¹ See Donahue's introduction to The Passion in Mark (ed. Kelber, Werner H.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 1–20Google Scholar. See also the essays in that book and, most recently, Cook, Michael J., Mark's Treatment of the Jewish Leaders (NovTSup 51; Leiden: Brill, 1978).Google Scholar

² For two approaches to the genre of the gospels as a whole, see Hadas, Moses and Smith, Morton, Heroes and Gods (New York: Harper & Row, 1965)Google Scholar; and Talbert, Charles H., What Is a Gospel? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).Google Scholar

³ Linnemann, Eta, Studien zur Passionsgeschichte (FRLANT 102; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 174Google Scholar. Although she sets out to do literary-critical and redaction-critical work (Ibid., 9), much of her expositon is, in fact, form criticism; see Juel, Donald, Messiah and Temple (SBLDS 31; Missoula: Scholars, 1977) 25–26.Google Scholar

⁴ Usually the passion narrative is defined as chaps. 14–15.

⁵ Ruppert, Lothar, Der leidende Gerechte: Eine motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Alten Testament und zwischentestamentlkhen Judentum (Forschung zur Bibel 5; Würzburg: Echter, 1972)Google Scholar; idem, Jesus als der leidende Gerechte? (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 59; Stuttgart: KBW, 1972)Google Scholar; idem, Der leidende Gerechte und seine Feinde: Eine Wortfelduntersuchung (Würzburg: Echter, 1973).Google Scholar

⁶ Note the categories in Kelber's conclusion to The Passion, 160–80.

⁷ Patte, Daniel and Patte, Aline, Structural Exegesis: From Theory to Practice (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978).Google Scholar

⁸ Juel, Messiah and Temple.

⁹ Ibid., esp. 28–36.

¹⁰ Ibid., 7, 43–44.

¹¹ See Ibid., 43, where he refers to our inability to know the precise genre of the Gospel as a whole.

¹² Petersen, Norman R., Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978) 49–80.Google Scholar

¹³ This pithy terminology is Norman Petersen's, in personal correspondence.

¹⁴ See Nickelsburg, George W. E., Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (HTS 26; Cambridge/London: Harvard/Oxford, 1972) 48–62.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ibid., 62–82.

¹⁶ Ibid., 90–92.

¹⁷ Ibid., 97–106.

¹⁸ The discussion that follows was first worked out in my book, Resurrection, 49–62. Subsequently, Norman Petersen pointed out to me the similarity between my approach and that of Vladimir Propp (Morphology of the Folktale [2d ed.; Austin/London: University of Texas, 1968])Google Scholar, of whose book I had had no knowledge. In the present discussion, I have refined my analysis, profiting considerably from Propp's methodological awareness.

¹⁹ In the tale of Susanna, the provocation and conspiracy relate to the elders' lust and their plot to possess her. Her refusal then provokes them to make false accusations against her.

²⁰ Reference to the decision is explicit in 2 Macc 7:14; Susanna 23.

²¹ The exceptions are the case of Joseph's brothers, who use lynch law, and 2 Maccabees 7, where the violation is a public issue.

²² For parallels between Genesis 39 and Susanna, see Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 54, n. 22.

²³ The Jews' obedience of their own laws is perversely misinterpreted as disobedience of the king's law and possible treason.

²⁴ The prayer is added in Add Esth 13:9–18; 14:3–19 and Pr Azar: evidence of generic influence.

²⁵ In Ahikar 3.14–15, the wording functions differently.

²⁶ The connection is explicit in Dan 3:15, 17, 28, 29, where the same wording is repeated.

²⁷ Not infrequently the reaction is astonishment. See 2 Macc 7:12, where Antiochus is astonished at the youth's spirit in face of suffering, a motif to be greatly developed in 4 Maccabees.

²⁸ This is indicated by the juxtaposion of the two elements in the narrative. With respect to Joseph, this element is developed in T. Jos.

²⁹ Dan 3:22 may be a vestige of the component from an earlier form of the tradition. In v 29, such punishment is threatened, but not carried out.

³⁰ For a similar distinction between general and particular, see the terms, “composition” and “plot,” used by Propp, Vladimir, “Structure and History in the Study of the Fairy Tale,” Semeia 10 (1978) 71–72.Google Scholar

³¹ See Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 94–95.

