Conclusion on the Passion Narrative

After going back and forth on this issue over the last bunch of weeks, here would be my preliminary conclusions about the alleged existence of a pre-Markan passion narrative (of course there is still so much I have not read and so this could all be subject to change).

I accept the existence of at least some sort of oral if not written basic Passion Story Prior to Mark

1. Whatever one makes of the possible existence of Jesus groups that privileged sayings over the death/resurrection kerygma (proclamation) theorized by Koester, Robinson, Mack or some other scholars working on “Q” or Thomas, as soon as the Jerusalem Pillars (Cephas, James, the Twelve) began proclaiming Jesus as the risen Christos (annointed one), it practically necessitated that they had some scriptural justification for why this Christ was shamefully executed in the first place in contrast to any known Jewish messianic expectations.  1 Cor 15:3-5 suggests this was narrated “according to the Scriptures” from the beginning so there is no need to imagine that shaping the story according to the suffering righteous of the Psalms or other Jewish martyrdom traditions was a late addition.
2. At least some episodes originated in eyewitness testimony however much they became elaborated in later retellings.  This includes those involving the disciples before they fled, Simon of Cyrene and sons Alexander & Rufus and the women at Mk 15:47/16:1.  I heard a talk at SBL where a scholar argued Simon of Cyrene was a literary device (he takes up the cross unlike Simon Peter, his foreign named sons show they are outsiders who Mark makes insiders) but Simon was a common name and I find more convincing the superfluous naming of the sons indicates they were known to Mark’s audience.  Deane Galbraith following Casey has a strong counterargument against the historicity of Mark’s story of the women at the tomb (i.e. the standard apologetic that women’s testimony was inadmissable in a lawcourt is irrelevant because the evangelists were preaching to fellow believers, women like Deborah or Jael had prominent roles in Scripture, the narrative demands women since the male disciples fled), but as a reply I wonder if naming the women (Mary Magdalene in all four, Mary in the Synoptics [mother of James & Jose in Mk, mother of James in Lk]) rather than just a non-specific group suggests Mark has a tradition of named women (Deane allows there may have been a tradition originating in visions of women) and there is evidence of authors reflecting bias against women outside the setting of a law court (in addition to Deane’s examples of Celsus and Emmaeus story I might add Acts 12 where the church is reluctant to believe the tall tales of a servant named Rhoda that Peter was at the door or perhaps she saw of vision of his angel until they saw for themselves).  I grant that Mark’s narrative the men had all fled, but it is easy to imagine another scenario where Mark had the risen Jesus appear to Peter and the Twelve and telling them the tomb was empty, avoiding mentioning the women discovering the tomb altogether, though in favour of Mark narrating about women is that the evangelist likes to reverse traditional expectations as the disciples are often blind and outsiders insiders.
3. The basic agreements between Paul and the Synoptics (the last supper institution on the night Jesus was handed over, the Passover setting, Jesus’ willingness to die, the crucifixion due to both Roman imperial power and Judaean leadership, burial, appearances) may reflect a shared outline.  Granted Paul could have indirectly influenced the Synoptics (e.g., the noun euangelion or gospel in Mark) but there is enough differences to see them as relatively independent.  There may be further evidence in the summaries in Acts, placed on the lips of Peter and Paul in their various sermons, though these might also be based on the narrative outline of Mark used by Luke.
4. It looks to me that there is enough evidence that John was at least familiar with Mark (e.g., evidence of Markan redaction in John), but the author may have also had some of his own sources at his disposal.  Not all of John’s differences can be adequately explained as making redactional changes to Mark, such as John’s narrative of the Jewish trial where the priest just questions Jesus about his ministry seems less theologically developed than Mark’s where Jesus discloses the secret of his christological identity and is condemned for blasphemy.  There are also a suprising number of differences in Luke’s passion narrative when read side by side in a synopsis which suggest that Luke may possibly have other sources in addition to Mark or just made some major redactional changes.  Furthermore, if Mark was the literary genius behind this smoothly flowing, inter-connected account with clear place and time indications, one wonders why the author couldn’t have integrated the rest of the sources in the earlier part of the gospel.

I am not as confident that we can reconstruct the extent and the content of the pre-Markan Passion Narrative

1. I have not gone through every last book attempting to finely sift between tradition and redaction to reconstruct a coherent passion narrative, but ever since reading C. Clifton Black’s skepticism about redaction criticism I am less confident about how much we can know about Mark’s sources.  It is not the same as dealing with Matthean and Lukan redaction because at least we actually have their source (Mark), so any attempts to reconstruct Mark’s sources are provisional at best.
2. Whatever the source looked like prior to Mark, it has become quite integrated into Mark’s larger themes and purposes.  Thus Mark emphasizes the way of the cross as a balance to a christology of glory in the first half and a model for would-be disciples of Jesus to follow (follow Jesus on the way of suffering, with future vindication when he returns in glory as triumphant Son of Man), the disclosure of the messianic secret (the Christ, Son of God. Son of Man), the failure of the disciples (misunderstanding, sleeping, denying, betraying, abandoning) as a foil for Jesus’ own character (willingness to drink the cup, offer to be reconciled with the wayward disciples even in 16:7), judgment on the Jerusalem priestly leadership and the Temple, the positive value of Galilee where the mission continues, etc.
3. If Matthew and Luke likely depend on Mark’s account and John was at least familiar with Mark (and Gospel of Peter familiar with the Synoptics?), there are no real controls or ways to measure how much of John’s narrative is just indebted to Mark’s narrative and framework, how much of his differences are purposeful redactional changes for his own theological reasons and how many of the differences are based on the author utilizing different sources or the same shared source in a different way than Mark (this is different than when scholars try to reconstruct “Q” by assuming Luke and Matthew are completely independent so their shared non-Markan material can be attributed to a source, but some scholars on the Synoptic Problem are even starting to question the confident reconstructions of a single Q source or the independence of Luke from Matthew).

