Marc Rastoin’s scientific contributions

The ending of Mark, ‘And they (the women) said nothing to anyone for they were afraid’ (16.8) is one of the most famous cruxes in the New Testament. Could the author really have intended to complete the gospel in such a way? Building on a suggestion made by Joel Marcus and Benoit Standaert, this article defends the hypothesis that Mark is deliberately making a reference to Genesis 18.15 LXX. The same rare expression ἐφοβήθη γάρ which has the verb ‘to be afraid’ followed by the preposition γάρ, appears in a comparable context. In both cases, one or more women are presented by God or his messengers with what could appear to be an unlikely promise and a radical impossibility: the birth of a child in old age or the resurrection of a dead person. While presenting a critique of S. Hultgren's recent proposal that Dn 10 is the background of Mark, the approach here is to add an argument based on a scriptural allusion, which Mark was perfectly capable of making, in support of the now predominant view, but still with many critics, that the writer fully intended to end his gospel with 16.8b.

Building on the works of Richard Bauckham and Tal Ilan, this paper argues that the name Cleophas in Luke 24.18 (Gk Κλεοπᾶς) and Clopas (Gk Κλωπᾶς) in John 19.25 points to the same historical person, the father of a key leader of the Jerusalem church at the end of the first century. By making anew this assumption we have a possible access to Luke's redactional and theological work in the Emmaus narrative. Even if the whole passage is governed by Luke's literary skills and theological interests, it does have traditional support in the legitimation story that Jesus had indeed appeared to Cleophas. Luke's choice of that name is doubly smart: it highlights the respect the Pauline churches have for the Judean churches in the spirit of Rom 9–11 and establishes the legitimacy of his own sophisticated narrative through a known Judean Christian.

The logion of Matt 11.27 (// Luke 10.22) – ‘All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him’ – has long been considered a ‘Johannine meteorite in the Synoptic sky’ and, after fierce exegetical battles, a sort of ‘foreign body’ in both Matthean and Lukan theological projects. This paper intends to question this assumption on the basis of recent works both on the historical Jesus and on Synoptic theology. It suggests that this verse not only fits very well with the theological and literary project of the Synoptics’ authors but can also shed some light on Jesus’ theology of creation. The way Jesus articulates his own special relationship to ‘his father’ with the human relationship of God's children to ‘their father’ is coherent with the theology implied by this logion.

The parable of the prodigal son is considered by most commentators to be part of Luke's special tradition (L). Nevertheless some exegetes, struck by its strongly Lucan character, consider it Luke's creation. Another option should be considered – that Luke rewrote a parable that was originally analogous to Matthew 21.28–32. Even if this hypothesis cannot be conclusively proven, it helps heuristically to reveal more fully Luke's literary and theological genius. In line with our increasingly clear conviction that the evangelists were not mere compilers of traditions, this suggestion deserves to be discussed afresh.