Trial of Jesus in Mark

7/31/2019 Trial of Jesus in Mark

1/19

[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 Seminary701 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 againsthim, as is the usual view of commentatorson these narratives. Instead, Jesus alternately engages in and resists the

judicial proceedings in which he becomes embroiled. Initially, he welcomesand participates in the proceedings before the Jewish council and, sub

sequently, before Pilate. He disengages, however, when the prosecution

dissolves intoa 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, perse

cutions and crucifixion, advancing a variety of reasons for this represen

tation, 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 lensthrough which to read Mark's trial and execution scenes (14.53-64; 15.1-

l


2/19

284 Journal for the Study of the New Testament26.3 (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 withtruthful 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 Mk14.55, the Jewish council's single objective is to

uncover evidence adequate to convict Jesus of a crime warranting the deathpenalty. Convening the council at night and on Passover (14.12), both

apparently in violation of rabbinic norms, reinforces the willingness on

the part of the Jewish authorities to suspend accepted rules of jurisprudencein order to achieve the desired outcome. Raymond E. Brown, although

justifiably skeptical about the applicability of late second-century rabbinicregulations 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, inLuke'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 takesas 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 articlef liti l i (i t t f d th it d th i l ti hi


3/19

CAMPBELL Engagement, DisengagementandObstruction 285

morning following his arrest (22.66-71).2

Mark's account reveals the

duplicity ofthe Jewish authorities and, as Brown points out, the use of

('against') to frame the Jewish trial in 14.55-64 discloses the depthoftheirhostility toward Jesus and theircommitment to his conviction ofa

capital offense:

The chief priests and the whole Sanhdrin begin in 14.55 by seeking

testimony against Jesus [ ' ] 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 againstJesus [ ]; the conclusion in

14.64 will come after there is no more need of testimony and they all will

judge against Jesus [ ] 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 secondaryconcern.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. 893-

94, 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 ofJesus (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 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. Fordetails 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 M (Bi di th St M 375 76) h d i il l Wh th th


4/19

286 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 26.3 (2004)

Mark's arrest narrative Jesus appears generally to accept the Jewish

political establishment, acknowledging its authorityto apprehend criminals

(14.48) and conceding that he himself had readily met with its membersduring 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 ofthe tenants immediately preceding the discourse on taxes

(12.1-11) offers evidence that, in the view ofthe Markan Jesus, whoever

rules does so as God's lessee and, for that reason, is responsible forgov

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' ( ),

pointing to Socrates as the model for this strategy. Indeed, the court's

restriction of Apollonius's testimony to briefrebuttals in response to the

judge's questions rather than the oration that the defendant had preparedforthe occasion is instrumental in his acquittal (8.3-7). Likewise, Josephus,

War6.5.3 300-305 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 guiltyof

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 thepresent 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 ofMk 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

used here and in 15.4, rare in theNew Testament, reflects legal convention,supporting the judicial characterofthe proceedings in Mark's narrative (Death oftheMessiah I pp 463 64; see MM p 64)


5/19


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-repeatedpassion prediction, notwith 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

) 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 ofthe 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 properlyunderstood to be a sign that

he accepts his cruel fate orthat 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' prayerin Mark is hopeful, even expectant,

as a comparison with the otherGospels illuminates. In Matthew and Luke,

Jesus requests, respectively, 'My father, if it is possible, let this cup passfromme' ( , ; Mt.

26.39) and 'Father, if you are willing, remove this cup fromme' (

; 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' ( oor

; 14.36).11

Mark's direct petition delivers an unhesitating

response to the more provisional, Matthean-sounding indirect address thatprecedes it in 14.35 ('[Jesus] prayed that, if it were possible, the hour

might pass fromhim'; '

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

Sanhdrin', 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


6/19

288 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament26.3 (2004)

). 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 forGod.'12

Brown concurs

that neither the conditional indirect petition in v. 35 northe ending ofthe

prayerin 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 ofGod as 'Abba Father'.13

Not onlythat, 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 hisfate (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 abilityin

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 withwhich Jesus does agree.

