Yes or No to Pre-Markan Passion Narrative

[gmx]

Just wondering where the esteemed usual suspects of the forum fall on the question of the existence of a pre-Markan Passion Narrative, taken as a discrete source and woven into Mark's gospel...

What's your opinion and what is it based on?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
Yes. I think that this passion narrative is the following:

1 Cor 11:23-25

that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Phil 2:8

And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

1 Cor 2:8

None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

2 Cor 13:4

For he was crucified in weakness

[Clive]

I wonder if the above may be tracked back to earlier pre Pauline (including non Xian or non Judaic) rituals and records, and a history of how these rituals and narratives evolved worked out.

[JoeWallack]

.
Yes. I think that this passion narrative is the following:

1 Cor 11:23-25

that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Phil 2:8

And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

1 Cor 2:8

None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

2 Cor 13:4

For he was crucified in weakness

JW:
You left out:

1 Corinthians 5:7

Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, [even] Christ:

I agree that Paul was the primary source for GMark's Passion Narrative but I would not describe excerpts from Paul as a Passion Narrative.

There is no quality extant evidence for any Passion Narrative before GMark. The evidence we have favors GMark as the original Passion Narrative:

• 1) It tests high for fiction indicating there was no historical source and therefore no historical witness.
  
  2) We don't see the signs of editing (inconsistency/ambiguity) that we see in subsequent Gospels.
  
  3) Subsequent Gospels use it as a base indicating there was no other source.
  
  4) Unlike GMark, which wanted to discredit supposed historical witness, Subsequents wanted to credit historical witness, yet were apparently forced to use a narrative with the opposite objective. Because there was nothing else.

Joseph

The Case Of The Unidentified Servant - Part 1

[Clive]

Is gmark really whole cloth or did he bake a different flavour of cake by using different ingredients and quantities?

[Charles Wilson]

Regarding the Eucharist:

Dio, Epitome 64:

"But what is there surprising about this, considering that when the women of the city in the course of the night brought food and drink to give to the soldiers of Vitellius, the latter, after eating and drinking themselves, passed the supplies on to their antagonists? One of them would call out the name of his adversary (for they practically all knew one another and were well acquainted) and would say: "Comrade, take and eat this; I give you, not a sword, but bread. Take and drink this; I hold out to you, not a shield, but a cup. Thus, whether you kill me or I you, we shall quit life more comfortably, and the hand that slays will not be feeble and nerveless, whether it be yours that smites me or mine that smites you. 5 For these are the meats of consecration that Vitellius and Vespasian give us while we are yet alive, in order that they may offer us as a sacrifice to the dead slain long since."

The following is known to cause upset stomach in small test animals:

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Otho":

"After that, quenching his thirst with a draught of cold water, he [Otho} caught up two daggers, and having tried the point of both of them, put one under his pillow. Then closing the doors, he slept very soundly. When he at last woke up at about daylight, he stabbed himself with a single stroke under the left breast; and now concealing the wound, and now showing it to those who rushed in at his first groan, he breathed his last and was hastily buried (for such were his orders) in the thirty-eighth year of his age and on the ninety-fifth day of his reign..."

"Plutarch, Life of Otho:

Nay, it would seem that no king or tyrant was ever possessed by so dire and frenzied a passion for ruling as was that of these soldiers for being ruled and commanded by Otho; not even after his death did their yearnings for him leave them, nay, it abode with them until it finally changed into an incurable hatred for Vitellius.

"Well, then, the rest of the story is now in place. They buried the remains of Otho, and made a tomb for them which neither by the great size of its mound nor by the boastfulness of its inscription could awaken jealousy. I saw it when I was at Brixillum. It is a modest memorial and the inscription on it, in translation, runs thus: "To the memory of Marcus Otho."
...
"As for his soldiers, when Pollio, their remaining prefect, ordered them to swear allegiance at once to Vitellius, they were incensed; and when they learned that some of the senators were still there, they let all of them go except Verginius Rufus, and him they annoyed by going to his house in military array and inviting him again, and even urging him, to assume the imperial power, or to go on an embassy in their behalf. But Verginius thought it would be madness for him to accept the imperial dignity now, when they were defeated, after refusing it before, when they were victorious, and as for going on an embassy to the Germans, he feared to do so, since they felt that he had often done them violence beyond all reason; and so he stole away unobserved by another door. When the soldiers learned of this, they consented to take the oaths, and joined the forces of Caecina, thus obtaining pardon..."

The fingerprints of Tacitus and Pliny the Younger are all over this. These 2 spoke at Verginius Rufus' funeral. We have a Container for the Construction of the "Empty Tomb".

