Trial of Jesus in Mark

[JSNT263 (2004) 283-300] ISSN0142-064X

Engagement, Disengagement and Obstruction: Jesus' Defense Strategies in Mark's Trial and Execution Scenes (14.53-64; 15.1-39) William Sanger Campbell Columbia Theological Seminary 701 Columbia Drive, Decatur, GA 30031 campbellb@ctsnet. edu

Abstract This culturally cued literary study of Mark's trial and execution scenes (14.53-64; 15.1-39) argues that Jesus does not passively acquiesce in the injustice that is perpetrated against him, as is the usual view of commentators on these narratives. Instead, Jesus alternately engages in and resists the judicial proceedings in which he becomes embroiled. Initially, he welcomes and participates in the proceedings before the Jewish council and, subsequently, before Pilate. He disengages, however, when the prosecution dissolves into a series of false allegations established by perjured testimony. Once the verdict is rendered, Jesus actively obstructs the discharge of the sentence by refusing to carry his cross as required and balking at being paraded to Golgotha.

A view common among interpreters of Mark's Gospel is that the narrative portrays Jesus as refusing to defend himself at trial. Commentators argue that Mark's Jesus willingly and obediently endures his arrest, trials, persecutions and crucifixion, advancing a variety of reasons for this representation, including christological (e.g. God's suffering servant), soteriological (e.g. atonement for sin), eschatological (e.g. catalyst for the kingdom's arrival) and political (e.g. subversion of the current governing authority). Culturally cued literary analysis provides a different yet helpful lens through which to read Mark's trial and execution scenes (14.53-64; 15.139).l Adopting this reading strategy, I argue that in Mark's narrative Jesus 1. See Katherine Doob Sakenfeld, 'Feminist Biblical Interpretation', TTod 46 (1989), pp. 154-68, and 'In the Wilderness, Awaiting the Land: The Daughters of © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SEI 7NX and 15 East 26th Street, Suite 1703, New York, NY 10010, USA.

284

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26.3 (2004)

neither acquiesces in nor passively accepts the injustice perpetrated against him. Instead, he employs several defense strategies during the judicial proceedings in which he becomes embroiled, namely, engagement, disengagement and obstruction. Jesus welcomes the opportunity to participate in the criminal prosecution before the Jewish council when confronted with truthful allegations. Subsequently, he cautiously engages in the Roman trial without assenting to the court's indictment. At both hearings, however, he disengages when the process dissolves into judicial miscarriage involving counterfeit charges established by perjured testimony. Once the verdict is rendered, Jesus actively obstructs the discharge of the sentence imposed by refusing to carry the cross or to parade voluntarily to the execution site. Strategies of Engagement and Disengagement Litigation before the Jewish Council As characterized in Mk 14.55, the Jewish council's single objective is to uncover evidence adequate to convict Jesus of a crime warranting the death penalty. Convening the council at night and on Passover (14.12), both apparently in violation of rabbinic norms, reinforces the willingness on the part ofthe Jewish authorities to suspend accepted rules ofjurisprudence in order to achieve the desired outcome. Raymond E. Brown, although justifiably skeptical about the applicability of late second-century rabbinic regulations to first-century Jewish legal procedures, argues nonetheless that scheduling serious criminal cases at night was highly irregular in the New Testament period, as other trials recorded in the New Testament illustrate (Peter and John in Acts 4.3-5; Paul in Acts 22.30). Indeed, in Luke's Gospel Jesus is not brought before the Jewish council until the

Zelophehad and Feminist Interpretation', PSB 9 (1988), pp. 179-96. Belonging to the category of reader-oriented literary criticism, culturally cued analysis nonetheless takes as necessary considerations in the interpretive task the historical, cultural, social, religious and linguistic contexts in which texts emerged. Sakenfeld's use of culturally cued methodology attends specifically to feminist concerns. As she acknowledges, however, this approach need not be restricted to matters of gender. The present article focuses on political issues (i.e. structures of power and authority and their relationships to various groups in society) and, therefore, analyzes Mark's dramafromthe experience of contemporary political culture, informed, however, by political institutions and dynamics in the biblical culture—the 'ancient conversation partners of the world of the text' ('Feminist Biblical Interpretation', p. 167). The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

CAMPBELL Engagement, Disengagement and Obstruction

285

morning following his arrest (22.66-71).2 Mark's account reveals the duplicity of the Jewish authorities and, as Brown points out, the use of κατά ('against') to frame the Jewish trial in 14.55-64 discloses the depth of their hostility toward Jesus and their commitment to his conviction of a capital offense: The chief priests and the whole Sanhédrin begin in 14.55 by seeking testimony against Jesus [κατά του ' Ιησού] in order to put him to death; the midway point in 14.60 is when the high priest calls attention to what these men have testified against Jesus [σου καταμαρτυρουσιυ]; the conclusion in 14.64 will come after there is no more need of testimony and they all will judge against Jesus [κατέκριναν αυτόν] as punishable by death.3