³² For a summary, see Donahue in Kelber, The Passion, 3–5.

³³ Some awareness of literary shape is indicated by Ruppert (Jesus, 46), who speaks of similar diptychs in the passion narrative and Wisdom 2 and 5.

³⁴ Juel, Messiah and Temple, 52–57, 93.

³⁵ Mark 3:6 refers to a conspiracy between the Pharisees and Herodians, but it does not lead to the events of the passion narrative.

³⁶ See Juel, Messiah and Temple, 133–34.

³⁷ Ibid., 72.

³⁸ On Mark 1:1, see below, n. 61.

³⁹ The idea is an old one. For the recent discussion, see Tyson, Joseph B., “The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark,” JBL 80 (1961) 261–68Google Scholar; then its detailed information in Weeden, Theodore J., Mark—Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 23–51Google Scholar and passim. More recently, see Petersen, Literary Criticism, 56–80.

⁴⁰ See, e.g., 4:10–20, 34; 7:17–23; 9:2, etc.

⁴¹ See 4:10–13, 40–41; 6:52; 7:18; 8:14–21.

⁴² See Kuby, Alfred, “Zur Konzeption des Markus-Evangeliums,” ZNW 49 (1958) 58Google Scholar; and Weeden, Mark, 32–38.

⁴³ Cf. Matt 4:10.

⁴⁴ On Satan as the obstructor, cf. Jub. 48.2–3, 9–18.

⁴⁵ On this passage, see Nickelsburg, , “Riches, the Rich and God's Judgment in 1 Enoch 92–105 and the Gospel according to Luke,” NTS 25 (1978) 343Google Scholar, and compare it with other passages discussed in that article.

⁴⁶ Note how Luke 23:2 alludes back to the incident.

⁴⁷ Petersen, Literary Criticism, 73–78.

⁴⁸ On skandalizein as a technical term, see Stählin, Gustav, “skandalon, skandalizō,” TDNT 7 (1971) 344–52.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Pace W. Kelber (“The Hour of the Son of Man and the Sleeping Disciples,” The Passion, 48), who does not discuss the relationship between the temptation and their being tripped into sin.

⁵⁰ Fleddermann, Harry, “The Flight of a Naked Young Man (Mark 14:51–52),” CBQ 41 (1979) 412–18.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Juel, Messiah and Temple, 47–52.

⁵² Ibid., 48–49.

⁵³ On this title, see Ibid., 50–52.

⁵⁴ Jesus changes the wording of 10:38 in 10:40; the latter corresponds with 15:27.

⁵⁵ See BAG, sub psychē, l.f. Cf. Luke 9:25, where Mark's tēn psychēn autou becomes heauton.

⁵⁶ See Robinson, James M., The Problem of History in Mark (SBT 21; London: SCM, 1957) 26–53.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 60–61.

⁵⁸ Wisdom 5 provides a better background for the element of seeing here, I believe, than does Zech 12:10ff., as is argued by Perrin, Norman, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1967) 180–85Google Scholar. Cf. Barn. 7.9–10, which conflates allusions to Daniel 7 and Zech 12:10 with language close to Wisdom 5, but plays on the menacing significance of seeing the Parousia.

⁵⁹ However, for the anarthrous usage with high christological connotations, cf. Matt 14:33; Luke 1:32, 35; John 19:7; Barn. 7.9.

⁶⁰ See Taylor, Vincent, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1957) 597Google Scholar; Juel, Messiah and Temple, 82–83.

⁶¹ Ibid., 80–83. On the textual problems in Mark 1:1, see Taylor, Mark, 152.

⁶² “my son,” 1:11; 9:7; “the son of God,” 3:11; “son of God,” 15:38; “son of the Most High,” 5:7; “the holy one of God,” 1:24.

⁶³ See Taylor, Mark, 491.

⁶⁴ In the context of 2:1–12, forgiveness is a divine prerogative. To call himself “Lord” of the divinely instituted Sabbath (3:28) is to assume a similar prerogative.

⁶⁵ See Maurer, Christian, “Knecht Gottes und Gottes Sohn im Passionsbericht,” ZThK 50 (1953) 30–36.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Chronologically, the story climaxes in Jesus' vindication in Galilee and at the Parousia. As the story is plotted, it climaxes with the vindication at the cross. See Petersen's distinction between “plotted time” and “story time,” Literary Criticism, 49–50.

