Malachi151

I'm wondering, why is this one of the claims in the death of Jesus scene?

The main claim that is in all three synoptics is: "From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land."

This comes from Amos 8: "9 'In that day,' declares the Sovereign LORD, 'I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight.'"

I haven't been able to find anything in the OT that corresponds to, "At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom," however.

Does anyone where where this element comes from, why would this claim be made? Does this relate to something in the OT that I'm just not finding, does it relate to midrash, does it relate to a real historical event recorded by anyone else?

Atheos

That's an interesting question. I'm not aware of any cooberating evidence of this event. Perhaps someone will enlighten us if they know of any.

Examining the question speculatively from a secular point of view my thoughts are as follows:

Mark was written first, Matthew and Luke were little more than parrots. The Rending of the Veil was a nice touch, too nice to be omitted.

The poetic symbolism is appreciable. The temple veil would represent a barrier between God and man. The rending of the veil would represent the destruction of that barrier. The fact that the veil was rent from "top to bottom" would ostensibly be symbolic of the idea that it was God rending it (from above) rather than man (from below).

But since (1) Mark wasn't written until at least 35 years after the events in question and (2) Mark was written by someone unfamiliar with even the basic geography of the land in question as well as fundamental traditions, as evidenced by some of the mistakes he makes in those areas, and (3) The intended audience were also likely to be people located far from the time and place of the alleged events, if this were a fabrication it would likely go unchallenged. Once it was part of the tradition it would make a lot of sense for Matthew and Luke to include it in theirs.

In my humble opinion, if God wanted to make some sort of statement by this event it would have been more effective if he'd have just made it so whenever they tried to replace the temple veil it would immediately rip from top to bottom again forever. If it needed to be rent then it needs to stay rent. N'est-ce pas?

ynquirer

Hi Malachi151,

The rent of the curtain of the temple in 15:38 seems to me the very climax of the gospel of Mark. Much more important, for instance, than the darkness over the whole land, which seems more of a dramatic effect. I shall presently tell you what I know.

Hebrews introduces the significance of the curtain as follows:

The writer so explains how he understands the meaning of the “inner shrine behind the curtain”:

And now, the topic of the OP:

It is out of the question that either Mark read Hebrews or the writer of Hebrews read the gospel of Mark. I’m tempted to choose the former theory. I think that Hebrews could possibly be the oldest Christian text. The writer of Hebrews appears to be well acquainted with the Temple and the Jewish liturgy; he really looks like a priest. See, for instance, his descriptions in chapter 9. Granted, he could have acquired such knowledge by simply reading the Torah. Such descriptions strikes me as all too technical, though. Either he was a priest or he made efforts to look like a priest. His implied suggestion is that he was a direct witness, or knew of the event through a direct witness, of a rent of the curtain the day Jesus was crucified. Mark seems to take his testimony at face value and makes use of such a metaphor of the redemptory sacrifice as the crux of his passion narrative.