emphasis on Jesus' absence might be related to the time and circumstances o f the Gospel's composition.

T h e anti-

apparition thrust may derive from the fact that Jesus did not intervene in the eschatological struggle against R o m e as he was expected to and as

Rival

165

Christology

was propagated by early Christian prophets at the time

( 1 3 : 6 , 21 ) .

8

After the disconfirmation of the parousia expectations o f A.D. 7 0 the absence o f Jesus became an intensely M k a n experience.

B u t if the

absence o f Jesus from the community is a M k a n experience, then the ab­ sence o f G o d suffered by Jesus on the cross appears in a new light. I n his godforsakenness Jesus suffers the plight o f the M k a n Christians. Both

divine

silence

(15:34)

and

the

destruction

of

the

Temple

( 1 5 : 3 8 ) , the very traumas suffered by the people, are anticipated in and transcended by Jesus' suffering on the cross.

His non-miraculous death

becomes transitional for himself and for those on behalf o f whom he dies ( 1 0 : 4 5 ; 1 4 : 2 4 ) .

In his very godforsakenness Jesus anticipates in

exemplary fashion the traumatic experiences o f the Gospel's readers.

3. R I V A L

CHRISTOLOGY

I n M k 1 4 - 1 6 the M k a n passion Christology is accompanied by the shadow o f its own negation.

T h e Christology o f the suffering Son o f

M a n , K i n g , and Son of G o d is developed in contradiction to an opposite concept o f Messiahship, one o f miraculous demonstration o f power.

At

crucial points in M k 1 4 - 1 6 theme alternates with countertheme, claim meets counterclaim, and confession is pitted against anti-confession. T h e crucifixion scene itself ( 1 5 : 2 2 - 3 2 ) is patterned after theme and countertheme.

T h e title " K i n g of the J e w s " placed over the cross

( 1 5 : 2 6 ) conveys both dramatically and conceptually the cardinal point of M k ' s passion Christology: crucifixion.

Jesus' Messiahship is consummated

by

O n the other hand, a whole chorus o f mockers surrounds

the cross and challenges the concept o f a suffering K i n g

(15:29-32).

T h e passers-by, chief priests, scribes, and robbers provoke Jesus to per­ form a miracle on behalf o f himself so as to prove his identity and to implement his Messianic authority.

T h e mockers wish to see a life-

saving miracle, for their faith is predicated

on seeing

idomen

title indigenous

kai

pisteusdmen).

"Christ"

is the

(15:32: to

bina this

Christology o f miracle-saving power ( W e e d e n ) , and the mockers' " K i n g of Israel" ( 1 5 : 3 2 ) is set in opposition to the titulus

" K i n g of the J e w s "

8. R. Pesch, Naherwartungen: Tradition und Redaktion in Mk 13 (Diisseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1 9 6 8 ) , 2 1 8 - 2 3 , passim; K E L B E R , 1 0 9 - 2 8 , passim.

Conclusion:

166 (15:26).

From Passion Narrative

to

Gospel

T h e latter supports M k ' s suffering Kingship, while " K i n g o f

Israel" represents a "Christ" who performs in power and by self-serving miracles ( W e e d e n ) .

This same concept of "Christ" exhibited by the

mockers ( 1 5 : 3 2 : bo Cbristos)

seems also to lie behind Peter's anti-

confession ( 8 : 2 9 : ho Cbristos)

which runs into Jesus' confession of suf­

fering Son of M a n ( W e e d e n ) .

Peter's anti-confession and denial and

the disciples' ineptitude to grasp a suffering Messiahship makes the twelve under the leadership of Peter together with the chorus of mockers the pro­ ponents of a rival Christology which thrives on miracle-working power minus suffering and death. Jesus' confession before the H i g h Priest ( 1 4 : 6 1 - 6 2 ) functions as an antidote to an opposite viewpoint on at least three different levels. W i t h i n the narrow scope o f 1 4 : 6 1 - 6 2

Jesus' future-directed

Son of

M a n statement may be designed to correct Christ and Son of God, titles which for the High Priest are likely to imply the present realization of power ( W e e d e n ) .

W i t h i n the larger framework of 1 4 : 5 3 - 7 2 Jesus'

confession forms part of a trial scene which is set in intercalated posi­ tion within the story of Peter's denial (Dewey, D o n a h u e ) .

T h e net

effect o f this construct is such that confession and anti-confession occur "at the same time and in the same place" ( D e w e y ) .

O n a still larger

scale Jesus' confession is directed against the false Messianic claimants of 1 3 : 6 , 2 1 - 2 2 .

T h e i r concept of a realized Messianic presence sum­

moned by the ego eimi

formula ( 1 3 : 6 ) is opposed by Jesus' ego

eimi

confession which projects his full manifestation into the future. A further instance of the confession/anti-confession pattern is pro­ vided by the cry o f dereliction ( 1 5 : 3 4 ) and its subsequent misinterpre­ tation ( 1 5 : 3 5 - 3 6 ) .

W h i l e the cry displays Jesus' utter helplessness

and powerlessness, the bystanders take it to be a call for help miraculous rescue from suffering ( W e e d e n ) .

a miracle is fundamental to the anti-confession position ( 1 5 : 3 6 : idomen).

apbete

T h e centurion's climactic confession ( 1 5 : 3 9 ) , by contrast,

turns the bystanders' concept of seeing right side up. idon)

and

Once again, the seeing of

H e "sees"

(kai

the Son of G o d revealed in the void of god forsakenness and death,

and thus becomes the Gospel's first and only true believer. Consistent with this theme/counter theme pattern are two types o f meal

Christologies

8:1-10)

(Robbins).

The

Feeding

Stories

function within a context of thoroughgoing

(6:30-44;

misunderstanding

which reflects M k a n controversy over the christological significance of

Rival

167

Christology

ceremonial meals.

A s conceived by the disciples and requested by the

Pharisees, the feedings ought to celebrate the presence o f the risen Lord. B u t in his own

last meal celebration

(14:22-25)

Jesus rights

the

wrong meal Christology by focusing upon his death and absence from the community.

Again, a Christology of Messianic presence receives

correction from a Christology which is rooted in the cross and devoid of apparitions ( R o b b i n s ) . T h e full dimension of M k a n Christology involves its polemical under­ side, for Jesus is vindicated by reversing the opposite model. Christology and rival Christology condition each other, indeed feed on each other in unexpected, paradoxical ways.

Jesus' first suffering Son of M a n confes­

sion is provoked by Peter's anti-confession.

T h e H i g h Priest facilitates

disclosure of the Messianic Secret which in turn brings about death out of which comes life.

T h e centurion, symbol o f power and

in

in

the

cross, stands

(Weeden).

awe of power

made

manifest

instrumental in

weakness

T h e M k a n Jesus thrives on turning around the opposite

model of Messiahship until in the end he triumphs in suffering death, not in celebration o f resurrection life.

M k a n Christology thus unfolds by a

process of reversal. A number o f authors of this volume are o f the opinion that

the

Gospel's christological dialectic derives from an intra-Christian conflict in the M k a n environment.

A m o n g the general features

of the op­

ponents' profile they would list the following: interest in miracles and apparitions, stress on present realization o f eschatological hope, a mini­ m a l appreciation o f the religious validity o f Jesus' suffering and death, and a possible appeal to the twelve under the leadership

o f Peter.

W e e d e n has argued that the Christology o f the opponents was drawn from a Hellenistic theios

aner milieu in which Jesus was identified as a

superhuman worker o f miracles.

K e l b e r attempted

to trace the op­

ponents' Christology ( a n d eschatology) to J e w i s h apocalypticism which evoked parousia.

a Jesus returned

or

imminently

expected

to

return

at

the

W e e d e n , K e l b e r , and Crossan recognize a direct or indirect

association o f the opponents with Jerusalem. W e e d e n sees behind them the Hellenistic-Jewish Stephen party,

9

Crossan and K e l b e r the Jewish

Christian core of the Jerusalem Church.

T w o observations may

be

9. T. J . Weeden, "The Conflict between Mark and His Opponents over Kingdom Theology," SBL Seminar Papers, ed. G. MacRae (Cambridge, Mass.: SBL, 1 9 7 3 ) , II, 226-28.

Conclusion:

168

From Passion Narrative

to

Gospel

added at the present stage o f the discussion: ( a ) T h e actual agreement ( a m o n g some authors) on the opponents as a religious phenomenon is obscured by the disparate religionsgeschichtliche aner versus apocalypticism.

designations o f

theios

T h i s raises the question whether ( b ) both

terms may not be inappropriate

in reference to the specific type of

Christian faith against which M k appears to polemicize. W h i l e the authors recognize the existence of the theme/countertheme pattern in M k , not all would attribute it to the force of a M k a n opposi­ tion.

Donahue, for example, questions Weeden's thoroughgoing recon­

struction o f a theios

aner

Christology and his interpretation of M k by

way of a dialogue with such an opposition.

For Donahue, M k is not

repudiating a Hellenistic notion o f Son of God, but rather reinterpreting a Jewish, Messianic concept of Son of God.

Hence, M k 1 4 - 1 6 is not

viewed as the reversal of a divine m a n Christology, but as the culmina­ tion

of M k ' s pervasive

medium of the cross.

royal

Christology refashioned

through

the

Irony and paradox in M k 1 4 - 1 6 may therefore

not necessarily reflect a theios

aner

challenge, but could be the natural

component o f a Christology of the crucified K i n g , and the

theme/

countertheme pattern would not inevitably indicate the existence o f a distinct group of opponents with w h o m M k is debating.

4.

THE ISSUE O F

THE

TEMPLE

One of the interpretive puzzles of M k 1 4 - 1 6 has been an

anti-

T e m p l e theme which seems out of accord with the theological issues raised by trial and crucifixion.

Specifically, the discussion has revolved

around 1 4 : 5 8 , a saying attributed to Jesus and dealing with his threat to destroy the T e m p l e and his promise to build another one.

T h e r e are

three problems involved in the emergence o f the anti-Temple theme in the trial ( 1 4 : 5 8 )

and in the crucifixion ( 1 5 : 2 9 ) .

( 1 ) Is the saying

1 4 : 5 8 intended by M k to be true or false on the lips o f Jesus?

I f it is

meant to be a true statement o f Jesus, why is it attributed to false witnesses?

( 2 ) I n 1 4 : 5 8 does the other T e m p l e not made with hands

(which will replace the one made with hands) refer to the T e m p l e of the end time, to the eschatological community, or to the risen Jesus?

(3)

In what sense, if at all, is 1 4 : 5 8 related to other anti-Temple sayings or scenes in the Gospel such as the mocking of the passers-by

(15:29),

Jesus' prediction o f the destruction o f the T e m p l e ( 1 3 : 2 ) , his so-called

The Issue of the

Temple

169

cleansing o f the T e m p l e ( 1 1 : 1 2 - 2 0 ) , and the rending o f the T e m p l e curtain ( 1 5 : 3 8 ) ? D o n a h u e interprets the first half o f 1 4 : 5 8 as an integral part o f M k ' s pervasive anti-Temple

theology

(11:11—14:1).

Jesus enters

Jerusa­

lem with the intention to disqualify the T e m p l e , and it is his anti-Temple activity which causes arrest, trial, and crucifixion.

M k establishes the

connection between Jesus' anti-Temple mission and death by

reporting

three times a plot on the life of Jesus, and each time in reaction to his anti-Temple words or actions.

Initially the plot is provoked

by Jesus' eschatological "cleansing" o f the T e m p l e .

(11:18)

T h e plan to kill

Jesus is reiterated ( 1 2 : 1 2 ) after Jesus announces the replacement o f the T e m p l e by the Christian community.

10

Jesus' outright

prediction o f

the destruction o f the T e m p l e ( 1 3 : 2 ; cf. 1 3 : 1 4 ) prompts a third plot on his life ( 1 4 : 1 )

which in turn is transformed

arrest, trial, and crucifixion.

into action through the

Since, therefore, the trial arises directly

out o f Jesus' anti-Temple activity, the latter has to become an issue in the trial, and 1 4 : 5 8 , according to Donahue, functions as a true state­ ment. T h e matter o f the false witnesses D o n a h u e explains in terms o f an O l d Testament tradition o f the suffering J u s t O n e .

T o be surrounded

by false accusers belongs to the traditional image o f the J u s t O n e whose fate it is to suffer innocently. 59),

T h e m o t i f o f false witnesses ( 1 4 : 5 6 , 5 7 ,

therefore, enhances the image o f Jesus as the suffering Just One,

while it does not affect the truth or falseness o f the charge o f 1 4 : 5 8 . T h e M k a n Jesus, D o n a h u e argues, is tried and killed because o f his opposition to the T e m p l e , but he is tried and killed as the Righteous One. T h e second part o f 1 4 : 5 8 is in Donahue's view also intelligible as a continuation o f a M k a n theme, i.e., that o f Jesus the preparer o f the eschatological community

(1:16-20;

3:13-19;

11:17;

14:28;

16:7).

For Donahue, the other T e m p l e not made with hands symbolizes the new Christian community in G a l i l e e .

11

10. D O N A H U E , 1 2 2 - 2 7 . The setting for the parable of the Vineyard and the Tenants ( 1 2 : 1 - 1 1 ) is established by 11:27. The parable is spoken in the Temple and against the Temple authorities. 11. Donahue is less confident about the compatibility of 1 5 : 2 9 with Mkan Temple theology. Within a thoroughgoing context of contempt ( 1 5 : 2 9 - 3 2 a ) , 1 5 : 2 9 is placed on the lips of mockers because the verse represents for Mk an incorrect viewpoint. See, DONAHUE, 196-201.

