Pre-Marcan Passion Narrative

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Pre-Marcan Passion Narrative

Post by Michael BG »

I have been reading The Gospels in Context Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition by Gerd Theissen and have reached the section on the Passion narrative. He concludes that it was written in Jerusalem between 41-44 CE.

In the early 1980’s I concluded that the pre-Marcan empty tomb story was historical, now I think it has a Roman origin and it is not historical. The pre-Marcan empty tomb story is seen as part of the pre-Marcan Passion narrative and I am going to assume this for this discussion.

I think that the final version of the pre-Marcan Passion Narrative was composed outside of Palestine by Gentile Christians who have very little historical information to work with. I think it is likely that the earliest tradition was along the lines of Acts 2:22c-23, 32-33a
“Men! Israelites, hear these words: Jesus the Nazareth, a man shown to you by God with mighty works and miracles and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves are aware
this person (Jesus) delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, by the hands of Gentiles crucified (and) lifted-up

This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.
Being therefore exalted to the right hand of God, …
I would like to only consider Mk 14:1 to 16:8 and exclude 14:3-9 to try to discover what is most likely part of the story which came to Mark by trying to identify Marcan redaction, but not that which is unlikely to be historical.

When considering Mk 16:1-8 Michael Turton writes with regard to verse 2, “although some have argued that there is a contradiction between "very early" and "the sun had risen" that is just typical Markan doubling.”

Also regarding verse 5 Turton has, ‘"amazed" is another instance of the unique verb for amazement found only in Mark, and may be a sign of a redactor's hand. (Koester 1990, p284).’

The duplication in 16:2 can be regarded as Marcan redaction and not part of the pre-Marcan tradition. The emphasis on the size of the stone and who will roll away the stone seems like an embellishment. It has been said that it is unlikely that a round stone would have been used at time and so rolled away could be the editorial work of Mark so it agreed with practices in his day. The idea that they told no one is a Marcan motif.
[1] And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.
[2] And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.
[3] And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?"
[4] And looking up, they saw that the stone was [moved] rolled back; -- it was very large.
[5] And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
[6] And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.
[7] But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."
[8] And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.
I think it is widely accepted that “that is, the day before the Sabbath” in Mk 15:42 is Marcan redaction. This is supported by Simon the Cyrenian “coming from the field” (15:21), which implies he was working. If the evening before had been Passover he would not have been working. The lambs are killed on Nisan 14 so they can be cooked once evening has fallen making it Nisan 15, a day when no work can be done and the first day of feast of the Unleavened Bread.

I think this leads to the questioning of 14:12. It is possible that 14:12 in the pre-Marcan version was “it is the day before the feast of the Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb”, which Mark has amended to “And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb”.

Adela Yarbro Collins (http://austingrad.edu/images/SBL/Collins.pdf) suggests that Mark has added Mk 15:34 with its Psalm 22 parallel (v 1), while seeing the other parallels (15:24 to Ps 22:18 and 15:29-32 to Ps 22:7-8 as part of the pre-Markan source). I do not think Colllins presents a strong case. Using the same case she suggests that Mk 15:36 is also Marcan as a parallel to Ps 69:21.

Collins might be on firmer ground when she states that Mark has added “the saying of the centurion to the climatic rending of the veil” (Mk 15:39) and the “saying of the centurion is the climax of Mark’s theme of Jesus as the Son of God”. However she might be making a better case for the rending of the veil (Mk 15:38) to be Marcan when she writes, “The Splitting of the veil also suggests the ascent of Jesus to heaven and the access to God that the death of Jesus makes possible. In its … context as part of Mark as a whole, the rending of the veil creates a contrast with the splitting of the heavens at the baptism of Jesus. … The death of Jesus on the cross is accompanied by a … theophany, which suggests that the will of God is fulfilled in the apparently shameful death of Jesus …”

It has been suggested (according to Turton by Rhoads) that there is a progression in the gospel of Mark. “The first line of the Gospel refers to Jesus as ‘the anointed one, the Son of God.’ At the end of the first half of the story [Peter] acknowledges Jesus as ‘the anointed one.’ At the end of the second half of the story, the centurion identifies Jesus as ‘son of God’”.

Michael Turton presents two reasons why Mk 15:39 might not be Marcan redaction. He states that “Johnson (1987, 2000) … points out … (that) text-critical evidence strongly suggests that the earlier occurrence (Mk 1:1) is an insertion.” And that there is no article in 15:39 which should be translated as “Truly this man was God's son” (Johnson).

Mark as it stands has Jesus “breathed his last” or “expires” (εξεπνευσεν) twice (Mk 15:37 and 15:39). This seems to be strong evidence one is Marcan redaction. If Mark has added the rending of the veil then the Mk 15:37 version is also Marcan redaction.

