Happy Good Friday.
Lectionary Readings for Good Friday:
Isaiah 52:13- 53:12; Psalm 22;
Hebrews 10:16-25; John 18:1 - 19:42
Again, my reflection comes from Ched Myers'
Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus (20th Anniversary Edition) Orbis Books, 1988, 2008.
Again, I
know that we are in the midst of Year B (which has Luke as the dominate
Gospel text, with some readings from John), but I think that Myers' reading of Mark's Gospel might
shed some light on - or at least conversation with - Luke's account (on in today's case, John's account).
In addition, I think that Myers has some important words to share
regarding the ending of Mark's Gospel that make sense to break into
readings for yesterday and today.
I'm going to expand the reading a bit to include the situation just after the Passover Meal as they community heads to the Mount of Olives, and end with Jesus' death and burial. As a consequence, we will be reading and
reflecting upon Mark 14:26 - 15:47. There is a lot here, and I will let my notes on Myers work speak for themselves[see BtSM:364f.].
Blessings on your journeys this Holy Week,
Joel
14:26-52: "The Hour Has Arrived: The Discipleship Narrative Collapses (14:26-52)
"The betray narrative now reaches its climax, in a rapidly escalating series of defections. Jesus has already twice reinterpreted traditional Jewish symbolic actions in light of his impending death at the hands of the authorities (the anointing and the meal). He has predicted that one of his community will betray him (14:18). Now the "one" becomes "all," as he predicts that the whole community will abandon him, over their strenuous assertions to the contrary (14:27-31). True to form, the disciples sleep through Jesus' agonizing moments of self-doubt (14:32-41), and flee for their lives when an armed contingent comes to seize Jesus (14:43-49). In the face of such massive desertion, such complete unraveling, Mark sustains the reader's hope by inserting new portents and subplots that promise a future for the story. These occur at the beginning and end of this subsection: Jesus' promise concerning Galilee (14:28), and the parenthetical episode of a "young man" (14:50f.)" [BtSM:364].
i. Jesus' Final Portent: the Scattering and Regathering
Mark continues to weave in theme of expectation in the "script of biblical radicalism" - these things must happen to "fulfill scripture" (stated 3 times here) "each coming at the point of Jesus' realization of his community's defection: Judas' betrayal (14:21), the disciples' defection (14:29), and the arrest and desertion (14:49). This discourse confirms that the messianic vocation is intact despite human failure" [BtSM:364].
Myers notes that Jesus then goes to the Mt. of Olives - which is not a military triumphalist Messianism (continues with what he began when entering Jerusalem). Now Jesus gives his last portent: but this time toward the disciples rather than the authorities. Mark is citing Zechariah 13:7 "turning its imperative into a prediction: "I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will scatter" (14:27b). Mark here offers a midrash upon the shepherd parable he has already alluded to in 6:34 .... This time, however, Mark appeals to another part of the parable. The prophet, in despair over Israel's corrupt leadership, himself becomes "the shepherd of the flock doomed to be slain for those who trafficked in the sheep" (Zec 11:7); then in a symbolic action he dramatizes Israel's breach of the covenant (11:10f.). It is in light of this tradition that Mark understands Jesus: the covenant is indeed broken, but will be renewed in Jesus' blood; thus the "sacrificial lamb" becomes the "stricken shepherd" [BtSM:365].
Ezekiel (34:11-16,23ff.) also speaks of a shepherd parable with scattering and regathering - "So too Mark: after Jesus is raised to life he will resume going before his "flock" of disciples (14:28). This first augury of the end of the story is arguable the single most important narrative signal in the second half of the Gospel, a kind of "literary lifeline" that Mark throws to the reader. This promise will later be verified by a "young man" at the empty tomb (16:7), directing the reader back to the place where the discipleship journey began: Galilee. There, by implication, the reconstituted community will effect the "new covenant of peace" (Ez 34:25). In other words, the defection of the disciples will not mean the end of the discipleship story [BtSM:365].