Conclusion:

170

From Passion Narrative

to

Gospel

In this double focus on the destruction o f the T e m p l e and a new Galilean center, 1 4 : 5 8 speaks effectively to Christians who have experi­ enced the fall o f Jerusalem and are faced with the problem o f finding a new communal place.

For them the trial of Jesus serves as a model for

their own trials and tribulations. W e e d e n does not consider M k a n T e m p l e theology as much o f a linear, homogeneous complex as does Donahue.

According to W e e d e n , the

Evangelist places 1 4 : 5 8 and 1 5 : 2 9 on the lips o f false witnesses and revilers because he wishes to dissociate himself from the viewpoint ex­ pressed in these verses.

A study o f content indicates to W e e d e n that the

two sayings are out o f step with M k a n Christology and eschatology. B o t h sayings consider Jesus himself the agent o f the Temple's destruc­ tion

(emphatically so 1 4 : 5 8 : ego katalyso),

while the Jesus promoted

by M k remains personally uninvolved in the actual T e m p l e crisis, even though he opposes the T e m p l e , disqualifies it, and predicts its downfall. Furthermore, the two sayings advocate a correlation between T e m p l e destruction and Jesus' parousia, for the other T e m p l e rebuilt in three days points, in W e e d e n ' s view, to the risen Jesus and his c o m i n g — a n d not to the eschatological community.

B y contrast, the structure o f M k

13 reveals the M k a n intent to disconnect the parousia o f Jesus from the destruction o f the T e m p l e . For W e e d e n the T e m p l e eschatology of 1 4 : 5 8 and 1 5 : 2 9 — J e s u s the agent o f T e m p l e destruction, the realization o f Jesus' presence, realized eschatology in conjunction with T e m p l e destruction—is part o f the same divine ideology which he sees M k opposing throughout the Gospel. Against this divine m a n eschatology o f 1 4 : 5 8 and 1 5 : 2 9 M k argues that the destruction o f the T e m p l e falls into the period o f Jesus' absence from the Church ( 1 3 : 1 - 2 3 ) , that Jesus is the suffering Son o f M a n who dies divested o f power and not the triumphal Jesus who makes his appearance in Jerusalem ( 1 6 : 1 - 8 ) , and that Jesus' full identity is re­ served for the future ( 1 4 : 6 2 ) , i.e., a point in time after the fall o f the Temple ( 1 3 : 1 - 2 7 ) . These insights o f D o n a h u e and W e e d e n allow us to draw an outline o f what is a multifaceted M k a n T e m p l e theology. (1)

Donahue rightly stresses the M k a n anti-Temple theme. Jesus

disqualifies the T e m p l e ( 1 1 : 1 2 - 2 0 )

and predicts its downfall

(13:2),

and death plots and arrest do result from his mounting T e m p l e opposi-

The Issue of the tion.

171

Temple

W i t h i n the broad structure of the M k a n narrative,

Jesus' death is caused by his mission against the T e m p l e .

12

therefore, By way of

an ironic twist, however, Jesus reverses the expectations of his enemies. I f the Jewish officials sought to protect the T e m p l e by putting Jesus to death, they merely hastened the fate of the T e m p l e , because the very death of Jesus constitutes a prolepsis (15:37-38). (2)

of the

end

o f the

Temple

1 3

Jesus the opponent o f the T e m p l e is not to be confused with a

Jesus who is the agent of its destruction. 1 4 : 5 8 and 1 5 : 2 9 .

T h e latter view is expressed in

W h i l e Weeden's theios

aner

nomenclature remains

an open question, his interpretation of the two verses as false statements is persuasive.

Throughout the Gospel Jesus suffers a mistaken identity

through enemies and friends, false accusers and false confessors, false Christs and mockers, his own disciples and especially Peter.

B y putting

1 4 : 5 8 and 1 5 : 2 9 on the lips of false witnesses and revilers M k has formally

relegated

these sayings to his theological

counterstructure.

For M k , Jesus cannot be the personal destroyer of the T e m p l e for two reasons.

One, he is not a militant, triumphal Christ, but one who in the

process of his mission against the T e m p l e is destroyed himself.

T w o , it

is in the last analysis the T e m p l e establishment, and not Jesus, which by killing Jesus effects the end of the T e m p l e . (3)

For M k the fall of the T e m p l e is in no way related to Jesus'

resurrection or parousia.

Such a connection between the crisis of the

T e m p l e ( a n d J e r u s a l e m ) and the miraculous appearance of Jesus is assumed by 1 4 : 5 8 and 1 5 : 2 9 .

T h e reference to three days in both

sayings favors an interpretation of the T e m p l e not made with hands in terms of the risen Jesus.

But it is noteworthy that the three-day formu­

las in both 1 4 : 5 8 (dia trion

bemeron)

and 1 5 : 2 9 (en trisin

bemeras)

do not conform to the resurrection formula of Jesus' own passion/resur­ rection predictions ( 8 : 3 1 , 9 : 3 1 , 1 0 : 3 4 : met a treis

bemerais).

T h i s is

a further indication that the eschatological Jesus invoked by false wit-

12. Both Mkan and Pauline Christology are distinguished by an iconoclastic quality: the Mkan Jesus puts an end to the Temple much'like the Pauline Christ puts an end to the Law. 13. Mk is the first Christian theologian known to us who reflects on the relationship between the two principal traumas suffered by first century Christians: the death of Jesus and the destruction of the Temple. He accomplishes meaning by coordinating the two: Jesus' death anticipates the death of the Temple ( 1 5 : 3 8 ) .

Conclusion:

172

From Passion

Narrative

to

Gospel

nesses and revilers is at variance with the dying, risen Jesus sponsored by M k : Jesus rose three days after death, hence n o t three days after the T e m p l e destruction. (4)

Despite M k ' s pervasive

anti-Temple

scheme W e e d e n

rightly

alerts us to the fact that in the trial Jesus is n o t charged with opposition to the T e m p l e (assuming that 1 4 : 5 8 is false for M k ) .

T h e fifth and last

reference to the death plot, the condemnation itself ( 1 4 : 6 3 - 6 4 ) , is n o t caused by an anti-Temple confession or anti-Temple charge.

As we

noted above, what precipitates the death sentence is Jesus' confession before the H i g h Priest, his disclosure o f the Messianic Secret

(14:62).

For M k , Jesus dies because h e reveals his full identity which includes, but is n o t limited to, his authority t o take action against the T e m p l e .

In

the last analysis Jesus dies because h e confesses to be the Christ and S o n of G o d who as Son o f M a n claims authority for the future. (5)

14

T h e M k a n T e m p l e theology speaks to the Gospel's readers after

A.D. 7 0 . Jesus' mission anticipated the end o f the T e m p l e , while h e himself was n o t instrumental in bringing about the fall.

Jesus rose three

days after death and pointed the way toward Galilee.

T h e predicted

destruction o f Jerusalem and the nonappearance o f Jesus in J e r u s a l e m makes any Christian involvement in the city unjustifiable. Mk

I n the trial

repudiates Christian hopes which had been invested in Jerusalem.

Jesus died n o t because h e had engaged himself miraculously in the city's crisis, or because h e pledged allegiance to Jerusalem, but rather because he confessed his future

authority as Son o f M a n . A s enthroned and

coming S o n o f M a n Jesus had died for a future which lies beyond the crisis o f the city.

5. C H A R A C T E R S

1 5

T h e importance o f studying the role o f characters as a key to M k ' s theological intent has c o m e t o b e recognized in recent work on the Gospel.

16

O n the o n e hand,

characters have an internal

function.

1 4 . In the trial, therefore, 1 4 : 5 8 is not vindicated but repudiated by Jesus' confession. The witnesses' claim of Jesus' eschatological presence is contradicted by Jesus' revelarion of his identity in terms of future enthronement (which implies absence) and future coming. 1 5 . I am grateful to Kim Dewey for having drawn up a first draft of this section. 1 6 . W E E D E N , 2 0 - 5 1 ; P E R R I N , 5 2 - 5 4 , and Pilgrimage,

107-10.

Characters

173

T h e y participate

in the inner dynamic of the Gospel, advance the plot,

and bring it to the desired resolution. serve an external function.

O n the other hand, characters

T h e y represent

something to the audience,

symbolize realities which link up with the readers' present, and serve as models of meaning and conduct. The

women:

T h e entire passion section in M k is framed by two

stories whose chief characters are women.

O n one end is the story o f

an anonymous woman who anoints Jesus for burial ( 1 4 : 3 - 9 )

and on

the other end stands the report of women who come to the tomb to anoint Jesus' body ( 1 6 : 1 - 8 ) . the absence of Jesus ( 1 4 : 7 ;

B o t h stories mention anointment 16:6).

and

T h e s e women demonstrate dis-

cipleship which consists in honoring and following Jesus as the Crucified One.

W i t h this the similarities end, for while one woman anoints Jesus

in anticipation of his death, the other women fail to anoint Jesus be­ cause of his absence from the tomb. plauded, but the very women who

T h e anonymous woman is ap­ had

followed Jesus in G a l i l e e

( 1 5 : 4 0 - 4 1 ) flee the tomb in fear and trembling.

T h e outsider succeeds,

but the insiders fail. Judas:

N o t mentioned since his first and unfavorable listing in 3 : 1 9 ,

Judas is consistently introduced into the passion section as "one of the twelve" ( 1 4 : 1 0 , 2 0 , 4 3 ) .

Identified as one o f the twelve who shares

table fellowship with Jesus ( 1 4 : 1 8 - 2 0 ) , the Judas figure shocks the reader into the realization that enmity arises from within ( R o b b i n s ) ; as Jesus was "delivered up" by one o f his own, so are the Christians likewise "delivered up" by their own

(13:12).

used to describe the act of betrayal, paradidonai 44),

integrates

1 7

B u t the very term

(14:10, 11, 18, 2 1 , 42,

the betrayal into a purposeful

scheme o f

passion.

Judas, although guilty and cursed by Jesus ( 1 4 : 2 1 ) , functions to trans­ late Jesus' passion predictions ( 9 : 3 1 ; 1 0 : 3 3 ;

1 4 : 4 1 , 4 2 ) into action.

In his own paradoxical fashion he initiates the passion and advances Jesus' enthronement by crucifixion. m e n t scene ( 1 4 : 3 - 9 ) 10-11):

H e n c e the framing of the anoint­

by the themes of death and betrayal

Jesus' Messianic anointment

(14:1-2,

is paradoxically instituted

by

human malice and betrayal. The

17.

twelve,

DONAHUE,

the three,

170.

and Peter:

In M k 1 4 - 1 6 the twelve, the three,

Conclusion:

174

From Passion Narrative

to

Gospel

and Peter consummate their function as negative models of discipleship. T h e y prepare the passover meal but seem unprepared for Jesus' ex­ posure o f the enemy within at his last meal ( 1 4 : 1 9 ) .

Ceremonially,

they all drink of the cup ( 1 4 : 2 3 ) , but for all practical purposes they escape drinking the cup when they flee that same night.

T h e three

confidants, acting in lieu o f the twelve, yield to the temptation to cir­ cumvent suffering and passion

( 1 4 : 3 7 - 4 2 ) , and when Jesus' passion

begins with his arrest all the disciples flee ( 1 4 : 5 0 : ephygon in the end the three women flee ( 1 6 : 8 : ephygon).

pantes),

as

W i t h the arrest the

disciples are phased out o f Jesus' passion, except for Peter.

B y jux­

taposing his denial with Jesus' confession M k elevates him into the role of Jesus' chief antagonist

(Dewey).

As Jesus divulges his Messianic

identity, Peter fulfills his role as satanic opponent.

W i t h the disciples

there is an element o f disintegration in the Gospel story, and the readers are alerted to the fact that to follow the twelve, or the three, or Peter, is to court disaster. The

High

Priest

and Pilate:

B o t h characters function

fashion in Jesus' twin trials ( 1 4 : 5 5 - 6 5 ;

15:2-15).

in

parallel

B o t h ask Jesus

about his Messianic identity ( 1 4 : 6 1 ; 1 5 : 2 ) , both encounter Jesus' si­ lence ( 1 4 : 6 1 ; 1 5 : 5 ) , and both receive a qualifying or indirect answer (14:62; 15:2).

B u t while the High Priest seems determined to gain

Jesus' conviction, Pilate is a more complex figure.

H e remains uncon­

vinced o f Jesus' guilt ( 1 5 : 1 4 ) , proposes to release Jesus instead of a m a n of violence ( 1 5 : 6 - 9 ) , and "wonders" ( 1 5 : 5 ) while Jesus is alive, and still "wonders" ( 1 5 : 4 4 )

after Jesus is dead.

W i t h this characteri­

zation of the H i g h Priest and Pilate, M k reverses the conventional model of friend and enemy.

Jesus' own H i g h Priest forces the condemnation,

while Pilate, representative o f a foreign, hostile power, suspects priestly envy ( 1 5 : 1 0 ) and tries to save the life of Jesus. The

young

(neaniskos)

man:

T h e mysterious figure of the naked young

symbolizes Jesus' escape from death.

the disciples ( 1 4 : 5 0 ) (14:51). (sindona)

behind.

( 1 5 : 4 6 : sindona)

After the flight of

he is the only person who still "follows" Jesus

T h e n he too is "seized"

before ( 1 4 : 4 4 , 4 6 ) .

man

(14:51)

as Jesus was "seized"

B u t he escapes naked by leaving his linen cloth

In similar fashion, Jesus is wrapped in a linen cloth from which he escapes by resurrection.

is completed by the reappearance of the young m a n

T h e analogy

(neaniskos)

in

Characters

175

Jesus' tomb ( 1 6 : 5 ) , sitting at the right hand, and dressed in a white robe of eschatological coloring ( C r o s s a n ) .

T h e young m a n mimics

Jesus' escape from death and almost comically exposes the failure o f the plot to kill Jesus.

