Kirk Robert MacGregor (2018) The ending of the pre-Markan passion narrative Scriptura 117, 1-11.
https://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?sc ... 8000100014 (full article)
... most exegetes of Mark recognise the existence of a pre-Markan passion narrative, either in oral or written form ...
Although so many pre-Markan traditional elements have been sufficiently reworked by Mark that the pre-Markan Urtext is unrecoverable, it remains the case that certain particular verses are widely regarded as belonging to that Urtext with a high degree of probability. Two sets of these verses are relevant to this study. First is Mark 14:53a, 60, 63, which refer to Caiaphas as simply "the high priest" without mentioning his name. As Rudolf Pesch points out, this phenomenon is most naturally explained by the hypothesis that Caiaphas (r. 18-37 CE) held the office of high priest at the time the pre-Markan passion narrative was formulated. For if the tradition were formulated after Caiaphas' reign, then there would have been a need to specify which high priest it was who found Jesus a messianic pretender. Accordingly, the terminus ante quem of the pre-Markan passion narrative is 37 CE. Second is Mark 15:40, 42-47, which recount Jesus' burial by Joseph of Arimathea and its observation by Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses. Here the judgment of Vincent Taylor still stands: regarding Rudolf Bultmann's positive yet somewhat tentative assignment of 15:40, 42-47 to the pre-Markan passion account, Taylor famously deemed Bultmann's estimate "a notable understatement ... The narrative belongs to the best tradition."
In this article I will argue that the pre-Markan passion narrative ended with a starkly unadorned account of the empty tomb, an account which raises as many questions about Jesus's fate as it does answers. To make my case, I will integrate tradition criticism and redaction criticism, the findings of which mutually reinforce one another. Via tradition criticism I will identify which elements of Mark 16:1-8 can be positively assigned to the Urtext of the pre-Markan passion narrative. Via redaction criticism I will identify which elements of Mark 16:1-8 can be ruled out of origination in the Urtext as the editorial hand of the evangelist. In the process, I will interact with the views of Sakkie Spangenberg, Hansie Wolmarans, Andries van Aarde, and Julian Müller, four prominent South African scholars who have commented on the empty tomb narrative.
Tradition Criticism of Mark 16:1-8
... The discovery of the empty tomb "on the first day of the week" instead of "on the third day" bespeaks extremely primitive tradition, as the third day motif is prominent in the kerygma as far back as the pre-Pauline creed (1 Cor. 15:4) ... The non-Markan character of the empty tomb story's setting "when the Sabbath was over" (16:1) and "very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen" (16:2) is evident by its contradiction to Mark's refrain that the resurrection should occur "after (μετά) three days" (8:31; 9:31; 10:34).
Summing up, tradition criticism establishes that the entirety of 16:1, the entirety of 16:2, the entirety of 16:3, the entirety of 16:4, the first clause of 16:5 (και έισελθοΰσαι εις το μνημεΐον, "and having entered into the tomb"), the last clause of 16:6 (ό τόπος δπου ε'θηκαν αυτόν), and most of the first two clauses of 16:8 (και έξελθοΰσαι ε'φυγον άπα τοΰ μνημείου, εΐχεν γαρ αύτάς τρόμος, "and having gone out they fled from the tomb, for trembling seized them") belong to the pre-Markan passion narrative. Some of these components may have been slightly modified or rearranged, but they all find their origin in pre-Markan tradition.
These results undermine the position of Spangenberg, Wolmarans, Van Aarde, and Müller that the empty tomb is a later legendary development which cannot be traced back to the original Jesus movement in Jerusalem. Yet to be determined, however, is whether or not the angelophany, the resurrection proclamation, the foreshadowing of Galilean appearances, and the women's silence are pre-Markan. We shall tackle these questions using redaction criticism.