So that would be my conclusion: there was some sort of source from early on, but it is difficult to know exactly what it looked like.  This is important for historical reasons to understand Christian origins, but for the person in the pews at Easter services it may be more important to ask what theological reasons does Mark, Matthew, Luke or John narrate the Passion story in such or such a way rather than try to preach from a hypothetical earlier Passion Narrative differently reconstruction by any one scholar.  What do you think?

Mark as the Creator of the Passion Narrative?

Thus far, I have followed those who argue the evangelist took over a pre-existing Passion Story, the exact contents and extent of which are widely debated.  However, it is time to look at the other side of the argument that sees the Passion Narrative as largely the literary creation of the evangelist.

In contrast to painstaking German scholarship precisely separating tradition from Markan/Johannine redaction in the Passion, a distinctly North American contribution in Werner H. Kelber’s edited volume The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14-16 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976).  Donahue’s opening chapter surveys the quest for the pre-Markan Passion Narrative and the competing reconstructions.  He makes a number of pertinent points such as the verbal agreement between Mark and John (the ointment of pure nard [Mk 14:3; Jn 12:3]; 300 denarii [Mk 14:5; Jn 12:5], Peter warming [thermainomenos] himself [Mk 14:54, 67; Jn 18:18, 25], Peter going “into” the courtyard [Mk 14:54; Jn 19:15], “crucify him” in the imperative [Mk 15:14; Jn 19:2; 5]; purple robe [Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2 5], the preparation day [Mk 15:42; Jn 19:31], intercalculating the Jewish trial w/ Peter’s denials) suggests John’s dependence on Mark while his divergences are for theological reasons (e.g., foreknowledge of the arrest in Jn 18:4-9; heighten guilt of Jewish officials in Jn 18:14; dramatizes Pilate trial and krisis [judgement] in Jn 18:28-19:16) (9-10).  Elements of Mark’s Passion fit key characteristics of the narrative as a whole (proclamation of kingdom, meaning of discipleship, relation to Jerusalem and Temple, christological identity, suffering, orientation towards Galilee, gospel) (14).  There is a growing concern to see Mark as author and theologian in his own right; “redaction criticism” is not just how an author edits her sources but about the composition of the narrative with plot and protagonist  (cf. Perrin, Weeden, Kelber) and he touches on structuralist or “semiotic” criticism (16-19) (to avoid confusion iI would relable this literary/narrative criticism).  After this introductory essay different scholars tackle parts of the Passion such as the Last Meal (Vernon Robbins), Gethsemane (Werner Kelber), the Sanhedrin (John Donahue, S.J.), Jesus before the High Priest (Norman Perrin), Peter’s denials (Kim Dewey), the Crucifixion (Theodore Weeden, Sr.) or the empty tomb (John Dominic Crossan).  Kelber summaries that 1) virtually all major (and many minor) Markan themes converge in Mk 14-16, 2) Mk 14-16 is a theologically inseparable and homogeneous part of the Gospel and 3) this questions the classical form critical thesis of an independent and coherent passion narrative prior to Mark (156-57).  Mk 14-16 as no different from the rest in editing and unifying individual traditions or creating new material with no single tradition exercising an authoritative influence and Mark’s achievement is to compose a literary whole (Gospel) out of disparate traditions (157-58). There is a tension in the essays between scholars who allow for sources and complicated history of development even if the Passion “owes its final form and coherent structure and meaning to Mk” (Donahue, 20) (e.g., Donahue and Weeden on a pre-Markan trial scene though Weeden sees it deriving from the aberrant divine man christology opponents, or Dewey on a pre-Markan denial story) vrs those who see more free literary creativity (Crossan sees  Mk 16:1-8 as entirely redactional).