It is likely that the instances of καὶ εὐθὺς (and immediately) are Marcan redaction – 14:43 and 72 as well as “And as soon as” Mk 15:1.

However a problem for the idea that Mark is using a pre-Marcan text is Mark’s use of και (and). According to Neil Godfrey (http://vridar.org/2010/12/15/meaning-in ... reek-pt-2/) Mark uses και to begin 376 of his 583 sentences. He starts a sentence 73 times in champers 14 and 15 with και including the 3 above. I find it hard to see someone adding all these “ands”, however Neil I think suggests that the “ands” and other Marcan redaction are features that “suggests a Gospel to be read in a rush”.

Please post your suggestions for Marcan redaction based on normal Marcan usage or with reference to motifs in the rest of his gospel (please note at the moment I am not interested in historicity or if a feature was created by the author or early Christian community).
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Pre-Marcan Passion Narrative

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
I may be not a good commenter because I do not believe in a "Pre-Marcan Passion Narrative" or that one could reconstruct an assumed source of Mark in that way. But I will make one attempt to show what in the text looks like to me as typical Markan grammar.
Michael BG wrote:
[1] And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.
[2] And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.
[3] And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?"
[4] And looking up, they saw that the stone was [moved] rolled back; -- it was very large.
[5] And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
[6] And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.
[7] But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."
[8] And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.
16:1 so that + participle + verb (literally maybe: “so that they – having come – anoint him”
16:2 historical present (literally: they come)
16:5 a vers with more participles than verbs
16:6 historical present (literally: he says)
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Pre-Marcan Passion Narrative

Post by Michael BG »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: But I will make one attempt to show what in the text looks like to me as typical Markan grammar.
Michael BG wrote:
[1] And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.
[2] And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.

[5] And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
[6] And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.

16:1 so that + participle + verb (literally maybe: “so that they – having come – anoint him”
16:2 historical present (literally: they come)
16:5 a vers with more participles than verbs
16:6 historical present (literally: he says)

In verse 1 the end of the sentence could be translated as “buy spices that coming they-anointing him”
Would I be correct that “ἀρώματα ἵνα ἐλθοῦσαι ἀλείψωσιν αὐτόν” is bad Greek?
Are you saying that within Mark there are other examples of such bad Greek?
How much of a parallel are they?
(It appears neither Matthew or Luke use the phrase.)

In verse 2 the Greek word is ἔρχονται my interlinear translates it as “they-are-coming”. Matthew has ἦλθεν – “came”. Is Matthews Greek better? Is there another word that Mark should have used instead of ἔρχονται?
Perhaps you can convinced me that ερχονται is Marcan redaction.
Neither Matthew nor Luke seem to have copied Mark usage:
Mk 2:18, 3:19, 5:35, 8:22 (both Matthew and Luke don’t have this story), 11:15,
Mk 3:31 Lk 8:19 has Παρεγένετο – came;
Mk 5:15 Lk 8:35 has εξηλθον - they-came-out;
Mk 5:38 Mt 9:23 has ελθων – coming;
Mk 10:46 Mt 20:29 has εκπορευομενων - going-out; Lk 18:35 has changed it even more;
Mk 11:27 Mt 21:23 has ελθοντος – coming;
Mk 12:18 Mt 22:23 has προσηλθον – came;
Mk 14:32 Mt 26:36 has ερχεται – is-coming.

I don’t understand what you are saying with regard to verse 5.

In verse 6 the Greek word is λεγει – he-is-saying. Matthew uses the word 53 times. I don’t understand why you think this likely to be Marcan redaction and not the expected word.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Pre-Marcan Passion Narrative

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
You seems to assume that the pre-Markan passion narrative was a rational and senseful text in good Koine Greek and that Mark’s main work was to add puzzling comments and to rewrite some verses into a bad Greek, so that these things are the obvious signs of Markan redaction. You are completely right that my suggestions do not fall in such categories. They are based on a different logic.

When in an ancient text the historical present is sometimes used and sometimes not, then it is usually a sign of a deliberately use. It is style and shows the hand of an author. It was not unusual and many ancient authors and historians did this, Josephus as well. In GMark this use of the historical present can be noted not only in Mark 16:2, 16:6 and the rest of the passion section, but in all sections. Therefore I have suggested it as a thing which could be seen as Markan redaction. Carroll D. Osburn did it in the article „The Historical Present in Mark as a Text-Critical Criterion“, Biblica, Vol. 64, No. 4 (1983), pp. 486-500.