16When the jurist inquires whetherthe 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 ofSuffering: Mark 11:22-25in the Contextof

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, andProblem, 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 ofthe key characteristics ofthe Markan

Jesus is his beliefin God's unlimited abilityto accomplish the impossiblea God who

can move mountainsand that divine assistance is available most powerfully throughprayer.

16 Blinzler (Trial of Jesus pp 101 102) contends that historically Jesus' strategy


7/19


The Gospel begins and ends with the declaration that Jesus' messiahship

is as the Son ofGod (1.1; 15.39), and throughout the implications of this

relationship for his messianic role as the coming Son ofMan, the primaryparticipant '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 demeanorgives 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 open-

ended response to Pilate's initial interrogative ( ; 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 byPilate, the scene shifts to the chief priests who step forward to prefer a

numberof charges against Jesus. Their allegations are not specified, but

the remainder ofthe 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 theMessiah as the son of any other human being, but rather the Messiah-Son-of-GoJ'

(p. 130, emphases original). Additionally, 'Blessed' as a circumlocution forGod lacks

parallels in Jewish literature and is, therefore, likelya literary touch meant to add a

(popular) flavorof Jewishness to the interchange, i.e. howfrom a Greekperspective

Jews would have spoken (Donald Juel, Messiah and Temple: The Trial ofJesus 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 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


8/19

290 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament26.3 (2004)

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 referencesto Jesus as the 'king ofthe 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

chiefpriests. 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 callthe King of the Jews?').22

Unfortunately,

however, the external text-critical evidence forthe omission of

is too formidable to base the argument that the allegation originated withthe 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 royalin the

sense of imperial politicsdimensions to the messianic conception

envisioned in Mark's Gospel as articulated, forexample, in Jesus' replyto

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 forwhich 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 ofthe 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, (15.5).25

Pilate is

momentarilystunned by Jesus' strategy of disengagement (his reaction to

Jesus' silence is astonishment [; 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 andMoule (eds.), Jesus andthe Politics ofhis Day, pp. 403-404; Gundry, Mark: Apology

for the Cross, p. 924; Brown, Death ofthe 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 ofBiblicalLiterature 1997SeminarPapers (SBLSP, 36; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), p. 155.

22 E h i dd d


9/19

CAMPBELL Engagement, Disengagementand Obstruction 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 ofthe case

against him. As far as Mark is concerned, Jesus' guilt or innocence is notadjudicated according to the juridical norms and evidentiary procedures of

the period, a reading confirmed by the absence of judicial terminology in

the announcement ofthe sentence.27 He is instead railroaded on the basis

of manufactured testimony and mob deliberation sanctioned bythe 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 ofthe discharge ofthe court's sentence. This course ofaction

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 oftheirexecution 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 Markis particularly striking when contrasted with Luke's

description ofthe extensive discourses delivered byStephen and Paul at their trials(Acts 7.1-53; 22.1-21; 23.1-5; 24.10-21; 26.1-29; Schweizer, GoodNews, p. 337).

27. Brown (Death ofthe Messiah, I, pp. 853-54) argues that the lack of legalterminology(; ) is not sufficient grounds forrejecting the understanding ofMk15.1-15 as a 'trial', and that the plausibility ofthe Roman trial process

narrated in Markis defensible despite being stylized fordramatic 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 ofthe parallel narrative construction ofthe two interrogationsdemonstrates the equivalence of responsibility for Jesus' execution assigned in Mark's

Gospel to Roman and Jewish authorities (Binding the StrongMan, p. 370).

29. Ancient sources forthe practice of crossbearing bycondemned prisoners includePlutarch, Mor. 554B; Chariton, Chaer. 4.2.7, 4.3.10; Artemidorus, Onir. 2.56. See


10/19


narrative details support the former, that is, that Jesus refuses to carrythe

cross. First, , a Persian loanword and technical term for govern

mental authority to impress persons to perform services, lends to thedrafting ofthe Cyrenian a sense of juridical deliberation, not improvisation

in the face ofa sudden and unexpected change ofcircumstance.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. Adictum to which Jesus himself does not adhere

offers little assurance to nascent disciples ofthe efficacy of faithfulness in

the midst ofpersecution. Alternatively, Simon does not seem a satisfactorymodel of discipleship, since his crossbearing is not elective.

31Rather, the

noted Markan irony in the contrast between these two passages serves to

highlight that Jesus 'takes up his cross' bynottaking up his cross, standing

against injustice bydefying society's customary expectations ofcon

demned prisoners.

The explanation frequently advanced forthe unusual recruitment of

another forcrossbearing purposes in Mark's drama is that Jesus is too

weak and exhausted after the ordeal he undergoes to bear the cross toGolgotha, particularly as a result ofthe beatings inflicted upon him at the

conclusion ofboth trials.32

Historical comparisons and internal narrative

evidence present difficulties forthis reading, however. Prisoners during

that period were commonly scourged before execution, yet remained able

Vincent Taylor, The GospelAccording 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; BDAG, p. 7; C. Spicq, '', TLNT, I,

pp. 23-25. Simon's conscription as the result ofan unforeseen development might be

inferred in Luke's Gospel, which does not employ the loanword (4[a]s theyled him

away, theyseized [] one Simon ofCyrene'; 23.26).

31. Anderson, Mark, p. 340; but see Brian K. Blount, Social-Rhetorical Analysis

of Simon ofCyrene: Mark 15:21 and its Parallels', Semeia 64 (1993), pp. 171-98, and

Schweizer, GoodNews, p. 345.32. E.g. Brown, Death of the Messiah, II, pp. 914-15 ; Gundry, Mark: Apology for

h C 944 M B d h S M 385 S h i G d N


11/19


to assume crossbearing responsibilities.33

In fact, it is likelythat prisoners

were routinelyflogged while being led to their execution with the beam

on their backs, illustrating that authorities knew how and how much toinflict punishment and still maintain the victim's ability to shoulder the

patibulum. For example, Dionysius, Ant. rom. 7.69.1-2 tells ofa 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

ofmind to taunt the crowd along the way with obscene body gestures.34

Practitioners of pre-execution persecution were, of course, capable of

crossing the lineexamples of prisoners who were tortured until theywere dead exist in the literaturebut Mark does not mention any such

overaggressive measures.35

Indeed, the single word that announces Jesus'

scourging in 15.15 (^) marks this incident as indistinguishable

from pre-crucifixion pummelings typical ofthe period. Likewise, the clear

implication ofthe statement that Jesus was 'led away' () bythe

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 ofthe Roman soldiers (15.17-20). Afterentertaining 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. Thediscussion 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 Syracuseprovides evidence ofthe 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 tokill prisoners and those

preliminary to execution; see also Blinzler, Death ofJesus, 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 anotherexample, Josephus, War7.5.6 154, describes how the Jewish general

S f G d h l b d d h l f h


12/19


(15.20). In addition, the surprise ()36

registered byPilate 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 thanothers in the same circumstance.

37Such setbacks to the incapacity hypoth

esis have led to speculation that perhaps the narrative is implying that

Jesus attempts to carrythe 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 anycase, the

Gospel gives no hint that Jesus everattempts 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 ofthe incapacity hypothesis are

hard-pressed to account forLuke's narrative, which introduces Simon as

crossbearer even though it contains no floggings of Jesus bythe Romans.

Those who plead this case are reduced to forced explanations forLuke's

version; forexample, that in editing Mark's material, the absence of flog

ging reports went unnoticed bythe Gospel writer.40

Parade to Golgotha

The verb 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 trekto Golgotha, forcing the soldiers

responsible forhis execution to carry him there (

). Bauerlists 'bring' or'lead' among the possible mean

ings for when used ofliving persons or animals, and references Mk

36. The identical word used ofPilate's reaction to Jesus' silence in 15.5 discussedpreviously.

37. Blinzler, TrialofJesus, p. 226. Blinzlercontests the understanding that Jesus'earlydemise was due to the brutality inflicted upon him priortohis crucifixion, arguingfrom Josephus's account ofcrucified friends (Life 75 420-21) that

4[h]anging for

severalhours on the cross could ofitselfcause such a state ofexhaustion that thedelinquent would be beyond recovery even iftaken down alive' (p. 250; emphasis

added).38. E.g. Blinzler, TrialofJesus, p. 252; Cranfield, Gospel ofSt. Mark, p. 454; Lane

M k 562 S h id M k 287 T l S M k 587 88 B Wi h i


13/19


15.22 as one instance ofthis sense.41

Moreover, Joseph A. Fitzmyer has

pointed out that, 'although [] would seem to be etymologically the

more natural verb forthe sense of "lead" or "bring".. .a glance at variouslxica of classical writers reveals that the meaning ofpherein, "bring,lead", can be found almost throughout the various phases of the knownGreek language'.42 In his study of Jn 21.18-19, however, J. Duncan M.Derrett counters that ' and ayco are most certainlynot synonyms, forthey are sometimes used together'.

43In the other nine occurrences of

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 orwouldnot 'move from one position to another' independently.

44This is

overwhelmingly the case in the other Gospels and Acts as well when

is employed with living persons.45

Mark was surely familiar with

, as he uses compound forms of the term to express 'leading' in the

section ofthe narrative immediately preceding the present verse:

in 14.44 ('[t]he one I will kiss is the man; seize him and lead him away

[]'), 14.53 ('they led [] Jesus to the high priest') and, as

noted previously, 15.16 ('the soldiers led him away []'), and in 15.20 ('they led him out [] to crucify him').

Most interpreters accept the sense of'bring' or'lead' for 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 Greekwordphero is "carry"... though it can also mean

41. BD AG, 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. ', , ocXos: The Fate ofPeter (Jn 21,18-19)', FN S(1995), p. 82.44. BDAG, pp. 1051; Mk 1.32 (par. Mt. 8.16 []); 2.3 (par. Mt. 9.2

[]; Lk. 5.18); 2.4 (; par. Lk. 5.19 []); 7.32; 8.22; 9.17 (par.Mt. 17.16 []); 9.19 (par. Mt. 17.17); 9.20; 10.13 (; par. Mt. 19.13;


14/19


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 Lmonon resolutely maintains that thetranslation of can only be 'carry' ,

47As early as the nineteenth century,

M.F. Sadler proposed that Mark likely chose to specify that Jesus'

executioners 'halfcarryor 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 ofthe soldiers coerced

by Jesus' failing health does not seem consistent with the narrative evidence. Furthermore, ifMarkwanted to conveythat the soldiers dragged

Jesus to his executiona not unheard ofpractice and, in fact, one some

times employed as part ofthe spectacleappropriate expressions were

readily at hand: ('to drag away by force') and its synonym ,

verbs attested in the literature oftheperiod, including the New Testament.49

The second-centurybishop 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, bothMatthew and Luke substitute for (Mt. 27.33; Lk. 23.33),

and the western textual tradition of Mark replaces it with .5 1

It is

plausible that these other Gospel traditions were uncomfortable with

Mark'suse of, andtookpains to preclude thepossibility ofconstruing

46. Truly Human/Truly Divine: ChristologicalLanguage and the GospelForm (St.

Louis: CPB, 1984), p. 53. See also Gundry, Mark: Apology for the Cross, pp. 923,944,954-55, who allows that 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, Jsus a-t-il t port ou men au lieu-dit Golgotha?', in

Louis Panier (ed.), Le temps de la lecture: Exgse biblique etsmiotique (Paris: Cerf,

1993), pp. 147-61. According to Lmonon, Mark's intent is to reduce Jesus to an

objectbut 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 ; Acts 16.19; 21.30; Jas 2.6for /. For the custom of dragging prisoners before executing them, see


15/19

CAMPBELL Engagement, Disengagement and Obstruction 297

what happens to Jesus as 'carrying'. Matthew offers not the slightest

suggestion that Jesus, Simon and the soldiers do not all walkto Golgotha,

saying only that 'they came (E9VTES) 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 submissionof 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 wasaccomplished:

Having condemned a man to die for his rebellion, Rome required him, ashis last act, to display submission publicly to the authority against which hepreviously had rebelled. This was done by having him carry the instrumentof his judgment through the city to a public place while wearing a signwhich said that he had been a rebel. But, as all could see, he was nowsubmissive.

53

There were likely defendants facing the death penalty who refused to

comply with this demandsome prisoners who were dragged ( or

) to theirexecution no doubt refused to go voluntarily.54

Markhas

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 overthe Gentiles lord it over

them, and theirgreat men exercise authorityoverthem. But it shall not beso among you; but whoever would be great among you must be yourservant, and whoever would befirstamong you must be slave ofall. FortheSon ofman also came not to be served but to serve.

Moreover, Jesus has used obstructionist tactics previously in Mark's

narrative, conducting, forinstance, what Richard A. Horsleydescribes as

'an obstructive demonstration' in his outburst at the Jerusalem temple in

52 G 'C B i ' 117 33


16/19


Mk 11.15-17.55

Consistent with Mark's characterization, now intensified

as Jesus confronts the ultimate abuse of juridical authority, in 15.22

corroborates the depth of Jesus' opposition to abusive and unjust powerstructures in a way not possible with . 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 ofthe trekto Golgotha impressively

demonstrates Jesus' unwillingness to submit to injustice by narrating his

refusal to cooperate in any way withindeed, by actively obstructing in

whatever ways are at handthis act of 'judicial murder'.56

Jesus' defiance extends to the point of rejecting the soldiers' singlehumane gesture, theiroffer of myrrhed wine before crucifying him (15.23).

Commentators have associated this actwith the Jewish custom of supplying

a drugged wine to prisoners about to be executed in orderto 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 likelyhere it represents spiced wine favored bythe military

and remembered by the elder Pliny as among 'the finest wines'.59

This

moment of compassion might appear out ofcharacterforthe soldiers, butexamples 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 27.1-

28.16). Mark's Jesus, however, resolute in his strategy of obstruction,

rejects the patronizing civilityof mercy without justice.

Conclusion:Failure ofDefense Strategies andChristologicalRepercussions

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 ofPlot in Mark's

Gospel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), p. 41 .56. Blinzler, Trial ofJesus, p. 293.


17/19

CAMPBELL Engagement, Disengagement and Obstruction 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 ofhim nor alter the eventual outcome of his trial. Following the hearing beforethe Jewish council, the Gospel dramatically chronicles Peter's triple denialof Jesus (14.66-72). When Jesus stands firm before Pilate, the crowd that

had previously been a receptive and sympathetic audiencethe 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 (15.6-

15).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), peoplewho 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 execu

tion, then, remain brutal and desolate experiences in Mark. The intensity

of his 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 originalcontext.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 recontextual-

ization that lifts up the horror of Jesus' deathhis 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 andasks why (w. 2-6; cf. Mk15.34); (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 ReversedContextualization of Psalm 22 in the Markan Crucifixion: A Socio-Rhetorical Analysis',


18/19


efforts, Jesus is convicted and executedand he dies tortured, derided

and alone.

Where in this reading, then, is thegoodnews announced at the beginningof 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'swill 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 ofJesus' 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 heand wemight 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


19/19

^ ,

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined byU.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 ofthis 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 permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holderforan entire issue ofa journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author ofthe article maymaintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork foranyuse not covered bythe fair use provisions ofthe copyright laws orcoveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,orcontact ATLA to request contact information forthe 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 bythe American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from LillyEndowment Inc.

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the propertyofthe AmericanTheological Library Association.

Trial of Jesus in Mark

Documents

Transcript of Trial of Jesus in Mark