⁶⁷ Juel, Messiah and Temple, 56–58.

⁶⁸ Ibid., 129.

⁶⁹ Ibid., 129–39, 204–9.

⁷⁰ Ibid., 130–32.

⁷¹ Ibid., 143–44, 204–9.

⁷² On Mark's use of a triadal pattern, see Norman R. Petersen, “The Composition of Mark 4:1–8:26,” in this issue of HTR. Evidence of the artificiality of the scheme here is the way the action in the temple is divided between 11:11ab (“he looked around”); 11:15–18 (cleansing and conspiracy); and the question about the cleansing in 11:27–28.

⁷³ This is Mark's only mention of the Sadducees.

⁷⁴ Pace Juel (Messiah and Temple, 65), the use of palin does not imply that the question of Jesus' messiahship is already before the court. Cf. the same connective in 15:4.

⁷⁵ On the use of naos here, in 15:29 and 14:58, rather than hieron as elsewhere in Mark, see Juel, Messiah and Temple, 128.

⁷⁶ The exception is “all the nations” in 11:17; cf. 13:10. See Juel, Messiah and Temple, 131–32.

⁷⁷ Addtionally, Juel (Messiah and Temple, 168–204) fails to show a connection between Messiah and temple in the literature of early postbiblical Judaism.

⁷⁸ Ibid., 137–38.

⁷⁹ For evidence that the events were inevitable for some time, see the account in Schürer, Emil, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (rev. and ed. by Vermes, Geza and Millar, Fergus; Edinburgh: Black, 1973) 1. 491–508.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Eschatological hopes were connected with the events preceding the temple's destruction. See the reference to a “false prophet” and other “prophets” in Jos. J. W. 6.5.2. ®285–87. On Zealot theology, see Rhoads, David M., Israel in Revolution (Philadelphia: Fortress 1976) 107Google Scholar. Regarding the dismantling of the old altar and building of a new one after “the desolating sacrilege” of Antiochus Epiphanes, see 1 Macc 4:42–48.

⁸¹ Cf. the common use of grēgorein and the parallel between 13:36 and 14:37, 40, 41. See Kelber, The Passion, 48. On the address to the disciples and others, cf. 13:37 and 8:34.

⁸² See the discussion by Donahue and Kelber in The Passion, 8–16, 153–59. See most recently Cook, Mark's Treatment.

⁸³ See, e.g., Donahue, John, Are You the Christ? (SBLDS 10; Missoula: SBL, 1973) 104–9Google Scholar; Juel, Messiah and Temple, 144.

⁸⁴ Note the distichal form in 11:17; 14:58; 15:29 and the common usage of naos in 14:58; 15:29; 15:39.

⁸⁵ Pace Juel, Messiah and Temple, 208.

⁸⁶ It has often been argued that the story of the resurrection of the saints is a misplaced resurrection tradition. Two Harvard dissertations argue that the Gospel of Peter is a synoptic witness independent of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and that the story of the guard at the tomb and their confession that Jesus is son of God witness to a pre-Matthean stage of the tradition that develops into the story of the resurrection of the saints. See Johnson, Benjamin A., “Empty Tomb Tradition in the Gospel of Peter” (Th.D. diss., Harvard Divinity School, 1966) 88–91;Google ScholarHutton, Delvin H., “The Resurrection of the Holy Ones” (Th.D. diss., Harvard Divinity School, 1970) 105–9Google Scholar. Without entering into the discussion of the place of the Gospel of Peter in the Synoptic tradition, we may note, however, that in this Gospel the crucifixion story itself refers to theophanic signs (vv 21, 28), including the earthquake, which is usually seen as a point of connection between Matt 27:51–54; 28:2; and Gos. Pet. 35b.

⁸⁷ See Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 88–89; and Hans Cavallin, H. C., Life after Death (ConB, N.T. Ser. 7/1; Lund: Gleerup, 1974) 1.127–28.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ E.g., 1:3; 2:9; cf. also 13:20; the author of Hebrews never uses the technical vocabulary of resurrection (egeirein, anistanai).

⁸⁹ Cf. 1:2–3 and Wis 7:25–26.

⁹⁰ On this passage, see most recently Attridge, Harold W., “Heard Because of His Reverance (Heb 5:7),” JBL 98 (1979) 90–93.Google Scholar