[1] Chronis, Harry L., ‘The Torn Veil: Cultus and Christology in Mark 15. 37–39’, JBL 101 (1982) 97–114Google Scholar, especially 97–8, 109.

[2] Chronis' statement (‘The Torn Veil’ 99 n. 8) that οὕτως ‘is probably a simple “thus” (so RSV) with resumptive or restorative rather than recapitulative force’ evades rather than resolves this question.

[3] Explicit advocates of the view that κράξας (vel. sim.) is a gloss: Weiss, B., Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901) 238 n.Google Scholar; Hoffmann, Richard Adolf, Das Marcusevangelium und seine Quellen. Ein Beitrag zur Lösung der Urmarcusfrage (Königsberg i. Pr.: Thomas und Oppermann, 1904) 627Google Scholar; Blinzler, Josef, Der Prozess Jesu (Regensburg: Pustet, 1969) 373 n. 61Google Scholar; Schenk, Wolfgang, Der Passionsbericht nach Markus. Untersuchungen zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Passionstraditionen (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1974) 22 and n. 86Google Scholar; Dormeyer, Detlev, Die Passion Jesu als Verhaltensmodell. Literarische und theologische Analyse der Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte der Markuspassion (Münster: Aschendorff, 1974) 206 n. 867Google Scholar; Stock, Klemens, ‘Das Bekenntnis des Centurio. Mk 15, 39 im Rahmen des Markusevangeliums’, ZKTh 100 (1978) 290 n. 5.Google Scholar Bruce M. Metzger reports the majority opinion of the Editorial Committee of the United Bible Societies' New Testament in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, 1971) 121Google Scholar, where the choice of ὅτι οὕτως έξέπνευσεν is accorded a ‘C’, expressing ‘a considerable degree of doubt’ (p. xxviii). This doubt is evidently based on the grounds spelled out in the commentary ad loc., that ‘witnesses that include κράξας or its equivalent are diversified and widespread, while those that lack it are chiefly of one textual type (Alexandrian).’ As Metzger goes on to indicate, however, the diversified and widespread attestation of some form of κράξειν is as much likely to be due to the earliness of the interpolation as to the originality of one of those forms. One might equally argue that the similarly well-diversified and widespread attestation of οὕτως argues for its originality but that κράξας (or the like) is in that case likely to be a secondary interpolation because it makes οὕτως awkward and superfluous, and this fact in turn led to the suppression of οὕτως in some textual traditions.

[4] Taylor, Vincent, (The Gospel according to St. Mark; New York: St. Martin's, 1966, 597)CrossRefGoogle Scholar argues that ‘so great a weight of attestation’ for some form of κράξειν ‘strongly suggests’ that the motive-clause originally included one; Cranfield, C. E. B. (The Gospel according to St. Mark; Cambridge: the University Press, 1959, 460)CrossRefGoogle Scholar speaks simply of ‘strong textual evidence’; Best, Ernest (The Temptation and the Passion. The Markan Soteriology; Cambridge: the University Press, 1965, 100 n. 1)Google Scholar concurs without comment. Others marshall more complicated arguments in support of one particular reading. Turner, C. H., ‘Western Readings in the Second Half of St Mark's Gospel’, JThS 29 (1928) 12–13Google Scholar wonders whether the οὕτως Ẻκραξεν presupposed by one witness to the Old Latin version (k with sic exciamavit) is not (original 1) because κράζειν (has ‘very strong support’, 2) because it was ‘in all probability’ from Mark 15. 39 that Matthew drew κράξας for 27. 50, and 3) because ‘it is exactly the sort of indication of violent emotion that Alexandrian critics would have liked to modify’. Sahlin, Harald, ‘Zum Verständnis der christologischen Anschauung des Markusevangeliums’, StTh 31 (1977) 5Google Scholar with n. 10, argues that κράξας Èξέπνευσεν weakly attested, represents the original text and that the readings οὕτως κράξας Ẻξέπνευσεν and οὕτως Èξέπνευσεν arose from the attempt on the part of some reader to ‘improve’ the text by superscribing οὕτως over κράξας, an improvement which then either crept into the text or (so it seems Sahlin means to argue) replaced the word it was intended to enhance. Lohmeyer, Ernst (Das Evangelium des Markus; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967; 346 n. 4)CrossRefGoogle Scholar believes that the nonsensical text offered by D (οὕτως αύτòν κράξαντα καί έξέπνευσεν without ὅτι and without εὄπεν) might explain all the variants: καύ Ẻξέπνευσεν is a later addition made to effect conformity with other readings; D therefore represents an original οὕτως αύτòν κράξαντα or ὅτι οὕτως ἔκραξεν, which underlies k. This argument based on the text of D is a simplified version of a more convoluted scenario offered by Couchoud, Paul-Louis, ‘Notes de critique verbale sur St. Marc et St. Matthieu’, JTHS 34 (1933) 133–4.Google ScholarGlaue, Paul, ‘Einige Stellen, die die Bedeutung des Codex D charakterisieren’, NovT 2 (1958) 312–13Google Scholar, similarly bases an argument upon the text of D. In his view D's έξέπνευσεν represents an error for what was originally Ẻξένευσεν – ‘“wandte er sich ab” (nämlich in dem Gedanken)’ – and D's now faulty text, misunderstood, was altered to ὅξέ νευσεν.

[5] Wellhausen, J., Das Evangelium Marci übersetzt und erklärt (Berlin: Reimer, 1903) 141.Google Scholar Wellhausen softened his tone in the second edition of his commentary (1909), replacing ‘skurriler Unsinn’ with ‘alber’.

[6] This has allowed some to read what can only be called the most fantastic meanings into the cry. The interpretation in favour of which Sahlin argues the priority of κράξας in 15. 39 is that Jesus' cry is a primal scream, the cry, in this instance, of a newborn baby, the heavenly Son of Man given birth through Jesus' death on the Cross (‘Zum Verständnis der christologischen Anschauung des Markusevangeliums’ 5–7). Danker, Frederick W., ‘The Demonic Secret in Mark: A Reexamination of the Cry of Dereliction (15³⁴)’, ZNW 61 (1970) 48–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar, basing his argument on the fact that φωνὴ μεγάλη is elsewhere in Mark used only of demons at their expulsion (1. 26; 5. 7; cp. 9. 26), holds that at his crucifixion Jesus was possessed by a demon (hence the content of the cry, 15. 34) and that the cry of 15. 37 represents a self-exorcism.

[7] Patristic and early modern references: August, HeinrichMeyer, Wilhelm, Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Gospels of Mark and Luke (trans. Wallis, R.; rev, and ed. Dickson, W.; New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884) 191–2Google Scholar; Knabenbauer, Joseph, Commentarius in quatuor s. evangelia II. Evangelium secundum S. Marcum (Paris: Lethielleux, 1907) 425, 426Google Scholar; Lagrange, M.-J., Evangile selon Saint Marc (Paris: Gabalda, 1929) 436, 437.Google Scholar These views still have their exponents (though often more cautious ones with more nuanced positions): Iannotta, Antonius M., ‘Quum lesus Christus “emissa voce magna exspiravit” sese vere Deum esse ostendit’, Divus Thomas 36 (1933) 265–73Google Scholar; Schniewind, Julius, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Göttmgen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960) 199Google Scholar; Taylor, , The Gospel according to St. Mark 596Google Scholar (‘Both Pilate and the centurion marvelled that Jesus died so soon …’, though Mark 15. 44–5 does not explicitly make the centurion share Pilate's amazement); Lamarche, Paul, ‘La mort du Christ et le voile du temple’, NRTh 96 (1974) 590 n. 20Google Scholar; Stock, ‘Das Bekenntnis des Centurio’ 293, 294.

[8] Hoffmann, , Das Marcusevangelium und seine Quellen 627–8Google Scholar; and Klostermann, Erich, Das Markusevangelium (Tübingen: Mohr, 1950) 167Google Scholar, both of whom follow Origen in referring to the cry of Mark 15. 34, though without claiming its identity with that of v. 37; Swete, Henry Barclay, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London: MacMillan, 1913) 387, 389Google Scholar; Turner, ‘Western Readings’ 13; Bligh, John, ‘Christ's Death Cry’, Hey J 1 (1960) 142–6Google Scholar; Johnson, Sherman E., A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1960) 257–8Google Scholar; Best, The Temptation and the Passion 100–1; Haenchen, Ernst, Der Weg Jesu. Eine Erklärung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1966) 536–7Google Scholar; Blinzler, , Der Prozess Jesu 373–4Google Scholar; Schenke, Ludger, Der gekreuzigte Christus. Versuch einer literarkritischen und traditions-geschichrlichen Bestimmung der vormarkinischen Passionsgeschichte (Stuttgart: KBW, 1974) 85–6, 96–8Google Scholar, 102–3, 108 (denying validity to the thesis that the cry of v. 34 is a secondary interpretation of that of v. 37, though upholding their identity for the Markan narrative); Tannehill, Robert C., ‘The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology’, Semeia 16 (1979) 88.Google Scholar Critics of the view that Mark intends a single cry in vv. 34 and 37: Martinez, Ernesto R., The Gospel Accounts of the Death of Jesus (Roma: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1970) 31–9Google Scholar; Schneider, Gerhard, Die Passion Jesu nach den drei älteren Evangelien (München: Kösel, 1973) 123–8Google Scholar; Stock, ‘Das Bekenntnis des Centurio’ 290–1 and n. 6; Gnilka, Joachim, Das Evangelium nach Markus 2 (Zürich, Einsiedeln, Köln: Benziger Verlag – Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979) 312 and n. 15.Google Scholar

[9] Schreiber, Johannes, ‘Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums’, ZThK 58 (1961) 154–83Google Scholar, especially 156–9, 163–6; Theologie des Vertrauens. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung des Markusevangeliums (Hamburg: Furche, 1967) 33–40Google Scholar, 44–7 (with help from the free-will death theory), 66–82; Bartsch, Hans-Werner, ‘Historische Erwägungen zur Leidensgeschichte’, EvTh 22 (1962) 452–3Google Scholar; ‘Die Bedeutung des Sterbens Jesu nach den Synoptikern’, ThZ 20 (1964) 94–5Google Scholar; ‘Der ursprüngliche Schluss der Leidensgeschichte. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien zum Markusschluss’, L'Evangile selon Marc (Gembloux: Duculot, [c. 1974’) 418Google Scholar; Popkes, Wiard, Christus Traditus. Eine Untersuchung zum Begriff der Dahingabe im Neuen Testament (Zürich/Stuttgart: Zwingli, 1967) 231 n. 656Google Scholar; Strobel, August, Kerygma und Apokalyptik. Ein religionsgeschichtlicher und theologischer Beitrag zur Christusfrage (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967) 139–45Google Scholar; Trilling, Wolfgang, Christusverkündigung in den synoptischen Evangelien (München: Kösel, 1969) 199, 201–2Google Scholar; Martinez, , The Gospel Accounts of the Death of Jesus 31–2, 59Google Scholar; Scroggs, Robin, ‘Reflections on the Question: Was There a Pre-Markan Passion Narrative?’ SBLASP (1971) 2 557–8, 559–61Google Scholar; Weeden, Theodore J., Mark – Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 145–7, 165–6Google Scholar; ‘The Cross as Power in Weakness (Mark 15. 20b-41)’, The Passion in Mark. Studies on Mark 14–16 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 120, 130–4Google Scholar (Weeden is in agreement with Schreiber as to the apocalyptic connections of the cry – Jesus is exalted, triumphing over inimical forces – but disagrees with him that the centurion's confession is based on the recognition of a vindicated ‘θεος dνήρ’, viewing it as paradoxically occasioned by his suffering); Betz, O., ‘φωνή’, TDNT 9 (1974) 282–3Google Scholar (the OT), 286 (Jewish apocalyptic), 293–4 (Mark); Schenk, , Der Passionsbericht nach Markus 43–5Google Scholar, 48, 55; Schützeichel, Heribert, ‘Der Todesschrei Jesu. Bemerkungen zu einer Theologie des Kreuzes’, TThZ 83 (1974) 1–16Google Scholar; Gnilka, , Das Evangelium nach Markus 2 312–13Google Scholar, 323, 324.

[10] Chronis' otherwise enlightening exposition fails precisely in this, He underscores the existence of a literary connection between vv. 38 and 39, takes another scholar to task for his interpretation's failure to make sense of the narrative at the ‘story-level’, and insists that the centurion's confession must proceed ‘from genuine perception’ (‘The Torn Veil’ 108–9), yet his own view – that the centurion, though he did not see the event at the Temple, confesses on the basis of a realization that Jesus' death is a theophany because Mark intends the torn curtain as a ‘cipher’ for God's revelation of his presence in the ‘“rending” of the flesh of the true Temple, Jesus (pp. 109–14) – still reduces the soldier to a puppet of Mark±s Christology.

[11] Weiss, Johannes, ‘Das Markus-Evangelium’, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917) 218Google Scholar; Finegan, Jack, Die Überlieferung der Leidens- und Auferstehungsgeschichte Jesu (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1934) 76Google Scholar; Hirsch, Emanuel, Frühgeschichte des Evangeliums I. Das Werden des Markusevangeliums (Tübingen: Mohr, 1941) 172Google Scholar; Bultmann, Rudolf, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958) 295–6Google Scholar with n. 1; Bartsch, ‘Histonsche Erwägungen zur Leidensgeschichte’ 451 and n. 6; Schmid, Josef, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Regensburg Pustet, 1963) 303Google Scholar; Schulz, Siegfried, Die Stunde der Botschaft. Einführung in die Theologie der vier Evangelisten (Hamburg: Furche–Zürich: Zwingli, 1970) 130Google Scholar; Pobee, John, ‘The Cry of the Centurion – A Cry of Defeat’, The Trial of Jesus (Naperville, Illinois: Allenson, 1970) 100Google Scholar; Scroggs, ‘Was There a Pre-Markan Passion Narrative?’ 560; Schenke, , Der gekreuzigte Christus 103Google Scholar (without accepting it); Gnilka, , Das Evangelium nach Markus 2 313.Google Scholar

[12] Note Lange, Joachim, ‘Zur Ausgestaltung der Szene vom Sterben Jesu in den synoptischen Evangelien’, Biblische Randbemerkungen. Schülerfestschrift für Rudolf Schnackenburg zum 60. Geburtstag (Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1974) 40–9.Google Scholar

[13] Michaels, J. Ramsay, ‘The Centurion's Confession and the Spear Thrust’, CBQ 29 (1967) 108Google Scholar; Pesch, Rudolf, Das Markusevangelium 2 (Freiburg-Basel-Wien: Herder, 1977) 499–500Google Scholar; Stock, ‘Das Bekenntnis des Centurio’ 290.

[14] Weiss, B., Die Evangelien den Markus und Lukas 238Google Scholar; Schreiber, ‘Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums’ 166 and n. 2; Theologie des Vertrauens 44–6; Vanhoye, Albert, ’Structure et théologie des récits de la Passion dans les évangiles synoptiques’, NRTh 89 (1967) 152Google Scholar; Weeden, , Mark – Traditions in Conflict 166–7Google Scholar and n. 8; ‘The Cross as Power in Weakness’ 120; Donahue, John R., Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1973) 93–4, 204Google Scholar; Schenke, , Der gekreuzigte Christus 103Google Scholar; Schenk, , Der Passionsbericht nach Markus 54, 58Google Scholar; Stock, ‘Das Bekenntnis des Centurio’ 290 with nn. 3 and 4, 300–1; Gnilka, , Das Evangelium nach Markus 2 313Google Scholar; Dormeyer, Detlev, Der Sinn des Leidens Jesu. Historisch-kritische und text-pragmarische Analysen zur Markuspassion (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1979) 87 n. 65.Google Scholar

[15] In accordance with his own interpretation Chronis (‘The Torn Veil’ 109) urges that ‘eschatological insight’ is meant.

[16] George Nickelsburg, W. E., ‘The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narrative’, HTR 73 (1980) 153–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially Table 1 (158–9) and 160–6, 174–6.

[17] So Weeden, , Mark – Traditions in Conflict, especially conveniently in pp. 159–68Google Scholar; ‘The Cross as Power in Weakness’ 115–34; Schenk, , Der Passionsbericht nach Markus 53.Google Scholar

[18] Schreiber, ‘Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums’ 163; Vielhauer, Phiipp, ‘Erwägungen zur Christologie des Markusevangeliums’, Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (München: Kaiser, 1965) 199–214Google Scholar; Best, , The Temptation and the Passion 99–100, 167–73Google Scholar; Donahue, , Are You the Christ? 84–93, 178–80Google Scholar; ‘Temple, Trial, and Royal Christology (Mark 14:53–65)’, The Passion in Mark 71–9; Perrin, Norman, Christology and a Modern Pilgrimage. A Discussion with Norman Perrin (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1974) 32–4Google Scholar; ‘The Christology of Mark’, L'Évangile selon Marc 479–80; ‘The High Priest's Question and Jesus' Answer (Mark 14:61–62)’, The Passion in Mark 85–9; Kee, Howard Clark, Community of the New Age. Studies in Mark's Gospel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977) 121–4Google Scholar; Tannehill, ‘The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology’ 74–5.

[19] Bultmann, , Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition 295–6Google Scholar: ‘Aber mit dem οὕτως ist doch wohl das τέρας V. 33 (und V. 38?) gemeint …’

[20] Explicitly denied: e.g. Bligh, ‘Christ's Death Cry’ 143; Boman, Thorleif, ‘Des letzte Wort Jesu’, StTh 17 (1963) 110Google Scholar; Schenke, , Der gekreuzigte Christus 103Google Scholar (less forcefully than the rest). Proposed: Vielhauer, ‘Erwägungen zur Christologie des Markusevangeliums’ 208 (together with the great cry and the darkness); Schulz, , Die Stunde der Botschaft 138Google Scholar (with the darkness); Dormeyer, , Die Passion Jesu als Verhaltensmodell 206Google Scholar (along with everything else). Swete, (The Gospel according to St. Mark 389)Google Scholar already proposed that the report of what happened at the Temple might have been a factor (along with the cry, the darkness, and Matthew's earthquake) in swaying the centurion. With the help of major redactional surgery Schenk, (Der Passionsbericht nach Markus 22, 48)Google Scholar goes so far as to interpret Ẻξ Ẻναντίας αύτοῡ to mean ‘opposite the Temple’, but though this suggestion is grammatically possible, both the narrative (since 15. 16–27 encourages the conclusion that the centurion is part of the cohort, and 15. 44–45 suggestsaguard at the cross) and the Christological sequence just discussed, which demands the centurion's focus upon Jesus, tell against it.

[21] Even Chronis (“The Torn Veil” 99, 107) still admits this, though his goal is to make sense of the narrative.

[22] Many do little more than draw attention to it: Weiss, B., Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas 238Google Scholar; Lightfoot, R. H., The Gospel Message of St. Mark (Oxford: Clarendon, 1950) 56Google Scholar (explaining the parallel as both describing the ‘at-one-ment between God and man’); Johnson, , A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark 257Google Scholar; Pobee, ‘The Cry of the Centurion - A Cry of Defeat’ 96–7; Linnemann, Eta, Studien zur Passionsgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 161–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Lamarche, ‘La mort du Christ et le voile du temple’ 585, points up an interpretation of the parallel that draws its inspiration from Heb. Best, , The Temptation and the Passion 99 n. 2Google Scholar, regards any connection between the two rendings as ‘fanciful’.

[23] Advocates of the outer curtain: Dalman, Gustaf, The Words of Jesus (trans. Kay, D.; Edinburg: T. & T. Clark, 1902) 56Google Scholar; Lindeskog, Gösta, ‘The Veil of the Temple’, ConNT 11 (1947) 132–7Google Scholar; Klostermann, , Das Markusevangelium 167Google Scholar; Vincent, L. Hughes, Jérusalem de l'Ancien Testament. Recherches d'archéologie et d'histoire 2 (Paris: Gabalda, 1956) 468Google Scholar; Pelletier, André, ‘Le “voile” du Temple de Jérusalem est-il devenu la “portière” du temple d'Olympie”?’ Syria 32 (1955) 289–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially pp. 296–303; ‘La tradition synoptique du “voile déchiré”, RechScRel 46 (1958) 161–80Google Scholar, especially pp. 165–72; ‘Le grand rideau du vestibule du Temple de Jérusalem’, Syria 35 (1958) 218–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar (the three articles by Pelletier are particularly full and informative); Lohmeyer, , Das Evangelium des Markus 347Google Scholar; Bartsch, ‘Der ursprüngliche Schluss der Leidensgeschichte’ 419 and n. 30; Lane, William L., The Gospel according to Mark (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1974) 574–5Google Scholar; Juel, Donald, Messiah and Temple. The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1977) 140–2Google Scholar; Ernst, , Das Evangelium nach Markus 473.Google Scholar Advocates of the inner curtain: Strack, H. and Bilerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch 1 (München Beck, 1969 [1926]) 1043–6Google Scholar, whose reasoning (that the inner curtain had high cultic significance, whereas the outer had none) many follow; Bartlet, J. Vernon, St. Mark (New York: Frowde, 1922) 428–9Google Scholar; Lightfoot, , The Gospel Message of St. Mark 56Google Scholar; Cranfield, , The Gospel according to Saint Mark 459–60Google Scholar; Yates, J. E., The Spirit and the Kingdom (London: S.P.C.K., 1963) 232–7Google Scholar; Taylor, , The Gospel according to St. Mark 596Google Scholar (with other references); Michaels, ‘The Centurion's Confession and the Spear Thrust’ 108; Schreiber, , Theologie des Vertrauens 37Google Scholar with n. 64; Linnemann, , Studien zur Passionsgeschichte 158–9Google Scholar; Schenke, , Der gekreuzigte Christus 100Google Scholar; Schenk, , Der Passionsbericht nach Markus 45–6Google Scholar; Gnilka, , Das Evangelium nach Markus 2 323–4Google Scholar; Chronis ‘The Torn Veil’ 110 n. 67.

[24] So Vielhauer, ‘Erwägungen zur Christologie des Markusevangeliums’ 212–14; Perrin, ‘The High Priest's Question and Jesus' Answer’ 91–4.

[25] Stock, ‘Das Bekenntnis des Centurio’ 299–300; Scroggs, ‘Was There a Pre-Markan Passion Narrative?’ 562 n. 133; Lührmann, Dieter, ‘Markus 14. 55–64. Christologie und Zerstörung des Tempels im Markusevangelium’, NTS 27 (1981) 459, 466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[26] On this bias in Mark, especially in conjunction with the anti-Temple theme, see, for example, Kiddie, M., ‘The Death of Jesus and the Admission of the Gentiles in St Mark’, JThS 35 (1934) 45–50Google Scholar; Robinson, James M., The Problem of History in Mark (Naperville, Illinois: Allenson, 1957) 63–7Google Scholar; Donahue, , Are You the Christ? 45, 113–27Google Scholar; Perrin, , Christology and a Modern Pilgrimage 29Google Scholar; Kee, , Community of the New Age 33–4, 97–8Google Scholar, 113–16, 146–51; Juel, , Messiah and Temple passim, but especially pp. 127–39;Google ScholarBaarlink, Heinrich, ‘Zur Frage nach dem Antijudaismus im Markusevangelium’, ZNW 70 (1979) 166–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[27] For example, Lagrange, , Evangile selon Saint Marc 436Google Scholar; Taylor, , The Gospel according to St. Mark 596Google Scholar; Schenk, , Der Passionsbericht nach Markus 45.Google Scholar

[28] In favour of this view: Schweizer, , ‘έκπνέω’, TDNT 6 (1968) 452–3Google Scholar; Farrer, Austin, A Study in St Mark (New York: Oxford, 1952) 180Google Scholar; St Matthew and St Mark (Westminster: Dacre, 1954) 155Google Scholar; Schenk, , Der Passionsbericht nach Markus 45Google Scholar; Schneider, , Die Passion Jesu nach den drei älteren Evangelien 127Google Scholar, alluding to passages like Gen 2. 7; 6. 3; Job 12. 10; 34. 14–15; Ps 104. 29–30; Isa 42. 1, 5; Ezek 37. 5–14, in all of which God gives or takes away breath/Spirit; Pesch, , Das Markusevangelium II 497Google Scholar; Sahlin, ‘Zum Verständnis der christologischen Anschauung des Markusevangeliums’ 8. Ernst, , Das Evangelium nach Markus 472Google Scholar, is noncommittat Gnilka, , Das Evangelium nach Markus 2 323Google Scholar, is sceptical.

[29] See BDF §§442 458, 471; Taylor, , The Gospel according to St. Mark 49Google Scholar, for other examples.

[30] The comparison is already made by Cyril of Alexandria and others, who see the tearing of the curtain as the rending of the Temple's garment in mourning at the blasphemy of Jesus' execution or in lamentation at its own imminent demise; references are provided by Pelletier, ‘La tradition synoptique du “voile déchiré”’ 164–6; Lamarche, ‘La mort du Christ et le voile du temple’ 583–4 and n. 3. Some modern commentators support this view as the intended meaning of the tearing of the personified Temple's curtain: Wellhausen, , Das Evangelium Marci (1903) 132Google Scholar; Klostermann, , Das Markusevangelium 167Google Scholar; Daube, David, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: Athlone, 1956) 23–6Google Scholar; Dormeyer, , Der Sinn des Leidens Jesu 81.Google Scholar

[31] Nickelsburg, ‘The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narrative’ 179, is wrong, then, to maintain that Mark ‘explicitly dissociates’ Jesus' Vindication (the tearing of the curtain) from his Acclamation (the centurion's confession); the latter is based on the former. This is, in fact, typical of the genre, and Mark is no exception.

[32] Some commentators come close to suggesting this connection. Farrer, for example, who properly understands Ẻξέπνευσεν as a paronomasia, goes so far as to say that the tearing of the curtain is a ‘token’ of the ‘flight of the spirit’ from Jesus' body (St Matthew and St Mark 155). Earlier, , in A Study in St Mark (p. 180)Google Scholar, he adopts the view, already taken by Tertullian and others (see Lamarche, ‘La mort du Christ et le voile du temple’ 584 and n. 7) and shared by Grundmann, , Das Evangelium nach Markus 316Google Scholar; Schreiber, , Theologie des Vertrauens 37Google Scholar; Pobee, ‘The Cry of the Centurion – A Cry of Defeat’ 97 and n. 26; Schenke, , Der gekreuzigte Christus 100Google Scholar; and Lange, ‘Zur Ausgestaltung der Szene vom Sterben Jesu’ 50, that the tearing of the curtain is the visible sign of the Spirit of God deserting the Temple. Chronis (‘The Torn Veil’ 109 with n. 64 and 113 n. 81) offers further grounds for believing v. 38 to indicate God as the agent and believes it ‘conceivable’ that the tearing of the curtain ‘symbolizes the fatal consequence of Jesus' surrender of (and the departure of) the Holy Spirit’.

[33] It is interesting, though perhaps only coincidental, that Ep. Arist. 86 should record the following as remarkable above all else about the outer curtain of the Herodian Temple: ‘Its fabric owing to the draught of wind (διά τὴν τοῡ πνεύματος ύποδρομήν) was in perpetual motion, and as this motion was communicated from the bottom and the curtain bulged out to its highest extent, it afforded a pleasant spectacle from which a man could scarcely tear himself away’ (trans. Andrews, Herbert T., APOT 2 103).Google Scholar It is understandable, then, how the Roman centurion might have been equally fascinated by the rippling, even from a distance, and that the prodigious tear would be something that would catch his eye.

[34] Note particularly Betz, O., ‘φωνή’, TDNT 9 (1974) 293–4Google Scholar; Bartsch, ‘Historische Erwägungen zur Leidensgeschichte’ 452; ‘Die Bedeutung des Sterbens Jesu nach den Synoptikern’ 95; ‘Der ursprüngliche Schluss der Leidensgeschichte’ 418; Schreiber, , Theologie des Vertrauens 34–40Google Scholar; Scroggs, ‘Was There a Pre-Markan Passion Narrative?’ 557–8 and n. 124; Schenk, , Der Passionsbericht nach Markus 43–5Google Scholar; Schützeichel, ‘Der Todesschrei Jesu’ 3–4.

[35] For a recent treatment of Mark's debt to the OT in the Passion narrative see Kee, H. C., ‘Scripture Quotations and Allusions in Mark 11–16’, SBLASP (1971) 475–502.Google Scholar

[36] References to this tradition, though without recognition of its implications for Mark, are made by Schreiber, , Theologie des Vertrauens 34, 36Google Scholar; Schenk, , Der Passionsbericht nach Markus 44Google Scholar; Schützeichel, ‘Der Todesschrei Jesu’ 4.

[37] See, for example, Kleinknecht, , Baumgärtel, , Schweizer, , ‘πνενμα’, TDNT 6 (1968) 357–8Google Scholar (generally), 365–6 (the OT), 397 and 403 (Mark); Schweizer, Eduard, ‘The Spirit of Power. The Uniformity and Diversity of the Concept of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament’, Int 6 (1952) 259–78Google Scholar; Robinson, , The Problem of History in Mark 28–9.Google Scholar

[38] See, for instance, Laible, Heinrich, ‘Der zerrissene Tempelvorhang und die eingestürzte Oberschwelle des Tempeleingangs vom Talmud bezeugt’, NKZ 35 (1924) 287–314Google Scholar; Montefiore, H. W., ‘Josephus and the New Testament’, NovT 4 (1960) 148–54.Google Scholar