Burton Mack takes an even stronger line in A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988).   Earlier Mack detects a variety of Jesus groups such as the itinerants in Galilee (Kloppenborg’s Q1), the Jerusalem Pillars, the Family of Jesus, the Congregation of Israel (Achtemeier’s miracle chains w/ Jesus as a Moses/Elijah figure) and the Synagogue Reformers (Jesus as a lawyer who gets the last word in a Pronouncement Story) (84-96).  In contrast, the Christ Congregations taught Jesus’ death atoned for the “sins” of their non-Torah observant mixed communities (100-120).  Mark recasts these memories in light of the destruction of the Temple and invented a new “myth of origins” that combined traditions from Palestine & southern Syria of Jesus as a founding-teacher and the Christ cult in nothern Syria, Asia Minor & Greece (9-11).   Some may see Mack taking form criticism to its logical conclusion or alternatively one of the critical weaknesses of the form critical model in imagining that each distinct form of tradition had only a single Sitz im Leben (rather than a more fluid situation where Pronouncement stories, miracle stories, logia, parables, etc., all freely circulated between different groups though open to competing interpretations in different social contexts).  In Part III Narratives of the Passion (247-312) Mack begins by observing that resistance to critical analysis of the Passion may be because it is the primary myth-ritual text of Christianity and appears  as a coherent historical narrative that seems less mythic than the rest of the Gospel (249-51).  He challenges the form critics that the passion narrative grew in stages (whether Dibelius, Bultmann, Jeremias or Taylor’s reconstruction) from the kerygma (e.g., 1 Cor 15:3-5) to basic historical narrative and later embellishments (251-55).  He points to a pre-existing profile of the suffering righteous one taken from the Psalms and argues that these passages were not just tacked on to a historical report to apologize for a scandal but to create it (the crucifixion is not a scandal until joined to belief in Jesus’ as Christ) (255-58).  He takes issue with the German reconstructions of a pre-Markan Passion Narrative (though highlights Eta Linneman on each individual episode having a consistent theological view which he attibutes [against her view] to a definite circle of Christians who made the storyline and D. Dormeyer’s documentation of motifs of martyrological literature in comparison/contrast to suffering righteous one though Mack disents from Dormeyer’s effort to get back to bare declarative statements) (258-62).  Mack looks at the fictional themes building on Kelber, Donahue, Juel (on the connection of Christology and Temple) and Nickelsburg (the Wisdom story, Righteous One).  In Ch 10 the Narrative Design (269-87), Mack starts by looking at the literary design of the narrative and then argues that Mark took the significance of Christ’s death from the ritual meal in 1 Cor 11:23-26 and rewrote the Christ myth by historicizing it (predictions of the crucifixion/resurrection of the Son of Man or the ransom saying, human agents and geo-political events leading to the Son of Man’s death) and in the depiction of Jesus as a popular messianic figure who ironically rejects the Temple and is rejected by his own people though he will return in glory.  In Ch 11 The compositional process (288-312) Mack continues to dissect the Passion Story piece by piece from the Temple act, the meal (seeing the Pauline version as primary), the arrest, the Sanhedrin trial, the trial before Pilate, the mythic scheme of the crucifixion  and also looks at ”counterpoint stories” that are usually argued as earlier sources such as the story of Gethsemane or of the annointing (Mack argues Mark rewrote an earlier chreia and included it here to apologize for Mark’s lack of a proper burial) to show that they are fully integreted in Mark’s narrative too (306-312).  Thus, Mark sees the Passion as a fiction largely on the model of the persecuted Righteous One (Psalms), Wisdom’s son and martyr accounts (cf. charts on pp. 256, 267, 270).    He summarizes the Markan message:  “A brilliant appearance of the man of power, destroyed by those in league against God, pointed nonetheless to a final victory when those who knew the secret of his kingdom would finally be vindicated for accepting his authority” (323).

William Arnal’s “The Gospel of Mark as Reflection on Exile and Identity” in Introducing Religion: Essays in Honor of Jonathan Z. Smith (ed. Willi Braun and Russell McCutcheon; London; Oakville: Equinox, 2008), 57-67 offers a fascinating thesis that the evangelist used the Jesus traditions to reimagine the identity of the group and ethnic identity in response to the experience of social dislocation and double exile in the Fallout of the Jewish War (he resists defining an exact provenance for the Gospel, but he sees its author writing in the post-70 period when exiled northward in Syria-Galilee).  His contribution on the subject of the Passion is that he sees the sources in the pre-70 period outside Paul’s epistles as largely sayings material – Q, an earlier edition of Thomas, parables and controversy stories (even Paul’s references to sayings are in the chreia format – 1 Thess 4:15; 1 Cor 7:10-11; 11:24-25)  – while Mark the first to write a Jesus biography (58).   Thus he believes we lack genuine biographical information on Jesus the teacher except for isolated anecdotes about his ministry or his miracles that preceded Mark (58).  In terms of the Passion Narrative, Arnal believes that Mark elaborated alot of the sayings into narratives with help from the LXX.  So sayings about carrying ones cross (Gos Thom 55) or about unproductive fruit trees (Gos Thom 45) have been transformed into narratives (Mk 15:21; 11:13-14, 20-21) or the LXX itself was historicized (e.g. Psalm 22) (58-59).

Again, lest I missed anything in these short summaries it is useful to check out the works themselves.  Do you find the argument that Mark is the creator of the Passion Narrative Convincing or do you still find what may be the majority opinion of some sort of pre-Markan Passion Source to be more convincing?  I will wrap up some of my thoughts in the conclusion in the next post.

A Pre-Markan Passion Narrative from Jerusalem?

I have concentrated on scholarship on a pre-Markan Passion Narrative without yet dealing with the other side which argues it is a product of the literary creativity of “Mark” (Kelber et al, Mack, Arnal, etc).  I want to take one last look at a couple scholars who find signs of an extensive Passion Narrative originating in the early Jerusalem church in the 30s/40s CE.   This position was strongly defended by the late Rudolf Pesch (Jim West comments that he wrote the finest commentary bar none) in Das Markusevangelium: Teil 2, Einleitung und Kommentar zu Kap. 8,27 – 16,20 (HTKNT; Freiburg: Herder, 1977) pp 1-25 and English readers can get a glimpse into the critical debate that followed and Pesch’s further work and responses to criticism in his “The Gospel in Jerusalem: Mark 14:12-26 as the Oldest Tradition of the Early Church,” pages 106-148 in The Gospel and the Gospels (edited by Peter Stuhlmacher; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991).  Pesch discerns an extended, interconnected narrative source beginning at 8:27 -33 (Peter’s messianic confession) and consisting of 9:2-13, 30-35; 10:1, 32-34, 46-52; 11:1-23, 27-33; 12:1-12, 13-17, 34c, 35-37, 41-44; 13:1-2; 14:1-16:8 in an organized outline of 13 parts with 3 subsections each (see his outline charted out in his commentary on pp 15-16).  It would be a much longer post to scrutinize the details of each individual judgment in weeding out tradition and redaction and Pesch exibits the thoroughness characteristic of German scholarship, but since reading  C. Clifton Black on redaction criticism I find myself more skeptical not that Mark used sources but about how much we can know their precise nature/extent and ability to distinguish Mark’s editorial hand (as opposed to the redactional work of Matthew/Luke when we can observe how they treat their source Mark).  Anyways, he locates the source in Jerusalem (familiarity with topography of Jerusalem & surrounding areas, named individuals in the Jerusalem church, the Semitisms and knowledge of Hebrew Bible [15:34]) and dates it pre-37 CE based on Paul’s knowledge of the Supper in its narrative context in 1 Cor 11:23-25 and the fact that the high priest is not named (contra Matt 26:3, 57; Lk 3:2) presupposes familiarity with him and that he may be the current high priest at the time of the Passion Narrative (he later adds the familiarity by naming Pilate but without including the title ἡγεμών [govenor], cf. Matt 27:2, 11; Lk 3:3).

