Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Thesis: Mark Used Cross Gospel in 15:42-16:8, Pt.1

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Ted Weeden" <weedent AT earthreach.com>
  • To: "Kata Markon" <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Thesis: Mark Used Cross Gospel in 15:42-16:8, Pt.1
  • Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:01:22 -0600


Dear Listers,

Last week, as I was working on other research and writing projects, I
received a
post from Karel Hanhart, via Synoptic-L, reminding me that I still owed him a
reply to his post of May 26, 2000, which I promised to respond to as soon as I
could find some time. Well, I forgot about my promise, and with the receipt
of
his post last week, I decided I had better put other things aside and honor my
promise. The only problem is that to honor the promise to critique a
position
he has taken on the ending of Mark, I could not do so, as I had intended to
do,
without presenting a thesis of mine that I had worked on several years ago,
but
had not completed.

So I decided to put aside other matters and finish as much work as I can on my
thesis and submit it on Synoptic-L
in response to Karel's post. Since, then, I am presenting on Synoptic-L this
thesis, that Mark used the Cross Gospel as a source for his creation of his
burial and empty-tomb stories, I decided I would share it, with Karel's
awareness, on Kata Markon for any who might be interested in it and would be
willing to give me feedback. Because of the length of the argument I have
developed in defense of this "trial balloon" thesis, I am dividing it up into
parts, as I indicate below. This post is the first part: I. Mark and the
Cross
Gospel:Prolegomena. Other parts will be shared over a period of several days.

I would apprecite any critical engagement on this thesis.

Ted Weeden

Thesis: Mark Used the Cross Gospel in 15:42-16:8

Karel Hanhart wrote on Tuesday, January 22, 2002:

> Dear Ted,

> Last year you offered the Synoptic-L readers a detailed description of your
> position. It was much appreciated. It did not deal with a marginal
> problem.
[snip]
> It is my contention that Mark's ending determines the content of his Gospel.
> Hence my question why most commentators ignore the suggestions of C.
> Montefiore (1927!) that the open tomb story is a midrash on LXX Gn 29,2.3,
> Isa 22,16; 33.16. The words "tomb hewn from the rock" (Mc 15,46) match
> the same expression in Isa LXX 22,16, a 'hapax' in the Septuagint, that is
> the combination of 'mnemeion', 'latomeo' and 'petra' is found just once in
> Tenak. The same conclusion is reached for the rolling stone in Gn 29,2.3
> 'lithos', 'megas', 'apokulio'. Therefore, the notion that Mark wrote a
> midrash, is heavily supported by the verbal agreements in these passages.
> It is significant in this connection that in the Greek editions of the
> Gospel
> the editors acknowledge that Mark cited passages in Tenak. Now why would
> they note in footnotes Mark was citing Zach 13,7 in Mc 14,27 Ps 110,2 and
> Dan 7,13 in Jesus' answer to the high priest (Mc 14,62) and Ps 22,7; Lam
> 2,15 when bystanders 'shook their heads' gazing at the crucified one (15,29)
> BUT OMIT citing Isaiah and Genesis in Mark 15,46; 16,4 when we are
> dealing with the story of the open tomb?

> I realize this is a difficult question, but an important one. Our exegesis
> of
> the open tomb tomb story must begin with the question, what motivation
> Mark had for citing these verses. Denying the references, it seems to me,
> is burying ones' head in the sand. If you concur with Montefiore, where
> do you think where I fail in my proposed solution or in what way should it
> be corrected?

My response:

That Mark may have had in mind Gen. 29: 2, 3; Isaiah 22:16; 33:16, is a
suggestion worthy of consideration. You are correct that there are some
terminological parallels between the LXX passages you cite and Mk. 15:46.
But
I am not persuaded that Mark scoured the LXX to find terms to piece together,
in
such patch-like fashion, to shape his own narrative of the burial and
empty-tomb
stories, and in the course of doing so, alighted on Gen. 28:2-3; Isa. 22:16;
33;16.