Redaction Criticism of Mark 16:1-8
... Some scholars have argued that the νεανίσκος ("young man," 16:5) is simply a human figure, even the author of Mark himself. But the νεανίσκος is almost certainly intended by Mark to be an angel, as evident from the term's clear reference to angels in 2 Macc. 3:26, 33-34; Luke 24:4; Gos. Pet. 9; Josephus, Ant. 5.277 and the traditional angelic white robe (Dan. 7:9; Rev. 9:13; 10:1).
Further, Matthew interprets Mark as describing an angel since Matthew puts the Markan message in the mouth of an angel clothed in white (Matt. 28:2-3, 5-7). It is widely recognised that angels often function as a literary device to signal a divine message or communicate theological truth. Mark 16:5 is not the only appearance of the νεανίσκος in the Gospel but the second, with the first occurring in the arrest scene at Mark 14:51-52. Here too the angelic identity of the νεανίσκος is implied by the fact that all Jesus' human disciples deserted him and fled (ε'φυγον πάντες, "all fled"; 14:50) while still the νεανίσκος was following him (14:51).
Forming a virtual bookend to the story of Jesus' passion, each manifestation of the νεανίσκος exists in binary opposition to and thus presupposes the other manifestation, so that neither is fully explicable without the other. In Mark 14:51-52 the νεανίσκος has only a linen garment covering his naked body and, when seized by the soldiers, left the linen garment behind and fled naked. That only the loose-fitting linen garment covered his naked body was shameful enough in Jewish culture, but to actually be forced to avoid capture by fleeing naked brings an ultimate sense of shame.
How important this was to the author is apparent from the repetition of σινδών ("linen garment") in the space of two verses. In Mark 16:5 the honour of the νεανίσκος is restored, as he has been clothed in a white robe (περιβεβλημένον στολήν λευκήν). Rather than being shamefully accosted, moreover, the νεανίσκος is treated respectfully by the women. Since the νεανίσκος in Mark 14:51-52 is almost universally regarded as a Markan composition, the νεανίσκος in Mark's empty tomb account should be regarded as a Markan redaction of the pre-Markan passion narrative. Thus Bode concludes "that the angel appearance does not belong to the historical nucleus of the tomb tradition," which nucleus he takes to be the pre-Markan passion narrative.
The focus on the clothes is an indication of the theological significance Mark ascribes to the related events, namely, Jesus' arrest and empty tomb. The shame of the barely clothed, and then naked, angel discloses the shame of Jesus as he is betrayed by Judas, apprehended by the soldiers, and deserted by his disciples. In addition, the angel's departure from Jesus makes the theological point that God has stopped protecting, and even abandoned, Jesus (cp. Mark 15:34). But the angel's restoration to honour at the empty tomb denotes that, on Mark's assessment, Jesus has been restored to honor - the shame of his passion has been undone by his bodily resurrection. The God who had once forsaken Jesus has now fully vindicated him in the most realistic of senses, physically reversing the effects of the passion. Accordingly, the shame-honour motif forms a characteristically Markan inclusio framing the story of the cross; the last one who has been with and then abandons Jesus is also the first one to announce his resurrection.
That the νεανίσκος is a Markan creation is also evident by the verb έξεθαμβήθησαν ("they were utterly amazed"; 16:5), which reflects the typical reaction to the miraculous as an epiphany of the divine in Mark (6:49; 9:6, 15; 14:33).
Further, ascribed to the νεανίσκος is the designation of Jesus as ό Ναζαρηνός ("the Nazarene"; 16:6), which constitutes a peculiarly Markan attribution (1:24; 10:47; 14:67). Similarly, the angel's description of Jesus as τον έσταυρωμένον ("the one having been crucified") and claim that ήγέρθη ("he was raised"; 16:6) are kerygmatic, coloured by the vocabulary of preaching. Combining the results of tradition and redaction criticism, we find that while the opening clause of 16:5 and the final clause of 16:6 are pre-Markan, the νεανίσκος and his proclamation of the resurrection are Markan. This corroborates the verdict of Spangenberg, Wolmarans, Van Aarde, and Müller that the νεανίσκος is a mythological construct that formed no part of the earliest preaching of the kerygma.