Another arguing for the Jerusalem origins of this source is Gerd Theissen, a scholar who has significantly contributed in advancing social-scientific criticism in the field of Christian origins against the historical-critical hegemony, in his The Gospels in Context (London and New York: T&T Clark, 1992), chapter 6: “A Major Narrative Unit (the Passion Story) and the Jerusalem Community in the Years 40-50 CE” (pp 166-99).  Starting with the well-known scholarly disagreement between Markan and Johannine chronology on when Jesus died (this deserves a separate post), one of Theissen’s main arguments for a Passion source is that he believes Mark’s source agreed with John that Jesus died on the day of preparation before Passover (this is why there was a rush to arrest and dispose of Jesus quickly as there could be no judicial proceedings on the Passover, why Simon of Cyrene came from the field where he worked as work was not permitted during the Passover and both Mk 15:42/Jn 19:42 have the “day of preparation” but Mark redactionally adds a relative clause to link it with preparation for the Sabbath) (166-68).  I have noted Adela Collins criticisms and Theissen contradicts one of Pesch’s major planks (cf. “The Gospel in Jerusalem,” pp 117-39) that the Last Supper was a Passover meal that was fully integretated into a pre-Markan Passion Narrative from Jerusalem that was taken over by the evangelist.  Theissen accepts John’s relative independence but is much more reluctant than Pesch to state the exact length of the Passion source as the correspondences of Mark 14:1 onward with Jn 11:43-47 onward may signal it started here or one could imagine a shorter source starting at the arrest (Bultmann) or a longer source (Mohr, Pesch) (168-69).  In the rest Theissen builds off Pesch’s case about “indications of familiarity.”  Not naming the high priest does not necessarily demand he was the current office holder (Exodus does not name the Pharaoh!) but, as someone from the family of Caiaphas was firmly in power between 30 and 70 CE, naming names within their sphere of influence could be dangerous.  Another explanation for why Pilate is named may be that it was easier to blame the individual (disposed in 37 CE) than risk directly attacking the Roman office itself while they were embittered towards the Jewish priestly institution itself.  As for the names in the gospel, characters are not usually identified through their fathers (Theissen suggests that some Christians who broke with their families to follow Jesus may be less inclined to identify themselves by their fathers) but through their sons (e.g., identifying Simon from Cyrene was sufficient but naming his sons indicates they may have been known members of the community; the Greek in Mk 15:41 about the familial relationship of Mary to James & Joses is not entirely clear so may presuppose some knowledge of them and identifying James “the younger/the less” may be to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee so before 44 CE).  Or characters are named based on their places of origin but place names such as Nazareth, Magdala or Arimathea as distinguishing marks would mean little to those outside Palestine and there are other mentions of individuals from Cyrene in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 6:9; note other Christ followers from the diaspora in the early chapters of Acts).  With regards to Barabbas, his introduction in 15:7 implies he is well known (Matt 27:16 is explicit that he was a notorious prisoner), is only described “with” (μετὰ) the rebels so it leaves it unclear what was his level of involvement in their activities (Lk 23:19 is more explicit) and Mark’s account speaks of the insurrection without differentiating it from later clashes in Pilate’s reign.  Finally, to explain why the bystander who cuts off the ear of the high priest’s slave (Mk 14:47) and the young man who resisted arrest by fleeing naken from the Garden (Mk 14:51-52) are not named, Theissen proposes the theory of protective anonymity to protect those individuals who were still alive at the time and had run afoul of the authorities (Bauckham makes much of this in his Jesus and the Eyewitnesses).  What do you think – does the Passion Narrative presuppose a kind of familiarity with people or places that was only available to individuals in Jerusalem in the early decades of the movement?

Dale Allison on the Passion Narrative

Individual or collective memory is all the rage in gospel studies, but is debate over how much memory is retentive versus reconstructive to suit present needs similar to form critical debates over how much of the tradition goes back to Jesus versus how much reflects the Sitz im Leben (situation in life) of post-Easter congregations (compare the skeptical Bultmann, the moderate Dibelius or the conservative Taylor)?  Second, while open to differences based on different oral or written traditions (e.g., perhaps Matt/Luke didn’t just take the Lord’s prayer from “Q” but cited the form most prevalent in their communities; cf. the relationship of Didache 8 to Matthew), I am not sure we can just bypass the literary relationship of the Synoptics and that Matt/Luke sometimes deliberately redact Mark (and Q?) as “Mark” likely did his/her sources. However, I appreciate the nuanced approach of Dale Allison’s Constructing Jesus as he notes both the limitations of memory (1. it is reconstructive, 2. it is post-event , 3. it projects present circumstances/biases, 4. it becomes less distinct as past recedes, 5. it is sequential, 6. it forms meaningful patterns to advance agendas, 7. groups rehearse memories hold dear, 8. the recording of it is shaped by narrative conventions, 9. vivid subjective compelling memory may be no more accurate) (pp 2-10) and its ability to capture the gist or general outline (pp. 10-14).   That is, I accept the redaction/literary critics emphasis on the evangelists as creative theologians yet also think if multiple early texts or hypothetical  sources (Q, M, L, Mk 2:1-3:6, signs source?) widely remember Jesus as wisdom teacher, apocalytic seer, halakhic debater, or exalted self-understanding then it may be reliable.