In other words, Mark depicts Jesus' trial as a political affair in which prosecutorial (mis)conduct is at best a secondary concern.4 Nevertheless, Jesus does not dismiss the proceedings out of hand. On the contrary, in 2. Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (2 vols.; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1994), I, pp. 360-61, 421, 434. As for holding the trial on Passover, Brown acknowledges that the regulatory evidence is unclear, but emphasizes that defending the trial date's compliance with Jewish law misses the point, viz., Mark 'deliberately portray[s] the high priest as insensitive to legal niceties, since he has already determined on the death of Jesus' (p. 362). See Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 89394, who argues that the regulatory irregularities are in accordance with recognized exceptions for emergency cases such as Jesus'; Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988), p. 372; Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark (trans. Donald H. Madvig; Atlanta: John Knox, 1970), p. 323. In contrast, Josef Blinzler (The Trial of Jesus [Westminster, MD: Newman, 1959], p. 290) maintains that the litigation before the council conformed in every respect with Jewish laws at the time. 3. Death of the Messiah, I, p. 463 (emphases original). Ironically, Mark's death scene later in the passion narrative contains a wordplay on κατά that emphasizes the imminent replacement of old structures of power, i.e. authority more interested in its own perpetuation than in serving the needs of its constituents. For details of this paro nomasia, with a different conclusion as to its significance, see Mary Ann Tolbert, Sowing the Word: Mark's World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), p. 282. 4. Myers (Binding the Strong Man, pp. 375-76) has argued similarly. Whether the Jewish trial narrative has historical roots is still an unsettled question. For a sample of the discussion surrounding this issue, see Binding the Strong Man, pp. 372-74; Brown, Death of the Messiah, I, pp. 548-60; Hugh Anderson, The Gospel of Mark (London: Oliphants, 1976), pp. 326-27. © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

286


Mark's arrest narrative Jesus appears generally to accept the Jewish political establishment, acknowledging its authority to apprehend criminals (14.48) and conceding that he himself had readily met with its members during his career ( 14.49).5 His acquiescence in the prevailing governmental system extends to the Roman administration as well, as the pronouncement story concerning Caesar's taxation confirms (12.13-17). Jesus' complaints are more about how authority is exercised than about who has authority. The parable of the tenants immediately preceding the discourse on taxes (12.1-11) offers evidence that, in the view of the Markan Jesus, whoever rules does so as God's lessee and, for that reason, is responsible for gov erning with justice. Jesus disengages from the hearing before the council, however, when false and conflicting testimony is brought against him (14.56-61). Silence was an uncommon but legitimate defense tactic in antiquity.6 In Philostratus, Vit. Apol 8.2, for example, Apollonius refers to silence as the 'fourth excellence in a court of law' (ευ δικαστηρίω τετάρτην άρετην), pointing to Socrates as the model for this strategy. Indeed, the court's restriction of Apollonius's testimony to brief rebuttals in response to the judge's questions rather than the oration that the defendant had prepared for the occasion is instrumental in his acquittal (8.3-7). Likewise, Josephus, War 6.5.3 §§300-305 reports that Jesus son of Ananias was acquitted after refusing to offer a defense before Jewish and Roman authorities for his anti-Jerusalem rhetoric. That these two defendants are found not guilty of the charges against them attests that, on occasion, silence could be an effective maneuver.7 Availing himself of an established practice, then, Jesus refuses to rebut the fallacious charges, including the one spurious allegation reported in detail, to wit, that he had pledged to destroy the present temple and to replace it with another (14.58). Mark's readers recognize that the witnesses in the trial scene are twisting Jesus' words. In the apocalyptic discourse of Mk 13, Jesus does prophesy that the temple 5. See also Mt. 26.55; Lk. 22.52-53. 6. Citing Moulton and Milligan, Brown notes that the middle aorist form of αποκρ ί υομα ι used here and in 15.4, rare in the New Testament, reflects legal convention, supporting the judicial character of the proceedings in Mark's narrative (Death of the Messiah, I, pp. 463-64; see MM, p. 64). 7. Ernst Bammel (The Trial before Pilate', in E. Bammel and C.F.D. Moule [eds.], Jesus and the Politics of his Day [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984], p. 422 n. 41) recognizes that 'silence infrontof the court is not unique'. See also Brown, Death of the Messiah, I, pp. 463-64. © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.


287

will be destroyed, but he does not claim personal responsibility (13.1-2); and the chronology of three days is associated with his resurrection in Mark's thrice-repeated passion prediction, not with the temple's destruction (8.31; 9.31; 10.34).8 Repetition and double-negative grammatical con struction in 14.61 ('he was silent and made no answer'; b δε έσιώπα και ουκ άπεκρίνατο ουδέν) underscore Jesus' steadfastness in disengaging from the discussion of fabricated charges, even at the urging of the high priest (14.60). At the same time, this emphasis on Jesus' silence reinforces the false and unsupported nature of the witness statements and raises questions for readers as to whether such testimony would even be admis sible because of the legal requirement that charges be corroborated.9 Jesus ' petition to God in Gethsemane challenges the notion that his mute ness in the face of such allegations is properly understood to be a sign that he accepts his cruel fate or that he is in fact pursuing martyrdom. Although the prayer scene presents Jesus as painfully aware of how difficult the events about to unfold will be (14.32-42), it also provides testimony of his desire to live. The tone of Jesus' prayer in Mark is hopeful, even expectant, as a comparison with the other Gospels illuminates. In Matthew and Luke, Jesus requests, respectively, 'My father, if it is possible, let this cup pass fromme' (ει δυνατόν έστιν, παρελθάτω απ έμου το ποτηριον τούτο; Mt. 26.39) and 'Father, if you are willing, remove this cup fromme' (ει βούλει παρένεγκε τούτο το ποτηριον απ έμου; Lk. 22.42).10 Mark's petition lacks the tentativeness of Matthew's and Luke's conditional constructions; instead, Jesus prays confidently, 'Abba, Father, all things are possible to you; remove this cup fromme' (πάντα δυνατά oor παρένεγκε το ποτηριον τούτο απ έμου; 14.36).11 Mark's direct petition delivers an unhesitating response to the more provisional, Matthean-sounding indirect address that precedes it in 14.35 ('[Jesus] prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass fromhim'; προσηύχετο'ίνα ει δυνατόν έστιν παρέλθη απ αυτού 8. See Tolbert, Sowing the Word, p. 277; Kurt Schubert, 'Biblical Criticism Criticised: With Reference to the Markan Report of Jesus's Examination before the Sanhédrin', in Bammel and Moule (eds.), Jesus and the Politics of his Day, pp. 397-99. Note that Jesus does not make such a claim in the other Synoptic Gospels, either, but see Jn 2.19. 9. Blinzler, Trial of Jesus, p. 99; Gundry, Mark: Apology for the Cross, pp. 885, 895; Brown, Death of the Messiah, I, p. 445. Unless otherwise stated, translations are from the RSV, with archaic and exclusive language updated. 10. Emphases added. 11. Brown, too, concludes that Matthew and Luke's conditional constructions display a 'softening of the demand' (Death of the Messiah, I, p. 171). © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