H e plays the role of transition from the Gospel's

disintegrating process toward reintegration. Barabbas,

the soldiers,

Arimathea:

Simon

of Cyrene,

the centurion,

and Joseph

of

A number of participants in the passion are representatives

of destructive power or indifference who by a reversal o f role, however, become instruments in the Gospel's parallel process o f reintegration. Barabbas w h o has destroyed life facilitates life, for his release brings about Jesus' death out of which comes life ( 1 5 : 6 - 1 5 ) .

T h e soldiers,

determined to m a k e a brutal caricature of Jesus, unwittingly enact the scene of enthronement by humiliation ( 1 5 : 1 6 - 2 0 ) .

Simon o f Cyrene

fulfills the model o f cross-bearing discipleship by carrying the cross of Jesus ( 1 5 : 2 1 ; cf. W e e d e n ) . T h e centurion in charge of the execution is the only character who faces Jesus on the cross. characterized by the phrase parestekos

His ambiguous role is

ex enantias

autou

(15:39):

he

stands in opposition to Jesus as his executioner, but he also stands opposite to Jesus so as to face him and recognize his identity.

18

As an

opponent facing up to the dying Jesus, he confesses Jesus as the Son of God.

J o s e p h of Arimathea likewise undergoes a dramatic reversal.

M k states that he was a respected member of the council ( 1 5 : 4 3 ) ,

and

only M k claims that all the members of the council condemned Jesus (14:64).

B y implication, Joseph also cast his vote against J e s u s .

19

After having been instrumental earlier in the death of Jesus, Joseph afterward

arranges

(15:43-46).

the burial

and

thus prepares

for

the

Kingdom

A l l these characters are drawn into the process of re­

versal at the center of which stands Jesus' reversal of death into life. Jesus:

T h e Gospel's chief character is a model hard to define and

difficult to follow.

H e is a character o f authority and in possession of

18. By contrast, the women watch "from far away" ( 1 5 : 4 0 : apo makrotben), as Peter had earlier followed Jesus into the court "from far away" ( 1 4 : 5 4 : apo makro­ tben; cf. Dewey). 19. J . Schreiber, Die Markuspassion. Wege zur Erforschung der Leidensgeschichte Jesu (Hamburg: Furche-Verlag, 1 9 6 9 ) , 5 8 - 5 9 . Mt and Lk sense the Mkan implica­ tion and object to it, Mt by transforming Joseph from a council member to a disciple of Jesus (Mt 2 7 : 5 7 ) , Lk by explicitly rejecting the Mkan insinuation (Lk 23 :51) . In addition, both Mt and Lk disapprove of the Mkan notion that all the members had cast their votes against Jesus (Mt. 26:66; Lk omits Mk 14::64c).

Conclusion:

176

From Passion Narrative

detailed foreknowledge o f all that is coming to pass.

to

Gospel

H e anticipates the

precise location o f his Last M e a l ( 1 4 : 1 3 - 1 6 ) , the global spread o f the Gospel ( 1 4 : 9 ) , his disciples' flight ( 1 4 : 2 7 ) , Judas' betrayal Peter's denial

(14:30),

his own death

(14:8,

21-24,

(14:20),

2 7 , 4 1 ) , his

resurrection ( 1 4 : 2 8 ) , his absence from the community ( 1 4 : 7 , 2 5 ) , as well as his movement toward Galilee ( 1 4 : 2 8 ) .

T h e r e is an "authorita­

tive aura around Jesus" ( R o b b i n s ) who is in control over the events o f the passion.

O n the other hand, he is beaten and spat upon, sentenced

to death, humiliated, and rejected by his followers.

T h e only affection

bestowed upon him is anointment unto death and the kiss o f death. Abandoned by G o d he dies engulfed in demonic darkness. ter model Jesus is a complex and ambiguous symbol.

A s a charac­

H e is the speaker

of a Messianic confession who also veils himself in enigmatic silence. H e is the K i n g who dies a criminal's death. achieves victory through powerlessness. rises from death.

H e is a figure o f power who

H e is a Messiah who dies but

Even his confession lacks definitive clarity for it

points proleptically into an open-ended future.

Despite resurrection his

final victory is not celebrated because the completion o f his role hinges on still future aspects.

I n the wake o f his paradoxical performance the

world around him is turned upside down. identities for better and for worse. tional concept o f Messiah, and

H e changes expectations and

H e upsets the disciples' conven­

reverses the

traditional

symbols o f

Jerusalem and Galilee, friend and enemy, insider and outsider, disciple and persecutor, power and weakness, life and death.

A s one who rose

from death he promises life to those who will lose it.

6.

MARK

14-16 AND

THE

GOSPEL

W e e d e n has argued the significance o f Christology and rival Christol­ ogy as a clue to the theological purpose o f the M k a n Gospel. is well known and widely discussed.

His thesis

M k , according to W e e d e n , pro­

motes his Christology o f a suffering Son o f M a n not merely in p o i n t / counterpoint fashion, but also by relegating one half of the Gospel to the opponents' viewpoint and the other half to his own.

In 1 : 1 - 8 : 2 9 M k

portrays a Jesus engaged in miracle activity which is capped by Peter's divine man confession ( 8 : 2 9 ) .

After the silencing of Peter ( 8 : 3 0 )

presents Jesus' first public confession as suffering Son o f M a n

Mk

(8:31)

Mark

14-16 and the Gospel

177

which is systematically developed from climax in the passion section.

that point on

Mediated through

to its logical

the vehicle o f the

disciples' misunderstanding of the suffering Jesus, M k conveys the mes­ sage that their Christ of miracles and manifest power is rejected by the suffering, crucified Jesus.

As a result, the passion Christology of the

second half o f the Gospel renders obsolete the divine m a n Christology o f the first half. According to W e e d e n ' s model M k 1 4 - 1 6 would be both the Gospel's dramatic culmination and the near-exclusive carrier o f M k a n Christol­ ogy.

In

this

case, the

Gospel

could

appropriately,

if

"somewhat

provocatively," be defined as a Passion Narrative with a lengthy intro­ duction.

20

A n alternative conception o f the M k a n Gospel might proceed from the assumption that M k intends to combine

the models o f Jesus the

miracle worker and suffering Son o f M a n .

I n this case the miracles

would not negatively relate to M k 1 4 - 1 6 in the sense that the passion disqualifies their validity.

Rather the miracles would b e the presupposi­

tion for fully understanding the Jesus o f passion, while the

passion

would provide the criterion by which the significance o f the miracles were to be measured.

Jesus' abandonment by G o d on the cross would

have to be grasped in light of his investment with divine power

at

baptism, and his Galilean triumphs over death and disease would have to be weighed in conjunction with the cries o f dereliction and expiration. The

full identity o f Jesus would therefore

exousia

comprise the notions o f

and passion, while transcending the particularities o f both mira­

cle worker and suffering J u s t O n e .

T h i s inclusive model would perhaps

aptly b e articulated by the centurion's confession: " T r u l y this man Son of

was

21

God."

20. M. Kahler, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ, trans, and ed. C. E. Braaten (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964; 1st German ed. 1 8 9 2 ) , 8 0 n. 11. The following scholars have—without subscribing to Weeden's specific thesis— in recent times adopted Kahler's definition of the Gospel of Mk: BULTMANN, 3 7 1 , and The Theology of the New Testament, trans. K. Grobel (New York: Scribner's, 1 9 5 1 ) , I, 86; MARXSBN, 3 0 - 3 1 , 132; H. Koester, "One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels," Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1 9 7 1 ) , 162; N. R. Petersen, "So-Called Gnostic Type Gospels and the Question of the Genre 'Gos­ pel' " (unpublished paper, 1 9 7 0 ) , 3 2 - 3 3 ; N. Perrin, "The Literary Gattung 'Gospel'— Some Observations," ExpT 82 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 4 - 7 , and The New Testament, 148. A noti­ ceable objection to Kahler's definition has come from H. C. Kee, Jesus in History, 119. 21. This seeming contradiction of Jesus' revelation as Son of God in power (baptism, transfiguration) and in humiliation (cross) has been philosophically interpreted in

Conclusion:

178

From Passion Narrative

to

Gospel

According to this model, what M k calls the Gospel would have to be viewed as a thematic and prototypical composite, a combining o f the incompatible, a deliberate tension between power and powerlessness in a sense perhaps not tolerated before in the theological history o f early Christianity.

B y synthesizing the diverse models o f miracle worker and

suffering J u s t O n e M k would have arrived at a new model.

I t is this

new synthesis o f a miracle worker who dies in abandonment

which

would set the pattern for the Gospel form, a form not so m u c h chosen by adoption o f an external model but forced upon M k by the very nature o f his theological enterprise. I n the case o f this composite model, the Gospel could be defined neither in terms o f an aretalogy (understood as a collection o f miracle stories) nor as the prefixing o f a long but christologically anemic intro­ duction.

T h e same weight would have to be given to the miracle and to

the passion sections o f the Gospel, and the passion could not be played out against the miracles.

Even though M k

1 4 - 1 6 would form

the

dramatic and theological culmination o f the Gospel, this could not jus­ tify an evaluation o f the Gospel through passionem.

the logic o f a reductio

ad

M k 1 4 - 1 6 would be considered a crucial, but theologically

integral part of the Gospel, and not its exclusive determiner.

22

W h i l e the two preceding models are based on the assumption that the Gospel divides conceptually into two separate parts, a third model seeks to pay closer attention to the Gospel's total configuration.

I f the Gospel

constitutes a literary, theological unity, it must be understood by the cohesion o f the whole rather than by collision or combination o f its parts.

Indeed, if M k 1 - 1 3 and 1 4 - 1 6 are interlocked with each other

by the convergence o f virtually all major M k a n themes in the passion section, then the Gospel's conceptual pattern may not simply be that o f thaumaturge versus suffering J u s t O n e .

terms of a reversal of the noetic and ontic order by J . Moltmann, The Crucified God, trans. R. A. Wilson and J . Bowden (New York: Harper & Row, 1 9 7 3 ) , 9 1 : "What is the last thing for human knowledge is the first with regard to being. Whereas Jesus is not recognizable as the Son of God until his death on the cross and his resurrection, in the order of being he is the Son of God before history takes place." 22. Perhaps it is worth noting from this perspective that the oldest Christian Gospel anticipates in striking fashion a classic christological dispute of later centuries, that of the two natures of Christ, one divine and one human, and of the two states of Christ, one of exaltation and one of humiliation. Inasmuch as the Gospel may have con­ tributed to this christological dispute, it may also suggest an answer.

Mark 14-16 and the Gospel

179

A major requirement of any Gospel model is that it does justice to the text as an undivided

whole

and to all the elements

which compose it.

W h i l e the M k a n Jesus is conspicuous in his role as miracle worker and suffering Son of Man, these features by no means exhaust the Jesus character.

H e is also the herald of the K i n g d o m and gifted with extra­

ordinary prophetic powers, a teacher of taboo-shattering quality and a revolutionary who turns against the T e m p l e .

I f one refrains from re­

ducing the Jesus figure by organizing seemingly contradictory features on two opposite sides, a character emerges who is fraught with ambigu­ ity and steeped in paradox.

Jesus announces the K i n g d o m but opts for

the cross; he is K i n g of the Jews but condemned by the Jewish establish­ ment; he asks for followers but speaks in riddles; he is identified as Nazarene but rejected in Nazareth; he makes public pronouncements but also hides behind a screen of secrecy; he saves others but not him­ self; he promises return but has not returned; he performs miracles but suffers a non-miraculous death; he is a successful exorciser but dies overcome by demonic forces; he is appointed by G o d in power but dies abandoned by G o d in powerlessness; he dies but rises from death.

His

beginning is nebulous and his future status is indefinite, and at the moment o f Messianic disclosure he still speaks enigmatically of himself in the third person ( 1 4 : 6 2 ; cf. 8 : 3 1 ; 9 : 3 1 ; 1 0 : 3 3 - 3 4 ) .

I f there is one

single feature which characterizes the M k a n Jesus it is contradiction or paradox.

I t might therefore be argued that " M k presents not two con­

flicting views of Jesus" but one complex "paradoxical view" ( D e w e y ) . This model of the paradox is not limited to Christology, but affects the total Gospel story.

R i v a l Christology, T e m p l e theology, the charac­

ters, Messianic Secret, titular Christology, cryptic teaching, discipleship failure,

misunderstanding

and

unexpected

understanding—all

these

themes and features lend dramatic support to Jesus as a model of con­ tradiction.

Jesus transforms the plans and expectations of followers

and opponents, overturns

an opposite concept o f Messiah, and dis­

charges the validity of the T e m p l e .

Reversal is his mode of action:

clean is declared unclean and unclean becomes clean; the rich are warned and the poor praised; the last will be the first and the first last; the appointed followers are blind and a blind beggar receives sight; J e w s are hostile and Gentiles believe; Peter denies and the centurion "sees." In M k 14—16 Jesus completes his characteristic role as paradoxical

180

Conclusion:

From Passion Narrative

to Gospel

model by the ultimate act of transformation, i.e., that of death into life. Virtually all major themes and a large variety of characters are cen tripctally organized around reversal.

the cross and drawn into the process of

N o w the world is turned upside down:

the disciples stand

exposed as negative models; Peter the leader is revealed as the leading opponent; the T e m p l e is turned into a negative symbol; Jerusalem is replaced by G a l i l e e ; Son of G o d is sanctioned by Jesus' suffering and the silence of G o d ; the Kingdom is consummated by crucifixion; death is reversed by life. According to this model, M k 1 4 - 1 6 could be defined neither as the sole carrier of Mkan Christology, nor as the representative o f one half of Mk's Christology. summation

of Mk's

Rather, M k 1 4 - 1 6 would be the continiiation paradoxical

theology,

culminating in the paradox of the cross.

and

a theology informed by and

Selected Bibliography

Aland, Kurt. "Bemerkungen zum Schluss des Markusevangeliums."

testamentica et Setniiica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black.

