SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.117 índice de autoresíndice de assuntospesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados

Artigo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • Em processo de indexaçãoCitado por Google
  • Em processo de indexaçãoSimilares em Google

Compartilhar


Scriptura

versão On-line ISSN 2305-445X
versão impressa ISSN 0254-1807

Scriptura vol.117  Stellenbosch  2018

http://dx.doi.org/10.7833/117-1-1352 

ARTICLES

 

The ending of the pre-Markan passion narrative

 

 

Kirk Robert MacGregor

Mc Pherson College, USA

 

 


ABSTRACT

This article argues 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. Employing tradition and redaction criticism, I reveal that the pre-Markan empty tomb account contained no mention of an angel, Jesus's resurrection, or Galilean appearances. Rather, it straightforwardly described the women's coming to the tomb, finding 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. Throughout this article, I 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.

Key words: Pre-Markan Passion Narrative; Empty Tomb; Tradition Criticism; Redaction Criticism


 

 

Theories regarding a pre-Markan passion narrative have fallen on hard times due to the practical impossibility of reconstructing it in toto and to scholarly trends favouring the Gospels' interpretation in their final forms over more or less probable reconstructions of prior traditions.1 Nevertheless, most exegetes of Mark recognise the existence of a pre-Markan passion narrative, either in oral or written form.2 As Marion L Soards remarks at the end of his comparative study of thirty-five prominent commentators, "We may safely conclude that Mark uses a source in writing his PN."3 At minimum, the source recounted basic information about Jesus's betrayal by Judas, arrest, condemnation, execution, and burial.

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 14:53 a, 60, 63, which refer to Caiaphas as simply "the high priest" withou t mentioning his name.4 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.5 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.6 Here the judgment of Vincent Taylor still stands: regarding Rudolf Bultmann's positive yet somewh at 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."7

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. Spangenberg (University of South Africa) and Wolmarans (University of Johannesburg) are members of the New Reformation. Van Aarde (University of Pretoria) is a member of the Jesus Seminar. Müller (University of Pretoria) is sympathetic to the projects of the New Reformation and Jesus Seminar, pleading for an innovative understanding of God in light of a new Weltanschauung.

 

Tradition Criticism of Mark 16:1-8

I turn first to those parts of Mark 16:1-8 that are bound together verbally and syntactically with the pre-Markan burial account. Verbally, the time indicators διαγενομένου του σαββάτου ("the Sabbath having passed"; 16:1) and λίαν πρωΐ τγ\ μια των σαββάτων ("very early on the first [day] of the week"; 16:2) are tied to the pre-Markan time indicators όψίας ('evening') and προσάββατον ("the day before the Sabbath"; 15:42). The mention of the place Jesus was laid in the tomb, ό τόπος δπου έ'θηκαν αυτόν ("the place where they laid him"; 16:6), is linked to the pre-Markan έ'θηκεν αυτόν έν μνημείω ("placed him in a tomb"; 15:46) and που τέθειται ("where he has been laid"; 15:47). The term μνημεΐον rather than μνήμα is consistently used for the 'tomb' in 16:2, 3, 5, 8 and the pre-Markan 15:46. The rolling away (άποκυλίω) of the stone from the entrance of the tomb (τον λίθον έκ της θύρας τοΰ μνημείου) in 16:3-4 is the mirror image of the pre-Markan rolling up (προσκυλίω) of the stone against the entrance of the tomb (λίθον έπι την θύραν τοΰ μνημείου) in 15:46. The women's seeing is attested in 16:4 (θεωροΰσιν, "they see") and the pre-Markan 15:40 (θεωροΰσαι, "looking on") and 15:47 (έθεώρουν, "were observing"). Given the pre-Markan list of "Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome" (15:40), the next pre-Markan list which denotes the second Mary using the stylistic variant ή Ίωσητος ("the [mother] of Joses") and omits Salome (15:47) fits extremely well with an interlocking list which refers to the second Mary using the other possible stylistic variant ή [τοΰ] Ιακώβου ("the [mother] of James") and includes Salome (16:1).8 Hence 15:47 and 16:1 assume each other's existence; if one is traditional, so is the other.9