Concurring with the majority of Markan exegetes (including Spangenberg, Wolmarans, Van Aarde and Müller), we identify Mark 16:7 as a Markan interpolation into the pre-Markan passion narrative. For Mark 16:7 refers back to Mark 14:28, which is almost always considered Markan in origin and outside the bounds of the pre-Markan passion narrative, beginning with Jesus' betrayal. The unmotivated άλλά ('but'; 16:7) also shows that material has been added which did not belong to the primitive tradition.
Interestingly, Mark 16:7 contradicts the reaction of the women in the fourth clause of Mark 16:8 - και ουδενι ουδέν είπαν ("and they told no one anything"). Since the women would not have disobeyed the command of an angel to υπάγετε είπατε τοΐς μαθηταΐς αυτου και τω Πέτρω δτι Προάγει υμάς εις την Γαλιλαίαν ("go tell his disciples and Peter that he goes before you into Galilee"; 16:7), it is impossible for Mark 16:7 and the fourth clause of Mark 16:8 to come from the same hand. Hence the Markan character of 16:7 proves the pre-Markan character of the fourth clause of 16:8.
Thus far we have seen in 16:8 that και έξελθουσαι έφυγον άπο του μνημείου, είχεν γαρ αυτάς τρόμος and και ουδενι ουδέν είπαν formed part of the pre-Markan passion narrative. There is convincing reason to believe that the remaining components are Markan. For while τρόμος is hapax legomenon, φοβέομαι ("be afraid"; cp. Mark 4:41; 5:15, 33, 36; 6:50; 9:32; 10:32; 11:18) is the standard Markan term for fear and bewilderment when confronted by the supernatural.
Similarly, έκστασις is found in Mark 5:42 and denotes 'amazement' in the divine presence. In fact, never in the NT does έκστασις carry a non-supernatural connotation (Luke 5:26; Acts 3:10; 10:10; 11:5; 22:17). So for Mark, έκστασις and φοβέομαι presuppose the evangelist's divine νεανίσκος, while τρόμος carries no such implication. It simply denotes trembling or terror; elsewhere in the NT τρόμος refers exclusively to a naturally, humanly induced fear (1 Cor. 2:3; 2 Cor. 7:15; Eph. 6:5; Phil. 2:12).
Conclusions
We have found that the ending of the pre-Markan passion narrative ran as follows: 16:1-4; και είσελθοΰσαι εις το μνημεΐον είδον Ίησουν ούκ είναι έκεΐ, τόν τόπον δπου ε'θηκαν αυτόν (parts of 16:5-6); και έξελθουσαι ε'φυγον άπα του μνημείου, είχεν γαρ αυτάς τρόμος, και ουδενι ουδέν εΐπαν (parts of 16:8).
The pre-Markan passion narrative contained no mention of either an angel or Jesus' resurrection; indeed, the ending of the pre-Markan passion narrative is not a resurrection story. Rather, it is a simple and straightforward account of the women's coming to the tomb on Sunday morning to anoint Jesus' body, surprisingly finding the stone already rolled away and the tomb empty; and fleeing from the tomb in terror and silence. The logic of the pre-Markan ending discloses that the women fled because they naturally assumed grave robbery and feared being implicated in this capital crime.
Thus the pre-Markan passion narrative originated quite independently of the pre-Pauline resurrection tradition of 1 Cor. 15:3b-6a, 7.
Contrary to its Markan redaction which presupposes the resurrection kerygma, the pre-Markan passion narrative was a tragedy from beginning to middle to end, ie. from Jesus' betrayal to Jesus' crucifixion to unknown and presumably hostile actors refusing Jesus the dignity of an undisturbed burial. In the final irony, even when it appeared that Jesus would get a proper burial due to Joseph of Arimathea, any modicum of respect that could have been paid to the corpse was ultimately rescinded.
By interpolating the νεανίσκος, the resurrection proclamation, and the foretold Galilean appearances, Mark thoroughly reversed the force of his pre-Markan source, transforming a story of defeat and abject humiliation into a story of triumph and final vindication ...
https://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?sc ... 8000100014 (full article)
... most exegetes of Mark recognise the existence of a pre-Markan passion narrative, either in oral or written form ...