Neo-

Edited by

E. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox. Edinburgh: Clark, 1969. "Der wiedergefundene Markusschluss? Eine methodologische Bemerkung zur textkritischen Arbeit." ZTK 67 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 3-13. Aytoun, R. A. " H i m s e l f he cannot save' (Ps X X I I 29 and M k X V 3 1 ) . " )TS2\ ( 1 9 2 0 ) , 245-48. Bahr, Gordon J. "The Seder of Passover and the Eucharistic Words." Nbv Test 12 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 181-202. Barbour, Robin S. "Gethsemane in the Tradition of the Passion." NTS 16 (1970), 231-51. Bartsch, Hans-Werner. "Die Bedeutung des Sterbens Jesu nach den Synoptikern." TZ 20 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 87-102. . "Der Schluss des Markus-Evangeliums. Ein uberlieferungsgeschichtliches Problem." TZ 27 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 241-54. Benoit, Pierre. "Jesus devant le Sanhedrin." Angelicum 20 ( 1 9 4 3 ) , 143— 65. Bcrger, Klaus. "Die koniglichen Messiastraditionen des Neuen Testaments." NTS 20 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , t - 4 4 . Bickermann, Elias. "Das Leere Grab." ZNW 23 ( 1 9 2 4 ) , 281-92.

Birdsall, J. Neville. "To hrema hos eipen auto ho lesous M k X I V . 72." Nov Test 2 ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 272-75. Black, Matthew. "The 'Son of Man' Passion Sayings in the Gospel Tradi­ tion." ZNW 60 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 1-8.

Bligh, Philip H.

"A Note on Huios Theou

( 1968), 51-53. 181

in Mark 15, 3 9 " ExpT 8 1

182

Selected

Bibliography

Bode, Edward L The First Easter Morning. AnBib 4 5 . Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1 9 7 0 . . "A Liturgical Sitz im Lebcn for the Gospel Tradition of the Women's Taster Visit to the Tomb of Jesus." CBQ 3 2 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 2 3 7 - 4 2 . U n m a n , Thorlcif. .

"Der Gcbetskampf Jesu."

"Das I.ctzte W o r t Jesu."

Boobycr, George Henry. njRL

35 ( 1 9 5 3 ) ,

Borgcn, Pcder. (1959),

NTS

10 ( 1 9 6 4 ) ,

57' 17 ( 1 9 6 3 ) ,

261-73.

103-19-

"Galilee and Galileans in St. Mark's Gospel."

334-^8.

"John and the Synoptics in the Passion Narrative."

NTS 5

246-59.

Borsch, Frederick H. "Mark X I V , 6 2 and I Enoch L X I I , 5." NTS 14 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 565-67.

Boyd, P. W . J.

ExpT

"Peter's Denial Mark X I V . 6 8 , Luke X X I I . 5 7 . "

67

(1956), 341.

Brandlc, Max.

"Musste das Grab Jesu leer sein?"

Orientiernng

31

(1967),

TDig

16

(1967),

Orientiernng

31

(1967),

108-12.

.

"Narratives of the synoptics about the tomb."

22-26.

.

"Die synoptischen Grabcserzahlungen."

179-H4.

Braumann, Gcorg. (1961),

Brocr, Ingo. (1969),

"Markus 1 5 , 2 - 5 und Markus 1 4 , 5 5 - 6 4 . "

ZNW

52

273-78.

"Zur hcutigen Diskussion der Grabcsgeschichte."

BiLe 1 0

40-52.

LiMo 42

.

"Das Icerc Grab—ein Versuch."

.

Die Urgenieinde und das Grab Jesu.

(1968),

42-51.

S t A N T 3 1 . Munich: Kosel,

1972.

Brown, Raymond F. The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus. N e w York: Paulist Press, 1 9 7 . 3 . Buchcr, Gerard. "Elements for an Analysis of the Gospel Text: The Death of Jesus." Modern language Notes 8 6 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 8 3 5 - 4 4 . Buckley, \l. R. "The Sources of the Passion Narrative in St. Marks Gospel." JTS

34 (1933),

Burkill, T. Alec.

138-44.

"St. Mark's Philosophy of the Passion."

NovTest 2

(1958),

245-71.

.

"The Trial of Jesus."

Bvisc, S. Ivor.

VigCbr

12 (1958), 1-18.

"St. John and the Marcan Passion Narrative." NTS 3 ( 1 9 5 8 ) ,

215-19.

Cangh, |. M . van. RB 79

"La Galilee dans levangile de Marc: un lieu theologique?"

(1972),

59-76.

Conzelmann, Hans.

gcschichtcn."

"Historic und Theologie in den synoptischen Passions-

Zur Bedcutung des Todes Jesu.

Edited by Fritz Viering.

Giitcrsloh: Gerd Mohn, 1 9 6 7 . Reprinted in the author's collected essays

Selected

Bibliography

183

Theologie als Scbriftauslegung. Munich: Kaiser, 1974. ET: Interpr 24 (1970), 178-97. Cribbs, F. Lamar. "A Study of the Contacts that Exist between St. Luke and St. John." SBL Seminar Papers, 1973. 11,1-93. Crossan, John Dominic. "Mark and the Relatives of Jesus." NovTest 15 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 8 1 - 1 13.

. "Redaction and Citation in Mark 11:9-10, 17 and 14:27." SBL Proceedings, 1972. T, 17-61. Danker, Frederick W. "The Demonic Secret in Mark: A Reexamination of theCryof Dereliction (15, 34)." ZNW 61 (1970), 48-69. "The Literary Unity of Mark 14, 1-25." JBL 85 (1966), 467-72. Delorme, Jean. "Resurrection et tombeau de Jesus: Marc 16:1-8 dans la tradition evangelique." Lectio divina 50 (1969), 105-51. Dcwar, Francis. "Chapter 13 and the Passion Narrative in St. Mark." Theology 64 (1961), 99-107. Dhanis, Edouard. "L'ensevelissement de Jesus et la visite au tombeau dans levangile de saint Marc (Mc. XV, 40—XVI, 8 ) . " Greg 39 (1958), 367410.

Dibelius, Martin. "Gethsemane." Translated by Morton S. Enslin, The Crozer Quarterly 12 (1935), 254-65; German ed. in Botschaft und Geschichte. Vol. I, Tubingen: J . C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1953. Dockx, S. "Le recit clu repas pascal Marc 14, 17-26." Bib 46 (1965), 4 4 5 53. Dodd, Charles Harold. "The Appearances of the Risen Christ: An Essay in Form-Criticism of the Gospels." Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot. Edited by Dennis Eric Nineham. Oxford: Blackwell, 1955. Reprinted in the author's collected essays More New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1968. Dupont, Jacques. "II n'en sera pas laisse pierre sur pierre." Bib 52 (1971), 301-20. . "Ressuscite Le Troisieme Jour.'" Bib 40 (1959), 742-61. Dvofacek, Jan Amos. "Vom Leiden Gottes, Markus 15, 29-34." CV 14 (1971 ) , 231-52. Elliott, James Keith. "The Text and Language of the Endings to Mark's Gospel." TZ 27 (1971), 255-62. Evans, Christopher Francis. " ' I Will Go Before You into Galilee.'" JTS 5 (1954), 3-18. . Resurrection and the New Testament. SBT 2d ser 12. Naperville, III.: Allenson, 1970. Farmer, William R. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. NTSMS 25. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament." NTS 20 (1974), 382-107.

184

Selected

Bibliography

Puller, Reginald H. The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives. New York: Macmillan, 1971. - Gacchter, Paul. "Die Fngelcrscheinungen in den Auferstehungsberichten." ZKT H9 ( 1967), 191-202. Gaston, I.loyd. "The Theology of the Temple." Oikonorr/ia—Heilsgescbichte als The ma der Theologie ( O . Cullmann Festschrift). Fdited by F. Christ. I lambiirg-Bcrgsrcdr, 1967. Cicsc, Ilartmut. "Psalm 22 und das Neuc Testament: Der alteste Bericht vorn Todc Jesu und die Entstehung des Herrenmahles." ZTK 65 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1-22. Ghibcrti, Ciuiscppc. "Bibliografia sull'Escgesi Dei Raconti Pasquali e sul Problems della Risurrezione de Gesu." ScuolC 97 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 6 8 M M * . . "Discussione sul Scpolcro Vuoto." RBiblt 17 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 392^119Glasson, T. Francis. "The Reply to Caiaphas (Mark X I V . 6 2 ) . " NTS 7 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 88-93. Gnilka, Joachim. "'Mcin Gott, mein Gott, warum hast du mich verlassen?" ( M k 15, 34 Par)." BZ N F 3 ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 294-97. . "Die Verhandlungen vor dem Synhedrium und vor Pilatus nach Markus 14, 53—15, 5." EKKNT 2 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 5 - 2 1 . Goguel, Maurice. Did Peter Deny His Lord? A Conjecture." HTR 25 ( 1932), 1-27. Gi'urgcmanns, Frhardt. "Linguistische Analyse von M k 16, 1-8." LingBibl 1 1-12 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 13-53. Gutwengcr, Engclbert. "Zur Geschichtlichkeit der Auferstehung Jesu." ZKT 88 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 257-82. Guy, Harold A. "Son of God in M k 15,39." ExpT 81 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 151. Hamilton, Neill Q. "Resurrection Tradition and the Composition of Mark." JBL 81 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 4 1 5 - 2 1 . Ifarncr, Philip B. "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1." JBL 92 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 75-87. Harrmann, Gcrt. "Die Vorlage der Osterberichte in Joh 20." Z N I P 55 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 197-220. Ilorsr, P. W . van der. "Can a Book End with gar? A Note on Mark XVI.8." JTS N F 23 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 121-24. lerscl, Bas van. "Bcsuch am Grabc." Scbrift 7 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 15-17. Jcrcmias, Joachim. "Die Drei-Tagc-Worte der Evangelien." Tradition und

Gldtthc. Vestgabe fiir K. G. Kubn.

Gottingen, 1972.

. "Die SalbungsgeschichteMc 14,3-9." ZNW 35 ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 75-82. Johnson, Benjamin Arlcn. "Empty Tomb Tradition in the Gospel of Peter." HTR 59 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 447-48. Johnson, Sherman E. "The Davidic-Royal Motif in the Gospels." JBL 87 ( I 9 6 H ) , 136-50. Jucl, Donald H. "The Messiah and the Temple: A Study of Jesus' Trial Be­ fore the Sanhcdrin in the Gospel of Mark." Ph.D. dissertation, Yale Uni­ versity, 197 V

Selected

Bibliography

Kee, Howard Clark.

185

"Scripture References and Allusions in Mark 11-16."

SDL Seminar Papers, 1971. II, 475-502. Kelber, Werner H. "Mark 14:32-42: Gethsemane." ZNW 63 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 166-87. Kenny, A. "The Transfiguration and the Agony in the Garden." CBQ 19 ( 1957), 444-52. Kingdon, H. P. "Messiahship and the Crucifixion." SE 3, TV 88 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 67-86. Klein, Giinter. "Die Verleugnung des Petrus." ZTK 58 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 258-328. Reprinted, with postscript, in the author's collected essays Rekonstruktion und Interpretation. Munich: Kaiser, 1969. Klinger, J. "Zagubiona egzegeza dwoch wicrszy z Ewangelii Marka 14,51-52." RocTCbAT 8 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 126-49. Knox, John. "A Note on Mark 14,51-52." The Joy of Study. Edited by Sherman E. Johnson. New York: Macmillan, 1951. Kosmala, Hans. "The Time of the Cock-Crow." ASTl 2 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 118-20. Kuby, Alfred. "Zur Konzeption des Markus-Evangeltums." ZNW 49 ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 52-64. Kuhn, Karl Georg. "Jesus in Gethsemane." EvT 12 ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 260-85. Lee, G. M . "Mark 14,72: epibalon eklaien." Bib 53 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 411-12. Legasse, S. "Jesus devant le Sanhedrin. Recherche sur les traditions evangcliques." RTL 5 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 170-97. Lescow, Theodor. "Jesus in Gethsemane." EvT 26 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 141-59Linnemann, Eta. "Die Verleugnung des Petrus." ZTK 63 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 1-32. . "Der (wiedergefundene) Markusschluss." ZTK 66 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 2 5 5 87. Linton, Olof. "The Trial of Jesus and the Interpretation of Psalm C X . " NTS 7 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 258-63.

Lovestam, Evald. "Die Frage des Hohenpriesters." Svensk exegetisk 26 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 93-107. Lofthouse, W . F. "The Cry of Dereliction."

Arsbok

ExpT 53 ( 1 9 4 2 ) , 188-92.

Lohse, Eduard. History of the Suffering and Death of Jesus Christ.

Trans­

lated by Martin O. Dietrich. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967. Luz, Ulrich. "Das Geheimnismotiv und die Markinische Christologie." ZNW 56 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 9-30. Luzarraga, J. "Retraduccion semitica de ephobounto en M c 16,8." Bib 50 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 497-510. Maccoby, H . Z. "Jesus and Barabbas." NTS 16 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 55-60. Mahoney, A. "A new look at The Third Hour' of M k 15,25" CBQ 28 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 292-99. Manek, Jindrich. "The Apostle Paul and the Empty Tomb." NovTest 2 ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 276-80.

Martini, Carlo M. // Problema Storico della Risnrrezione negli Studi Recenti. AnGreg 104. Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1959.