Syntactically, the time indicators διαγενομένου τοΰ σαββάτου (16:1) and the pre-Markan όψίας γενομένης ("having become evening"; 15:42) are in genitivus absolutus. The four participia coniuncta in ch. 16 - έλθοΰσαι ("having come"; v. 1), άναβλέψασαι ("having looked up"; v. 4), είσελθοΰσαι ("having entered"; v. 5), and έξελθοΰσαι ("having gone out"; v. 8) - parallel the four participia coniuncta in the pre-Markan burial account - τολμήσας ("having boldness"; 15:43), προσκαλεσάμενος ("having summoned"; 15:44), γνους ("having found out"; 15:45), and άγοράσας ("having bought"; 15:46).

With the verbal and syntactical links established, I proceed to the informational links, or the data in the pre-Markan burial account presupposed by portions of Ch. 16. The description "the Sabbath having passed" (16:1) presupposes the pre-Markan burial on "the Preparation, which is the day before the Sabbath" (15:42). The use of the personal pronoun αυτόν ('him') for Jesus (16:1) has its antecedent in the naming of Jesus in the pre-Markan burial account (15:43). The visit to the tomb (16:2) presupposes the knowledge of the tomb's location (15:47). The discussion between the women concerning who would roll away the stone (16:3) presupposes the knowledge of the shutting of the tomb with the roll-stone (15:46). The women's entrance into the tomb (16:5) presupposes the nature of the tomb (15:46).

Distinctively non-Markan grammatical features and content in Ch. 16 can also be utilised to isolate pre-Markan tradition. The chapter contains several hapax legomena: διαγίνομαι ('pass'; v. 1); άρωμα ("aromatic spice"; v. 1); άποκυλίω ("roll away"; vv. 3-4); σφόδρα ('very'; v. 4); τρόμος ('trembling' or 'terror'; v. 8).10 In 16:2 the cardinal numeral μία ('one') is employed where the ordinal πρώτη ('first') would be expected in Greek: τη μια των σαββάτων (lit. "on one of the Sabbath"). Moreover, it is surprising that σάββατον rather than the typical Greek έβδομάς (in, e.g., Exod. 34:22 LXX) should be used to denote 'week. ' But in Late Aramaic the days of the week are designated by the cardinal numeral followed by the word 'Sabbath' with the preposition ι ('of or 'in'), rendering an Aramaic original behind τη μια των σαββάτων perfectly smooth and comprehensible as , "on the first day of the week" (a reading attested in, e.g., Tg. Esth. II 2:9; 3:7; Gen. Rab. 11:8).11 Hence Elliott C Maloney concludes that τγ\ μια των σαββάτων "was probably a fixed formula deriving from a Jewish or Semitic system of dating" and constitutes a definite instance of a Semitism.12 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) dating, per scholarly consensus, no later than 35 CE.13 This implies that the dating of the tomb's discovery antedates the third day motif itself.14 Certainly if the discovery date were Markan in origin, then it could have hardly avoided being cast in the ancient and accepted third day motif.15 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).16

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.17 Some of these components may have been slightly modified or rearranged, but they all find their origin in pre-Markan tradition.18These 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.19 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

Previous redaction-critical analyses of Mark 16:1-8 stand largely in agreement that the women's visit to the tomb is pre-Markan, differing only on how they parse vv. 1-4.20 Hence these studies confirm our tradition-critical find to the same effect. But previous studies are divided as to whether or not the pre-Markan Urtext contained an angelophany.21 Scholars who see the primary element in any resurrection account in its relationship to the apocalyptic take the angelophany as the key to the entire pre-Markan empty tomb tradition. However, this is precisely to beg the question that the pre-Markan empty tomb tradition is, in fact, a resurrection account. Here we note that no part of the pre-Markan Urtext discoverable by tradition criticism suggests that we have a resurrection account on our hands.