Finally, note the Clues in John: The Head Bandages (Latin: Soudarian, credit to Atwill for this one) are separated from the body wrappings - Galba is beheaded.
"Jesus" is pierced in the side by the soldiers. Otho at the River Po and Bedriacum, although the order is reversed with the death of hated Vitellius.
Vitellius is killed. He is dragged through Rome and if he tries to lift his head someone puts a dagger to his chin. Further, the "Vinegar on a Hyssop Stick" has the usual Make-Things-Up Apologetix. No. Here is vicious Satire at the expense of Vitellius' homosexuality. It's this:

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Vitellius":

"Beginning in this way, he regulated the greater part of his rule wholly according to the advice and whims of the commonest of actors and chariot-drivers, and in particular of his freedman Asiaticus. This fellow had immoral relations with Vitellius in his youth, but later grew weary of him and ran away. When Vitellius came upon him selling posca* at Puteoli, he put him in irons, but at once freed him again and made him his favourite..."

*Note: "A drink made of sour wine or vinegar mixed with water"
( http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... tml#note18 )

The Pre-Markan Passion Narrative is a Roman Device grafted onto a smaller Literary Work that comes to us as the Book of Mark. This smaller work shows evidence of a Roman rewrite of a Jewish Story written by someone who knows tremendous detail of the Jewish History and Jewish Mishmarot Service.

"From the fact that the "Jesus Stories" were written from Sources, it does not follow that the Sources were about Jesus".

CW

[Ben C. Smith]

Just wondering where the esteemed usual suspects of the forum fall on the question of the existence of a pre-Markan Passion Narrative, taken as a discrete source and woven into Mark's gospel...

What's your opinion and what is it based on?

We should probably distinguish between 3 different positions, for the sake of clarity on this forum especially, since there are several of the "usual suspects" on this forum who would argue against such a Passion Narrative, but would do so from a perspective that is rather different than that of many scholars who doubt its existence:

1. There existed a written Passion Narrative upon which Mark drew for the last few chapters of his gospel.
2. There existed no written Passion Narrative, but Mark drew upon various passion traditions for the last few chapters of his gospel.
3. There existed no written Passion Narrative, and Mark drew upon little more than Paul, the Septuagint, and his own wits.

Option 1 is represented by Rudolf Pesch, Gerd Theissen, and rather many others.

Option 2 is represented by most (not all) of the scholars writing for The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14-16, edited by Werner H. Kelber, as well as Adela Yarbro Collins and quite a few others.

I admit I am not very familiar with scholarship that represents option 3, though I think Randel Helms may hold to it, but it is represented in one form or another on this forum by JoeWallack and Kunigunde Kreuzerin, among others.

(Joe and Kunigunde, do you have a handy list of scholars who suspect that Mark did not rely on much in the way of tradition beyond Paul and scripture? I have been trying to expand my horizons in that direction. Thanks.)

Ben.

[Clive]

Seneca wrote it?

[outhouse]

There existed a written Passion Narrative upon which Mark drew for the last few chapters of his gospel.

Ben.

Just my opinion.


Possible.

There existed no written Passion Narrative, but Mark drew upon various passion traditions for the last few chapters of his gospel.

And probable.

Mark did not rely on much in the way of tradition beyond Paul and scripture?

I have always been skeptical of Marks use of Pauline text. Not sure they were circulated wide spread early on. Due to the nature of Epistles I have always viewed these as gaining popularity in time, and reflecting theology that in that time was not welcomed by the majority in the first century. Pauline text has always carried criticism.

[Ulan]

Just wondering where the esteemed usual suspects of the forum fall on the question of the existence of a pre-Markan Passion Narrative, taken as a discrete source and woven into Mark's gospel...

What's your opinion and what is it based on?

We should probably distinguish between 3 different positions, for the sake of clarity on this forum especially, since there are several of the "usual suspects" on this forum who would argue against such a Passion Narrative, but would do so from a perspective that is rather different than that of many scholars who doubt its existence:

1. There existed a written Passion Narrative upon which Mark drew for the last few chapters of his gospel.
2. There existed no written Passion Narrative, but Mark drew upon various passion traditions for the last few chapters of his gospel.
3. There existed no written Passion Narrative, and Mark drew upon little more than Paul, the Septuagint, and his own wits.

I'm not sure whether there is a hard distinction between the last two points. While I think that option #3 in a general sense (recycling OT texts) is rather obvious for the bulk of gMark, the passion narrative seems to also contain quite a few echoes from recent stories (recent if we take 70 AD as time of writing) that are also related by Josephus. While part of the passion follows the choreography given for Yom Kippur in the Torah, other details seem to match stories that are also known from Josephus.

Sorry for conflating this again.