Although so many pre-Markan traditional elements have been sufficiently reworked by Mark that the pre-Markan Urtext is unrecoverable, it remains the case that certain particular verses are widely regarded as belonging to that Urtext with a high degree of probability. Two sets of these verses are relevant to this study. First is Mark 14:53a, 60, 63, which refer to Caiaphas as simply "the high priest" without mentioning his name. As Rudolf Pesch points out, this phenomenon is most naturally explained by the hypothesis that Caiaphas (r. 18-37 CE) held the office of high priest at the time the pre-Markan passion narrative was formulated. For if the tradition were formulated after Caiaphas' reign, then there would have been a need to specify which high priest it was who found Jesus a messianic pretender. Accordingly, the terminus ante quem of the pre-Markan passion narrative is 37 CE. Second is Mark 15:40, 42-47, which recount Jesus' burial by Joseph of Arimathea and its observation by Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses. Here the judgment of Vincent Taylor still stands: regarding Rudolf Bultmann's positive yet somewhat tentative assignment of 15:40, 42-47 to the pre-Markan passion account, Taylor famously deemed Bultmann's estimate "a notable understatement ... The narrative belongs to the best tradition."
In this article I will argue that the pre-Markan passion narrative ended with a starkly unadorned account of the empty tomb, an account which raises as many questions about Jesus's fate as it does answers. To make my case, I will integrate tradition criticism and redaction criticism, the findings of which mutually reinforce one another. Via tradition criticism I will identify which elements of Mark 16:1-8 can be positively assigned to the Urtext of the pre-Markan passion narrative. Via redaction criticism I will identify which elements of Mark 16:1-8 can be ruled out of origination in the Urtext as the editorial hand of the evangelist. In the process, I will interact with the views of Sakkie Spangenberg, Hansie Wolmarans, Andries van Aarde, and Julian Müller, four prominent South African scholars who have commented on the empty tomb narrative.
Tradition Criticism of Mark 16:1-8
... The discovery of the empty tomb "on the first day of the week" instead of "on the third day" bespeaks extremely primitive tradition, as the third day motif is prominent in the kerygma as far back as the pre-Pauline creed (1 Cor. 15:4) ... The non-Markan character of the empty tomb story's setting "when the Sabbath was over" (16:1) and "very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen" (16:2) is evident by its contradiction to Mark's refrain that the resurrection should occur "after (μετά) three days" (8:31; 9:31; 10:34).
Summing up, tradition criticism establishes that the entirety of 16:1, the entirety of 16:2, the entirety of 16:3, the entirety of 16:4, the first clause of 16:5 (και έισελθοΰσαι εις το μνημεΐον, "and having entered into the tomb"), the last clause of 16:6 (ό τόπος δπου ε'θηκαν αυτόν), and most of the first two clauses of 16:8 (και έξελθοΰσαι ε'φυγον άπα τοΰ μνημείου, εΐχεν γαρ αύτάς τρόμος, "and having gone out they fled from the tomb, for trembling seized them") belong to the pre-Markan passion narrative. Some of these components may have been slightly modified or rearranged, but they all find their origin in pre-Markan tradition.
These results undermine the position of Spangenberg, Wolmarans, Van Aarde, and Müller that the empty tomb is a later legendary development which cannot be traced back to the original Jesus movement in Jerusalem. Yet to be determined, however, is whether or not the angelophany, the resurrection proclamation, the foreshadowing of Galilean appearances, and the women's silence are pre-Markan. We shall tackle these questions using redaction criticism.
Redaction Criticism of Mark 16:1-8
... Some scholars have argued that the νεανίσκος ("young man," 16:5) is simply a human figure, even the author of Mark himself. But the νεανίσκος is almost certainly intended by Mark to be an angel, as evident from the term's clear reference to angels in 2 Macc. 3:26, 33-34; Luke 24:4; Gos. Pet. 9; Josephus, Ant. 5.277 and the traditional angelic white robe (Dan. 7:9; Rev. 9:13; 10:1).