Lets focus on Allison’s contribution on the Passion Narrative (ch 5: Death and Memory).  First, he agrees with Goodacre’s critique of Crossan (388-91).  Second, he tests how much of the passion we can reconstruct just from Paul such as 1) the crucifixion, 2) Jesus’ shed blood and “marks” (stigmata) (i.e., flogging, nails rather than ropes), 3) condemned by the rulers of this age, 4) Jesus as messianic figure (Christ, descent from David), 5) & 6) rejected by Judaeans (1 Thess 2:14-16), 7) on the “night” he was handed over (paradidōmi – some try to read a stronger sense of betrayed), 8) willingly surrendered his life, 9) words of last supper institution, and 10) burial (392-403).  He lists out in a chart (pg. 404) the parallels between Paul and the passion narrative underlying Mark/John (he accepts John knew Mark yet still sees it largely independent) and the best evidence that Paul knows a Passion Narrative is 1 Cor 11:23-25 put in a narrative context (405).  Allison butresses his case with several more correlations from Paul’s letters including 1) Jesus’ humble character, 2) Psalm 69 as prooftext (Rom 15:3 [cf. Rom 11:9-10]; Matt 27:34 [gall added to Mk 15:23]; Mk 15:36 par; Mk 15:32/Mt 27:44; John 2:17; 15:25; 19:28-29; Acts 1:20), 3) Rom 15 and gospels have Jesus’ recite Psalms as fulfilled in his person, 4) rare verb ”to crucifiy with” (sustauroō) and the two crucified with Jesus, 5) 1 Cor 5:7 Christ as paschal lamb, 6) Col 2:13-14 “nailing it [the record against us] to the cross and the notice on the cross, 7) (para)didōmi in Paul and Mark as the subject may be God, Jesus or perhaps Jesus’ betrayer, and 8) knowledge of Gethsemane tradition (cf. Lk 22:29-46; Jn 12:27; 13:21; 18:11; Heb 5:7-11) (Paul’s thrice prayer for his thorn in the flesh given to torment him to be removed, Christians to “cry” Abba [Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6], “in prayer continue, watching” [Col 4:2], Christ not pleasing himself and imitatio Christi) (406-421).  Last, he adds that Paul spent time in Jerusalem, some scholars date a passion narrative to the 30s/40s (e.g., R. Pesch) and Paul does not directly contradict Mark’s account (422-23).

Again, whether John was completely independent of Mark, familiar with Mark yet chose to utilize his own sources (e.g., the very different versions of the trial before the high priest) or completely dependent on Mark and made big redactional changes is a major issue for the existence of a pre-Markan Passion Narrative.  But the biggest part of Allison’s case rests on that Paul exhibits familiarity with some sort of narrative account of the Passion that also underlies Mark/John, so what are the strengths and weaknesses of the parallels Allison adduces? Ken Schenck also reviews this section of the book (here, here, here, here, here, here, here) and finds Paul’s familiarity with the basic contours of the passion story from oral tradition persuasive but is less impressed with Allison’s correlations that demand this to be a written account (he considers one “jumping the shark” ).  What do you think?

Adela Collins on the Passion Narrative

Adela Yarbro Collins is well known as an expert of apocalyptic literature and has written one of the best commentaries on Mark for the Hermeneia series.  I found her paper ”The Passion Narrative Before and After Mark” online from the SBL Extent of Theological Diversity in Earliest Christianity Group (includes some other fascinating papers) and I actually remember hearing this in person when I got the chance to go to the SBL in New Orleans a few years ago and first meet a number of the other bloggers.  The paper is a brief discussion of her take on the origins, original setting and extent of the pre-Markan Passion Narrative, the specific Markan redactional features and the relationship of the gospels of John and Peter to the Synoptics account.  I found especially interesting her interaction with the different reconstructions of Helmut Koester and John Dominic Crossan. Update: Since she spells out her views more fully in her commentary and Joel Marcus was the respondent at SBL, it might be helpful to just compare and contrast their reasons for and reconstruction of a pre-Markan Passion narrative.

Collins’ excursus on the Passion Narrative is on pp 620-639.  She begins with the form critics, from KL Schmidt’s observation of an early, extended narrative of Jesus’ death from the oldest Christ community, Dibelius’s view that it began with the arrest and betrayal (14:10-11, 1-2), Bultmann’s view on a bare historical record of at least the arrest, condemnation and execution before it was expanded in several stages and Taylor on two alternating sources (one with Semitisms from Peter’s reminiscences) that make a basic unity.  Eta Linnemann went farther and argued that the Passion was created by Mark out of individual units and L. Schenke that Mark formed 14:1-31 out of short individual units (the traditional part of Gethsemane report was the oldest) and that there were 3 layers of tradition behind 14:53-15:47 (621-22).  Then she turns to Kelber’s edited volume (I will discuss this eventually too) which argued Mk 14-16 is a theologically homogenous creation of the evangelist, a verdict polar opposite to Rudolf Pesch on Mark as a conservative redactor of a pre-existing narrative beginning as early as 8:27 (though with major redactions from 8:27-13:37, while the source followed closely after 14:1) that goes back to the Aramaic speaking Jerusalem church before 37 CE [!] and Joel Green’s on Mark as a cautious editor of a passion story that originated in a eucharistic setting (and may be independently drawn upon by Luke who also used Mark and John) (622).  She next takes up the relationship of Mark and John with a review of Mohr, Myllykoski, Reinbold and Theissen. She critiques Thiessen’s view that Mark’s source dated the crucifixion before the Passover (the priests wish to arrest Jesus before the feast, Simon of Cyrene came from the fields [i.e. work]) because 14:1-2 implies that they did not wish to arrest Jesus openly during the feast and 15:21 ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ may mean Simon comes “from the country” and only labourous work (rather than light work) was prohibited on the first and last days of Unleavened bread (cf. Exod 12:16; Lev 23:7-8; contra the stricter laws for Sabbath and Yom Kippur) and sees Reinbold’s view for John’s literary independence from the Synoptics to be the strongest even though she allows that John may be indirectly dependent on Mark, especially in the context of the reoralization of the passion narrative after Mark was circulated (622-25).  She concludes that Mark had a narrative source in the transitional stage between oral and literary production, that Matt/Luke depended on Mark yet knew other ongoing oral traditions and John indirectly depended on Mark though modified it in the context of reoralization with other traditions known to him.  She admits the impossibility of reconstructing the exact nature and extent of this source without external controls and as tradition and redaction can only be separated on literary ground, but she notes Mark 14 onward has much greater literary coherence.  14:1-31 was composed out of individual units of tradition but a form of the Gethsemane tradition stood at the beginning followed by an earlier form of the arrest and trial before Pilate (the trial before the high priest and Barabbas story are secondary), the torture & execution (the burial and empty tomb story may have been independent units and Jesus dying words, the women at 15:40-41 and empty tomb story are redactional) and ending with the rendering of the temple veil indicating Jesus’ ascent to heaven or removal of the divine-human barrier (625-27; 637-39; cf. her tentative reconstructed source start in Gethsemane and ends with the tearing of the veil in 15:38 – see p. 632, n. 1; Appendix on p. 819).  Finally she tackles the genre with a wealth of parallels from Jewish, Greco-Roman and later Christian literature about the “death of a famous man” or “noble death” (e.g., Socrates) and martyrdom literature (e.g., 2/4 Macc, Acts of the Alexandrians) and sees the literary echoes from the Psalms going back early on (though she thinks Jesus’ words at his trial and on the cross as redactional when the source had the righteous one silent before the accusers) (627-39).

Joel Marcus starts his disussion on the Passion Narrative in his 2nd volume of the Anchor commentary on pp 924-31.  After outlining its compositional structure (924-25), he turns to the debate whether there was a pre-Markan source or the creativity of the evangelist himself (924-27).  He decides that it is both/and as Mark may have took over the stucture of a source which he extended and altered (e.g., Markan sandwich techniques) (924-25).  He defends a pre-existent source against Matera and Mack on the following grounds: 1) the necessity of the church at a very early stage to explain their proclamation of a suffering Messiah, 2) John’s radical departures yet overlaps on the passion narrative suggests the author was not directly dependent, 3) time indications in Mark are usually non-existent or vague (“several days later”) while here we have connected time notices down to the last hours, 4) some passages don’t makie sense as individual units but must be part of a consecutive text (preparations for the meal, predictions and fulfillment of Peter’s denials must go together) and in one situation Mark added a redactional verse (14:28 according to Marcus) to the pre-existing prediction of the denials (926-27).  As for John he notes that it lacks parallels to much of Jesus’ Jerusalem ministry except triumphal entry and temple cleansing (though in  adifferent chronological order) and occassional other eches (Jn 2:18/Mk 11:28; Jn 14:26/Mk 13:11) and lacks the eucharist and agony in Gethsemane (though John agrees on the leader’s plot, annointing at Bethany, predictions of betrayal and denial) – some of these omissions may be deliberate (e.g., embarrasment over Jesus’ prayer to escape cup of suffering, realized eschatology in John’s last discourse against Mark’s eschatology) but other omissions hard to explain if John knew Mark (Mk 11:1-6; 14:12-16 on finding the colt and the room for the Last Supper both imply Jesus’ clairvoyance).  Thus he believes the passion narrative underlying Mark and John may have begun at the arrest and was subsequently extended to triumphal entry (Jeremias) (926-27).  On the question of historicity, he finds Crossan’s reconstruction of the earliest “Cross Gospel” behind the 2nd century fantastic account of the Gospel of Peter incredible (927) and against Crossan’s dichotomy of history remembered or prophecy historicized adopts a “middle of the road” approach as mixture of memory and theological insight, a ”two level drama” of a story of Jesus and a mirror to the Markan Christians in post-70 Syria (Marcus’s view on the provenance).  He supports some of the historicity with the embarrassing features in the scene in Gethsemane, the denials of Jesus, the abandonment by the disciples, the cry of dereliction from cross (contrast this with Collin’s view that the cry of forsakeness is a redactional feature that jarrs with the emphasis on Jesus’ silence elsewhere) and the possible survival of some who could remember the events, but he also acknowledges that prophecy may be historicitzed by the evangelists too (Matt 27:43 adds a citation of Ps. 22 on a character’s lips, Mk 15:40 with the women at a distance may borrow from Ps 38:11 [or it is historical] while they are close enough to converse with Jesus in Jn 19:25-26) (927-29).  On the question of Anti-Judaism, he believes that from Josephus and some (much) later Christian and Jewish sources (cf. Justin Dial 108; Origen C. Cels. 2.4, 9; b. Sanh. 43a) there is evidence of involvement of the Jewish leadership with the Romans but that Mark does go beyond that in incriminating the Jewish leadership (e.g., the trial before the Sanhedrin may reflect some of the Christian’s own experiences of persecution and there is no evidence for the custom of releasing a prisoner at the feast though Barabbas may symbolize Mark’s own rejection of revolutionary violence), though the animus remains mostly aimed at the leadership rather than the people (929-30).  Finally, he observes that theologically the Passion is viewed as an eschatological event of decisive significance (930-31).

A Pre-Markan Passion Narrative: Part I

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.

The Davidic Saga and Mark’s Passion Narrative?