My suggestion regarding the use of participles in GMark follows the same logic.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Pre-Marcan Passion Narrative

Post by Ulan »

Did anyone ever check whether the "bad Greek" is some attempt at further imitation? We still get the old chestnut brought up that the use of “καὶ” is an example for bad Greek, colloquial Greek, and similar ideas, even if it's obvious what Mark is doing here just by looking further back in the Greek Bible, like the beginning of 1Sam here:
Image
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Pre-Marcan Passion Narrative

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ulan wrote:We still get the old chestnut brought up that the use of “καὶ” is an example for bad Greek, colloquial Greek, and similar ideas, even if it's obvious what Mark is doing here just by looking further back in the Greek Bible, like the beginning of 1Sam here....
I am not sure I have ever seen a serious discussion of Mark's use of καί as bad Greek; if I have, I have forgotten it. The main observations I have seen concerning his use of καί have to do with the so-called minor agreements of Matthew and Luke (using δέ to introduce clauses and sentences) against Mark (using καί instead, as an argument against the Two-Source Hypothesis). For example, here is John Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pages 151-152:

It is worth notice that we see in the LXX that different writers (in this case, different translators) had their personal proclivities in this little matter, though καί largely preponderates on the whole as the rendering of the Hebrew copula. If we take as specimens a few chapters from the historical books, we find δέ used tolerably often in Gen iv, xviii, xix; Ex iii-vi, whereas it is very nearly absent from Judg xiii-xiv; 3 Ki xvi-xxii; Neh i-ii ( = 2 Esdr xi, xii). If, then, other Hellenistic writers thus varied in their use of these conjunctions, we need not look for anything suggestive or significant in the fact that Matthew and Luke happened to have one habit, and Mark another habit in this same matter, and that consequently two of them often agree against the third when we can compare them in the triple narrative.

Also, in your excerpt from 1 Samuel it appears that you highlighted all instances of καί, whereas the only ones that matter are the ones introducing new clauses or phrases (where, in Greek, δέ might be used instead). It would be madness to argue that the use of καί in and of itself is bad Greek, and I doubt anybody ever has.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Pre-Marcan Passion Narrative

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Michael BG wrote:In verse 1 the end of the sentence could be translated as “buy spices that coming they-anointing him”
Would I be correct that “ἀρώματα ἵνα ἐλθοῦσαι ἀλείψωσιν αὐτόν” is bad Greek?
I myself would not call it bad Greek; in fact, to me, it comes across as rather elegant. But it is a rare construction. I think Mark is the only evangelist who uses it (as in Mark 4.12, ἵνα βλέποντες βλέπωσιν), though even he probably does not use it all that often.
Are you saying that within Mark there are other examples of such bad Greek?
There have been lots of examples given of Mark writing bad Greek. But many of them I would not call bad; some are more colloquial, others just of a simpler style than what we might find, say, in Thucydides. (Mark's use of καί instead of δέ would fall into the latter category; it comes across as more simple, but there is nothing grammatically wrong with it; there is even a good grammatical term for it: parataxis.) Does Mark overuse certain words, like "straightway"? It all depends on what one thinks Mark is doing. I can imagine a lot of language teachers leaving red marks on Mark's manuscript, but that does not always mean much in "real world" writing.

Even in English there is a huge range of opinions on what is good and what is bad. It has become commonplace, for example, to replace "whom" with "who" at all points; this tendency drives me mad, and to speak of "the one who you love" sounds like nails on a chalkboard to my ears; but the culture disagrees with me, and my side has lost that battle. And if you ever find me omitting the so-called Harvard comma (also known as the Oxford comma or the serial comma), just shoot me. The rule that one ought never to split one's infinitives, on the other hand, I view as silly, both historically (there are great works of English which split their infinitives) and grammatically (no clarity is lost by it in any case whatsoever, practically by definition); so I like to relentlessly split my infinitives.

So, when modern scholars chastise Mark for using the term κράβαττος instead of κλίνη just because some ancient Attic grammarians thought of κράβαττος as barbaric, well, that is probably just a bit of snobbery at play. One does not have to consult Madrid to write solid Spanish, and one does not have to consult Attica to write solid Greek. It can definitely be useful to look at how certain ancient schools treated certain terms or constructions, and pointing out (for example) that the use of καί instead of δέ is often a feature of translational Greek from Hebrew might be apropos, but to import our own notions of good and bad ("Mark uses bad Greek!") can often (not always) be inappropriate. I am certain that a lot of ancient Greeks would have valued Luke's grammar and syntax more than Mark's, and noticing those value judgments can be helpful, but there is no need for us to necessarily share in those value judgments.