Further, Matthew interprets Mark as describing an angel since Matthew puts the Markan message in the mouth of an angel clothed in white (Matt. 28:2-3, 5-7). It is widely recognised that angels often function as a literary device to signal a divine message or communicate theological truth. Mark 16:5 is not the only appearance of the νεανίσκος in the Gospel but the second, with the first occurring in the arrest scene at Mark 14:51-52. Here too the angelic identity of the νεανίσκος is implied by the fact that all Jesus' human disciples deserted him and fled (ε'φυγον πάντες, "all fled"; 14:50) while still the νεανίσκος was following him (14:51).
Forming a virtual bookend to the story of Jesus' passion, each manifestation of the νεανίσκος exists in binary opposition to and thus presupposes the other manifestation, so that neither is fully explicable without the other. In Mark 14:51-52 the νεανίσκος has only a linen garment covering his naked body and, when seized by the soldiers, left the linen garment behind and fled naked. That only the loose-fitting linen garment covered his naked body was shameful enough in Jewish culture, but to actually be forced to avoid capture by fleeing naked brings an ultimate sense of shame.
How important this was to the author is apparent from the repetition of σινδών ("linen garment") in the space of two verses. In Mark 16:5 the honour of the νεανίσκος is restored, as he has been clothed in a white robe (περιβεβλημένον στολήν λευκήν). Rather than being shamefully accosted, moreover, the νεανίσκος is treated respectfully by the women. Since the νεανίσκος in Mark 14:51-52 is almost universally regarded as a Markan composition, the νεανίσκος in Mark's empty tomb account should be regarded as a Markan redaction of the pre-Markan passion narrative. Thus Bode concludes "that the angel appearance does not belong to the historical nucleus of the tomb tradition," which nucleus he takes to be the pre-Markan passion narrative.
The focus on the clothes is an indication of the theological significance Mark ascribes to the related events, namely, Jesus' arrest and empty tomb. The shame of the barely clothed, and then naked, angel discloses the shame of Jesus as he is betrayed by Judas, apprehended by the soldiers, and deserted by his disciples. In addition, the angel's departure from Jesus makes the theological point that God has stopped protecting, and even abandoned, Jesus (cp. Mark 15:34). But the angel's restoration to honour at the empty tomb denotes that, on Mark's assessment, Jesus has been restored to honor - the shame of his passion has been undone by his bodily resurrection. The God who had once forsaken Jesus has now fully vindicated him in the most realistic of senses, physically reversing the effects of the passion. Accordingly, the shame-honour motif forms a characteristically Markan inclusio framing the story of the cross; the last one who has been with and then abandons Jesus is also the first one to announce his resurrection.
That the νεανίσκος is a Markan creation is also evident by the verb έξεθαμβήθησαν ("they were utterly amazed"; 16:5), which reflects the typical reaction to the miraculous as an epiphany of the divine in Mark (6:49; 9:6, 15; 14:33).
Further, ascribed to the νεανίσκος is the designation of Jesus as ό Ναζαρηνός ("the Nazarene"; 16:6), which constitutes a peculiarly Markan attribution (1:24; 10:47; 14:67). Similarly, the angel's description of Jesus as τον έσταυρωμένον ("the one having been crucified") and claim that ήγέρθη ("he was raised"; 16:6) are kerygmatic, coloured by the vocabulary of preaching. Combining the results of tradition and redaction criticism, we find that while the opening clause of 16:5 and the final clause of 16:6 are pre-Markan, the νεανίσκος and his proclamation of the resurrection are Markan. This corroborates the verdict of Spangenberg, Wolmarans, Van Aarde, and Müller that the νεανίσκος is a mythological construct that formed no part of the earliest preaching of the kerygma.