We turn to the angelophany. Some scholars have argued that the νεανίσκος ("young man," 16:5) is simply a human figure, even the author of Mark himself.22 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.23 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.24 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).25 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.26

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.27

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).28 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.29

Preserving the connecting elements between these clauses and deleting everything else, we may propose the following as, mutatis mutandis, the probable reading of the pre-Markan Urtext underlying 16:5-6: και είσελθοΰσαι εις το μνημεΐον είδον Ίησουν ουκ είναι έκεΐ, τόν τόπον δπου έ'θηκαν αυτόν ("and having entered the tomb, they saw that Jesus was not there - the place where they laid him"). This reconstruction is confirmed by the fact that it requires nothing more drastic than positing the Markan changes from έκεΐ ('there') to ώδε ('here'), from an infinitive (είναι) to an indicative (έστιν) verb, and from an accusative (τόν τόπον) to a nominative case (ό τόπος). These changes are trivial, especially the latter two. The first may not even be a change at all, for it is possible to regard ώδε as the pre-Markan term, which would heighten the vividness and the immediacy of the scene. Our reconstruction also conforms to the view of most Markan exegetes that the pre-Markan passion narrative related the emptiness of the tomb. As Dale Allison rightly notes, "The reduction of the empty tomb to Markan creativity, whatever the redactional motive postulated, is not a compelling point of view."30 To get the emptiness of the tomb while avoiding the νεανίσκος, one needs to posit something extremely similar to our reconstruction.

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.31 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.32 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.33 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, i.e., 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. But the pre-Markan empty tomb report lacks any signs of theological or legendary development. The starkness of the pre-Markan empty tomb account, coupled with its early date and the embarrassing presence of its women witnesses, furnish good reason to regard it as his-torical.34 This judgment corroborates the view of most contemporary scholars that the tomb was found empty by a group of Jesus' women followers.35 Our findings on the ending of the pre-Markan passion narrative breathe fresh life into the verdict of Geza Vermes:

But in the end, when every argument has been considered and weighed, the only conclusion acceptable to the historian must be that the opinions of the orthodox, the liberal sympathizer and the critical agnostic alike - and even perhaps of the disciples themselves - are simply interpretations of the one disconcerting fact: namely that the women who set out to pay their last respects to Jesus found to their consternation, not a body, but an empty tomb.36

While the empty tomb does not prove Jesus' resurrection, it does rule out the attempt of Van Aarde and Müller to reinterpret Jesus' resurrection in such a way that his tomb remained occupied.37 Despite his concession that "a resurrected corpse cannot but leave an empty tomb behind," Müller protests that "this is definitely not how we should think about the resurrection of Jesus."38 Müller argues that Jesus' resurrection concerns the existential transformation of Jesus' followers into persons who can become one with ultimate reality and so live authentically. For Müller, we should refuse to answer 'yes' to the question whether Jesus' tomb is empty because the fact that Jesus lives and rises in the believer has nothing to do with a factual statement about an empty tomb. But this is a non sequitur. Even if we grant that Jesus' living and rising in the believer does not presuppose an empty tomb, the question of whether Jesus' tomb was empty can only be answered on historical grounds. Hence Müller is incorrect to state that "the question about the empty tomb is loaded with fundamentalistic theological points of departure and misunderstandings, and to answer yes to this question would also mean to say yes to a certain theological paradigm."39For one can believe in the historicity of the empty tomb without subscribing to a supernatural theological worldview. One can maintain, for example, that the disciples stole Jesus' body (cf. Matt. 28:11-15) or that Jesus' body was moved by the Jewish leaders, the Roman authorities, or members of Jesus' family. Such explanations involve nothing supernatural. Hence our analysis of the pre-Markan passion narrative serves as a reminder that theological presuppositions, whether traditional or progressive, cannot validly be used to settle historical questions.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allison, Dale C 2005. Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and its Interpreters. New York: T&T Clark.         [ Links ]

Alsup, John E 1975. The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel Tradition: A History-of-Tradition Analysis. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag.         [ Links ]

Anderson, Hugh 1976. The Gospel of Mark. NCB. London: Oliphants.         [ Links ]