Selected

18G

Bibliography

Masson, Ch. ' f.c Rcnicmcnt de Pierre." RHPbilRel 37 ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 24-35. Maurer, Christian. "Knccht Gottes und Sohn Gottes im Passionsbcricht des Markuscvangcliums." 7.TK 50 ( 1 9 5 3 ) , 1-38. Mt Arthur, Harvey K. "Mark XIV.62." NTS 4 ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 156-58. . • o the Third Day.' " NTS 18 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 81-86. Mclndoc. J. H. ' T h e Young Man at the Tomb." ExpT 80 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 125. Mcyc, Robert P. Mark 16,8-The Ending of Mark's Gospel." BR 14 ( |or,9), 3 M 3 . ' •. "Marks Special Faster Emphasis. About Christ's Resurrection Promise." Cbrl'n 15 ( 1971 ) , 584-86. Mohn, Werner. "Gethsemane ( M k 14,32-42)." ZNW 64 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 19-f208. Mussner, Fran/.. Die Wicderkunft des Mcnschensohnes nach Markus I 3, 24-27 und 14,61-62." BiKi 16 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 105-107. Nardoni, Enrique. "Por una comunidad libre. La ultima cena scgiin Mc 14.22-25 y cl exodo." RBib 33 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 27-42. Nauck, Wolfgang. "Die Dedeutung des lecren Grabes fur den Glauben an den Auferstandcncn." ZNW 47 ( 1 9 5 6 ) , 243-67. Ncirynck, Frans. "I.cs Fcmmes au Tombeau: FJtude de la Redaction Matthcenne (Matt X X V I M : 1-10)." NTS 15 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 168-90. Odcnkirchcn, P. C. " Praecedam vos in Galilaeam' ( M c 14,28 par)." VD 46 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 193-223. O'Neill, J. C. "The Silence of Jesus." NTS 15 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 153-67. Ottlcy, R. R. "cphoboinito gar Mark X V I 8." JTS 27 ( 1 9 2 6 ) , 407-409. Pcddinghaus, C. D. "Die Entstehung der Leidensgeschichtc." Dissertation, Heidelberg, 1965. n

Perrin, Norman. A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology.

Phil­

adelphia: Fortress Press, 1974. Pesch, Rudolf. "Die Vcrleugnung des Petrus: Fine Studie zu M k 14, 54, 6 6 -

72 (und M k 14, 2 6 - 3 1 ) . "

Neues Testament und Kircbe: Fi/r Rudolf

Schnacbcnbttrg. Edited by Joachim Gnilka. Freiburg i. Br./Basel/Vienna: Herder. 1974. Poniatowski, Z. "Analiza statystyczna ewangelicznego opisu Pasji Jezusa (The Passion Narrative in the Gospel. A Statistical Analysis)." Stud'ta rcligioznawcze 2 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 71-79. Reedy, Charles J. " M k 8:31-11:10 and the Gospel Ending." CBQ 34 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 188-97. Rcumann, John. "Psalm 22 at the Cross: Lament and Thanksgiving for Jesus Christ." Interpr 28 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 39-58. Riddle, Donald W . "The Martyr Motif in the Gospel According to Mark." JR 4 ( 1 9 2 4 ) , 397-410. Rose, A. "L'influcnce des psaumes sur les annonces et les recits de la Passion et de la Resurrection dans les fivangiles." OrBibLov 4 ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 297-356.

Rupperr, Lothar. Jesus als der leidende Gercchte?

Der Weg Jesu im Licbtc

Selected

187

Bibliography

eines ah- und zivischentestamentlichen Motivs. Stuttgarter Dibelstudien 59 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwcrk, 1972).

. Der leidende Gerechte. Eine motivgeschicbtlicbe Untersuchung zutn Alten Testament und Zwiscbentestarnentlicben Judentutn. Forschung zur Bibel 5. Wiirzburg: Echter Verlag, 1972.

•. Der leidende Gerechte und seine Feinde.

Eine W ortfeldunter-

sucbung. Forschung zur Bibel 6. Wiirzburg: Echter Verlag, 1973. Sahlin, Harald. "Zum Verstandnis von drci Stellen des Markus-Evangeliums ( M c 4,26-29; 7,18f.; 15,34)." Bib 33 ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 53-66.

Schelkle, Karl Hermann.

Die Passion Jesu in der Verkiindigung des Neuen

Testaments. Heidelberg: F. H . Kerle, 1949. Schenk, Wolfgang. "Die gnostisierende Deutung des Todes Jesu und ihre kritische Interpretation durch den Evangelisten Markus." Gnosis und Neues Testament. Edited by Karl-Wolfgang Troger. Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1973.

Schenke, Ludger. Auferstehungsverkundigung

und leeres Grab.

Stuttgarter

Bibelstudien 33. 2d ed. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwcrk, 1969.

.

Der gekreuzigte Christus.

Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 69. Stuttgart:

Katholisches Bibelwcrk, 1974. Schille, Gottfried. "Das Leiden des Herren. D i e evangelische Passionstradition und ihr Sitz im Leben,'" ZTK 52 ( 1 9 5 5 ) , 161-205.

. Often fur alle Menschen. Redak.tionsgeschichtliche zur Theologie des Markus-Evangeliums.

Beobachtungen

Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1974.

Schmithals, Walter. "Der Markusschluss, die Verklarungsgeschichte und die Ausscndung der Zwolf." ZTK 69 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 3 7 9 ^ 1 1 . Schneider, Gerhard. "Gab es eine vorsynoptische Szcne 'Jesus vor dem San­ hedrium'?" NovTestU ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 22-39. •. "Jesus vor dem Sanhedrium." BiLe 11 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 1-15.

.

Die Passion Jesu nach den drei altesten Evangelien.

Munich:

Kosel, 1973. "Das Problem einer vorkanonischen Passionserzahlung." BZ N F 16 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 222-44. . "Die Verhaftung Jesu. Traditionsgeschichte von M k 14, 43-52." ZNW 63 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 188-209. Schrage, Wolfgang. "Das Verstandnis des Todes Jesu Christi im Neuen

Testament." Das Kreuz Jesu Christi als Grund des Heils. Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1967. Schreiber, Johannes. ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 154-83.

"Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums." ZTK

. Die Markuspassion.

58

Wege zur Erforschung der Leidensgeschicbte

Hamburg: Furche-Verlag, 1969.

Jesu.

.

Theologie

des Vertrauens.

suchung des Markusevangeliums. Schubert, Kurt.

Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche

Unter­

Hamburg: Furche-Verlag, 1967.

"Kritik der Bibelkritik.

Dargestellt an Hand des Markus-

Selected

188

Bibliography

bcrichres vom Vcrhor Jesu vor dem Synedrion." WoWa 28 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 421-34. Schwcizcr, Eduard. "Zur Frage des Mcssiasgehcimnisscs bei Markus." ZNW" 56 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 1-8. Scroggs, Robin, ed., W . Kelber, A. Kolcnkow, R. Scroggs. "Reflections on the Question: Was There a Pre-Markan Passion Narrative?" SBL Seminar

Papers, 1971.

I I , 503-66.

Scroggs, Robin and GrofT, Kent I. "Baptism in Mark: Dying and Rising with Christ." JBL 92 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 531-48. Sidersky, D. "La parole supreme de Jesus." RHR 103 (1931 ) , 151-54.

Sloyan, Gerard S. Jesus on Trial. The Development of the Passion Narra­ tives and Their Historical and Ecumenical Implications. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973. Smith, M. A. "The Influence of the Liturgies on the New Testament Text of the List Supper Narratives." SE 5, TU 103 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 207-18. Smith, Robert H. "New and Old in Mark 16,1-8." CTAf 43 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 51827. Snyder, Graydon F. "John 13:16 and the Anti-Petrinism of the Johannine Tradition." BR 16 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 5-15. Stein, Robert H. "A Short Note on Mark X I V . 2 8 and XVI.7." NTS 20 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 445-52. Storch, Rainer. " Was soli diese Verschwendung?' Bemerkungen zur Ausle-

gungsgeschichte von M k 14,4f." Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemcindc. Festschrift fur J. Jeremias. Edited by E. Lohse. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Taylor, Vincent. "The Origin of the Markan Passion-Sayings." NTS 1 ( 1 9 5 5 ) , 159-67. Temple, S. "The Two Traditions of the Last Supper, Betrayal and Arrest." NTS 7 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 77-85. Trompf, Garry W . "The First Resurrection Appearance and the Ending of Marks Gospel." NTS 18 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 308-30. Tyson, Joseph B. "The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark." JBL 80 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 261-68. Vanhoye, Albert. "La fuite du jeune homme nu ( M c 14,51-52)." Bib 52 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 401-406. . "Les rccits de la Passion dans les evangiles synoptiques." Assem­

bles du Seigneur 19 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 38-67. . "Structure et theologie des rccits de la Passion dans les evangiles synoptiques." NRT 89 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 135-63. Viclhauer, Philipp. "Erwagungen zur Christologie des Markusevangeliums."

Aufsritzc zum Ncucn Testament. Munich: Kaiser, 1965. Viering, Fritz, cd. Zur Bedeutung des Todes Jesu. 2d ed. Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1967.

Selected

Bibliography

189

Waetjen, Herman C. "The Ending of Mark and the Gospel's Shift in Eschatology." AST1 4 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 114-31. Weeden, Theodore J. "The Conflict between Mark and His Opponents over

Kingdom Theology." SBL Seminar Papers, 1973. I I , 203-41. Wilcox, Max. "The Denial-Sequence in Mark X I V . 2 6 - 3 1 , 66-72." NTS 17 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 426-36. Winter, Paul. "The Marcan Account of Jesus' Trial by the Sanhedrin." JTS NS 14 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 94-102. "Marginal Notes on the Trial of Jesus." ZNW 50 ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 14-33, 221-51. .. "Markus 14,53b.55-64—Ein Gebilde des Evangelisten." ZNW 53 ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 260-63.

See also in the front matter of this book the "Key Books and Articles" listed under "Abbreviations."

Indexes

INDEX OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis 1:2—12 1:3 — 12 Numbers 9 : 1 1 — 25 n. Deuteronomy 18:18-19 — 84 19:15-18 — 61 21:22-23 — 3 1 Samuel 9:1-10:16 — 2 4 n. 10:1-10 — 24 n. 2 1 : 1 - 6 — 75 2 Samuel 5:6 — 75 7 — 8 7 n. 7:10-14 — 68 n. 7:11-14 — 77 15-19 — 77 15:19-21 — 76 15:19-24 — 76 15:30 — 76 15:31 — 76 16:9-11 — 76

OF

SCRIPTURE

REFERENCES

Psalms 22 — 3, 4, 76, 76 n., 117, 117n. 2 2 : 1 — 4 , 117, 119, 127 22:6 — 33, 117 22:7 — 33, 117 2 2 : 7 - 8 — 4, 5, 33, 117 2 2 : 9 - 1 0 — 33 22:18 — 4, 117 27:12 — 5,66, 67 31:4 — 5 31:11 — 5 34 — 4 35 — 66, 67 35:4 — 5 35:11 — 5 35:19-25 — 5 38:12 — 5 38:14-16 — 5 39:9 — 5 41—4 41:6 — 43 41:9 — 4, 29, 3 0 , 3 1 , 34 42:6 — 4 43:5—4 55:14-21 — 5 69 — 4 69:20 — 5 191

6 9 : 2 1 — 4 , 117 71:10 — 5 109 — 4 109:2 — 5 109:25 — 5 110:1—71 118:22 — 4 Proverbs 31:6—117 Isaiah 11:4 — 76 52:13-53:12 — 3, 5 53 — 3 n., 4, 6, 117 53:3 — 3 53:7 — 63 53:12 — 3 , 4 n . , 117 Daniel 7:13 — 7 1 , 73 7:18 — 73 1 1:33-35 — 5 12:1-3 — 5 Hosea 6 : 2 — 137n. Joel 3 : 1 5 — 131 n.

Indexes

192 Zechariah 9:9-10 ---6 9: 1 1 — 6 11:12 — 6 12: 10-12 — 8 5 13:7 — 6, 76

APOCRYPHA Wisdom of Solomon 2 : 1 2 - 2 0 — 5 , 66 5:1-2 — 66 5:1-7 — 5, 66 5:5 — 66

2 Maccabees 6 : 1 8 - 3 1 — 13 7—13

QUMRAN

RAMRINICS

N l i W TESTAMENT

Mishnah Pesachim 10:3 — 2 5 n . 10:5 — 25 n.

Matthew 5:18—103 5:19 — 107 n. 5 : 2 6 — 103, 107 n. 6 : 1 4 — 107 n. 6: 15 — 107 n. 7 : 2 3 — 1 0 7 n. 1 0 : 2 3 — 103 1 0 : 3 2 — 107 n., 108 1 0 : 3 3 — 100 n., 107 n. 108 1 1 : 2 1 — 32 n. 11:25-27 — 86 14:28-31 — 106, 113 16:1-8—142 16:13-20 — 31 16:17-19—113 16:23—113 16:27 — 107 n. 17:2—148 23:13 — 32 n. 23:15 — 3 2 n. 23:23 — 32 n. 23:25 — 32 n. 23:27 — 32 n. 23:29 — 3 2 n. 2 3 : 3 7 - 3 9 — 68 2 3 : 3 9 — 103 24:5 — 82 2 5 : 1 2 — 107 n. 25:41 — 107 n. 2 6 : 1 7 - 2 9 — 22 26:21 — 30 26:22 — 30 26:23 — 30 26:24 — 32 n. 26:25 — 5 6 n. 26:26 — 37 n. 2 6 : 3 4 — 103 26:38 — 56 n. 26:39 — 5 6 n.

Sanhedrin 4:1—61 4:5 — 61 7:5—61 11:2 — 61 Babylonian Talmud Yoma 2 1 a — 102 n. Pesachim 115a — 25 n. Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 36d — 25 n. Midrashim Genesis Rabbah 36:1 — 102 n. Leviticus Rabbah 5 — 102 n.