Writing on the scriptural resonances in Mark’s Passion Narrative, I was reminded of the review article by Theodore J. Weeden Sr, “Polemics as a Case for Dissent: A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” JSHJ 6 (2008): 211-22 (further discussion at XTalk: Historical Jesus & Christian Origins).  His case against Bauckham covers a lot of ground (defending Loveday Alexander on the prologues of Luke-Acts, Joseph Tyson on the late dating of canonical Luke-Acts after Marcion, his own polemical interpretation of Mark, his new thesis that Mark imitated Josephus’ story of Jesus son of Ananias in War 6.300-309), but I want to focus particularly on the argument that Mark composed the narrative in Gethsemane on the outline of the Davidic saga (pp 221-23).  Dr. Weeden lists the following correspondences:

(a) Conspiracy against David (2 Sam.15:1-12)=conspiracy against Jesus (14:1, 10-11); (b) Ahithophel’s betrayal of David (2 Sam.15:31;16:20-17:3)=Judas’ betrayal of Jesus (Mk.14:10f.); (c) Ittai’s vow of loyality to David (2 Sam.15:21)=Peter’s vow of loyalty to Jesus (Mk. 14:29); (d) David’s flight to the Mt. of Olives (2 Sam.15:30)=Jesus’ move to Mt. of Olives (Mk. 14:26); (e) Three commanders accompany David ( 2 Sam.15:19-24)=Jesus “takes” three confidants (14:33); (f) David’s distress (2 Sam. 15:30b)=Jesus’ distress (Mk. 14:33-35a); (g) David’s resigning to God’s will (2 Sam.15:25f.)=Jesus’ prayer resigning to God’s will (Mk.14:36); (h) Plan for army to attack David (2 Sam.17:1-3)=crowd with swords/clubs arrest Jesus (14:43); (i) Joab’s deceitful kiss of Amasa (2 Sam. 20:1-10)=Judas’ betrayal kiss of Jesus (Mk. 14:44f.).

He further sees the altered citation of LXX Zech 13:7 in Mk 14:27 to conform more closely to Ahithophel’s hope in his attack of David (2 Sam 17:2) that “all the people with him [David] will flee” and “I will strike the king” and shepherd and sheep can be a metaphor for ruler and people.

I have no problem with the idea that, as son of David (Mk 10:47-48; 11:10, but does Mark contest or redefine Davidic sonship in 12:35-37?), Mark views David as a type or forerunner of Jesus.  Further support may be that 1st century Jews believed David wrote many of the lament Psalms which form a script for Jesus and there must be some literary creation (who heard Jesus’ prayer while the disciples slept?).  However, might some of this be a case of parallelomania?  The setting on the Mount of Olives is suggestive, but did David and Jesus alone find themselves victims of conspiracy, suffer grief or get hunted down by enemies?  Some details make plausible historical sense like the flight of the disciples (the men hid away so as not to suffer the same fate while some women were allowed to watch at a distance as witnesses in Mk 15:47) or that Jesus’ was betrayed by a member of his circle that tipped the authorities off about his message and whereabouts (creating issues for the “Q” saying that the Twelve would sit on 12 thrones).  Other elements of the narrative world may be sufficiently explained as underscoring the utter failure of the disciples (the Twelve fail to keep their word to die with Jesus, the inner circle of Peter/James/John fall asleep, Judas’ kiss heightens the personal betrayal, the chief spokesperson Peter denies Jesus, not sure where Weeden fits the flight of the naked youth in the OT narrative [?]) in contrast to Jesus resolve to do the divine will and drink the cup (a metaphor used throughout the OT).  What do others think?

Scriptural Background to the Passion Narrative

In a past post I highlighted how the crucifixion parodies the triumphal procession of a Roman emperor.  However, the immediate scriptural background is apparent to anyone reading Mark’s account.  Psalms of laments of the suffering righteous one (Pss 22, 40, 41, 42, etc) interpret the events of the passion from betrayal by a friend to casting of lots for Jesus’ garments to the cry of dispair in quoting the opening words of Psalm 22 (note this Psalm concludes on a note of vindication).  A quotation from Zech 13:7 explains why the disciples scatter (note also Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem seems to echo Zech 9:9-10 though not until Matt 21:4-5 is the allusion explicit, N. Perrin argued the Markan references “you will see the Son of Man” [13:26; 14:62] combine imagery of Dan 7, Ps 110:1 on Jesus heavenly enthronement and the seeing from Zech 12:10ff [cf. Jn 19:37; Rev 1:7 on looking on the one they pierced]).  The job description of the Son of Man in the 3 passion predictions and the famous ransom saying in Mk 10:45, along with his future vindication in glory, may borrow from the script in Daniel as the Son of Man collectively represents the saints of Israel who suffer under foreign powers but will be vindicated over the beasts.  Others see the Servant songs in Deutero-Isaiah and especially the image of the Suffering Servant’s vicarious death on behalf of others in the background, but there is considerable debate about whether Mark alludes to the Servant at all or if the Danielic background is sufficient (compare Morna Hooker, Jesus and the Servant; The Son of Man in Mark against Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord; Rikki Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark).