Bauckham, Richard 2006. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.         [ Links ]

Black, C 2011. Clifton. Mark. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon.         [ Links ]

Blinzler, Josef 1974. "Die Grablegung Jesu in historischer Sicht." In Resurrexit, ed. Edouard Dhanis. Rome: Libreria Editice Vaticana, 56-107.         [ Links ]

Bode, Edward Lynn 1970. The First Easter Morning: The Gospel Accounts of the Women's Visit to the Tomb of Jesus. AnBib 45. Rome: Biblical Institute Press.         [ Links ]

Boomershine, Thomas E 1981. "Mark 16:8 and the Apostolic Commission." JBL 100.2 (225-39).         [ Links ]

Brown, Raymond E 1970. The Gospel according to John. AB 29A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.         [ Links ]

Brown, Raymond E 1973. The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus. London: Geoffrey Chapman.         [ Links ]

Catchpole, David 2002. Resurrection People: Studies in the Resurrection Narratives of the Gospels. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys.         [ Links ]

Crossan, John Dominic 1976. "Empty Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16:1-8)." In The Passion in Mark, ed. Werner H Kelber. Minneapolis: Fortress, (136-45).         [ Links ]

Czerski, Janusz 1976. "Die Passion Christi in den synoptischen Evangelien im Lichte der historisch-literarischen Kritik." CollTheol 46, Sonderheft:81-96.         [ Links ]

Dibelius, Martin. Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums. 3rd ed. Tübingen: Mohr, 1959.         [ Links ]

Ernst, Josef 1980. "Die Passionserzählung des Markus und die Aporien der Forschung." TGl 70 (160-80).         [ Links ]

Evans, CF 1970. Resurrection and the New Testament. SBT 12. London: SCM.         [ Links ]

Fischer, Karl M 1980. Das Ostergeschehen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.         [ Links ]

Fuller, Reginald Η 1972. The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives. London: SPCK.         [ Links ]

Funk, Robert W and the Jesus Seminar 1998. The Acts of Jesus. San Francisco: Polebridge.         [ Links ]

Goguel, Maurice 1933. La foi à la résurrection de Jésus dans le christianisme primitif. Paris: Leroux.         [ Links ]

Grass, Hans 1970. Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte. 4th rev. ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.         [ Links ]

Green, Joel B 1988. The Death of Jesus: Tradition and Interpretation in the Passion Narrative. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.         [ Links ]

Grundmann, Walter 1959. Das Evangelium nach Markus. 2nd ed. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.         [ Links ]

Gutwenger, Engelbert 1966. "Zur Geschichtlichkeit der Auferstehung Jesu." ZKT 88 (257-282).         [ Links ]

Habermas, Gary 2005. "Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?" Journal of the Study of the Historical Jesus 3.2 (135-53).         [ Links ]

Hamilton, Neill Q 1965. "Resurrection Tradition and the Composition of Mark." JBL 84.4 (415-21).         [ Links ]

Hirsch, Emanuel 1940. Die Auferstehungsgeschichten und der christliche Glaube. Tübingen: Mohr.         [ Links ]

Jackson, Howard M 1997. "Why the Youth Shed His Cloak and Fled Naked: The Meaning and Purpose of Mark 14:51-52." JBL 116.2 (273-89).         [ Links ]

Jeremias, Joachim 1967. Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu. 4th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.         [ Links ]

Koch, Gerhard 1959. Die Auferstehung Jesu Christi. BHT 27. Tübingen: Mohr.         [ Links ]

Kremer, Jacob 1970. Das älteste Zeugnis von der Auferstehung Christi. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.         [ Links ]

Kremer, Jacob 1974. "Zur Diskussion über 'das leere Grab.'" In Resurrexit, ed. Edouard Dhanis. Rome: Libreria Editice Vaticana, (137-68).         [ Links ]

Lagrange, Marie-Joseph 1966. Évangile selon saint Marc. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre.         [ Links ]

Lane, William L 1974. The Gospel according to Mark. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.         [ Links ]