1QS 5:4-7 — 6 9 n. 8 : 4 - 1 0 — 69 n. 9 : 3 - 6 — 69 n. 1QH 2:20-30 — 5 3:37-4:4 — 5 5:22-26, 33, 35 — 30 n. 15:14-17 — 5

JOSEPHUS Antiquities 8, 46-47 — 73 18, 63-64 — 2 n. Wars 2, 434 — 75 n. 4, 566-76 — 7 5 n.

4QPIor — 68, 139 TACITUS 4QpsDan A" 1:7-9 — 72 n. 2:1-4 — 72 n.

Annals 15, 44 — 2 n.

Indexes 26:40 — 54 n., 56 n. 26:45 — 5 6 n. 26:46 — 5 6 n. 26:48 — 5 6 n. 26:57 — 105 n. 26:60-61 — 6 7 n. 26:64 — 82 n. 2 6 : 6 6 — 175 n. 26:69 — 98 n., 105 n. 26:71 — 105 n. 2 6 : 7 5 — 103 27:39 — 67 2 7 : 5 7 — 147, 175 n. 2 7 : 5 9 — 147 2 7 : 6 2 - 6 6 — 138, 147 28:1-3 — 138 2 8 : 1 - 8 — 139, 142, 144 2 8 : 1 - 1 0 — 139, 163 28:1-15—138 28:4—138 28:5-8—138 2 8 : 6 — 1 4 8 , 163 2 8 : 9 - 1 0 — 138, 142, 144, 151 28:11-15 — 138 2 8 : 1 6 - 2 0 — 1 3 , 142, 144 28:16-28—163 Mark 1-13 — 153, 157, 158, 178 1:1 — 73,76, 83,85, 87, 88, 154, 155 1:1-8:29—176 1:2 — 34 1:4-8—108 1:9 — 99, 100, 148, 155 1:10 — 99 1:11 — 8 5 , 87, 88, 89 n.,99, 155, 160 1:12-13 — 48

193 1 : 1 4 — 1 7 , 154 1 : 1 4 - 1 5 — 1 5 , 17, 45, 46, 73, 76, 80, 154, 155, 156, 161 1:15 — 45, 78, 154 1:16—100 1:16-20 — 70, 154, 169 1:21-28 — 75, 99, 100, 155 1 : 2 1 - 8 : 2 6 — 156 1:22 — 6 7 n. 1:23 — 99 1:24 — 85, 86, 88, 99, 99 n., 155, 160 1:25 — 8 8 n . , I l l 1 : 2 6 — 162, 162 n. 1:27 — 67 n., 100, 112 1:28 — 99 1:32 — 65 n. 1:34 — 80, 82, 89, 113, 155 1:35—146 1 : 3 5 - 3 8 — 147, 156 1:36—147 1:43 — 113 2-3 — 27 2-8 — 34 2:1-3:6—27 n. 2:5 — 118, 119n., 120 n. 2:7—112 2:9-11—92 2:10 — 71, 80, 9 0 , 9 1 , 155, 160 2:11 — 119 2:12 — 65 n , 67 n , 99, 112, 119, 120 n. 2:13-17 — 2 7 n. 2:16-18 — 6 7 n. 2:18-22 — 27 n. 2:23-28 — 27 n., 75 2:26 — 27 n.

2:28 — 71, 77,80, 90, 160 3:4—118 3:6 — 27, 65, 115, 154 3:7-8 — 99 3:7-12 — 80, 98 n., 146 n. 3:1 1 — 73, 74, 75,86, 87,88, 90, 99, 155, 160 3:1 1-12 — 8 2 , 89, 155 3:12 — 74, 88, 111, 160 3:13-19 — 70,154,169 3:16 — 3 0 n., 47 n., 54, 154 3:17 — 47 n., 154 3 : 1 9 — 1 0 8 n. 3:20-29 — 2 7 n. 3 : 2 1 — 6 7 n. 3:22 — 69, 154 3:30 — 27 3:31-35 — 112 3:34-35 — 149 4—165 4-8—140 4:5 — 110 4 : 6 — 110 4:11 — 161 4:11-12 — 67 n. 4:13-20—156 4:16—110 4:17—110 4 : 2 4 — 107 n. 4 : 2 6 - 2 9 — 156, 161 4 : 3 0 - 3 2 — 161 4:39 — 88 n., I l l 4 : 4 0 — 1 1 8 , 156 4 : 4 1 — 6 7 n., 112, 156 5:1-20 — 83, 89 5:7 — 7 3 , 7 4 , 7 5 , 8 3 , 86,88, 90, 99, 154, 160, 162, 162 n. 5:14 — 120 n.

Indexes

194 5:16 — I 20 n. 5:20 — 67 n., 99 5:23 — 1 18 5 : 2 5 - 3 1 — 1 19 n. 5:28 — 1 18 5:30-33 — I 12 5 : 3 4 — 118 5:35-43 — 47, 154 5 : 3 6 — 118 5:37 — 47 5 : 4 0 — 112 5:43—112 6-8 — 22, 27, 28, 38, 153 6 : 1 - 6 — 99 n. 6:2 — 112 6 : 2 - 6 — I19n. 6 : 3 — 112, 149 6:4 — 99 6:5—112 6:7-8:13 — 27 6:8 — 27 6:14 — 27, 112 6:14-29 — 6:15—112 6:16 — 28, 6:25-27 — 6:30-44 —

28, 45 n., 27, 108 n. 112 45 n. 21, 26, 140,

153, 166 6 : 3 0 - 5 2 — 140 6:33 — 65 n. 6:34 — 75 6:37 — 26, 27 n. 6:38 — 27 n. 6 : 4 1 — 2 7 n., 35, 36 6:44 — 27 n. 6:45-51 — 164 6:45-52 — 140, 150, 151, 6:48— 6:49— 6:50—

152 120 n., 151 120 n., 151 120 n., 151

6 : 5 1 — 67 n . , 151 6:52 — 27 n., 67, 156 6:56 — 99, 118 7:1—154 7:1-13 — 69 7:1-23 — 27 7:2 — 27 n. 7:5 — 27 n. 7:27 — 27 n. 7:36 — 99, 112 8:1-10 — 21, 26, 153, 166 8:1-13 — 27 8:4 — 27 n. 8:5 — 2 7 n . 8:6 — 2 7 n., 35, 36 8:7 — 35, 36 8:14-21 — 2 8 , 36, 153, 156 8:15 — 26, 27 8 : 1 7 - 1 9 — 67n. 8:17-21—35 8:22-10:52 — 69, 77, 99 n. 8:27 — 15, 133 8:27-30 — 9 9 n., 112' 8:27-33 — 3 1 , 111, 155 8:27-10:45 — 90 8:27-10:52 — 51, 77 8 : 2 8 — 1 5 , 28 8 : 2 9 — 15, 50, 51, 83, 86, 87, 89, 119, 154, 155, 166, 176 8:29-31 — 154, 160 8 : 3 0 — 15, 82, 89, 111, 155, 176 8:31 — 32, 35,43, 46, 50, 51, 53,67, 71,90, 99 n., I l l , 115, 116, 1 17, 147, 154, 155, 156, 160, 171, 176, 179 8:32 — 67 n., I l l , 157

8:33 — 106, 111, 156, 157 8 : 3 4 — 111, 115, 118, 119, 133 8 : 3 4 - 3 8 — 15 8:35 — 55, 118, 119, 133 8 : 3 5 - 3 8 — 111 8:38 — 71, 90, 101, 106 n., 109, 113, 155, 156, 160 9 : 2 - 8 — 47, 99 n., 154 9:3—148 9:5—156 9:6 — 49, 156 9:7 — 86, 87, 88, 99, 155, 160 9:9 — 82, 89, 155, 160 9:10 — 67 n., I l l 9:11 — 115 9:12 — 3, 51,89 9:15 — 6 5 n . 9 : 2 0 — 120 n. 9:20-27 — 119 n. 9:23 — 118 9:24 — 118 9:25 — 111, 120 n. 9 : 3 0 - 3 1 — 8 3 , 89, 89 n., 155 9:31 — 3, 17,43,46, 50, 51, 53, 71,90, 99 n., 115, 117, 147, 154, 155, 156, 160, 171, 173, 179 9:31-14:41 — 51 9:32 — 50, 102 n., I l l , 156 9:33 — 133 9:34—133 9 : 3 5 — 9 9 n., 133 9 : 3 6 - 3 7 — 133 9 : 3 8 — 120 n. 9 : 4 1 — 8 3 , 103

Indexes 9 : 4 2 - 5 0 — 107 n., 110 10:10 — 67 n. 1 0 : 1 5 — 103, 107 n. 1 0 : 2 3 - 2 7 — 106 10:26—118 1 0 : 3 1 — 9 9 n., 155 1 0 : 3 2 — 137, 149, 156 10:33 — 3, 17, 71,90, 99 n., 160, 173 n. 10:33-34 — 43, 46, 50, 51, 53, 1 17, 147, 154, 156, 179 1 0 : 3 3 - 4 5 — 111 10:34 — 71, 115, 147, 171 10:35 — 67 n. 10:35-37 — 51, 59, 77, 156 1 0 : 3 5 - 4 0 — 153 10:36-40 — 99 n. 10:37 — 67 n , 75 10:38 — 51, 75, 115, 154 10:39 — 38, 51, 52, 154 10:42-45 — 9 9 n., 119, 133 1 0 : 4 5 — 13,77, 90, 115, 117, 155, 160, 165 10:46-52 — 75, 84, 99, 119n. 10:47 — 99 1 0 : 5 1 — 9 9 n. 10:52 — 118 11—69 11-13 — 110, 121 11:1-6 — 23, 28 1:1-10 — 6, 24, 25 11:1-20—15 11:1-14:1 — 154 11:2 — 23 11:3 — 23 11:4-6 — 23

195 11:7-8 — 24 11:7-10 — 24 11:9-10 — 2 6 n., 122, 122 n., 160 11:10 — 76 11:11 — 6 8 , 122, 122 n. 11:11-14:1 — 169 1 1 : 1 2 - 2 0 — 169, 170 11:15-16 — 68, 69 11:17 — 2 6 n., 65 n., 69, 134, 169 11:18 — 65, 69, 115, 154, 169 11:20-21 — 111 11:21 — 102 11:25 — 107 n. 1 1 : 2 6 — 107 n. 11:27 — 68, 69, 169n. 1 1:27-33 — 69 12:1-11 — 169 n. 1 2 : 1 - 1 2 — 1 2 2 n. 12:6-8—115 12:10 — 69, 124 12:12 — 65, 69, 133, 154, 169 1 2 : 2 5 — 100 12:35 — 68, 83 12:35-37 — 84, 122 12:36—148 12:41-44 — 76 13 — 71, 48 n., 59 n., 69, 70, 122, 123, 126, 127, 156, 165, 170 1 3 : 1 — 6 8 , 123 1 3 : 1 _ 6 — 122 13:1-23 — 156, 170 1 3 : 1 - 2 7 — 124, 170 13:2 — 68, 121, 123, 125, 126, 165, 170 13:3 — 68 13:6 — 3 9 , 8 1 , 8 2 , 113, 123, 124, 126, 165, 166

13:9 — 45 n., 123 1 3 : 9 - 1 3 — 1 5 , 17, 70, 79,91 n., 113 13:11—45 13:12 — 173 13:13 — 118, 123 13:14 — 69, 121, 123 13:19—110 13:20—118 1 3 : 2 1 — 8 3 , 165 13:21-22 — 82, 124, 166 1 3 : 2 1 - 2 3 — 1 1 3 , 126 13:21-27 — 123 13:24—110 1 3 : 2 4 - 2 6 — 126 13:26 — 36, 39, 71,89, 90, 109, 155, 160 13:24-27 — 27 13:26-37 — 69 1 3 : 2 7 — 1 1 0 , 127 13:28-37 — 124 13:30—103 13:32 — 45, 86, 154 13:32-37 — 109 n. 13:33-37 — 48, 127 13:34 — 48 13:35 — 48, 102, 154 13:36 — 48, 154 13:37 — 48 13:38 — 48 1 4 - 1 6 — 157, 158, 160, 165, 173, 177, 178, 179, 180 14:1 — 5, 25 n., 2 6 , 6 1 , 6 5 , 7 0 , 9 3 , 115, 154, 169 14:1-2 — 25, 29 n., 173 14:1-25 — 2 9 n., 31 n. 1 4 : 1 - 4 2 — 1 0 , 51 14:2-10 — 8 14:3 — 9 14:3-8 — 11

Indexes

196 14:3-9 — 7 , 8, 11, 14, 29 n.. 3*), 133, 173 1-1:5—9 14:7 — 36, 156, 173, 176 14:8 — 15, 35, 115, 176 1 4 : 9 — 1 5 , 36, 38, 154, 176 14:10 — 4 5 n., 115, 133, 162, 173 14:10-1 I — 29 n., 45, 55, 108 n., 173 14:11 — 6 , 45 n., 93, 162, 173 1 4 : 1 2 — 11, 23, 25 n., 26, 2 8 , 6 1 , 9 3 , 153 14:12-16 — 7, 8,22, 23, 28, 29 n. 1 4 : 1 2 - 2 5 — 14, 2 1 , 153 14:13 — 2 3 , 24 14:13-15 — 24 1 4 : 1 3 - 1 6 — 1 1, 23, 24, 176 14:14 — 2 3 , 25 n. 14:16 — 23, 24, 25 14:17 — 3 0 , 4 3 , 93, 102 14:17-21 — 11, 15, 22, 25, 30 n., 31 14:17-24—115 1 4 : 1 7 - 1 5 : 1 — 7 , 102 14:18 — 4, 5, 29, 30, 31, 45, 162, 173 1 4 : 1 8 - 2 0 — 173 14:18-22 — 2 9 n., 31 14:19 — 3 0 , 3 1 , 174 14:20 — 3 0 , 3 1 , 43, 108 n., 173, 178 1 4 : 2 1 — 3 , 11,31,32, 33, 34, 45 n., 51,89, 90, 113, 155, 162, 173