What evidence is there that Mark searches the LXX and pieces terms found in
various passages together in patchwork fashion? It is well known that Mark
quotes directly from LXX passages and alludes to others. But where is there
evidence in the Markan narrative that he draws from one passage one or two
terms, from another passage a term or two, and so forth, linking them all
together to serve as descriptive material for his narrative? The one passage
that has the most coherence with what Mark needs for his burial composition is
Isa. 22:16. That passage does address the issue of a man (Shebna)
constructing his tomb from rock and there is similarity in terminology
ELATOMHSAS. . . MNHNEION . . . MNHMEION . . . EN PETRA (Isa. 22:16) vis-a-vis
MNHMEIWi . . . LELATOMHMENON EK PETRAS (Mk. 15:46). But I do not find the
occurrence of such similar terminology in these two passages points to a
dependence of Mark upon Isa. 22:16 for descriptive material of how a tomb is
fashioned. For archaeological evidence indicates that creating tombs by
hewing out rock was common in the Palestinian area of Jesus' time (see
Jonathan
Reed, _Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus_, 47, 59f., 134, and John Dominic
Crossan and Jonathan Reed, _Excavating Jesus_, 237f., 241, 245). So Mark,
whom I place in the village region of Caesarea Philippi (see my essay,
"Guidelines for Locating the Markan Community," Kata Markon [2/29/00]; XTalk
[2/29/00; Archives #3913], would have been well aware of this Palestinian
practice for creating tombs. And, thus, he would not have had to scour the
LXX
to find terminology to fit his compositional needs. He had his own personal
experience to draw upon.

I find it a logical stretch to suggest that Mark had to turn to Gen.
29:2-3--- a
passage that has nothing to do with burial--- to find a a reference to a
large
stone which he needed in his burial narrative to describe how Jesus' tomb was
sealed. Similarly, to argue that there is an intentional, allusive link in
Mk.
15:46 to Isa. 33:16 is an even greater logical challenge. Thus, I am not
persuaded by your argument that Mk. 15:46 is a part of a Markan midrash on the
unrelated LXX passages of Gen. 29:2-3; Isa. 22:16 and Isa. 33:16.

However, I think Mark did draw upon another major source which he used to mine
terminology and motifs for his burial story, as well as his empty-tomb story.
My thesis is that the source was a pre-Markan Gospel, a source which John
Dominic Crossan has reconstructed from the Gospel of Peter and dubbed "the
Cross
Gospel (see Crossan's _The Cross That Spoke_; cf., also _Who Killed Jesus?_
and
_The Birth of Christianity_, 481-511). A several years ago I began an essay
in
support of this thesis, an essay I did not complete. Your query, Karel,
about
my position of Mark and your counter proposal has spurred me on to complete
that
essay. I offer the first part, I. Mark and the Cross Gospel: Prolegomena,
below. The part to follow this one is: II. Mark and the Cross Gospel:
Markan
Fatigue in 16:4. That part will be followed by the remaining parts: III.
Mark
and the Cross Gospel: Markan Fatigue in 16:6; III. Early Morning Visit in Mark
and CG; IV. In the End, Silence: Mark and CG; V. Where Did That Young Man
Come
From?; VI. The Message of the Young Man in the Tomb; VI I. The Young Man in
the
Garden; VIII. The Identity of the Women Visitors; IX. The Burial Story
Revisited.

I. Mark and the Cross Gospel: Prolegomena

Now I am well aware that Crossan's reconstructed "Cross Gospel," which
originated, according to Crossan's proposal, in the early 40's in Jerusalem
(_Birth_, 511, and see 504-511), has not been widely embraced nor greeted with
much enthusiasm by most scholars. Crossan, himself acknowledges that fact
in
his _Birth_ when he observes (486), "That theory [the theory of the Cross
Gospel
presented in _Spoke_] was greeted, I think it fair to say, with almost
universal
rejection." To that point, Raymond Brown has been one of the strongest
critics of Crossan' s theory , as can be seen in his critique of it in _The
Death of the Messiah_, 1332-1336; and see Crossan's rebuttal to Brown's
critique
in Crossan's _Who Killed_, cf., 6-8, 86-91, 137-141, 152-159; and _Birth_,
481-511). Brown argues, contrary to Crossan, that the Gospel of Peter is a
composite creation of an author who was familiar with the canonical Gospels
and
drew upon them from memory as he used them, along with other material, to
weave
his own unique narrative. There was no pre-Synoptic Gospel, such as the one
Crossan imagines (_Death _ 1334-1335). Another critic of Crossan's theory of
the Cross Gospel, Frans Neirynck (see Crossan, _Birth_, 487), argues that the
Gospel of Peter is directly dependent upon the Gospel of Mark (see Brown,
_Death_, 1327f.).

Yet, despite the radically different perspectives represented by Crossan,
Brown
and Neirynck, on the relationship between the Gospel of Peter and the
canonical
Gospels, they do, surprisingly, agree on one thing. They all agree that the
author of the Gospel of Peter had, in addition to the canonical Gospels,
access
to an independent, traditional and consecutive account, which was composed
with
careful consistency, and which depicted a centurion and his soldiers standing
guard at Jesus' grave and witnessing a spectacular Easter event, an event
which
they subsequently reported to Pilate. That traditional story is preserved in
the Gospel of Peter 8:28-11:49, a story which makes up fifty percent of the
content of Crossan's Cross Gospel and "twenty-two out of the sixty verses in
the extant Gospel of Peter" (_Birth_, 487).

With respect to that long passage, which constitutes one-third of the Gospel
of
Peter, Brown states the following: "[T]he author of _GPet_ drew not only on
Matt but on an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulchre story, and in
the
_GPet_ 8:28-11:49 the basic story is still found consecutively (even if the
details are modified by later developments). Matt, however, divided up the
guard story to constitute [in Matthew's schema of five episodes (27:57-28:20)
paralleling the five episode-schema of his infancy narrative] the second
episode
(27:62-66 before the resurrection) and the fourth episode (28:11-15 after the
resurrection) in the burial-resurrection narrative" (1287; see also 13075f.).

And then Brown observes once more, and more fully (1307): "[W]hen one
compares
the Matthean account of the guard at the sepulcher [27:62-66; 28:2-4, 11-15]
that is some ten verses in length with the twenty-two-verse account in _GPet_
(over one-third the length of the total _G Pet_ PN!), one notices that no
other
part of the _GPet_ passion or resurrection account has been expanded so
extensively by comparison with a corresponding canonical scene. Therefore, on
the presumption that the author of _GPet_ acted with some consistency, we have
the right to suspect that here he had a source besides Matt, namely, a more
developed account of the guard at the sepulcher. (That point is also
supported
by the consecutiveness of the story in _GPet._) The supplying of the
centurion's name, the seven seals, the stone rolling off by itself, the
account
of the resurrection with the gigantic figures, the talking cross, the
confession
of Jesus as God's Son by the Jewish authorities, and their fear of their own
people--- all those elements could plausibly have been in the more developed
form of the story known to the author of _GPet_ and absent from the form
known
to Matt."

To this Fran Neirynck, no friend of Crossan's theory, comments: "Brown
...comes
close to Crossan's _Cross Gospel_ in his approach to the
guard-at-the-sepulcher
story [in _Gospel of Peter_ 8:28-11:49]: the author knew an independent form
of
a long story, and a less developed pre-Matthean form of the same story is
preserved in the Gospel of Matthew" ("The Historical Jesus Reflections on an
Inventory," _ETL_, 70:229; quoted by Crossan, _Birth_, 487).

And, finally, Crossan observes with respect to the agreement between himself
and
Brown concerning the content of this independent narrative source, which
Crossan
contends originated with the Cross Gospel (_Birth_, 493): "My own proposal
_Cross Gospel_ (by whatever name) involved a three-act drama: The first act
is
the Crucifixion and the Deposition in [the Gospel of Peter] 1:1-2 and
2:5b-6:22.
The second act is the Tomb and Guards in 7:25 and 8:28-9:34. The third act
is
the Resurrection and Confession in 9:35-10:42 and 11:45-49. Brown has
accepted the last two acts, and must presume some initial act (which I claim
is
most economically present right there in the *Gospel of Peter* itself)"
[emphasis: Crossan; see] (see also, _Spoke_, 7).

It is in that story --- the so-called "guard-at-the-sepulcher story," a story
which makes up fifty percent of Crossan's reconstructed Cross Gospel
[henceforth: CG], a story recognized by Brown and Neirynck as originating
independently of the canonical Gospel tradition--- that I find parallels to
material in Mark's burial and empty-tomb stories. Moreover, as a result of
my
analysis of those parallels, I have come to the conclusion that direct
dependency exists between Mk 15:42-16:8 and the guard-at-the-sepulcher story;
and, further, that it is Mark who is the dependent one. Because the
guard-at-the-sepulcher story is so central to my argument, and will be drawn
upon frequently in the exposition of my argument below, I reproduce it here in
full, and in English translation as it appears in Crossan's CG (_ Spoke_,
409-412; see also _Who Killed_ , 226f., _Birth_, 487f.). In doing so I
explicitly accept Crossan's theory of CG as a working hypothesis, for reasons
which will be cited below; and, as a result, I will cite the text of the
guard-at-the-sepulcher story henceforth as "CG," using the versification as
found in the Gospel of Peter in which CG is embedded. In addition, it
should
be noted that in the original CG, the text does not include two verses which
are
a part of Gospel of Peter. Those verses, GPet. 11:43-44, are considered by
Crossan (_Spoke_, 21, 24-25, 291, 394) as redactional insertions introduced by
the author of the Gospel of Peter into his CG source. I accept Crossan's
judgment on this point, and I will present his reasons for making that
judgment
in detail as my argument unfolds. In the CG text which follows, I have
reinserted the stated redactional verses (GPet. 11:43-44) in brackets for the
benefit of the reader. And now the text of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story.

>8:28 But the scribes and Pharisees and elders, being assembled together and
hearing that all the people were murmuring and beating their breasts, saying,
"If at his death these exceeding great signs have come to pass, behold how
righteous he was!"--- 8:29 the elders were afraid and came to Pilate,
entreating him and saying, 8:30 "Give us soldiers that we may watch his
sepulchre for three days, lest his disciples come and steal him away and the
people suppose that he is risen from the dead, and do us harm." 8:31 And
Pilate gave them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to watch the sepulchre.
8:32 And with them there came elders and scribes to the sepulchre. And all
who were there, together with the centurion and the soldiers, rolled thither a
great stone and laid it against the entrance to the sepulchre 8:33 and put on
it seven seals, pitched a tent and kept watch. 9:34 Early in the morning,
when the Sabbath dawned, there came a crowd from Jerusalem and the country
round
about to see the sepulchre that had been sealed. 9:35 Now in the night in
which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers, two by two in every watch,
were
keeping guard, there rang out a loud voice in heaven, 9:36 and they saw the
heavens opened and two men come down from there in a great brightness and draw
nigh to the sepulchre. 9:37 That stone which had been laid against the
entrance to the sepulchre started of itself to roll and give way to the side,
and the sepulchre was opened, and both the young men entered in. 10:38
When
now those soldiers saw this, they awakened the centurion and the elders ---
for
they also were there to assist at the watch. 10:39 And whilst they were
relating what they had seen, they saw again three men come out from the
sepulchre, and two of them sustaining the other, and a cross following them,
10:40 and the heads of the two reaching to heaven, but that of him who was
led
of them by the hand overpassing the heavens. 10:41 And they heard a voice
out of the heavens crying, "Hast thou preached to them that sleep?" 10:42
and
from the cross there was heard the answer,"Yea."<

[> 11:43 Those men therefore took counsel with one another to go and report
this
to Pilate. 11:44 And whilst they were deliberating, the heavens were again
seen to open, and a man descended and entered the sepulchre.<]

>11:45 When those who were of the centurion's company saw this, they hastened
by night to Pilate, abandoning the sepulchre which they were guarding, and
reported everything they had seen, being full of disquietude and saying, "In
truth he was the Son of God." 11 :46 Pilate answered and said, "I am clean
from the blood of the Son of God, upon such a thing have you decided."
11:47
Then all came to him, beseeching him and urgendy calling upon him to command
the
centurion and the soldiers to tell no one what they had seen. 11:46 "For
it
is better for us," they said, "to make ourselves guilty of the greatest sin
before God than to fall into the hands of the people of the Jews and be
stoned."
11:49 Pilate therefore commanded the centurion and the soldiers to say
nothing.<

While I am at it, I need also at this point, for the purpose of the argument
which will follow, to cite one other passage in CG, in addition to the story
just cited, another passage in which I find a parallel to Mk. 15:46 and 16:6.
The CG passage I am referring to is CG 6:21f. and reads thus: > 6:21 And then
they drew the nails from the hands of the Lord and laid him on the earth.
And
the whole earth shook and there came a great fear. 6:22 Then the sun shone
(again), and it was found to be the ninth hour.<

The passage comes from what Crossan calls act one (the Crucifixion and the
Deposition) of CG. It is the act that Brown rejects in Crossan's thesis,
though
Crossan contends that Brown "must presume some initial act" (_Birth_, 493;
_Who
Killed_, 7) prior to the guard-at-the-sepulcre story." In that appraisal
Neirynck, in his review of Crossan's _Who Killed_, appears to agree with
Crossan
against Brown. For he states, as Crossan (_Birth_, 487) quotes Neirynck from
his review ["'Title.' Review of John Dominic Crossan, _Who Killed Jesus?_,"
_ETL_ 70:456): "Regarding Brown's hypothesis [about that independent form of
the
guard-at-the sepulcher story], Crossan's reply [in rebuttal to Brown] makes
sense: 'there could never have been such an independent story without some
preceding account of condemnation and crucifixion.'"

With respect to CG 6:21, which will be engaged in an analysis of its
terminological relationship with 15:46 and 16:6, I find that Crossan (_Who
Killed_, 160-176) makes a very good case for this particular G Pet. passage,
which he assigns to CG, being the earliest Christian hermeneutic on what
happened to Jesus' body upon his death. The hermeneutical spin in CG 6:21
is
that Jesus' enemies, the "they" who laid his body on the earth, buried him,
and
did so before nightfall (see CG 8:39), as commanded by Deut. 21:23 ("When
someone . . . is executed, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse must not
remain all night upon the tree; you shall bury him that same day"). The
next
take on the hermeneutical explanation for what happened to Jesus' corpse was
to
have someone who had "the power" to do so (Crossan, _Who Killed_, 172) to
request Jesus' body from Pilate, in order to give Jesus a proper burial.
Thus
enters Joseph of Arimathea, a Jesus' sympathizer, into the lore of tradition
(Mk. 15:42ff.). Now the act of interment shifts from an act performed by
Jesus
' enemies, as dictated by Torah (Deut. 21:23), to a benevolent act performed
by
Jesus' "friends." Thus the hermeneutical trajectory evolved until the one
who
buries Jesus is actually one of his disciples, namely, again Joseph of
Arimathea
in a new guise (Mt. 27:57-60), who then is later joined in the interment
process
by a secret inquirer, namely, Nicodemus (Jn. 1938-42; and cf. 3:1ff).

CG 6:21, in my judgment, certainly bears the marks of being the earliest
Christian hermeneutic on Jesus' burial. Moreover, it strikes me that Acts
13:29, contrary to Hans Conzlemann (_Acts of the Apostles_, 105), may yet be
another repository of this earliest of the traditions concerning the
disposition
of Jesus' body following his death. For in the course of a kerygmatic review
of the core tradition about Jesus' passion, death and resurrection, Luke
presents Paul as proclaiming, "When they [Jesus' crucifiers] had carried out
everything that was written about him, *they* took him down from the tree
[allusion to Deut. 21:23] and laid him in a tomb."

Finally, as I move toward the body of my thesis--- namely, that Mark used the
CG
as a source to mine for ideas for his own composition of 15:42-16:8--- I need
to
state that, however one comes down on the complex history of the source
tradition behind the Gospel of Peter, I am convinced that Crossan's theory of
CG, or whatever name one may want to give to the tradition set forth there,
does
identify a non-canonical tradition about Jesus' passion, death and
resurrection.
I think, furthermore, that Crossan is right in identifying this non-canonical
tradition as a pre-Synoptic tradition that the author of the Gospel of Peter
had
access to and used extensively in the composition of his Gospel. No theory
about the factors that led to the composition, and the character of the source
tradition behind the Gospel of Peter, has won wide scholarly support (see
Crossan, _Birth_,483-486). All theories, as does Crossan's, have their
problematic dimensions, a fact Crossan acknowledges with respect to his own
theory (_Spoke_, 404f.; _Who Killed_, 139; _Birth_, 486). But Crossan's
theory of the CG is a working hypothesis that in my analysis of the parallels
CG
shares with Mark's Gospel, which I pursue below, seems to give an accounting
for
some of the problematic issues involving the logical consistency and the
origin
of ideas Mark entertained for his composition, which, to my knowledge, have
not
previously been considered.

To follow: I. Mark and Cross Gospel: Markan Fatigue in 16:4

Ted Weeden





  • Thesis: Mark Used Cross Gospel in 15:42-16:8, Pt.1, Ted Weeden, 01/28/2002

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page