Lindemann, Andreas 1979/80. "Die Osterbotschaft des Markus. Zur Theologischen Interpretation von Mk 16.1-8." NTS 26 (298-317).         [ Links ]

Lüdemann, Gerd 1994. The Resurrection of Jesus. London: SCM.         [ Links ]

Lührmann, Dieter 1987. Das Markusevangelium. HNT 3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.         [ Links ]

Maloney, Elliott C 1981. Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax. SBL Dissertation Series 51. Chico, CA: Scholars.         [ Links ]

Marcus, Joel 2009. Mark 8-16. AYBRL 27A. New Haven: Yale University Press.         [ Links ]

Müller, Julian 2011. Om te mag twyfel: 'n Gelowige se reis. Cape Town: Tafelberg.         [ Links ]

Neirynck, Frans 1980. "Marc 16, 1-8 tradition et redaction." ETL 56 (56-88).         [ Links ]

Oberlinner, Lorenz 1982. "Die Verkündigung der Auferweckung Jesu in geöffneten und leeren Grab." ZNW 73 (159-82).         [ Links ]

Pannenberg, Wolfhart 1977. Jesus - God and Man. 2nd ed. Trans. Lewis L Wilkins & Duane A Priebe. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.         [ Links ]

Perkins, Pheme 1984. Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.         [ Links ]

Pesch, Rudolf 1977. Das Markusevangelium. 2 vols. HThKNT 2. Freiburg: Herder.         [ Links ]

Pesch, Rudolf 1996. The Trial of Jesus Continues. Trans. Doris Glen Wagner. Eugene, OR: Pickwick.         [ Links ]

Reinbold, Wolfgang. Der älteste Bericht über den Tod Jesu. BZAW 69. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994.         [ Links ]

Schenke, Ludger 1968. Auferstehungsverkündigung und leeres Grab. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.         [ Links ]

Schenke, Ludger 1974. Der gekreuzigte Christus: Versuch einer literarkritischen und traditionsgeschichtlichen Bestimmung der vormarkinischen Passionsgeschichte. SBS 69. Stuttgart: KBW.         [ Links ]

Scroggs, Robin & Groff, Kent J 1973. "Baptism in Mark: Dying and Rising with Christ." JBL 92.4 (531-48).         [ Links ]

Soards, Marion L 1994. "Appendix IX: The Question of a PreMarcan Passion Narrative." In Raymond E Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 2 vols. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, (2:1492-1524).         [ Links ]

Spangenberg, Sakkie 2009. Jesus van Nasaret. Cape Town: Griffel.         [ Links ]

Taylor, Vincent 1966. The Gospel according to St. Mark. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.         [ Links ]

Van Aarde, Andries 2001. Fatherless in Galilee: Jesus as Child of God. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.         [ Links ]

Vermes, Geza 1981. Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress.         [ Links ]

Waetjen, Herman C 1965. "The Ending of Mark and the Gospel's Shift in Eschatology." ASTI 4 (114-31).         [ Links ]

Wolmarans, JLP 1991. Biblical Anthropology. Johannesburg: Woordmeesters.         [ Links ]

 

 