14:21-24—176 1 4 : 2 2 — 1 1, 29, 29 n., 3 4 , 3 5 , 3 6 , 3 7 , 153 14:22-24 — 11 14:22-25 — 3, 5, 8 , 9 , 22, 25, 29 n., 164, 167 14:23 — 37, 38, 51 n., 174 14:24 — 6, 13, 35, 154, 165 1 4 : 2 5 — 1 1 , 14,25, 37, 38,103, 154, 156,176 14:26 — 25, 76 14:26-31 — 14, 96 n., 98 n., 106, 110, 111 14:27 — 6, 11, 15, 26 n., 76, 111, 115, 176 14:28 — 8, I I , 15, 70, 78, 109, 111, 149, 156, 176 14:28-31 — 113 1 4 : 2 9 — 11, 14, 52, 76 1 4 : 3 0 — 1 1 , 14, 97, 100 n., 103, 104, 107 n . , 109, 111, 176 14:31 — 11, 14, 52, 102, 111, 115 1 4 : 3 2 — 10, 11, 4 1 , 43, 47 n. 14:32-36 — 43, 47 14:32-42 — 8, 14, 4 1 , 42, 48 n., 98 n., 110n., 154 14:32-51 — 14 14:33— 11,41,43, 47 n., 76, 154 14:34 — 4, 1 1 , 4 3 , 4 4 , 47, 48, 56 n., 115 14:35 — 11, 43, 44, 47 n., 54, 56 n., 154 14:36— 11,38,43,44,

47 n., 54, 56 n., 115, 154 1 4 : 3 7 — 11,41, 44,47, 48, 54, 56 n., 154 14:37-42 — 47, 53, 174 14-38 — 7, 11,41,47, 48, 53 1 4 - 3 9 — 1 1, 47 n., 49 1 4 : 4 0 — 11,41,47,48, 49, 154 14:41 — 11, 17,44,45, 49, 5 0 , 5 1 , 5 2 , 54,55, 56, 89, 9 0 , 9 1 , 102, 1 15, 154, 155, 162, 176 1 4 : 4 2 — 1 1,45,49, 51, 52 n., 55, 56 n, 76, 162, 173 14:43 — 5, 10, 56, 108 n. 1 4 : 4 3 - 5 2 — 10 14:44 — 42 n., 162, 174 1 4 : 4 4 - 4 5 — 108 n. 1 4 : 4 4 - 4 6 — 10 1 4 : 4 6 — 1 0 , 174 1 4 : 4 7 — 1 0 , 76 14:47-52 — 8 1 4 : 4 8 — 10 1 4 : 4 9 — 1 0 , 68 1 4 : 5 0 — 1 0 , 51 n., 99, 111, 174 14:51 — 174 14:51-52 — 7, 10, 108 n . , 112, 147 1 4 : 5 3 - 1 5 : 4 7 — lOn. 14:53 — 6 1 , 6 2 , 63,64, 65, 97, 98, 100, 102, 104, 105, 128, 155 14:53-65 — 7, 1 4 , 6 1 , 154 1 4 : 5 3 - 7 2 — 155, 166 14:54 — 8, 9, 14,61, 6 3 , 9 7 , 98, 100, 102,

Indexes 103, 104, 105, 155, 175 n. 14:55 — 62, 63, 64, 66 14:55-59—126 14:55-65 — 8, 63 n., 109, 155, 174 14:56 — 5, 62, 63, 64, 67, 121, 126, 169 14:56-59 — 61 14:57 — 5, 62, 63, 126, 169 14:57-59 — 63, 64, 65, 66, 121, 123, 124 1 4 : 5 8 — 14, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68,69, 70, 71, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 134, 156, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172 14:59 — 5, 67, 126, 169 14:60 — 63, 64, 128 n. 14:61 — 5 , 62, 63,64, 66, 77, 83, 86, 87, 88, 9 1 , 112, 119, 128 n., 154, 155, 160, 174 14:61-62 — 63, 64, 65, 66,71,73, 89,91, 108, 122, 128, 155, 160, 161, 166 14:62 — 7, 15, 17, 52 n., 6 1 , 6 2 , 6 3 , 6 4 , 66, 7 1 , 71 n., 77, 78, 81 n.,82, 8 3 , 8 5 , 8 9 , 9 0 , 9 1 , 9 2 , 109, 111, 128, 148, 154, 160, 170, 172, 174, 179 14:63 — 6 3 , 6 4 , 128, 161, 172 14:64 — 63, 64, 112, 115, 128, 154, 161, 172, 175 14:65 — 64, 66

197 14:66 — 6 3 , 9 8 , 104, 105 n. 14:66-72 — 8, 15, 29, 62, 96 n., 155 14:67 — 9, 6 3 , 9 8 , 9 9 , 104, 105 n., 155 14:68 — 63, 98, 100, 101 n., 102, 103, 104, 105 14:69 — 63, 100, 101 14:70 — 63, 100, 101, 106, 155 1 4 : 7 1 — 6 3 , 101, 106, 109, 155 14:72 — 7, 97, 100 n., 102, 103, 104, 109 15 — 4 5 , 7 1 , 76 n., 93 n., 159, 161 15:1 — 7 , 6 1 , 6 5 , 9 3 , 97, 102, 162 15:1-5 — 62, 125 1 5 : 1 - 2 0 — 131 15:2 — 8 , 45, 52 n., 94, 112, 169, 174 15:2-5 — 63 n. 15:2-15 — 174 15:5 — 5,6, 174 1 5 : 6 - 9 — 174 15:6-14 — 8 15:6-15—175 15:7—133 15:9 — 4 5 , 9 4 , 160 1 5 : 1 0 — 162, 174 15:12 — 45, 94, 160 15:13-15—115 15:14 — 9, 174 15:15 — 162 15:16-20 — 8, 133, 175 15:17 — 9 15:18 — 45, 94, 160 15:20 — 4, 5, 12, 130 1 5 : 2 0 - 4 1 — 4 , 12, 14, 115, 116, 117, 157

15:21 — 12, 116, 130, 175 1 5 : 2 2 — 1 2 , 130 1 5 : 2 2 - 3 2 — 165 15:23 — 4, 12, 116, 130 15:24 — 4,12,116, 130 15:25 — 7,8, 12,44, 53,93, 102, 116, 130 1 5 : 2 6 — 12,45, 46, 94, 116, 130 n., 160, 162, 165, 166 15:27 — 8, 12, 13, 116, 130 n., 161 15:29 — 4, 5, 12, 15, 67, 70, 112, 116, 118, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 129, 130, 131, 156, 168, 169 n., 170, 171 1 5 : 2 9 - 3 2 — 119, 122, 125, 165, 169 n. 1 5 : 2 9 - 3 3 — 156 1 5 : 3 0 — 12, 15, 116, 1 18, 1 19, 125, 127, 130 1 5 : 3 1 — 8 , 12, 116, 118, 119, 125, 127, 130 15:32 — 8, 12,45, 46, 8 3 . 8 4 , 9 4 , 116, 118, 119, 120 n., 127, 130 n., 160, 165, 166 15:33 — 7, 12, 4 4 , 5 3 , 93, 102, 116, 130, 131, 161 15:34 — 4 , 7 , 12,44, 52 n., 53,93, 102, 112, 116, 119, 130, 131, 134, 161, 162 n., 165, 166 1 5 : 3 4 - 3 6 — 118, 156

Indexes

198 15:35 — 53, 116, 118, 119, 130, 166 15:36 — 4, 53, 116, I 2 0 n . , I 3 0 n . , 166 1 5 : 3 7 — 12, 52 n., 53, 1 16, 122, 130, 131, 134, 161, 170 1 5 : 3 8 — 12, 14, 116, 121, 122, 123, 124, 130, 162, 165, 169, 170, 171 n. 1 5 : 3 9 — 12, 13, 66, 73, 76, 8 1 , 86, 87, 88, 1 16, 120, 120n., 122, 130, 155, 160, 162, 166, 175 15:40 — 8, 12, 13, 112, 1 16, 120, 130. 132, 133, 146, 174 n. 1 5 : 4 0 - 1 6 : 8 — 147 n. 15:41 — 8, 12, 13, 116, 120, 130, 132, 133, 173 15:42 — 7, 9, 93, 102, 147, 156 1 5 : 4 2 - 4 6 — 146, 147 15:42-47 — 7 1 5 : 4 3 — 1 4 , 175 15:43-45 — 115, 131 1 5 : 4 3 - 4 6 — 175 1 5 : 4 4 — 131, 148, 174 1 5 : 4 5 — 131 1 5 : 1 6 — I 16, 146, 147, 148, 174 1 5 : 4 7 — 10, 147 16:1 — 7 , 9 3 , 146, 147, 156 16:1-4 — 151 16:1-6 — 7 16:1-8 — 8, 135, 136, I 3 6 n „ 138, 139, 141, 112, 143, 145, 147,

150, 151, 156, 162, 163, 164, 170, 173 16:2 — 7,93, 136, 146, 147, 156 16:3—147 16:4 — 147 16:5 — 7 n., 99, 108 n., 112 n., 141, 147, 148, 151, 175 16:6 — 99, 100, 108 n., 109, 112n., 115, 141, 142, 148, 149, 151, 155, 173 1 6 : 7 — 14, 7 0 , 7 8 , 9 5 , 100, 108 n., 109, 112n., 113, 142, 147, 148, 149, 151, 155, 156, 169 1 6 : 8 — 1 4 , 17, 66, 93 n., 136, 147, 149, 151, 156, 174 1 6 : 9 - 2 0 — 144

Luke 1:22—138 4 : 3 4 — 9 9 n. 4:42—147 5—150 6:24 — 3 2 n. 6:25 — 32 n. 6:26 — 3 2 n . 9:18-21—31 9:23 — 100 n. 9:29—148 10:13-14 — 3 2 n . 10:21-22 — 86 1 1:42 — 3 2 n. 11:43 — 3 2 n. 11:44 — 3 2 n. 1 1:46-51 — 32 n. 11:52 — 3 2 n. 1 2 : 8 — 107 n., 108

1 2 : 9 — 100 n., 107, 108 1 2 : 1 0 — 107 n. 1 2 : 5 9 — 1 0 3 , 107 n. 13:34 — 68 13:35 — 68, 103 21:23 — 32 n. 2 2 : 7 - 1 4 — 2 2 n. 22:15 — 25 22:7-23—22 2 2 : 7 - 3 8 — 22 n. 22:15-18 — 2 2 n. 22:19 — 2 2 n. 22:20 — 22 n., 3 8 n . 22:21 — 3 0 , 5 6 n . 2 2 : 2 1 - 3 8 — 22 n . 2 2 : 3 1 - 3 4 — 106, 113 2 2 : 3 4 — 103, 104 22:42 — 5 6 n. 2 2 : 5 5 — 103 n. 22:61 — 1 0 3 2 2 : 6 2 — 103 22:66 — 65 2 2 : 6 6 - 7 1 — 6 2 n. 23:47 — 87 2 3 : 5 0 — 147 23:51 — 175 n. 23:53—147 24:1 — 138 2 4 : 1 - 1 1 — 138, 141 2 4 : 1 - 1 2 — 137, 138, 143 24:3 — 138 24:4 — 143 24:5—138 2 4 : 6 — 163 24:7—138 24:8—149 24:12 — 138, 141, 142, 144 24:13-35 — 2 8 n., 163 2 4 : 1 7 - 2 7 — 137 n., 138 24:19 — 9 9 n. 24:21 — 137, 138

Indexes 2 4 : 2 2 - 2 4 — 137, 138, 143 2 4 : 2 3 — 138 2 4 : 2 5 — 138 24:34—113 2 4 : 3 6 - 4 9 — 163 John 1:49 — 76 n. 2:13 — 25 2:19 — 68, 128 2 : 1 9 - 2 2 — 123, 123 n. 2:21-22 — 68 2:23 — 25 3:3 — 104 n. 3 : 5 — 1 0 4 n. 5 : 1 9 — 1 0 4 n. 6 — 21 6:1-15—140 6:1-21 — 140 6:4 — 25 6:15 — 7 5 n. 6:16-21 — 140, 150 6:41 — 22 6 : 5 3 — 104 n. 6:53-57 — 22 6:67-71—31 8:51 — 104 n. 11 — 140 12:3 — 9 12:5 — 9 12:23 — 5 6 n. 1 2 : 2 4 — 104 n. 12:27 — 5 6 n. 13:1 — 25 13:1-30 — 22 13:11 — 56 n. 13:16—143 13:18 — 30 13:21—30 13:25 — 30 13:26 — 30 1 3 : 3 7 — 103 n.