288


ή ώρα). As Sharyn Dowd observes, '[t]he issue of possibility changes from a condition in 14.35b to a statement of fact in 14.36... The condition imposed in 35b is met. Everything is possible for God.' 12 Brown concurs that neither the conditional indirect petition in v. 35 nor the ending of the prayer in v. 36 ('yetnot whatl will, but what you will') alters the 'starkness of the Marcan Jesus' in the direct address. Mark's petition radiates a 'familial confidence that God would not make the Son go through the "hour"', a conviction captured in the address of God as 'Abba Father'. 13 Not only that, in Mark Jesus repeats the petition for rescue word for word (14.39), again in striking contrast to his co-evangelists: Luke has no repeti tion, and Matthew's additional prayers focus on Jesus' acceptance of his fate (26.42, 44). 14 Despite apparent tension between Jesus' request in Mark's Gethsemane scene and his earlier forecasts concerning his future (8.31 ; 9.31 ; 10.33-34), he conveys the same confidence in God's ability in 10.27 when questioned about soteriological possibilities, 'With humans it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God'. 15 To overcome the procedural impasse occasioned by Jesus' categorical refusal to respond to the perjured and conflicting testimony against him, the high priest shifts his interrogation to a different indictment, one with which Jesus does agree.16 When the jurist inquires whether the defendant considers himself 'the Christ the Son of the Blessed' (14.61), Jesus immediately abandons his previous courtroom demeanor and becomes quite engaged.17 His confession crystallizes Mark's messianic expectations.

12. Prayer, Power, and the Problem of Suffering: Mark 11:22-2 5 in the Context of Markan Theology (SBLDS, 105; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 156. 13. Brown, Death of the Messiah, I, pp. 171, 176 n.22; II, p. 1046. 14. Dowd, Prayer, Power, and Problem, p. 157, though she does not note Mark's distinctiveness from Luke and Matthew. As might be expected, John's Jesus embraces the upcoming troubles, pronouncing decisively, '[W]hat shall I say, "Father, save me from this hour"? No, for this purpose I have come to this hour' (12.27). 15. Using Mk 11.22-25 as her exegetical focus, Dowd (Prayer, Power, and Problem, esp. pp. 1-5,69-122) argues that one of the key characteristics of the Markan Jesus is his belief in God's unlimited ability to accomplish the impossible—a God who can move mountains—and that divine assistance is available most powerfully through prayer. 16. Blinzler (Trial of Jesus, pp. 101 -102) contends that, historically, Jesus' strategy of disengagement prevented the council from exploiting for its purposes the false and inconsistent testimony given; but cf. Brown, Death of the Messiah, I, p. 464 n. 6. 17. Joel Marcus ('Mark 14:61: "Are You the Messiah-Son-of-God?'" NovT 31 [1989], pp. 124-41) has identified the designation as restrictive apposition; i.e. the © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004


289

The Gospel begins and ends with the declaration that Jesus' messiahship is as the Son of God (1.1; 15.39), and throughout the implications of this relationship for his messianic role as the coming Son of Man, the primary participant 'in God's cosmic lordship', have materialized (e.g. 8.29-33; 10.45; 12.35-37).18 Making the most of his opportunity to address the court about a complaint with which he can identify, Jesus not only pleads guilty, he elaborates (14.61-62).19 His courtroom demeanor gives political expression to the theological principle he advocates in 13.11 : 'when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit'. Litigation before the Roman Prefect Jesus' tactics of engagement and disengagement continue in Mark's account of the trial before Pilate (15.1-5). Jesus' equivocal but openended response to Pilate's initial interrogative (συ λέγεις; 15.2), while disavowing the attribution,20 signals willingness to continue the dialogue— indeed, it cries out for a follow-up from the prefect. This attempt at engagement is truncated, however, when instead of further inquiry by Pilate, the scene shifts to the chief priests who step forward to prefer a number of charges against Jesus. Their allegations are not specified, but the remainder of the Gospel leaves little question that the accusations are

second title ('Son of the Blessed') is not a synonym for the first ('Christ'), but is essential and integral to its proper identification. That is to say, the messianic expec tation projected by the compound title is 'not the Messiah-Son-of-David, nor the Messiah as the son of any other human being, but rather the Messiah-Son-of-GoJ' (p. 130, emphases original). Additionally, 'Blessed' as a circumlocution for God lacks parallels in Jewish literature and is, therefore, likely a literary touch meant to add a (popular) flavor of Jewishness to the interchange, i.e. how—from a Greek perspective— Jews would have spoken (Donald Juel, Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark [SBLDS, 31; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977], p. 79; Brown, Death of the Messiah, I, p. 470). 18. Marcus, 'Mark 14.61 ', p. 139. The text-critical problem of υιού θεού in 1.1 is much discussed in the literature. 19. Cf. Dan. 7.13 ; Ps. 110.1.1 am not addressing the possibilities for Jesus' historical self-understanding, a subject too complex to be considered here. 20. See, for example, Gundry, Mark: Apology for the Cross, pp. 925, 931-33. Gundry contends that Jesus is acknowledging that the title has been used o/him, but not by him; cf. Brown's proposal, however, that συ λέγεις represents a 'qualified affirm ative' response (Death of the Messiah, I, pp. 491, 733). © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

290


of sedition, charges that would have considerably more interest to the Romans than the religious indictments litigated before the Jewish council.21 First, in the Barabbas episode immediately following, Pilate's references to Jesus as the 'king of the Jews' in 15.9 and 12 form an inclusio, directing attention to the intervening verses (15.10-11) that focus on the attitude (envy; 15.10) and activity (inciting the crowd against Jesus ; 15.11 ) of the chief priests. Indeed, in 15.12 Pilate unambiguously announces that the Jews brought the sedition charges against Jesus ('Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?'). 22 Unfortunately, however, the external text-critical evidence for the omission of ου λέγετε is too formidable to base the argument that the allegation originated with the chief priests on this verse alone. Later, the chief priests are mentioned as among the group of Jewish leaders who ridicule the crucified Jesus as 'Christ the king of Israel' (15.32),23 a title that merges indictments from the two criminal pleadings and, in so doing, wrongly assigns royal—in the sense of imperial politics—dimensions to the messianic conception envisioned in Mark's Gospel as articulated, for example, in Jesus' reply to Peter's confession on the way to Caesarea Philippi (8.29-32).24 Finally, for the remainder of Mark's narrative, sedition is cited as the crime for which Jesus has been convicted and condemned. In addition to the refer ences involving the chief priests, the soldiers mock Jesus as 'king of the Jews' (15.16-20), and the titulus lists the charge for which he is crucified as 'king of the Jews' (15.26). With the appearance and testimony ofthe chiefpriests, Jesus for a second time disengages from the legal process, his unwillingness to respond again accentuated by a double negative, ουκέτι ουδέν (15.5).25 Pilate is momentarily stunned by Jesus' strategy of disengagement (his reaction to Jesus' silence is astonishment [θαυμάζω; 15.5]). Quickly recovering, the jurist adopts a different tack, namely, a prisoner exchange involving Jesus 21. See Gerhard Schneider, 'The Political Charge against Jesus', in Bammel and Moule (eds.), Jesus and the Politics of his Day, pp. 403-404; Gundry, Mark: Apology for the Cross, p. 924; Brown, Death of the Messiah, I, pp. 728-29, 731; Darrell L. Bock, 'Key Jewish Texts on Blasphemy and Exaltation and the Jewish Examination of Jesus', in Eugene H. Lovering, Jr (ed.), Society of Biblical Literature 1997 Seminar Papers (SBLSP, 36; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), p. 155. 22. Emphasis added. 23. Again, restrictive apposition (see the discussion in n. 17). 24. Mark's Gospel devotes considerable energy to correcting this misconception (e.g. 8.29-37; 10.33-11.10; 12.13-17, 35-37; 14.61-62). 25. Bammel, 'Trial before Pilate', p. 420. © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.


291

and Barabbas (15.6-15).26 The account of the swap of Jesus for a con victed assassin exposes once and for all the fraudulent nature of the case against him. As far as Mark is concerned, Jesus' guilt or innocence is not adjudicated according to the juridical norms and evidentiary procedures of the period, a reading confirmed by the absence of judicial terminology in the announcement of the sentence.27 He is instead railroaded on the basis of manufactured testimony and mob deliberation sanctioned by the repre sentative of Roman authority at Jerusalem in cooperation with Jewish leaders.28

Strategy of Obstruction Crossbearing Once the prosecution is complete and the verdict rendered, Mark depicts an even more radical strategy implemented by Jesus, namely, active obstruction of the discharge of the court's sentence. This course of action first emerges when the authorities are compelled to impress Simon to carry the cross (15.21). Since condemned persons were customarily required to carry to the site of their execution the crossbeam (patibulum) upon which they were to be fastened, the enlistment of Simon indicates that Jesus either would not or could not perform this task.29 Several 26. Jesus' reticence in Mark is particularly striking when contrasted with Luke's description of the extensive discourses delivered by Stephen and Paul at their trials (Acts 7.1-53; 22.1-21; 23.1-5; 24.10-21; 26.1-29; Schweizer, Good News, p. 337). 27. Brown (Death of the Messiah, I, pp. 853-54) argues that the lack of legal terminology (κατακρίνω; επικρίνω) is not sufficient grounds for rejecting the under standing of Mk 15.1-15 as a 'trial', and that the plausibility of the Roman trial process narrated in Mark is defensible despite being stylized for dramatic effect (I, pp. 715, 725-26; see also Schubert, 'Biblical Criticism', pp. 401-402; but cf. Bammel, 'Trial before Pilate', pp. 434-35). 28. Myers's chart of the parallel narrative construction of the two interrogations demonstrates the equivalence of responsibility for Jesus' execution assigned in Mark's Gospel to Roman and Jewish authorities (Binding the Strong Man, p. 370). 29. Ancient sources for the practice of crossbearing by condemned prisoners include Plutarch, Mor. 554B; Chariton, Chaer. 4.2.7, 4.3.10; Artemidorus, Onir. 2.56. See Michael P. Green, 'The Meaning of Cross-Bearing', BSac 140 (1983), pp. 124-27; Blinzler, Trial of Jesus, pp. 248, 263-64; Brown, Death of the Messiah, II, p. 913; William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p. 562; Myers, Binding the Strong Man, p. 385; Josef Schmid, The Gospel According to Mark (trans. Kevin Condon; RNT; Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1968), p. 287; © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