1 C Clifton Black, Mark, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2011:32).
2 Joel Marcus, Mark 8-16, AYBRL 27A (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009:925).
3 Marion L Soards, "Appendix IX: The Question of a PreMarcan Passion Narrative," in Raymond E Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 2 vols.; ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1994, 2:1523).
4 Ibid., 2:1506-7; Marcus, Mark 8-16, 1010; William L Lane, The Gospel according to Mark, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974:485); Hugh Anderson, The Gospel of Mark, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1976:325-32); Janusz Czerski, "Die Passion Christi in den synoptischen Evangelien im Lichte der historisch-literarischen Kritik," CollTheol 46, 1976 Sonderheft:81-96; Dieter Lührmann, Das Markusevangelium, HNT 3 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987:241-9); Joel B Green, The Death of.Jesus: Tradition and Interpretation in the Passion Narrative (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988:272-82).
5 Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 2 vols., HThKNT 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1977, 2:21, 364-77, 425); idem, The Trial ofJesus Continues, trans. Doris Glen Wagner (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 1996:17). Even if one regards, as I do, the pre-Markan passion narrative as significantly shorter than Pesch imagines, his dating of the narrative holds so long as Mark 14:53a, 60, 63 (or even one of these three verses) constitutes part of the Urtext.
6 Soards, "PreMarcan," 1516-7; Brown, Death, 2:1238-41; Marcus, Mark 8-16, 1060, 1073; Ludger Schenke, Der gekreuzigte Christus: Versuch einer literarkritischen und traditionsgeschichtlichen Bestimmung der vormarkinischenPassionsgeschichte, SBS 69 (Stuttgart: KBW, 1974:77-83); Josef Ernst, "Die Passionserzählung des Markus und die Aporien der Forschung," TGl 70 (1980:160-80); Lührmann, Markusevangelium, 261-2; Wolfgang Reinbold, Der älteste Bericht über den Tod Jesu, BZAW 69 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994:175-6).
7 Vincent Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark, 2 ed. (London: Macmillan, 1966:599).
8 On this score, Josef Blinzler argues that all three lists belong to the pre-Markan passion narrative ("Die Grablegung Jesu in historischer Sicht," in Resurrexit, ed. Edouard Dhanis (Rome: Libreria Editice Vaticana, 1974:65-8).
9 Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Évangile selon saint Marc (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1966:444).
10 Dale C Allison, Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York: T&T Clark, 2005:302).
11 Elliott C Maloney, Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax, SBL Dissertation Series 51 (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1981:144-9).
12 Ibid., 150, 250.
13 Joachim Jeremias, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu, 4 ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967:95-8); Jacob Kremer, Das älteste Zeugnis von der Auferstehung Christi, 3 ed. (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1970); Reginald
Η Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (London: SPCK, 1972:10-1). Even the Jesus Seminar dated the 1 Cor. 15 Creed no later than 33 CE (Robert W Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, San Francisco: Polebridge, 1998:454). Gerd Lüdemann, one of the seminar's most prominent members, flatly declares regarding 1 Cor. 15:3b-6a, 7 that "all the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus" (The Resurrection ofJesus, London: SCM, 1994:38).
14 As Raymond E Brown comments, "The basic time indication of the finding of the tomb was fixed in Christian memory before the possible symbolism in the three-day reckoning had yet been perceived" (The Gospel according to John, AB 29A, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970:980).
15 Edward Lynn Bode, The First Easter Morning: The Gospel Accounts of the Women's Visit to the Tomb of Jesus, AnBib 45 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970:161).
16 Allison, Resurrecting, 302.
17 Contra Green, Death, 311-2; Andreas Lindemann, "Die Osterbotschaft des Markus. Zur Theologischen Interpretation von Mk 16.1-8," NTS 26 (1979/80:301-2); John Dominic Crossan, "Empty Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16:1-8)," in The Passion in Mark, ed. Werner H Kelber (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1976:136-45); Thomas E Boomershine, "Mark 16:8 and the Apostolic Commission," (JBZ, 100.2, 1981:226 n. 40).
18 Such possible modification and rearrangement is discussed by Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984:115-24).
