¹ Cf., e.g., Rudolph Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (HTKNT II,2; Freiburg: Herder, 1977) 498–99 (literature, 502–3); Matera, Frank J., The Kingship of Jesus (SBLDS 66; Chico: Scholars Press, 1982) 137–40Google Scholar, plus nn. on 197–98 referring to different opinions; Chronis, Harry L., “The Torn Veil: Cultus and Christology in Mark 15:37–39,” JBL 101 (1982) 97–114.Google Scholar

² “La mort du Christ et le voile du temple selon Marc,” NRTh 106 (1974) 583–99, survey of interpretations, 583–86. See also De Jonge, M., “De berichten over het scheuren van het voorhangsel bij Jezus' dood in de synoptische evangliën,” NedThTs 21 (1966–1967) 90–114.Google Scholar

³ A hotly debated issue in commentaries. See Matera, Kingship, 197 n. 63.

⁴ See Pelletier, A., “La tradition synoptique du ‘voile déchiré’ à la lumière des réalités archéologiques,” RevScRel 46 (1958) 161–80Google Scholar, one of several articles by him. The latest survey of the material is that by Légasse, S., “Les voiles du temple de Jérusalem: Essai de parcours historique,” RB (1980) 560–89Google Scholar (with a survey of recent literature, including the article by Pelletier, 560 n. 2).

⁵ LCL, 3. 461–63.

⁶ See, e.g., Str-B 1. 1043–46 and 3. 733–36 (a contribution by Heinrich Laible). Very informative is Excursus XIII, “Das Osttor des inneren Tempelbezirkes (6, 293),” in Michel, Otto and Bauernfeind, Otto, Flavius Josephus, De Bello Judaico—Der Jüdische Krieg (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969) 183–84; see also further nn. on 179–92.Google Scholar

⁷ Ep. 120.8 ad Hedybiam (ed. Isidorus Hilberg; CSEL 55, 1912); cf. Jerome Comm. in Matt on 27:51 (SC 259): “The infinitely big lintel was broken and divided” (superliminare templi infinitae magnitudinis fractum esse atque divisum). See also section 3 below. Zahn, Th. (“Der zerrissene Templevorhang,” NKZ [1902] 729–56) used these and other data for an ingenious but entirely unacceptable reconstruction of the actual events in order to indicate the historical reliability of the accounts in the Gospels.Google Scholar

⁸ Both in his Ep. 120.8 and his Comm. in Matt 27:51 (see further 300 n. 100 in the ed. of Bonnard).

⁹ Cf. also Tacitus Historiae 5.13.

¹⁰ See his Hist. eccl. 3.8.1–9; Dem. ev. 19; Eel. proph. 3.48; Comm. in Luc. (PG 24. 605b), etc.

¹¹ This is emphasized by Daube, David, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (Jordan Lectures, 1952; London: Athlone, 1956) 23–26. He refers to 2 Kgs 2:12 from which the Rabbis concluded that in certain cases a rent garment may never be repaired. As to the rending of the veil of the temple, Daube remarks: “It is safe to find here an allusion to the rite practised as a sign of deepest sorrow. We need not decide whether the death of Jesus is likened to that of a teacher of Torah or to the destruction of the temple.” He also mentions a possibility “that those responsible for the crucifixion are the real blasphemers, and not Jesus at whose words the High Priest had rent his clothes” (24).Google Scholar

¹² See Pelletier, “La tradition synoptique,” 174.

¹³ See Kratz, Reinhard, Auferweckung als Befreiung: Eine Studie zur Passions- und Auferstehungstheologie des Matthäus (besonders Mt 27,62–28, 15) (SBS 65; Stuttgart: KBW, 1973) esp. 38–47Google Scholar; and idem, σεισμός, EWNT 3 (1983) 563–66; Donald Senior, “The Death of Jesus and the Resurrection of the Holy Ones (Mt 27:51–53),” CBQ 38 (1976) 312–29; Schenk, Wolfgang, Der Passionsbericht nach Markus (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1974) 74–82Google Scholar; Riebl, Maria, Auferstehung Jesu in der Stunde seines Todes? Zur Botschaft von Mt 27,51b-53 (SBB 8; Stuttgart: KBW, 1978).Google Scholar

¹⁴ See also Kratz, Auferweckung als Befreiung, 56: “Bei allen besprochenen Stellen, an denen Matthäus den Begriff ‘Erdbeben’ einführt (8,24; 21,10; 27,51.54) handelt es sich jeweils um die Übertragung eines Theophanie-motivs auf die Person Jesu. Dadurch wird seine göttliche Macht demonstriert und seine wahre Gottessohnschaft erwiesen.”

¹⁵ Senior, “Death of Jesus,” 320–21. Like others, he points to the parallels between Matt 27:51b–53 and the scene on the Ezekiel panel of the resurrection at the synagogue of Dura Europos; see Riesenfeld, Harald, The Resurrection in Ezekiel XXXVII and the Dura-Europos Paintings (UUÅ 11; Uppsala, 1948) 27–38.Google Scholar

¹⁶ “The expansion of 27:51b–53 by means of the Ezekiel tradition and the chorus of faith on the part of the soldiers echo the triumphant conclusion of Ps 22 and even reflect the primitive apocalyptic that seems to emerge in the concluding portion of the Psalm (22:28–32)” (Senior, “Death of Jesus,” 324).

¹⁷ Riebl, Auferstehung Jesu, 75–77.

¹⁸ Schenk, Der Passionsbericht, 80–81. According to him already in a pre-Markan “Sieben-Stunden-Apokalypse” the rending of the temple veil indicated the end of the temple: “Nicht erst die spätere Zerstörung sondern die durch den Todesschrei Jesu erfolgte Profanierung ist als das eigentliche Ende des Tempels anzusehen” (45–48, esp. 47).

¹⁹ Senior, “Death of Jesus,” 324 n. 34; cf. 328 and n. 47.

²⁰ See de Jonge, “De berichten,” 110–11.

²¹ “Das Nazaräerevangelium,” NTApoc 1. 90–100, frg. 36.

²² Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (9th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1976) 489.Google Scholar

²³ See Bauer, Walter, Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (Tübingen: Mohr, 1909) 230–33.Google Scholar

²⁴ See also de Jonge, M., “Christelijke elementen in de Vitae Prophetarum,” NedThTs 16 (1961–1962) 161–78Google Scholar, which mentions further details on pp. 172–74 and points to Vit. Hab. 12: τότε ἅπλωμα ϕησι το⋯ Δαβ⋯ρ⋯ εἰς μικρ⋯ ῥαγήσεται, κα⋯ τ⋯ ⋯πίκρανα τ⋯ν δύο στύλων ϕαιρεθήσονται (recensio anonyma; Schermann, Theodor, ed., Prophetarum Vitae Fabulosae [Leipzig; Teubner, 1907] 87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; comparison with the other recensions on pp. 21, 14f.; 33, 11F.; 58, 12f.; 102, 20f). Charles Cutler Torrey, The Lives of the Prophets (SBLMS 1; 1946) 44 translates: “Then, he said, the veil of the inner sanctuary will be torn to pieces, and the capitals of the two pillars will be taken away.” The preceding verse announces that the end of the temple will be brought about by a western nation.

²⁵ See also Bauer, Das Leben Jesu, 232; and Vielhauer, “Das Nazaräerevangelium,” 93: “eine novellistische Weiterbildung.”

²⁶ See Mara, M. G., Évangile de Pierre (SC 201; Paris: Cerf, 1973).Google Scholar

²⁷ The same (or very similar) expression is found in syr^s and syr^p on Matt 27:51, the Pal. Syriac lectionary, and a number of gospel harmonies; see Petersen, W. L., Die Diatessaron and Ephrem Syrus as Sources of Romanos the Methodist (Diss. Utrecht, 1984) 74–76. Petersen regards it as a “Diatessaronic” reading. See, however, Origen Comm. in John. 19.16 mentioned below, n. 46. It seems natural to emphasize the close connection in time between the two events. Here it should be noted that Petersen finds two further Diatessaronic readings in Matt 27:52–53 (pp. 76–91); these two together with the variant just mentioned are regarded as representing an earlier stage of the text than that found in the canonical Matthew.Google Scholar

²⁸ See, e.g., Vaganay, Léon, L'Évangile de Pierre (Paris: Gabalda, 1930) 255–59; Mara, Évangile de Pierre, 132–41; Jürgen Denker, Die theologiegeschichtliche Stellung des Petrusevangeliums: Ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte des Doketismus (Europäische Hochschulschriften XXIII, 36; Bern/Frankfurt: Lang, 1975) 73–75, 118–20. Much depends on the meaning of δύναμις and νελήϕθη in the context of the christology of this gospel.Google Scholar

²⁹ Cf. the additions to Luke 23:48 in g¹ and sy^{s c.}.

³⁰ Cf. Luke 23:47–48.

³¹ See Leloir, Louis, Ephrem de Nisibe: Commentaire de l'Évangile concordant ou Diatessaron (SC 121; Paris: Cerf, 1966) 376–78. On the date of the composition see 25.Google Scholar

³² On the early Christian material see Werner, Martin, Die Entstehung des christliche Dogmas problemgeschichtlich dargestellt (Bern/Leipzig: Haupt, 1941) 88–98Google Scholar; Pelletier, “La tradition synoptique”; De Jonge, M., “Het motief van het gescheurde voorhangsel van de tempel in een aantal vroegchristelijke geschriften,” NedThTs 21 (1966–1967) 257–76Google Scholar; Lamarche, “La mort du Christ.” See also M. de Jonge, “Two Interesting Interpretations of the Rending of the Temple Veil in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” Bijdragen. For this last article, as for the present one, use could be made of Biblica Patristica 1–3 (Paris: CNRS, 1975–1980).Google Scholar

³³ Hall, Stuart George, Melito of Sardes on the Pascha and Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979) 54–55. Some MSS have here the plural “angels” (cf. New frg. 2.11). One should compare here Daube's article mentioned in n. 11 (which only refers to Ps. Clem. Recog. 1.14.3 listed below).Google Scholar

³⁴ Hall, Melito of Sardes, 90. The Greek is based on Ps.-Chrysostom In ascensionem hom 3 (PG 52, 797). For details see Hall, Melito of Sardes, 90 n. 27 and pp. xxxx and 1. The plural “angels” is in keeping with the exegesis of Eusebius and others who refer to Josephus Bell 6.300 (see above) and, therefore, lectio facilior.

³⁵ For details see de Jonge, “Two Interesting Interpretations,” section 2.1. There also T. Levi 4.1 is mentioned, a description of God's final judgment containing a number of reminiscences of Matt 27:45, 51–53. Kratz mentions it (Auferweckung als Befreiung, 43) as a pre-Christian text in his section “Erdbeben als Theophaniemotiv.” The expression σκυλεύειν τν ᾅδην which occurs here is a typical Christian expression; see the examples mentioned in Hollander, Harm W. and de Jonge, M., The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP; Leiden: Brill, 1985)Google Scholar on this verse. To these may be added the description found in Liebaert, Jacques, Deux Homélies Anoméenes pour l'Octave de Paques (SC 146; Paris: Cerf, 1969) 1. 27 (… ⋯ταϕή κα⋯ τòν ᾅδην ⋯σκύλευσεν …).Google Scholar

³⁶ So the translation by Collins, J. J. in Charlesworth, James H., ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983) 425. This passage is quoted by Lactantius Div. Inst. 4.19.5 but without an interpretation of the rending of the veil; in the introduction to the quotation he writes, however, “and the temple veil that separated the two tents was rent in two pieces” (et velum templi quod separabat duo tabernacula scissum est in duas partes” (ed. Samuel Brandt; CSEL 19, 1890). Cf. also Sib. Or. 1. 372–79 which speaks about a great sign effected by the temple of Solomon.Google Scholar

³⁷ (ed. Hermann Tränkle; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1964). Cf. Hilary of Poitiers Comm. in Matt 33:7 (ed. Jean Doignon; 2 vols.; SC 258; Paris: Cerf, 1979): “Together with the watch of the protecting angel the honor of the veil was removed” (veli honor cum custodia angeli protegentis aufertur). In Trac. in Psalm 57:10 (ed. Anton Zingerle; CSEL 22, 1891) he speaks of a “spiritual protector”: “As if a spiritual guard broke away from there” (tamquam custodia illinc spiritali erumpente).

³⁸ (trans. Arthur Vööbus; CSCO 408=Script. Syr. 180, 1979) 210–11. Cf. Ap. Const 6.5.4.

³⁹ (ed. G. F. Diercks; CCL 4, 1972).

⁴⁰ (ed. Bernhard Rehm and Franz Paschke; GCS 51, 1965).

⁴¹ (ed. Pierre Nautin; SC 27; Paris: Cerf, 1950). On the question of authorship see Geerard, Maurice, Clavis Patrum Graecorum I (Turnhotti: Brepols, 1983). In Hippolytus C. Noetum 18.8 we find a description inspired by Matthew 27 which mentions the rending of the veil without any further explanation.Google Scholar

⁴² (ed. Wilhelm von Hartel; CSEL 3,3, 1881) 50.

⁴³ ibid., 112–13. Berthold Altaner and Alfred Stuiber (Patrologie [8th ed.; Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1978] 177) date both writings in the third century. Cyprian himself in De bono patientiae 7 (ed. C. Moseschini; CCL 3, A, 1976) uses elements from Matthew 27 in a description of the passion as perfect obedience.

⁴⁴ On this difficult passage, see de Jonge, “Two Interesting Interpretations,” section 2.

⁴⁵ (ed. Erich Klostermann, Ernst Benz, and Ursula Treu; GCS Origenes 12, 1941). Cf. Fragm. on Luke no. 250 (ed. Max Rauer; 2d ed.; GCS Origenes 9, 1959) on the darkness: “when the air there thickened, because it, too, was filled with sorrow about what had happened” (ἤ το⋯ κεῖσε έρος παχυνθέντος συμπενθο⋯ντος κα αὐτο⋯ τῷ γεγονότι. In his Comm. on John (led. Erwin Preuschen; GCS Origenes 4, 1903] 19, 16; § 103) Origen connects Matt 17:51a directly with vs 50 (εὐθέως τò καταπετάσμα το⋯ ναο⋯ ⋯σχίσθη κτλ (cf. Gos. Pet 20 and parallels). He tells us that this happened because a king left his body and accomplished with power and authority what he wanted.

⁴⁶ See Fragm. in Luke nos. 151 and 251 (ed. Rauer, Max; 2d ed.; GCS Origenes 9, 1959)Google Scholar and cf. the Commentary on the Song of Songs (ed. Baehrens, Wilhelm Adolf; GCS Origenes 8, 1925) 162–63.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ (ed. Klostermann, E. and Benz, Ernst; 2d ed.; GCS Origenes 11, 1976) 284–92.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See Ménard's, Jacques commentary on Sentences 76–77 and 125 in his L'Évangile de Philippe (Diss. Strasbourg; Paris, 1967). Cf. also de Jonge, “Het motief,” 272–76.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ For some details see de Jonge, “Het motief,” 263–64 and idem, “Two Interesting Interpretations,” n. 39.