292


narrative details support the former, that is, that Jesus refuses to carry the cross. First, άγγαρεύω, a Persian loanword and technical term for govern mental authority to impress persons to perform services, lends to the drafting of the Cyrenian a sense ofjuridical deliberation, not improvisation in the face of a sudden and unexpected change of circumstance.30 Second, Jesus' refusal to accept the customary responsibility for bearing the cross makes understandable the problematic contradiction between this passage and his earlier instructions in 8.34 that following him would require taking up one's cross. A dictum to which Jesus himself does not adhere offers little assurance to nascent disciples of the efficacy of faithfulness in the midst of persecution. Alternatively, Simon does not seem a satisfactory model of discipleship, since his crossbearing is not elective.31 Rather, the noted Markan irony in the contrast between these two passages serves to highlight that Jesus 'takes up his cross' by not taking up his cross, standing against injustice by defying society's customary expectations of con demned prisoners. The explanation frequently advanced for the unusual recruitment of another for crossbearing purposes in Mark's drama is that Jesus is too weak and exhausted after the ordeal he undergoes to bear the cross to Golgotha, particularly as a result of the beatings inflicted upon him at the conclusion of both trials.32 Historical comparisons and internal narrative evidence present difficulties for this reading, however. Prisoners during that period were commonly scourged before execution, yet remained able

Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1966), p. 587. 30. See Gundry, Mark: Apologyfor the Cross, p. 953; C.E.B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark (CGTC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), p. 454; Brown, Death of the Messiah, II, p. 914; BD AG, p. 7; C. Spicq, 'άγγαρεύω', TLNT, I, pp. 23-25. Simon's conscription as the result of an unforeseen development might be inferred in Luke's Gospel, which does not employ the loanword ( 4 [a]s they led him away, they seized [έτπλαβόμενοι] one Simon of Cyrene'; 23.26). 31. Anderson, Mark, p. 340; but see Brian K. Blount, Ά Social-Rhetorical Analysis of Simon of Cyrene: Mark 15:21 and its Parallels', Semeia 64 (1993), pp. 171-98, and Schweizer, Good News, p. 345. 32. E.g. Brown, Death of the Messiah, II, pp. 914-15 ; Gundry, Mark: Apology for the Cross, p. 944; Myers, Binding the Strong Man, p. 385; Schweizer, Good News, p. 345. On the other hand, Anderson (Mark, p. 340) recognizes that 'there is no hint of this in Mark' (emphasis original), and Morna Hooker (The Gospel According to St. Mark [BNTC; London: Black, 1991], p. 372) characterizes the weakness hypothesis as a 'later inference'. The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.


293

to assume crossbearing responsibilities.33 In fact, it is likely that prisoners were routinely flogged while being led to their execution with the beam on their backs, illustrating that authorities knew how and how much to inflict punishment and still maintain the victim's ability to shoulder the patibulum. For example, Dionysius, Ant. rom. 7.69.1-2 tells of a prisoner who was beaten and dragged through Rome, then continuously whipped as he went to his execution with the crossbeam strapped to his arms across his shoulders. Despite excruciating pain, he had the strength and presence of mind to taunt the crowd along the way with obscene body gestures.34 Practitioners of pre-execution persecution were, of course, capable of crossing the line—examples of prisoners who were tortured until they were dead exist in the literature—but Mark does not mention any such overaggressive measures.35 Indeed, the single word that announces Jesus' scourging in 15.15 (φραγελλώσα^) marks this incident as indistinguishable from pre-crucifixion pummelings typical of the period. Likewise, the clear implication of the statement that Jesus was 'led away' (άττηγαγου) by the soldiers after being flogged (15.16) is that he is sufficiently healthy to walk. The same inference should be drawn from the ensuing account of Jesus' mistreatment at the hands of the Roman soldiers (15.17-20). After entertaining themselves by abusing their prisoner in a variety of ways, including beating, the account closes with the notification that the soldiers dress Jesus back in his own clothes and lead him out to be crucified

33. E.g. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 7.69.2; Cicero, Rab. Perd. 5.16. The discussion in Cicero, Verr. 5.163-70 of Publius Gavius's ordeal under Verres— flogging, torture with fire and hot metal instruments of some kind, imprisonment at hard labor in the stone quarries at Syracuse—provides evidence of the extent to which prisoners could be tortured and survive before crucifixion. Gundry (Mark: Apology for the Cross, p. 938) supplies an inventory of primary sources that report such floggings, noting the distinction in the sources between beatings meant to kill prisoners and those preliminary to execution; see also Blinzler, Death of Jesus, p. 234; Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), pp. 27-29. 34. In another example, Josephus, War 7.5.6 § 154, describes how the Jewish general Simon, son of Gioras, was scourged while being dragged to the place of his execution during Vespasian and Titus's triumphal postwar parade through Rome. See also Gundry, Mark: Apology for the Cross, p. 939; Brown, Death of the Messiah, I, p. 870. 35. E.g. Philo, Flacc. 75; Plutarch, Mor. 554E. See Blinzler, Trial of Jesus, pp. 222-23 for additional examples from ancient literature. © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

294


(15.20). In addition, the surprise (θαυμάζω)36 registered by Pilate at how quickly Jesus dies on the cross (15.44) confirms that, in Mark's passion account, this prisoner's physical condition is considered no worse than others in the same circumstance.37 Such setbacks to the incapacity hypoth esis have led to speculation that perhaps the narrative is implying that Jesus attempts to carry the cross but collapses under its weight due to his weakened condition.38 Historically, however, crossbeams probably were not heavy enough to cause prisoners to collapse and, in any case, the Gospel gives no hint that Jesus ever attempts to lift the beam or that Simon's assumption of the crossbearing duty occurs after Jesus can no longer fulfill the responsibility.39 It appears, therefore, thatfromthe outset Simon, not Jesus, is charged with carrying thepatibulum. In addition to difficulties within Mark's Gospel itself, proponents of the incapacity hypothesis are hard-pressed to account for Luke's narrative, which introduces Simon as crossbearer even though it contains no floggings of Jesus by the Romans. Those who plead this case are reduced to forced explanations for Luke's version; for example, that in editing Mark's material, the absence of flog ging reports went unnoticed by the Gospel writer.40 Parade to Golgotha The verb φέρω by Mark in 15.22, understood in its principal sense of 'carry', suggests that, after refusing to take up his cross, Jesus compounds his obstructionism by balking at the trek to Golgotha, forcing the soldiers responsible for his execution to carry him there (φέρουσιυ αυτού επί του Γολγοθαυ τόπου). Bauer lists 'bring' or 'lead' among the possible mean ings for φέρω when used of living persons or animals, and references Mk 36. The identical word used of Pilate's reaction to Jesus' silence in 15.5 discussed previously. 37. Blinzler, Trial of Jesus, p. 226. Blinzler contests the understanding that Jesus' early demise was due to the brutality inflicted upon him prior to his crucifixion, arguing 4 from Josephus's account of crucified friends (Life 75 §§420-21) that [h] anging for several hours on the cross could of itself cause such a state of exhaustion that the delinquent would be beyond recovery even if taken down alive' (p. 250; emphasis added). 38. E.g. Blinzler, Trial of Jesus, p. 252; Cranfield, Gospel ofSt. Mark, p. 454; Lane, Mark, p. 562; Schmid, Mark, p. 287; Taylor, St. Mark, pp. 587-88; Ben Witherington, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), p. 393. 39. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 7.69.2; see also Blinzler, Trial ofJesus, pp. 263-64. 40. Brown, Death of the Messiah, II, p. 915 n. 8. © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.


295

15.22 as one instance of this sense.41 Moreover, Joseph A. Fitzmyer has pointed out that, 'although [άγειυ] would seem to be etymologically the more natural verb for the sense of "lead" or "bring".. .a glance at various léxica of classical writers reveals that the meaning of pherein, "bring, lead", can be found almost throughout the various phases of the known Greek language'.42 In his study of Jn 21.18-19, however, J. Duncan M. Derrett counters that 'φέρω and ayco are most certainly not synonyms, for they are sometimes used together'.43 In the other nine occurrences of φέρω with living persons in Mark, the object is sick, physically or mentally infirm or challenged, or a child, and the term conveys the sense of literal or figurative 'carrying', that is, the individual could not or would not 'move from one position to another' independently.44 This is overwhelmingly the case in the other Gospels and Acts as well when φέρω is employed with living persons.45 Mark was surely familiar with άγω, as he uses compound forms of the term to express 'leading' in the section of the narrative immediately preceding the present verse: απάγω in 14.44 ('[t]he one I will kiss is the man; seize him and lead him away [απάγετε]'), 14.53 ('they led [άπηγαγου] Jesus to the high priest') and, as noted previously, 15.16 ('the soldiers led him away [άπηγαγου]'), and εξάγω in 15.20 ('they led him out [έξάγουσιυ] to crucify him'). Most interpreters accept the sense of'bring' or'lead' for φέρω in 15.22, some even while admitting the possibility that 'carry' might be a better translation. M. Eugene Boring's comment is typical, 'Mark may even picture Jesus being physically carried to the place of execution. (The basic meaning of the Greek word phero is "carry"... though it can also mean

41. BDAG, p. 1051 ; so RSV, 'they brought him to the place called Golgotha'. 42. 'The Use ofAgein and Pher ein in the Synoptic Gospels', in Eugene Howard Barth and Ronald Edwin Cocroft (eds.), Festschrift to Honor F. Wilbur Gingrich: Lexicographer, Scholar, Teacher, and Committed Christian Layman (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972), p. 158. 43. 'ζώυνυμι, φέρω, ocÀXos: The Fate of Peter (Jn 21,18-19)', FN S (1995), p. 82. 44. BDAG, pp. 1051; Mk 1.32 (par. Mt. 8.16 [προσφέρω]); 2.3 (par. Mt. 9.2 [προσφέρω]; Lk. 5.18); 2.4 (προσφέρω; par. Lk. 5.19 [εισφέρω]); 7.32; 8.22; 9.17 (par. Mt. 17.16 [προσφέρω]); 9.19 (par. Mt. 17.17); 9.20; 10.13 (προσφέρω; par. Mt. 19.13; Lk. 18.15). Parallels that change φέρω (or compounds) to ά γ ω (or compounds) have not been considered. 45. See Mt. 17.17, and προσφέρω in Mt. 4.24; 8.16; 9.2, 32; 12.22; 14.35; 17.16; 19.13; 25.20; Lk. 5.18,19 (εισφέρω); and 18.15 (προσφέρω); Jn 21.18; Acts 5.16; but see Mt. 6.13; 18.24; Lk. 11.4; 23.14. © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

296


simply "bring")'.46 A few commentators, however, have insisted that the verb maintains its primary sense of'carry' in this passage. In a 1993 essay addressing this issue, Jean-Pierre Lémonon resolutely maintains that the translation of φέρω can only be 'carry' , 47 As early as the nineteenth century, M.F. Sadler proposed that Mark likely chose φέρω to specify that Jesus' executioners 'half carry or drag' him to Golgotha. Sadler's reasoning was that Jesus' physical condition as a result of his thrashings necessitated this departure from the normal procedure.48 As I have argued, however, Mark does not portray Jesus as incapable of walking to Golgotha; therefore, considering the action as a humane deed on the part of the soldiers coerced by Jesus' failing health does not seem consistent with the narrative evi dence. Furthermore, if Mark wanted to convey that the soldiers dragged Jesus to his execution—a not unheard of practice and, in fact, one some times employed as part of the spectacle—appropriate expressions were readily at hand: σύρω ('to drag away by force') and its synonym έλκω, verbs attested in the literature of the period, including the New Testament.49 The second-century bishop and philosopher Melito of Sardis understood this as precisely Jesus' fate, that he was the lamb 'dragged [oupets] to slaughter'.50 As others have noted, if Markan priority is assumed, both Matthew and Luke substitute έρχομαι for φέρω (Mt. 27.33; Lk. 23.33), and the western textual tradition of Mark replaces it with άγω. 5 1 It is plausible that these other Gospel traditions were uncomfortable with Mark'suse of φέρω, andtookpains to preclude the possibility of construing

46. Truly Human/Truly Divine: Christological Language and the Gospel Form (St. Louis: CPB, 1984), p. 53. See also Gundry, Mark: Apology for the Cross, pp. 923,944, 954-55, who allows that φέρω in 15.21 might indicate 'carrying' in the sense of dragging by hook as noted in Cicero, Rab. Perd. 5.16. 47. 'Selon Marc 15, 22a, Jésus a-t-il été porté ou mené au lieu-dit Golgotha?', in Louis Panier (ed.), Le temps de la lecture: Exégèse biblique etsémiotique (Paris: Cerf, 1993), pp. 147-61. According to Lémonon, Mark's intent is to reduce Jesus to an object—but an object that is in charge of the events taking place. 48. M.F. Sadler, The Gospel According to St. Mark, with Notes Critical and Practical(London: Bell, 1892), p. 387. 49. Acts 8.3; 14.19; 17.6; Jn 21.8; Rev. 12.4 for σύρω; Acts 16.19; 21.30; Jas 2.6 for ελκω/έλκύω. For the custom of dragging prisoners before executing them, see Cicero, Rab. Perd. 5.16; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 7.69.1-2; Josephus, War 2.12.7 §246 (περισύρω); 2.18.7 §491; 7.5.6 §154; Ant. 20.6.3 §136; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.29.22. 50. De Pascha 515. 51. Antonio Ammassari (ed.), Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1996), p. 702. © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.


297

what happens to Jesus as 'carrying'. Matthew offers not the slightest suggestion that Jesus, Simon and the soldiers do not all walk to Golgotha, saying only that 'they came (EÀ9ÓVTES) to a place called Golgotha' (27.33). Luke makes explicit that Jesus goes to his execution under his own power, detailing how Simon carries the cross behind him while Jesus takes time to turn and speak to the crowd of mourners who are following along (Lk. 23.26-31). The purpose of parading the condemned to the location of the execution in the ancient world was to secure submission—of the convicted prisoner, to be sure, but more importantly of others who might be tempted to resist legitimate authority.52 Michael P. Green has pointed out how this was accomplished: Having condemned a man to die for his rebellion, Rome required him, as his last act, to display submission publicly to the authority against which he previously had rebelled. This was done by having him carry the instrument of his judgment through the city to a public place while wearing a sign which said that he had been a rebel. But, as all could see, he was now submissive.53 There were likely defendants facing the death penalty who refused to comply with this demand—some prisoners who were dragged (σύρω or έλκω) to their execution no doubt refused to go voluntarily.54 Mark has presented Jesus throughout the Gospel as one who resists exploitative regimes, a portrayal that is encapsulated in Jesus' instructions to the twelve in 10.42-45: You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would befirstamong you must be slave of all. For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve. Moreover, Jesus has used obstructionist tactics previously in Mark's narrative, conducting, for instance, what Richard A. Horsley describes as 'an obstructive demonstration' in his outburst at the Jerusalem temple in

52. Green, 'Cross-Bearing', pp. 117-33. 53. 'Cross-Bearing', p. 127. 54. See Josephus, War 2.18.7 §491. For examples of other defiant gestures in the face of execution, including spitting, singing and lewd exhibition, see Hengel, Cruci fixion, p. 47 and, again, Dionysius, Ant. rom. 7.69.1-2. © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

298


Mk 11.15-17.55 Consistent with Mark's characterization, now intensified as Jesus confronts the ultimate abuse ofjuridical authority, φέρω in 15.22 corroborates the depth of Jesus' opposition to abusive and unjust power structures in a way not possible with σύρω. Not unlike practitioners of civil disobedience in our own time, Jesus resists even being dragged to Golgotha, obliging his executioners to lift and shuttle him there. In its entirety, therefore, Mark's description of the trek to Golgotha impressively demonstrates Jesus' unwillingness to submit to injustice by narrating his refusal to cooperate in any way with—indeed, by actively obstructing in whatever ways are at hand—this act of 'judicial murder'. 56 Jesus' defiance extends to the point of rejecting the soldiers' single humane gesture, their offer of myrrhed wine before crucifying him (15.23). Commentators have associated this act with the Jewish custom of supplying a drugged wine to prisoners about to be executed in order to alleviate their pain,57 but the Jewish practice involved wine mixed with frankincense, not myrrh, and the drink was provided by Jewish women, not Roman soldiers.58 More likely here it represents spiced wine favored by the military and remembered by the elder Pliny as among 'the finest wines'. 59 This moment of compassion might appear out of character for the soldiers, but examples of prisoners commanding a measure of courtesy from their powerful antagonists are available (e.g. Paul in Acts, especially from the centurion Julius as he is transporting the apostle to Rome in Acts 27.128.16). Mark's Jesus, however, resolute in his strategy of obstruction, rejects the patronizing civility of mercy without justice. Conclusion: Failure of Defense Strategies and Christological Repercussions Anyone who has heard of, read about or been part of a movement of political resistance understands that those who attempt to stand up to traditional structures of power face the risk, perhaps even the likelihood, 55. Richard A. Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark's Gospel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), p. 41. 56. Blinzler, Trial of Jesus, p. 293. 57. E.g. Blinzler, Trial of Jesus, p. 253; Brown, Death of the Messiah, II, pp. 94041; Juel, Mark {ACHT, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1990), p. 219. 58. Wilhelm Michaelis, 'σμυρνίζω', TDNT, VU, pp. 458-59. 59. Pliny, Nat. 14.92 (LCL); Brown, Death of the Messiah, II, p. 941; Michaelis, 'σμυρυίζω', pp. 458-59. © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.


299

of ineffectiveness and failure. Mark's narrative is careful to underscore that Jesus' struggle for justice through engagement, disengagement and obstruction does not marshal a throng of sympathizers united in support of him nor alter the eventual outcome ofhis trial. Following the hearing before the Jewish council, the Gospel dramatically chronicles Peter's triple denial of Jesus (14.66-72). When Jesus stands firm before Pilate, the crowd that had previously been a receptive and sympathetic audience—the same crowd whose support had made his arrest so difficult for his opponents (12.12; cf. 11.18; 14.2)—reverses itself and demands his execution (15.615).60 And after Jesus' final act of resistance on the way to Golgotha, the bandits who suffer the same fate as he humiliate him (15.27,32b), people who are just passing by blaspheme him (15.29-30), and everyone he cares about abandons him, including God (15.34,40-41 ). Jesus ' trial and execution, then, remain brutal and desolate experiences in Mark. The intensity ofhis physical, psychological and spiritual pain is revealed in his powerful, agonized utterance fromPs. 22, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me' (15.34). Daniel Guichard and Vernon K. Robbins have observed that verses from Ps. 22 interspersed in the death-scene narrative, culminating now in the cry of abandonment, are in reverse order from their original context.61 Instead of ascending toward deliverance and thanksgiving, in Mark the psalm motifs descend to defeat and abandonment. By inverting the psalm's sequence, Mark subverts its rhetoric, producing a recontextualization that lifts up the horror of Jesus' death—his agony and his abandonment.62 In the end, therefore, the defense strategies attempted by Jesus in Mark do not overcome the obvious legal advantages of the more influential prosecutors, nor do they lead to an overturning of the verdict reached by the court or commutation of the sentence imposed. Despite his 60. See 2.13; 3.9; 4.1; 5.21-34; 6.30-44; 8.1-9; 9.14-29; 10.1,46; 11.18; 12.12,37. 61. The lament section of the psalm (w. 2-22) from which Mark's references are drawn contains three distinct motifs: (1) the individual laments that God is absent and asks why (w. 2-6; cf. Mk 15.34); (2) then grieves over being mocked and scorned (w. 7-13; cf. Mk 15.29); and, finally, deplores his/her powerlessness in the face of the enemy (w. 14-22; cf. Mk 15.24). Mark, however, moves in the opposite direction (15.24, Ps. 22.19; 15.29, Ps. 22.8; 15.34, Ps. 22.2); Vernon K. Robbins, 'The Reversed Contextualization of Psalm 22 in the Markan Crucifixion: A Socio-Rhetorical Analysis', in F. Van Segbroeck et al. (eds.), The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (3 vols.; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), II, pp. 1179-80, and Daniel Guichard, 'La reprise du Psaume 22 dans le récit de la mort de Jésus: Mark 15:21-41 ', Foi et vie 87 (1988), pp. 59-65. 62. Robbins, 'Reversed Contextualization', p. 1179. © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

300


efforts, Jesus is convicted and executed—and he dies tortured, derided and alone. Where in this reading, then, is the good news announced at the beginning of Mark's Gospel? This powerfully narrated episode that crowns the story as painfully as the thorns pressed into Jesus' skull suggests that good news must be discovered in the midst of the horror.63 Although I cannot in the present article explore fully the signification of this narrative reality, a consistent vision in Mark, the implications for the scenes on which my analysis focuses are unmistakable. During his trial and execution, the Markan Jesus models his own counsel that 'those who wish to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake and the gospel's will save it' (8.35)—not by passively accepting a cruel fate, but by actively defending himself in whatever ways are available to him against injustice that is anathema to the kingdom he preaches (1.14-15). The outcome of Jesus' criminal prosecutions strikes readers as inevitable, but the gospel demands that he of all people confront pernicious structures of authority regardless of his circumstances or the potential for success. As much as he—and we—might prefer otherwise, great accomplishment can sometimes arise only out of equally great failure (8.31, 9.31, 10.33-34; 16.1-8).

63. I wish to thank Brian Blount, my teacher and colleague at Princeton Theological Seminary, for this insight. I am appreciative as well to those who heard an earlier version of the paper at the 2002 annual SBL meeting in Toronto and offered helpful observations. Finally, I am grateful to Brian Blount, Beth Johnson, Pheme Perkins, Barbara Reid and Christine Yoder for reading and commenting on various drafts of the article. © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

ΛΠ^, Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

Trial of Jesus in Mark

Recommend Documents