19 Sakkie Spangenberg, Jesus van Nasaret (Cape Town: Griffel, 2009:147-52; JLP Wolmarans, Biblical Anthropology, (Johannesburg: Woordmeesters, 1991:61-4); Andries van Aarde, Fatherless in Galilee: Jesus as Child of God (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001:28, 112); Julian Müller, Om te mag twyfel: 'n Gelowige se reis (Cape Town: Tafelberg, 2011:75, 100).
20 Perkins, Resurrection, 115-8; David Catchpole, Resurrection People: Studies in the Resurrection Narratives of the Gospels (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002:3-4); Jacob Kremer, "Zur Diskussion über 'das leere Grab,'" in Dhanis, ed., Resurrexit, 152-4; Ludger Schenke, Auferstehungsverkündigung und leeres Grab (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968:54); Maurice Goguel, La foi à la résurrection de Jésus dans le christianisme primitif '(Paris: Leroux, 1933:182); Walter Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 2 ed. (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1959:321); Engelbert Gutwenger, "Zur Geschichlichkeit der Auferstehung Jesu," ZKT 88 (1966:274); Emanuel Hirsch, Die Auferstehungsgeschichten und der christliche Glaube (Tübingen: Mohr, 1940:30-1).
21 For a survey of these studies see Frans Neirynck, "Marc 16, 1-8 tradition et rédaction," ETL 56 (1980:56-62).
22 Lüdemann, Resurrection, 85-6; Herman C Waetjen, "The Ending of Mark and the Gospel's Shift in Eschatology," ASTI 4 (1965:117); Neill Q. Hamilton, "Resurrection Tradition and the Composition of Mark," JBL 84.4 (1965:417).
23 Bode, Easter, 166-7; Kremer, "Grab," 148-50; Raymond E Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1973:122-3).
24 Howard M Jackson describes how, even in the best of circumstances, the
σινδών - a sleeveless rectangle of cloth wrapped or draped around the body without any belt or fasteners to hold it on - was likely to slip off even with normal bodily movements ("Why the Youth Shed His Cloak and Fled Naked: The Meaning and Purpose of Mark 14:51-52," JBL 116.2, 1997:280).
25 Contra Lüdemann's interpretation of the white garment as symbolizing baptism (Resurrection, 86) and the presumption that the
νεανίσκος is the type of the baptized initiate (Robin Scroggs and Kent J Groff, "Baptism in Mark: Dying and Rising with Christ," JBL 92.4, 1973:540-3). There is no evidence for disrobing as baptismal ritual until the second century CE.
26 Bode, Easter, 166; concurring with Bode are Hans Grass, Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte, 4 rev. ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970:20); Gerhard Koch, Die Auferstehung Jesu Christi, BHT 27 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1959:164); Martin Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, 3 ed. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1959:191); Schenke, Grab, 71; CF Evans, Resurrection and the New Testament, SBT 12 (London: SCM, 1970:76-7); John E Alsup, The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel Tradition: A History-of-Tradition Analysis (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1975:106); Karl M Fischer, Das Ostergeschehen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980:59); Lorenz Oberlinner, "Die Verkündigung der Auferweckung Jesu in geöffneten und leeren Grab," ZNW 73 (1982:178).
27 For the importance of inclusio to Mark see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006:124-7).
28 Perkins, Resurrection, 119.
29 Spangenberg, Jesus, 149; Wolmarans, Anthropology, 63; Van Aarde, Fatherless, 112; Müller, Om te mag twyfel, 100.
30 Allison, Resurrecting, 301.
31 Grass, Ostergeschehen, 21, 120; Schenke, Grab, 43-7; Evans, Resurrection, 78; Bode, Easter, 35-7; Kremer, "Grab," 151; Fuller, Formation, 53, 60-1; Brown, Resurrection, 123; Spangenberg, Jesus, 150; Wolmarans, Anthropology, 68; Van Aarde, Fatherless, 160; Müller, Om te mag twyfel, 103.
32 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus - God and Man, 2 ed., trans. Lewis L Wilkins and Duane A Priebe (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1977:102).
33 We know from Cicero (Leg. 3) that violatio sepulchri was a crime under Roman law, and the Nazareth Inscription (first century CE) prescribes the death penalty for the offense. The initial reaction of the women is preserved in John 20:2, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him".
34 Josephus relates that the witness of women was considered so unreliable that they were not even permitted to testify in Jewish courts of law (Ant. 4.219).
35 In a comprehensive survey of the literature from 1975 to 2005, Gary Habermas found that approximately 75% of exegetes regard the empty tomb as historical ("Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?" Journal of the Study of the Historical Jesus 3.2, 2005:141).
36 Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1981:41).
37 Van Aarde, Fatherless, 112-3; Müller, Om te mag twyfel, 72-8.
38 Müller, Om te mag twyfel, 75.
39 Ibid.

Creative Commons License Todo o conteúdo deste periódico, exceto onde está identificado, está licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons