When I wrote about Form Criticism, I noted that the oral traditions incorporated into the gospels may have originally circulated independently (though there may have been some pre-Markan groupings, such as the sea & feeding miracle chains or conflict stories in Mk 2:1-3:6), with the major exception of the Passion. Unlike some editorial seams connecting individual stories that seem a little artificial (e.g., “and immediately,” “one sabbath”, “again he began to teach by the sea”), the form critics noticed the Passion Narrative is a interconnected, smooth-flowing narrative. Was this account largely written by the author of Mark, though there may have been some oral or written sources (e.g., Paul passes along a tradition on the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11:23-25), or did Mark incorporate a largely pre-existent passion narrative? This involves larger questions: what aims might an account of the final days of Jesus serve as the early church attempted to justify to themselves and to outsiders their paradoxical belief in a crucified Messiah, does Mark exhibit signs of redacting an earlier source (e.g., references to the Caligula crisis in Mk 13 that may no longer reflect the immediate circumstances of the evangelist), do the bare references in Paul’s situational letters presuppose knowledge of a larger passion narrative, are the passion accounts in the gospels of John or Peter (or special traditions in Matthew and Luke) independent of Mark and so perhaps rooted in an earlier account or all dependent on Mark’s account? I want to explore some scholarship on this in the next posts but let me know what you think at this point.
Such a great question…the PN as we know is is quite heavily Markan, but it does seem amazing to imagine that Mark really crafted the entire narrative from start to finish…if Signs was a pre-Markan source, it didn’t strictly need a PN at all, but the Johannine passion, while it clearly depends on Mark’s version, has so many odd little details that it does seem to reflect something earlier. I’ve never tried to piece together what that could have been; it may have been only perfunctory. But there are hints of something.
Maybe Mark started with a pre-existing passion narrative and fleshed out the life of Jesus using elements from the Elijah/Elisha cycle.
Thanks for both of these comments Mike Z. and Paul D. I think right now I am similarly open to an earlier passion narrative of some sort that Mark revised and expanded with his own literary skill.
The NT contains four passion narratives. Mark’s is the earliest of these, probably produced shortly after the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE.
The members of the Jesus movement in Jerusalem were embarrassed by the crucifixion (c.f. 1 Cor 1:22). It was Paul who put the cross and resurrection at the centre of his “gospel”. So much so that Paul and his mission had very little interest in the details of the historical Jesus, and anyway expected his imminent return. So it would be surprising if an account of the passion was written during the lifetime of Paul. There was only a year or two between the death of Paul and the Jewish war against Rome, 66CE to 70 CE – not a good time for calm reflection on the passion of Jesus. Hence Mark’s account of the passion was most likely the first.
Thanks Ron for commenting. I think there is some truth that Jewish Jesus followers emphasized the sayings traditions more (though even in the double tradition ["Q"] there is some attempt to understand Jesus’ death in light of the fate of the prophets and calls for followers to take up their crosses) while Paul makes “Christ crucified” and the divine lawcourt the centerpiece of his solution to how Gentiles become part of the people of god. However, while Paul makes it central, I don’t think he invented the tradition of Jesus’ atoning death. He seems to pass on pre-Pauline creedal fragments (1 Cor 15:3-5; Rom 1:3-4; Rom 4:25) and liturgical traditions (e.g., note the last supper in Paul and the longer Lukan version add “new” covenant and turn it into a regular memorial meal “in remembrance of me” while the Markan/Matthean version preserve the Passover setting) and much of Mark’s Passion narrative (as well as distinctive sayings like the ransom saying) can be explained apart from Paul from the Jewish background of the suffering righteous one or the Maccabean martyrs. As a way to deal with the cognitive dissonance of belief in Jesus as a great teacher and some sort of messianic figure with his shameful mode of execution, it would be natural that from the earliest days of the movement the Jewish followers would turn to the scriptures to seek some sort of scriptural legitimation for Jesus’ death and that along with other oral or written traditions (sayings sources, parable collections, miracle tales, pronouncement stories, etc) an early passion narrative was circulated. Thus, I don’t think we can be so dogmatic that those outside of the Pauline circle were not also reflecting on the death and post-mortem vindication of Jesus, though without denying Paul’s distinctive focus on the death and resurrection kerygma.