Concurring with the majority of Markan exegetes (including Spangenberg, Wolmarans, Van Aarde and Müller), we identify Mark 16:7 as a Markan interpolation into the pre-Markan passion narrative. For Mark 16:7 refers back to Mark 14:28, which is almost always considered Markan in origin and outside the bounds of the pre-Markan passion narrative, beginning with Jesus' betrayal. The unmotivated άλλά ('but'; 16:7) also shows that material has been added which did not belong to the primitive tradition.
Interestingly, Mark 16:7 contradicts the reaction of the women in the fourth clause of Mark 16:8 - και ουδενι ουδέν είπαν ("and they told no one anything"). Since the women would not have disobeyed the command of an angel to υπάγετε είπατε τοΐς μαθηταΐς αυτου και τω Πέτρω δτι Προάγει υμάς εις την Γαλιλαίαν ("go tell his disciples and Peter that he goes before you into Galilee"; 16:7), it is impossible for Mark 16:7 and the fourth clause of Mark 16:8 to come from the same hand. Hence the Markan character of 16:7 proves the pre-Markan character of the fourth clause of 16:8.
Thus far we have seen in 16:8 that και έξελθουσαι έφυγον άπο του μνημείου, είχεν γαρ αυτάς τρόμος and και ουδενι ουδέν είπαν formed part of the pre-Markan passion narrative. There is convincing reason to believe that the remaining components are Markan. For while τρόμος is hapax legomenon, φοβέομαι ("be afraid"; cp. Mark 4:41; 5:15, 33, 36; 6:50; 9:32; 10:32; 11:18) is the standard Markan term for fear and bewilderment when confronted by the supernatural.
Similarly, έκστασις is found in Mark 5:42 and denotes 'amazement' in the divine presence. In fact, never in the NT does έκστασις carry a non-supernatural connotation (Luke 5:26; Acts 3:10; 10:10; 11:5; 22:17). So for Mark, έκστασις and φοβέομαι presuppose the evangelist's divine νεανίσκος, while τρόμος carries no such implication. It simply denotes trembling or terror; elsewhere in the NT τρόμος refers exclusively to a naturally, humanly induced fear (1 Cor. 2:3; 2 Cor. 7:15; Eph. 6:5; Phil. 2:12).
Conclusions
We have found that the ending of the pre-Markan passion narrative ran as follows: 16:1-4; και είσελθοΰσαι εις το μνημεΐον είδον Ίησουν ούκ είναι έκεΐ, τόν τόπον δπου ε'θηκαν αυτόν (parts of 16:5-6); και έξελθουσαι ε'φυγον άπα του μνημείου, είχεν γαρ αυτάς τρόμος, και ουδενι ουδέν εΐπαν (parts of 16:8).
The pre-Markan passion narrative contained no mention of either an angel or Jesus' resurrection; indeed, the ending of the pre-Markan passion narrative is not a resurrection story. Rather, it is a simple and straightforward account of the women's coming to the tomb on Sunday morning to anoint Jesus' body, surprisingly finding the stone already rolled away and the tomb empty; and fleeing from the tomb in terror and silence. The logic of the pre-Markan ending discloses that the women fled because they naturally assumed grave robbery and feared being implicated in this capital crime.
Thus the pre-Markan passion narrative originated quite independently of the pre-Pauline resurrection tradition of 1 Cor. 15:3b-6a, 7.
Contrary to its Markan redaction which presupposes the resurrection kerygma, the pre-Markan passion narrative was a tragedy from beginning to middle to end, ie. from Jesus' betrayal to Jesus' crucifixion to unknown and presumably hostile actors refusing Jesus the dignity of an undisturbed burial. In the final irony, even when it appeared that Jesus would get a proper burial due to Joseph of Arimathea, any modicum of respect that could have been paid to the corpse was ultimately rescinded.
By interpolating the νεανίσκος, the resurrection proclamation, and the foretold Galilean appearances, Mark thoroughly reversed the force of his pre-Markan source, transforming a story of defeat and abject humiliation into a story of triumph and final vindication ...
Statistics: Posted by MrMacSon — Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:12 am