199 1 3 : 3 8 — 103, 104 n. 106 14:31 — 56 n. 18:2 — 5 6 n. 18:4-9 — 9 18:5 — 5 6 n. 18:11 — 56 n. 18:13 — 65, 105 n. 18:14 — 9, 105 n. 1 8 : 1 5 — 9 , 105 n. 18:15-18—10 1 8 : 1 7 — 1 0 5 n. 1 8 : 1 8 — 1 0 3 n., 105 n. 18:19-24 — 9 1 8 : 2 5 — 9 , 105 n. 1 8 : 2 5 - 2 7 — 10 1 8 : 2 6 — 1 0 5 n. 1 8 : 2 8 — 105 n. 18:28-19:16 — 9 19:2 — 9 19:5 — 9 19:11 — 5 6 n. 19:15 — 9 19:31—9 f

1 9 : 3 1 - 3 2 — 137, 152 19:38-41 — 137, 152 2 0 — 139 n. 20:1 — 138, 140, 143 20:1-18—139n. 20:2 — 140, 143 2 0 : 2 - 1 0 — 113, 138, 141, 142, 144 20:4—142 20:5—142 20:6—142 2 0 : 7 — 142, 143 2 0 : 8 — 142, 143 2 0 : 9 — 142, 143 20:11-12 — 141 2 0 : 1 1 - 1 3 — 138, 140, 144,146 20:12 — 119, 143 20:13 — 141, 144

2 0 : 1 4 - 1 8 — 1 3 8 , 142, 143, 144 20:15-16 — 151 20:17—143 2 0 : 1 8 — 143, 151 2 0 : 1 9 - 2 3 — 144 2 0 : 2 4 - 2 9 — 144 20:30-31 — 119 21 — 150 21:1-14 — 2 8 n. 21:7-23 — 113

Acts 3:13 — 113 3:13-15 — 3 4:10-11—3 5:30 — 3 6:14 — 68, 129 10:39 — 3 1 0 : 4 0 - 4 1 — 3 , 28 n. 13:27-30 — 3 26:19—138

Romans 2 : 1 2 — 107 n. 6:3-6 — 7 10:11 — 107 n. 1 0 : 1 3 — 107 n.

1 Corinthians 1:23—148 2:2—148 3:16 — 69 3:17 — 69, 107 n. 5:5—107 5:7 — 26 10:16-21 — 22 n. 11:23 — 3 7 n., 91 n. 11:23-26 — 6, 7 , 2 1 , 35, 36, 37 n.

Indexes

200 1 1:2-1 — 3 5 . 3 7 n.

11:25 — 3H n. 14: 1.3 — 1 0 7 n.

nphcsians 2 : 4 - 6 — 148 2:21—69

1 ' 1 : 2 7 - 2 8 — 107 n. 1 4 : 3 0 — 107 n.

I ' 1 : 3 5 — 107 n.

Philippians 2:6-1 1 — 6

1 - 1 : 3 7 — 107 n.

1 4 : 3 8 — 1 0 7 n. 15:3 — 2, 66 1 5 : 3 - 5 — 9 , 146

Colossians 1:15-20 — 6 3:1-13—148

1 5 : 3 - 7 — 152 1 5 : 4 — 137

1 Thessalonians

15:5-7— 150 1 6 : 2 2 — 1 0 7 n.

4 : 1 6 - 1 7 — 1 3 1 n. 2 Thessalonians

2 Corinthians 5:1 — 129 6:16 — 69 9 : 6 — 107 n. 12:1 — 3 8 12:9—134

2:4 — 69 1 Timothy 1:20—106 3:16 — 6 6:13 — 6

JIKIC

1 1 — 32 n. Revelation 1:7 — 85 n. 3:5 — 107 n. 6:11 — 148 7 : 9 — 148 7 : 1 3 — 148 7:14—148 11:19 — 6 9 12:12 — 3 2 n . 1 3 : 1 0 — 107 n. 14:15-17 — 69 1 8 : 6 - 7 — 1 0 7 n. 18:16-17 — 32 n. 18:19-20 — 3 2 n. 2 2 : 1 8 - 1 9 — 107 n.

NON-CANONICAL

Galntians 1 : 9 — 107 n. 3:1 — 148 3:10 — 107 n.

2 Timothy

CHRISTIAN

2 : 1 2 — 1 0 7 n.

LITERATURE

1 John 4:15 — 107 n.

Gospel of Thomas 12 — 106

INDEX OF A U T H O R S Aarne, Antti, 114 Abel, E. L., 105 Achtemeier, Paul J., 27, 140, 158 Aland, Kurt, 14 1, 145 Allegro, John M., 68 Ambrozic, Aloysius M., 37, 38 Bacon, Benjamin W., 159

Bailey, J. A., 139 Balmforth, H., 159 Bammcl, Ernst, 61 Barbour, Robin S., 41 Barrett, Charles K., 159 Barth, Gerhard, 15 Barthes, Roland, 18 Bartsch, Hans Werner, 145 Behm, Johannes, 101 Bcnoit, Pierre, 2 1 , 139

Berger, Klaus, 7 1 , 76 Bertram, Gcorg, 6, 67 Best, Ernest, 14, 29 Betz, Hans Dieter, 73, 102, 106 Betz, Otto, 130 Billerbeck, Paul, 68 Birch, Bruce C , 24 Bird, C. H., 49, 101 Blass, Friedrich, and Debrunner, Albert, 24, 43

Indexes Blinzler, Josef, 6 1 , 62, 65,159 Bode, Edward L., 135, 136, 137, 142 Boers, Henrikus, 90, 91 Boman, Thorleif, 41 Boobyer, George Henry, 149 Bornkamm, Giinthcr, 15 Brandle, Max, 137 Brandon, S. G. F., 6 1 , 70 Braumann, Georg, 63 Broer, Ingo, 136, 137 Brown, Raymond E., 8, 9, 108, 114, 135 Brueggemann, Walter, 75 Bucher, Gerard, 18 Bultmann, Rudolf, 8, 25, 4 1 , 47, 55, 63, 68, 106, 128, 138, 177 Burkill, T. Alec, 44, 97 Buse, S. Ivor, 159 Catchpole, D. R., 6 1 , 62 Clements, R. E., 21 Cohn, Haim, 61 Conzelmann, Hans, 14 Cribbs, F. Lamar, 139, 141, 142 Crossan, John Dominic, 18, 25, 26, 146, 156, 163, 164, 175 Cullman, Oscar, 2 1 , 114 Danker, Frederick W., 31, 161, 162 Delorme, Jean, 21 Descamps, A., 138 Dewar, Francis, 48 Dewey, J., 27, 3 I Dewey, Kim, 53, 56, 155, 166, 172, 174, 175, 179

201 Dhanis, £duard, 147 Dibelius, Martin, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 , 4 2 , 6 3 , 106, 110 Dobschiitz, Ernst von, 10 Dodd, Charles Harold 3, 150 Donahue, John, 24, 29, 51, 5 3 , 6 5 , 6 7 , 7 1 , 74, 81, 82, 92, 97, 98, 110, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 154, 158, 160, 166, 168, 169, 170, 173 Dormeyer, Detlev, 3, 6, 7, 13, 23, 29, 30, 4 1 , 47,64,65,96 Doudna, JohnC, 15, 100 Drinkwater, F. H., 135 Dupont, Jacques, 137

Elliott, James Keith, 145 Evans, Christopher Fran­ cis, 135, 149 Fencberg, Rupert, 21 Fitzmyer, Joseph A., 72, 87, 92 Fortna, Robert T., 119, 128, 139, 140, 141, 142 Freed, E. D., 30 Fuller, Reginald H., 135, 137, 139 Gaecher, Paul, 136 Gager, John G., 8 Gartner, Bertil, 69 Gaston, Lloyd, 68, 97, 99, 100, 121, 122, 129 Georgi, Dieter, 129 Ghiberti, Guiseppe, 135

Goguel, Maurice, 96, 105, 106, 136, 159 Goppclt, Leonhard, 51 Grant, Robert M., 159 Grassi, J. A., 27 Greimas, A., 18 Groff, K. I., 7, 147 Grundmann, Walter, 136 Guichou, P., 159 Guttgemanns, Erhardt, 18, 158 Guttwenger, Engelbert, 136, 137 Hahn, Ferdinand, 74 Hamilton, Neill Q., 70, 149 Hartman, Gert, 139 Hawkins, John C, 24, 97,98, 100 Held, Heinz Joachim, 15, 118, 119 Hengel, Martin, 75 Hennecke, E , 114 Hirsch, Emanuel D., 4 1 , 58, 136 Howard, W . F., 159 Iersel, Bas van, 21 Janzen, W., 32 Jeremias, Joachim, 3, 8, 9, 26, 55, 65 Johnson, Benjamin Arlen, 75, 139 Johnson, Sherman E., 74 Juel, Donald H., 68, 69, 70, 77, 78, 86, 87, 88, 90 Kahler, Martin, 1, 177 Kasemann, Ernst, 107, 108

202 Keck, Lea ruler E., 146 Kee, Howard Clark, 158, 177 Kelber, Werner H., 17, 42, 45, 59, 69, 70, 74, 76, 77, 97, 103, 110, 121, 122, 124, 126, 146, 149, 154, 161, 165, 167 Kenney, A., 49 Kertelge, Karl, 118, 119 Kilpatrick, George D., 102 Klausner, Joseph, 2 Klein, Giinter, 96, 106, 108 Knox, John, 147 Koestcr, Helmut, 119, 177 Kuhy, Alfred, 146 Kuhn, Karl Georg, 4 1 , 47 Kiimmel, Werner Georg, 159 Kiing, Hans, 21

Lane, William L, 62 Lee, E. K., I 59 Lcenhardt, Franz J., 21 Leon-Dufour, Xavier, 2, 9 Lescow, Thcodor, 4 1 Lcvi-Strauss, Claude, 18, 19 Lightfoot, Robert H., 14, 48, 69, 93, 102, 149, 159 Lindars, Barnabas, 3, 4, 30, 33, 76, 123, 137, 139 Linnemann, Eta, 3, 10, 41, 47, 63, 96, 108,

Indexes 120, 121, 122, 130, 145, 158 Lohmeyer, Ernst, 42, 68, 69, 71 Lohse, Eduard, 15, 42, 61, 70 Luz, Ulrich, 24, 146 Manck, Jindrich, 137 Mansoor, M , 30 March, W . E., 32 Marin, Louts, 19 Martini, Carlo M., 135 Marxsen, W i l l i , 15, 2 1 , 37, 99, 110, 149, 177 Maurcr, Christian, 3, 65 Mayo, C H., 102, 106, 108 McArthur, Harvey K., 137 McHugh, F., 61 McKelvcy, R. J., 69 Mcrkel, Helmut, 101 Michel, Otto, 71 Milik, J. T., 72 Mohn, Werner, 41 Moltmann, JUrgen, 178 Mullen, P. B., 105 Murphy, Roland E., 21 Nauck, Wolfgang, 136 Neirynck, Frans, 15, 42, 44, 97, 98, 139, 142, 144 Nineham, Dennis E., 44, 97 Palmer, Paul F., 21 Panncnberg, Wolfhart, 163, 164 Parker, Pierson, 139 Patsch, Hermann, 21 Perkins, Pheme, 114

Perrin, Norman, 4, 16, 17, 33, 51, 52, 71, 76, 80, 8 1 , 82, 8 9 , 9 1 , 9 4 , 109, 110, 119, 146, 155, 159, 160, 161, 172, 177 Pcsch, Rudolf, 59, 70, 165 Petersen, Norman R., 177 Quesnell, Quentin, 26 Ramsey, M. A., 15 Rcploh, Karl-Georg, 58 Reumann, John H., 117 Ringgren, Helmer, 4 Robbins, Vernon, 52, 5 9 , 75, 153, 164, 165, 166, 173, 176 Rohde, Joachim, 15 Ruppert, Lothar, 5, 11, 65 Sanders, Jack T., 6 Schenk, Wolfgang, 3, 12, 41, 96, 118, 120, 130, 131 Schcnke, Ludger, 3, 6, 10, 11, 12,41,47, 50, 64, 135 Schille, Gottfried, 6 Schlatter, Adolf, 1 5 9 Schneemelcher, W., 114 Schneider, F., 137 Schneider, Gerhard, 8, 16, 64 Scholcs, Robert, 18, 19 Schreiber, Johannes, 12, 56, 129, 130, 131, 146, 161, 175 Schubert, Paul, 137

Indexes Schiirmann, Heinz, 23, 38 Schweizer, Eduard, 2 1 , 47, 53, 65, 7 1 , 118, 146 Scroggs, Robin, 7, 147 Sloyan, Gerald S., 15, 6 1 , 62 Smith, Charles W . F., 159 Smith, J. J., 135 Snodgrass, K., 142 Snyder, Graydon F., 142 Stauffer, Ethelbert, 159 Stein, Robert H., 16 Stenger, Werner, 137 Strack, Hermann L., 68 Streeter, Burnett H., 159 Suggs, M. Jack, 86 Swete, Henry B., 54, 98, 101

203 24, 55, 67, 7 1 , 98, 101 Teeplc, Howard M., 159 Thompson, Stith, 114 Todt, Heinz Eduard, 56 Trocmc, £tiennc, 146 Trompf, Garry W., 145 Trotter, F. T., 73 Turner, Cuthbert H., 15, 100 Tyson, Joseph B., 59, 110, 146 Vanhoye, Albert, 15, 147 Vermes, Geza, 73, 84, 85,87 Via, Dan O., 18, 19, 20, 27, 52, 57, 58, 115, 132 Vielhauer, Philipp, 77, 93

Weeden, Theodore J., 17, 59, 67, 70, 73, 116, 1 19, 120, 123, 126, 128, 146, 150, 156, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 170, 171, 172, 175, 176, 177 Wcstcott, Brooke Foss, 159 Wiefel, Wolfgang, 108 Wifall, Walter, 75 Wijngaards, J., 137 Wilcox, Max, 96, 106 Wimsatt, William K., 18 Windisch, Hans, 159 Winter, Paul, 6 1 , 62 Worsley, F. W . , 159 Wrede, William, 112 Zerwick, Maximilian, 15, 24

Tagawa, Kenzo, 146 Taylor, Vincent, 8, 23,

Waetjen, Herman C , 147 Wainright, G., 21

Zimmerli, Walther, 3, 65