However, growing up as a Protestant without reading the Apocrypha, it is further illuminating turning to the Maccabean martyrs or the suffering righteous one in the Wisdom of Solomon quoted below:

It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine’s flesh.  One of them, acting as their spokesman, said, “What do you intend to ask and learn from us? For we are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our fathers.”  The king fell into a rage, and gave orders that pans and caldrons be heated. These were heated immediately, and he commanded that the tongue of their spokesman be cut out and that they scalp him and cut off his hands and feet, while the rest of the brothers and the mother looked on.  When he was utterly helpless, the king ordered them to take him to the fire, still breathing, and to fry him in a pan. The smoke from the pan spread widely, but the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, ”The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us, as Moses declared in his song which bore witness against the people to their faces, when he said, `And he will have compassion on his servants.’”  After the first brother had died in this way, they brought forward the second for their sport. They tore off the skin of his head with the hair, and asked him, “Will you eat rather than have your body punished limb by limb?”  He replied in the language of his fathers, and said to them, “No.” Therefore he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done.  And when he was at his last breath, he said, “You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws.”  After him, the third was the victim of their sport. When it was demanded, he quickly put out his tongue and courageously stretched forth his hands, and said nobly, “I got these from Heaven, and because of his laws I disdain them, and from him I hope to get them back again.”  As a result the king himself and those with him were astonished at the young man’s spirit, for he regarded his sufferings as nothing.  When he too had died, they maltreated and tortured the fourth in the same way.  And when he was near death, he said, “One cannot but choose to die at the hands of men and to cherish the hope that God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!” Next they brought forward the fifth and maltreated him.  But he looked at the king, and said, “Because you have authority among men, mortal though you are, you do what you please. But do not think that God has forsaken our people.  Keep on, and see how his mighty power will torture you and your descendants!”  After him they brought forward the sixth. And when he was about to die, he said, “Do not deceive yourself in vain. For we are suffering these things on our own account, because of our sins against our own God. Therefore astounding things have happened.  But do not think that you will go unpunished for having tried to fight against God!”  The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord.  She encouraged each of them in the language of their fathers. Filled with a noble spirit, she fired her woman’s reasoning with a man’s courage, and said to them, ”I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you.  Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws.” Antiochus felt that he was being treated with contempt, and he was suspicious of her reproachful tone. The youngest brother being still alive, Antiochus not only appealed to him in words, but promised with oaths that he would make him rich and enviable if he would turn from the ways of his fathers, and that he would take him for his friend and entrust him with public affairs.  Since the young man would not listen to him at all, the king called the mother to him and urged her to advise the youth to save himself.   After much urging on his part, she undertook to persuade her son.  But, leaning close to him, she spoke in their native tongue as follows, deriding the cruel tyrant: “My son, have pity on me. I carried you nine months in my womb, and nursed you for three years, and have reared you and brought you up to this point in your life, and have taken care of you.  I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.  Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God’s mercy I may get you back again with your brothers.”  While she was still speaking, the young man said, “What are you waiting for? I will not obey the king’s command, but I obey the command of the law that was given to our fathers through Moses.  But you, who have contrived all sorts of evil against the Hebrews, will certainly not escape the hands of God.  For we are suffering because of our own sins.  And if our living Lord is angry for a little while, to rebuke and discipline us, he will again be reconciled with his own servants.  But you, unholy wretch, you most defiled of all men, do not be elated in vain and puffed up by uncertain hopes, when you raise your hand against the children of heaven.  You have not yet escaped the judgment of the almighty, all-seeing God.  For our brothers after enduring a brief suffering have drunk of everflowing life under God’s covenant; but you, by the judgment of God, will receive just punishment for your arrogance.  I, like my brothers, give up body and life for the laws of our fathers, appealing to God to show mercy soon to our nation and by afflictions and plagues to make you confess that he alone is God, and through me and my brothers to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty which has justly fallen on our whole nation.” The king fell into a rage, and handled him worse than the others, being exasperated at his scorn.  So he died in his integrity, putting his whole trust in the Lord. Last of all, the mother died, after her sons. (2 Macc 7)

cf. 4 Macc 6:29; 17:20-22 – “Make my blood their purification, and take my life in exchange for theirs”; These, then, who have been consecrated for the sake of God, are honored, not only with this honor, but also by the fact that because of them our enemies did not rule over our nation, the tyrant was punished, and the homeland purified — they having become, as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation.  And through the blood of those devout ones and their death as an expiation, divine Providence preserved Israel that previously had been afflicted.

“Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training.  He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord.  He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange.  We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father.  Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.  Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance.  Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” (Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20)

 

Prophecy Historicized or History Scripturized?

Below is a video of John Dominic Crossan’s theory that the Passion Narrative was largely invented out of “prophecy historicized (Via).  For more on Crossan’s theory, see his The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York: Harper Collins, 1992, Chapter 14), The Cross that Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative or Who Killed Jesus: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (itself a response to Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah Volume 1 and Volume 2).

Of course, Crossan’s theory has provoked a number of responses and in future posts I will look more closely at different options for the origins of the Passion narrative.  For one particular response that argues that the Passion Narrative should more be seen as “history scripturized”, check out Mark Goodacre’s podcast “Are the Passion Narratives ‘Prophecy Historicized’?” or his ”Scripturalization in Mark’s Crucifixion Narrative” in Geert van Oyen and Tom Shepherd (eds.), The Trial and Death of Jesus: Essays on the Passion Narrative in Mark (Leuven: Peeters, 2006): 33-47 (further discussion at Crosstalk Historical Jesus & Xtian Origins)

The Passion Narrative of Mark

Martin Kähler famously called Mark a “passion narrative with an extended introduction” (The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ, 80 n. 11).  It is therefore fitting in the month leading up to Easter to spend some time journeying with Mark on the way to the cross and the paradoxical victory over the powers that be that Mark finds there.  No, I will not be commenting on the typical media controversy that also surfaces as usual around this time of year such as the recent “Jesus Discovery” (see Dr. Tabor’s posts here, here, here) – although I get to interact with a number of students at Sheffield that have a joint degree in Biblical studies and archaeology my only archaeological experience is watching the Indiana Jones movies ( ) so it is best to leave this to the actual experts at the ASOR blog.  Instead, I want to focus in a number of posts on a close reading of the Passion Narrative in Mark.