There is also the matter of writing for effect. Did Mark Twain write bad English? I daresay every single word he dropped on the page was carefully thought out and deliberate, no matter how "ungrammatical" some of them were by textbook standards.
In verse 2 the Greek word is ἔρχονται my interlinear translates it as “they-are-coming”. Matthew has ἦλθεν – “came”. Is Matthews Greek better? Is there another word that Mark should have used instead of ἔρχονται?
It is not a matter of finding a better word here; it is a matter of tense. To use the historic present is simply to use a present tense for a past event in a spot where we would expect the past tense. In English we can make a story (or especially a joke) more vivid by relating it in the present tense ("so a rabbi walks into a bar and says..."). It is similar in Greek, but there is a difference; I have noticed that in English we generally relate the entire story, or at least an entire portion of a story, in the present tense, whereas in Greek the narrator will often use the present tense just for one or two words in the story. Here is Mark's very first use of the historic present:

1.12 And [καί] immediately the Spirit casts Him out into the wilderness. 13 And [καί] He was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and [καί] He was with the wild beasts, and [καί] the angels were ministering to Him.

One of the verbs is in present tense ("casts"); the others are in past/imperfect tense ("was", "were ministering"). Notice also the heavy use of parataxis (καί... καί... καί).
In verse 6 the Greek word is λεγει – he-is-saying. Matthew uses the word 53 times. I don’t understand why you think this likely to be Marcan redaction and not the expected word.
This is just another example of the historic present. As Hawkins says on page 150, "The two most constantly recurring causes of the agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark are two preferences of Mark, viz. (i) for λεγείν instead of εἰπεῖν, as referred to in the last section, and (ii) for καί instead of δέ" (λεγείν instead of εἰπεῖν = historic present). It is a style preference of Mark's. Matthew uses 78 historic presents in his gospel (21 of which overlap with Mark's), while Mark, despite being much shorter, uses 151 historic presents. Luke uses only 4 throughout his entire gospel (and 13 in Acts).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Pre-Marcan Passion Narrative

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:.
I may be not a good commenter because I do not believe in a "Pre-Marcan Passion Narrative" or that one could reconstruct an assumed source of Mark in that way. But I will make one attempt to show what in the text looks like to me as typical Markan grammar.
Michael BG wrote:
[1] And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.
[2] And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.
[3] And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?"
[4] And looking up, they saw that the stone was [moved] rolled back; -- it was very large.
[5] And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
[6] And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.
[7] But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."
[8] And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.
16:1 so that + participle + verb (literally maybe: “so that they – having come – anoint him”
16:2 historical present (literally: they come)
16:5 a verse with more participles than verbs
16:6 historical present (literally: he says)
I would add that the asyndeton in verse 6 (ἠγέρθη· οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε· ἴδε ὁ τόπος ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν) is characteristically Marcan. (Compare ἀπέχει· ἦλθεν ἡ ὥρα· ἰδού, παραδίδοται ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in Mark 14.41, for example.)

For my part, overall, finding (or not finding) characteristic words and phrases is the wrong way to demonstrate that an author used a source. In fact, this method practically assumes that a source exists and then uses characteristic or noncharacteristic words and phrases to determine what comes from the source and what does not.

There is little doubt in my mind that Mark was aware of a passion narrative (in some form) before putting plume to parchment; but this conclusion is the result of looking, not for characteristic words and phrases, but rather for inconcinnities and seams.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Pre-Marcan Passion Narrative

Post by Ulan »

Ben C. Smith wrote:I am not sure I have ever seen a serious discussion of Mark's use of καί as bad Greek; if I have, I have forgotten it.
Good on you. The last one I read was two day days ago ("example for spoken language"). But yes, it was forgettable.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Also, in your excerpt from 1 Samuel it appears that you highlighted all instances of καί, whereas the only ones that matter are the ones introducing new clauses or phrases (where, in Greek, δέ might be used instead). It would be madness to argue that the use of καί in and of itself is bad Greek, and I doubt anybody ever has.
I assumed that at least this part was generally understood, yes. Also, I did the highlighting in a quick and dirty way, yes. I picked a piece of the Septuagint by chance. I was actually searching for "Kings", but this version labeled 1Samuel as 1Kings, and it turned out as good enough. As the sample displays the verse numbers, you can still see that nearly all verses start with καί.
Last edited by Ulan on Fri May 05, 2017 7:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Pre-Marcan Passion Narrative

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ulan wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:I am not sure I have ever seen a serious discussion of Mark's use of καί as bad Greek; if I have, I have forgotten it.
Good on you. The last one I read was two day days ago ("example for spoken language"). But yes, it was forgettable.
This may just be semantics. I do not equate Greek written in an oral form with bad Greek (at least not automatically).
I did it in a quick and dirty way, yes. I picked a piece of the Septuagint by chance. I was actually searching for "Kings", but this version labeled 1Samuel as 1Kings, and it turned out as good enough. As the sample displays the verse numbers, you can still see that nearly all verses start with καί.
Yes, this use of καί is a fixture in most of the LXX, as Hawkins intimates.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply