Though contemporary New Testament scholarship has not been successful in achieving a consensus of opinion on the history of tradition behind the three passion predictions in the synoptic gospels (Mk 8:31; Mk 9:31; Mk 10:32-34; Mt 16:21-23; Mt 17:22-23; Mt 20:17-19; Lk 9:21-22; Lk 9:43-45; Lk 18:31-34), it is generally agreed among scholars that the presence of these predictions in all the three gospels is due to Mark, and that the predictions in their present context in the gospel of Mark are of special significance in Mark's theology of the cross. The purpose of this paper is a two-fold attempt: namely, to study the historicity of the predictions in the gospel of Mark and to elucidate the theological significance of these three predictions.

I

At the outset let us ask a preliminary question: how similar and how different are the three predictions? A synoptic comparison will reveal the following common features (see Appendix):

1.Jesus is accorded the title "Son of Man";

2.Jesus will be killed and will rise after three days;

3.Jesus "must suffer" (8:31) or "will be delivered" (9:31; 10:33); and

4.The Jewish authorities are the culprits responsible for the suffering and death of Jesus (except in 9:31 where the word "men" is used ambiguously).

The only marked difference that stands out is that the third prediction (10:31-34) is much longer, including details that are lacking in the other two accounts. What do these common features and minor differences reflect? Can they throw some light on the basic problem as to what extent the predictions are from the tradition of Jesus himself, from the tradition of the early church, and from the redactional pen of the evangelist?

Rudolf Bultmann, in The History of the Synoptic Tradition, maintains that the predictions are three versions of a single statement which, in their present context, are intended by the evangelist as a literary introduction to the passion narrative of Jesus. He argues that triple repetitions are common in the New Testament: for instance, Jesus is three times tempted (Mt 4:1-11; Lk 4:1-13). Jesus prays three times in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mk 14:32-38 and parallels), and Peter denies Jesus three times (Mk 14:66-67 and parallels). Indeed, to this list of three-fold repetitions we can add many other Old Testament and New Testament triplets, such as Samuel's three calls in his sleep (I Sam 3:3-9), and Paul's thrice-narrated conversion in the Acts of the Apostles (Act 8:1-22; 22:4-16; 26:9-18). It does seem that "three" is a number that has special significance in biblical writings. But Bultmann develops his theory more sceptically elsewhere, in The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ, where he argues that the passion predictions are simply some post-resurrection formulations, some "vaticinia ex eventu" or prophecies after the event. and that we cannot know how Jesus understood his destiny and his death.(2) How far is Bultmann's view tenable?

To enable us to answer this question, a critical discussion of the whole section of Mk 8:27-10:52 seems necessary. We will begin at the level of structure analysis, and then proceed to examine the key words in the three predictions.

Structurally, this section falls neatly into three divisions all of which follow the same pattern:

1.Each division begins with some precise geographical references, i.e. "the villages of Caesarea Philippi" (8:27), "went on from there and passed through Galilee" (9:30). and "And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan" (10:1)

2.Each division contains a prediction (8:31; 9:31; 10:33f) which is introduced within a consistent contextual pattern in which the announcement of passion is followed by a subsequent misunderstanding on the part of the disciples, and a teaching on discipleship by Jesus.

The first announcement occasions Peter's rebuke which is followed by Jesus' teaching: "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it" (8:34f). The second announcement has an explicit reference to the disciples' inability to understand, which is further illustrated by their discussion on greatness. At this point Jesus begins teaching again: "If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all" (9:35). After the third announcement, misunderstanding emerges in the form of the request of James and John. Here Jesus' teaching culminates in the example of the Son of Man who "also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:45).(3)

If the above analysis is correct, two structural characteristics which stand out distinctly are noteworthy: the consistency of pattern. and the consistency of progressive arrangement of material. These two characteristics obviously reflect a strong element of redactional work on the part of the evangelist, who has carefully reconstructed the way 'to Jerusalem, the destination of the suffering and death of the Son of Man. This, however, still can neither prove nor disprove Bultmann's thesis. In other words, we cannot deduce from this indication of redactional activity on the part of the evangelist any conclusion as regarding the origin of the predictions themselves. All we can say is that they are there in their present context for a special theological purpose of the evangelist.

Turning to the level of linguistic analysis of the key phrases and words, we will begin by singling out the significant word dei in 8:31. Contemporary research has rediscovered that this word as used here can only be fully understood in connection with the fulfillment of scripture, for it underlines God's divine providence in the Christ event (4). It is related to scripture as a whole, not to some particular text such as Psalm 118:22, Or the Servant Songs of Isaiah, or Daniel 7, as commentators in the past have generally suggested. Its real background is that of apocalypticism, and it is used in Mk 8:31 in a sense proper to apocalyptic literature, as indicating that certain future events are decreed by the wilt of God. Thus the whole clause hoti dei ton huion tou anthropou polla pathein is of crucial importance. In this light we can appreciate better that to persuade Jesus to shun these sufferings is to tempt Jesus to disobey the will of the Father, as Satan has done in the three temptations. This explains the real meaning of the words of Jesus when he says: "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men" (Mk 8: 33). This reference to the divine plan of God's salvation which is ultimately realized in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is a common feature of early Christian tradition. Hence the use of the expression dei in Mk 8:31 gives us good reason to believe that the first passion prediction may be traced backward to pre-Markan tradition.

Another key expression is meta treis hemeras which occurs in all three Markan predictions. G. Straecker, in his study on this section of Mark (5), points out that the preposition meta in this expression is surprising and striking because-it clearly contradicts Mk 14:58 and Mk 15:29, which state that the resurrection would be dia trion hemeron and en trisin hemerais respectively, both of which can be translated as "within three days". He further draws our attention to the fact that in both the Matthean and the Lukan versions of the passion predictions this is rendered as te trite hemera or te hemera te trite ("on the third day"), which is a formula possibly assimilated to the presentation of the passion narrative and influenced by the earliest kerygmatic formula such as that in 1 Cor 15:4. This analysis gives us good reason to conclude with Straecker that the expression as it stands in the present context probably cannot be attributed to Mark's redaction, but to the tradition of Christ's passion, and therefore is also pre-Markan.

The verb apokteinein in Mk 8:31 is equally significant. This verb is used in early traditional formulae to refer to the Jew's responsibility for the death of Jesus; and an obvious example of this use is in 1 Thes 2:15. In the gospel of Mark, the evangelist does not always use apokteinein when referring to the death of Jesus. In the passion narrative, for example, he uses stauroun (Mk15:13ff; 1,6:16). If our observation here is correct, the presence of apokteinein in this logion also encourages the view that Mk8:31 may have a pre-Markan origin.

If the first prediction may be traced back to a pre-Markan origin, what about the second and the third predictions? Earlier on, in both our synoptic comparison and structural analysis, we have demonstrated that all the predictions are structurally as well as contextually quite similar, except the third which includes more details. We have also pointed out that the contextual pattern betrays obvious traces of the evangelist's redactional activity. At this point, having established the pre-Markan origin of the first prediction. we are able to discern with a little more clarity what that redactional activity may probably have involved. It seems likely that the second and third predictions in their present context are repetitions of the original logion in Mk 8: 31. They are repeated progressively by the evangelist for theological or apologetical motivations. The minor differences may perhaps be explained as due to influences by the general passion narrative tradition of Jesus.

This leads us to a further question. If Mk 8:31 is pre-Markan, does it belong to the tradition of the earthly Jesus? Or can we agree with Bultmann that the predictions are prophecies ex eventu, and that Jesus did not anticipate his death? W. Kasper makes an allowance for a distinction between the content of the predictions and their formulation, maintaining that even if they were formulated by the early church, they are not inevitably nothing more than statements placed retrospectively on the lips of Jesus. The content could well have been from the earthly Jesus.(7) Hans Kung, on the other hand, argues that Jesus did anticipate his death and did expect his execution. He maintains that Jesus would not have been so naive as not to have had any presentiment of what finally happened to him. He argues that, while a christological interest must be allowed for anywhere in the gospels, historical scepticism must not be allowed to become uncritical. He admits that the predictions in Jewish apocalyptic style

are vaticinia ex eventu,......a literary genre which occurs frequently in the Old Testament and in ancient literature generally. These announcements are aids to proclamation, to the kerygma, and therefore are not prophecies or predictions in the strict sense. They are "kerygmatic formulas" which enable Jesus' way of the cross to be seen as the fulfilment of God's plan of salvation and not the consequence of blind fate.

But, he underlines carefully, this does not imply that Jesus never knew he might lose his life, and therefore could have never shared his anticipation with his disciples. (8)

Hans Kung's view seems covincing. Along his line of argument, we may indeed add a further question. If the predictions are post-Easter interpretations of Jesus' death and resurrection without a historical core, we may ask why they do not reflect the explicit soteriological interest of the early Church that Christ died for our sin and that He died by crucifixion. This centrally important soteriological element is always present in all the most primitive and earliest Christotogical proclamations such as that recorded in 1 Cor 15:3-4. Why in none of the three predictions is it stated that "the Son of Man must suffer and be killed for us and for our sin and then rise again"? The third prediction, while giving us an outline of the actual course of the passion, does not indicate the element of the killing by crucifixion. This surely is too important an element to omit. Indeed. C.H. Turner aptly remarks that if the predictions had been put onto the lips of Jesus by the early Church ex eventu, we should have inevitably found the word "crucify". (9)

By way of concluding this section, we may point out that there are good reasons for us to believe that the origin of the logion in question might very well be Jesus himself. In any case, the evidence in favour of this view is much more convincing than any scepticism against it.

1.R.K. Bultmann. The History of the Synoptic Tradition, (Translated by John Marsh), Oxford, Blackwell. 1963.

2.R.K. Bultmann. "The Primitive Christian Kerygma and the Historical Jesus", The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ. edited by C.E. Braaten and R.A. Harrisville, New York, Abingdon. 1964. p.23

3.This analysis depends heavily on N. Perrin and H.E. Todt. N. Perrin, "The Creative Use of the Son of Man Traditions by Mark" Union Seminary Quarterly Review 23, 1967-68, p.363; H.E. Todt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (Translated by D. M. Barton), London, S.C.M. Press, 1965, pp.145-149.

4.W.J. Bennett. Jr., "The Son of Man Must...", Novum Testamentum 17, 1975. p. 128.

5.G. Straecker, "The Passion and Resurrection Predictions in Mark's Gospel", Interpretation 22, 1968, p.429.

6.Ibid., pp.434-435.

7.W. Kasper, Jesus the Christ, London, Burns and Oates, 1976, pp. 114-115, p. 120.

8.H. Kling, On Being a Christian (Translated by E. Quinn), Garden City. New York, Doubleday. 1976, pp.320f.

9.C.H. Turner. The Gospel According to St. Mark. London, S.P.C.K. 1931. p.40.