Peter immediately refutes with an exception (14:29) to which Jesus counters that Peter "above all [will] characterize the desertion (14:30). Peter's vehement protest of his loyalty (14:31) exegetes perfectly the meaning of Jesus' call to discipleship (8:34): to stand with Jesus indeed would require that he deny himself, and consequently share Jesus' death .... But this is exactly the opposite of what he will in fact do in the story (14:66-72). "They all said the same" - and all will fail just as Peter did. Mark's discourse stresses the complicity of each and every disciple - not just Peter or Judas - in the collapse of the community's loyalty to the way of Jesus" [BtSM:365].
ii. Gethsemane: The Disciples Sleep
Scene change to a field called Gethsemane - Jesus goes to pray - "only the third time Mark has portrayed him at prayer. These vignettes correspond roughly with the beginning (1:35), middle (6:46), and end of Jesus' ministry, and always take place in an isolated environment at a late hour. If the two previous times suggested that Jesus was withdrawing from sheer weariness, this episode clearly indicates it is due to profound inner turmoil. The language of 14:33 is very strong: he "shudders in distress" ... and "anguishes" .... Taylor calls it "one of the most important statements in Mark," ... Jesus is facing his "destiny" not with contemplative detachment, but with genuine human terror. There is no romance in martyrdom, only in martyrologies" [BtSM:365-6].
Jesus admits to his disciples that he is in anguish and asks them to stay awake with him - Myers points out the remarkableness of this asking after what Jesus has just said, and gone through - yet the disciples cannot even stay awake. Also - only time Mark uses "Abba/Father" in his Gospel. Jesus' "petition is stated redundantly, indirectly and directly, using different forms of parerchomai to tie together two important symbolic coordinates:
14:35 if it were possible the hour might pass from him
14:36 all is possible to you; turn aside this cup from me
"We now understand that the "hour" (hora) spoken of in the second sermon (13:32) is drawing near in story time, and will be identified with the cross. The mythic moment of struggle between "staying awake" ... and "sleeping" (... 13:35-37) is not being enacted. Can the disciples be with Jesus while he prays in the heart of darkness for the strength to face the journey into the heart of power?
"They cannot; Mark underscores it three times. Even at this delicate point in the narrative he does not relinquish his unrelenting criticism of the three "leaders"!" Notice the symbolism and pathos used: "Simon" not "Peter" (pre-discipleship) also notice that he doesn't have the "strength (..., echoing the accusation of 9:18) to participate in this apocalyptic battle with "temptation" ... - that is, with the forces that would subvert or compromise the way (cf, 1:13; 8:11; 10:2; 12:15). And, as in that last exorcism (9:29), Jesus exhorts prayer. The difference here between Jesus and Peter is not that Peter's spirit is unwilling, or that Jesus' flesh is not frail (for he too feels the terror of death): it is that Jesus faces up to the struggle of the "demons within" through prayer" [BtSM:367].
2nd time: eyes are still blind (and now can't stay open) and don't know how to answer (confusion) - just as they didn't at the transfiguration (9:6)
3rd time: hard to translate - Still sleeping! Time's up - Time to face the music that has been playing sense the beginning of Jesus' ministry.
iii. The Arrest: The Disciples Scatter
"Judas, who may may presume slipped out after the meal to plan the ambush, strikes suddenly (14:43). The next scene, it must be said, reeks of the overkill so typical of covert state action against civilian dissidents. The secret signal, the surprise attack at night, and of course the heavily armed contingent all imply that the authorities expected armed resistance. Their instructions to the security forces are to take the utmost security measures (asphalos) in the seizure of the suspect (14:44). There is obviously concern to avoid the popular outcry they so fear. More bitter Markan irony can be seen in the signal by which Jesus is identified: an intimate embrace (14:45). The operation goes according to plan, and the security forces "lay their hands" upon Jesus, whose own hands have done nothing but the works of healing and exorcism throughout the story.
"However, a certain "bystander" skirmishes, wounding one of the high priest's slaves (14:46f.). Interestingly, Mark does not condemn this spontaneous violence (as both Matthew 26:52f. and Luke 22:51 feel compelled to do). The defender is not necessarily a disciple: [Vincent] Taylor speculates that the designation heis de tis means "a certain one (known to us)" ([The Gospel According to St. Mark. St. Martin's.] 1963:599). In any case, Mark uses the event as an occasion for Jesus to point out the sordid character of the entire operation. What he condemns is the ambush itself; he holds the attackers responsible for any violent reaction that has occurred. Eying their weaponry, he states dryly:
So you have come to arrest me with swords and clubs,
as against a robber?
Each day I was among you in the temple,
yet you did not seize me!
But let the scriptures be fulfilled! [14:48f.].
He is accusing the authorities of trying to justify their armed response in terms of an "antiterrorist" action."
Robber - first term here - similar to Josephus' term for social bandits "It is significant that here Jesus is taken as such a representative of the rural resistance, just as he will be crucified as one ("between two robbers," 15:27 ...). Jesus may reject armed resistance, but he understands it; his disdain is reserved for state violence, which forever passes its provocation off as "prevention." Only here does Mark substitute the verb sullambano for his usual word for "arrest" (krateo, eight times), probably an oblique allusion to the arrest of Jeremiah (see Jer 36:26; 37:13 ...). Jesus then taunts the authorities with the fact that their ambush only unmasks their political impotence: what they could not do in public they do covertly (14:49).
"Finally, Jesus throws back in the teeth of his opponents the higher and deeper authority: the "scriptures." Mark cites no specific text, as if he is alluding to the entire "script" of biblical radicalism. This script is not "fulfilled" (plerothosin; only here and 1:15): just as the beginning of Jesus' ministry signaled the fulfillment of the kairos (1:15), so does the arrest signal that the "hour" (14:41) is fulfilled. It is this script that the leaders cannot understand (cf. 12:10,24), and that the disciples cannot follow. When the latter realize that he does not intend to turn away from his fidelity to this script, they flee for their lives (14:50). The sheep have scattered; the discipleship narrative has collapsed" [BtSM:367-8].
iv. The "Young Man": A Hint of Regathering
"It is here that we are given a second augury of the end, but one that will not become evident to us until we arrive there. It takes the form of promise/prediction but symbolic action: the curious flight of a "young man" who laves behind a "cloth" (14:51f.). Some commentators have argued that this is a disconnected episode in which the author's "signature" upon his work can be detected; other attribute it to vivid eye-witness detail in the tradition. Such casual suggestions insult the literary integrity of the gospel. Mark has obviously inserted this cameo here, at the dramatic nadir of the story, for a purpose; it is up to narrative analysis to recover that purpose. For the very obscurity of this subplot engenders our expectation that it will be resolved, and prevents us from abandoning our reading as the disciples have abandoned Jesus.
"This little episode sees the introduction of two new terms: "young man" (neaniskos) and "linen cloth" (sindon). These terms appear again only in the "second" epilogue: Joseph of the council wraps the dead body of Jesus in a sindon (15:46), and the neaniskos appears at the tomb of Jesus. We must wait until the end of the story to fully articulate these complex symbolics ..., but this much can be intimated. The young man, who flees (ephugen) after the authorities try to seize him along with Jesus, is a symbol of the discipleship community as a whole, which has just itself fled (14:50). He escapes naked (gumnos), indicative of shame, leaving behind a cloth that becomes the "burial garment" for Jesus.
"The end of the story will reintroduce the young man, but there he will be "sitting at the right" and fully clothed in a white robe - symbols fo the martyrs who have overcome the world through death (cf. 9:3). This "exchange" of clothes between the first and second appearances of the "young man" represents (as in the earlier transfiguration of Jesus' garments) an implicit promise and challenge. The discipleship community can be rehabilitated, even after such a betrayal. The first "young man" symbolizes "saving life and losing it," and second "losing lfie and saving it." At this stage in the story, however, whithout knowing the end, the episode of the young man represents a mystery. All we know is that everything has gone sour. Teh discipleship community, as has happened so often throughout history, has buckled under the boot of security forces, its dreams of a new order shattered by the brute reality of state power. Jesus, now alone, goes to stand in a kangaroo court with no hope of justice. There his final conflict with the powers will be played out" [BtSM:368-9].
14:53- 15:1 Before the Jewish Powers: "_You_ Are Messiah?" (14:53-15:1) [BtSM:374ff.]
i. Arraignment before the Sanhedrin
1st trail is sandwiched between Peter's Denial Narrative: 14:54, 66-72 - drawing attention to Peter "outside" and Jesus on the "dock"
Trail in 4 parts:
1. Sanhedrin members continue to seek evidence against Jesus (goal is not justice but putting him to death). 14:55
2. Presentation of Manufactured evidence. 14:56-59
3. Interaction between High Priest and Jesus: 14:60-64.
4. Desired conclusion achieved (14:64b) & Brief torture scene.
2. Mark mentions "false witness" / "didn't agree" twice - just as there is false prophets, false messiahs, there is also false witness - main witness is that Jesus proposes to tear down and re-build (in three days) the sanctuary/entire cultic apparatus: "First, it indicates that in the social consciousness of Jesus' opponents, to attack the temple was to attack the very heart of their way of life. Theisen (1976) has pointed out that a platform based upon rejecting the role of the temple would not have been popular among those economically dependent upon it - which was the better part of the Jerusalem populace! [i.e. masons, laborers, incense manufacturers, etc., etc.] ... Small wonder, then, that is allegation is repeated by the crowd at the scene of Jesus' crucifixion (15:29).
"Secondly, the charge ... posits a fundamental opposition between that "made with hands" and that "not made with hands." In this Jesus' opponents have unwittingly articulated the central ideological struggle between him and the temple state. Mark uses this accusation to narratively prepare the way for Jesus' body to replace the temple as the new symbolic center [BtSM:375].
3. Climax: Myers notes that at Capernaum Jesus called the crippled man to the "center" and his opponents were made silent (3:305); now Jesus is brought to the "center" and is made quite/silent (14:60f.). Points to Jesus' refusal to even interact with the "charges" - showing Jesus' understanding that this is a "political trail in which juridical arguments are gratuitous" [BtSM:376].
Only time he answers is to the identity question. I Am / ego eimi Would this be better as a question than a statement? "Am I?" which would recall 8:38f.? Myers wonders.
"Standing before the supreme representative of the temple state, Jesus is "not ashamed" of the Human One, setting an example for his disciples (cf. 8:38). This is the third and final prophecy of the "advent," and in it Mark fuses two of his main intertextual images into one: the psalmic (110:2) vision of Messiah at Yahweh's right hand (Mk 12:36) with the Danielic (7:13) vision of the Human One (Mk 8:38; 13:26). Jesus claims the Jewish leaders will "see" this spectacle, which indeed they will at the foot of the cross (15:31) [BtSM:376].
And this is just the confession the High Priest wants! Guilty! "We recall that Jesus warned the Jerusalem scribes at the culmination of his first campaign that "whosoever blasphemes against the holy spirit ... is guilty (enochos) of unending sin" (3:29). Later on he claimed that this holy spirit speaks on behalf of the defendant before the courts (13:11). By implication, then, in accusing the defendant Jesus of blasphemy, the Sanhedrin has accused the holy spirit. The war of myths, in other words, has ended in mutual anathema" [BtSM:376-7].
ii. Peter's Denial: The Betrayal Narrative Concludes
Myers notes that however Peter came to be there, this is a belated attempt to follow Jesus to the end, as he vowed - which collapses as soon as his identity is discovered.
Starts with a glimpse in 14:54, then proceeds with 14:66-72.
"Unfolds in a three step progression:
1. at fire; servant: "You were with the Nazarene, Jesus";
2. at gate: servant to bystanders: "This one is with them";
3. later; bystanders: "Truly you were with them, for you are a Galilean"
"Standing just outside where his master is being interrogated and tortured, we can empathize with Peter's fear of being recognized and identified with the accused. ... [Peter tries to retreat], but his accent betrays him. The contempt of his accusers - that his master is a Nazarene, and he a Galilean - is colorful detail with a purpose. It is another narrative indicator of the movement's identification with the rural north - which is cause for antipathy and suspicion by urban Jerusalemites.
"Denying Jesus twice, Peter has both violated the injunction of 8:34 and broken his own vow (14:31). Yet the language of his third denial is surprisingly strong (14:71): he calls down an anathema, even takes an oath (cf. Herod's oat, 6:23), in insisting that he does not "know" (ouk oida) Jesus. Here is another irony that speaks the truth: for all his following, Peter truly does not "know" who Jesus is (which even the demons knew, 1:24,34). The rooster then sings ...
"The summary verse of 15:1, which recapitulates the judgement of the Sanhedrin, bridges the two trail narratives. The temporal marker - "early morning" (proi) - is itself a transition. Analeptically it represents the last "watch" of the apocalyptic parable of the householder (13:36), and problematically the first watch of Jesus' final day, which Mark divides into regular "watches": day-break, third hour (e.g. 9a.m., 15:25), sixth hour (15:33), ninth hour (15:34), and evening (15:42). The Sanhedrin's "consultation" (...) brings to a close the subplot of the conspiracy, which opened with a similar "consultation" (3:6). In the last reversal of Mark's earlier symbolics, Jesus is "bound" (desantes) and led away to the Roman authorities. The strong man he had vowed to bind (3:27) remains, after all, firmly in control, his "house" intact" [BtSM:377-8].
15:2-20: The Double Trail of Jesus: History and Parody [large view] [BtSM:369ff.]
Majority of scholars agree that Mark's text is based upon some historical reality, but majority of scholars also agree that Mark has adapted this historical reality. Why?
Myers argues: to implicate both Roman and Jewish Temple leadership. He looks at the paralells between "the interrogations before the Sanhedrin and Pilate:
14:60-62
- ... the high priest questioned Jesus saying,
- "Have you no answer to make?
- What about the things charged against you?"
- But he was silent and made no answer.
- And again the high priest questioned him and said to him,
- "_You_ are Messiah, son of the Blessed One?"
- And Jesus said,
- "Am I!"
15:4f.,2
- And again Pilate questioned him saying,
- "Have you no answer to make?
- See what they are charging you!"
- But Jesus answered nothing further at all ...
- And Pilate questioned him,
- "_You_ are the king of the Jews?"
- And Jesus answered him and said,
- "You said!"
"Aside from the fact that the second trail reverses the order of the question/response, the two are almost exactly parallel. Both hearings are then followed by a kind of "consultation," in the first case between the high priest and the Sanhedrin, in the second between Pilate and the "crowds." Each ends with a verdict followed by a mockery-torture scene. This discourse of parallelism, far from suggesting favoritism, strongly implicates both parties of the colonial apparatus as equally culpable - indeed collaborative - in the political railroading of Jesus. Brandon and others misconstrue Mark's narrative strategy because they fail to appreciate the central role of both parody and irony: his caricature resembles a political cartoon [BtSM:370].
How a cartoon? Greatest Jewish court in the land throws out due process - conducts this "at night" - rigges the hearing (false witnesses who can't even agree with one another) - "frantic lobbying of the very masses they so deeply mistrust" all this is "grimly comic."
Then there is Pilate (with added irony): He get's that this is about native kingship - parody in consulting with the crowds ( who are comic and fickle - just yesterday they were eager to listen to any/all Jesus had to say, now they shout "crucify!")
"These literary hyperboles work together to indict the entire political-legal process of the colonial condominium, not just the Jewish leadership. The reader should not be surprised by this: Jesus had already ideologically repudiated the system that condemns him. The sharp edge of realism in the political cartoon recognized the converse: the powers railroad Jesus because they know he is committeed to their overthrow; in political trails, justice is subordinate to the need for conviction.
"But political cartoons are effective only if the liness is as recognizable as it is exaggerated. ... Anyone in the imperial sphere would have scoffed at the idea of a local judiciary dictating a legal or political course of action to a Roman procurator who was weak and undecided. This would be regarded as fantasy to those knowing the true relationships of power in Palestine, where the procurator installed and deposed the high priest at will. It would ahve been particularly inconceiveable in the case of Pilate, whose tneure was infamous (and well-attested) for its stubbborness, provocation, and violence" [BtSM:371].
But is it plausable? 1st question, why did the Sanhedrin find Jesus guilty of "heresy" while Pilate finds him guildty of "sedition"? At the center is the Sanhedrin's authority to deal with matters of "capital punishment." Inconclusive: If it is necessary, then the double trail explains this (to an extent); if not, then at the least Mark wants to show that Jesus was wanted by the Romans, too. "However we interpret the double trail in tersm of historical plausibility, we arrive at the same conclusion: Mark's narrative means to protray Jesus as convicted on charges of sedition by a Roman politico-legal process" [BtSM:372].
Pilate: "Pontius Pilate, a member of the Roman equestrian class and provincial procurator in Judea from 25 to 36 C.E., had a well-known reputation for his tumultuous administration. He is described by a contemporary as "inflexible, merciless, and obstinate" (Taylor, 1963:578). Yet Mark identifies this formidable figure simply as "Pilate," with no further elaboration. In other words, it is safe to assume that Mark expects the reader to recognize the name, and hence the reputation. Mark's characterization of him fits with the profile of a procurator quite willing to cooperate in political machinations that will benefit Rome. The narrative makes perfect sense if we assume ... that Mark's Pilate fully understands the political character of Jesus' practice as a threat, approves of his elemination, and is willing to exchange a known political terrorist (Barabbas) in order to secure it" [BtSM:373].
Such trades were known to take place: Josephus mentions that certain "sicarii" or other "social bandits" were sometimes released, especially if they had ties to certain members of the Sanhedrin (see BtSM:374f.).
Before Roman Powers: "You Are King?" (15:2-20)
i. Arraignment before Pilate
Presumed, Jesus taken to Harod's palace, procurator's temporary residence at Jerusalem, used during visits/Jewish Holy Days, etc.
2nd hearing patterened after 1st (see above for parallels)
"It begins with the remarkable accustion put on the lips of Pilate (15:2), which he later claims to have picked up from the crowds (15:12). Repeated no less than five times in Mark 15, the charge emerges as the crowning ironic "confession." It is the emperor's representative who accords Jesus his rightful political status, yet he does so in order to execute him on grounds of sedition (15:26). But to Pilate the sardonic title "king of the Jews" (as opposed to "king of Israel," cf. 15:32) is an expression of contempt. The title of the client King Herod (R. Brown, 1977:170), it is the procurator's reminder that the Jewish people does not have sovereignty in its own land (15:18)" [BtSM:378].
Jesus only answers because he is named, and no matter how much the Sanhedrin press, the only charge Pilate is interested in is the one of "kingship."
Jesus' "silence would appear to be an allusion to Isaiah's Suffering Servant, and thus an extension of the Zachariah sheperd parable ... [see Is 53:7] ... Jesus' disdain for the legal game, his refusal to pleabargain or argue a defense, and is defiance of the power of Rome, are what cause Pilate to "wonder" (15:5; cf. 12:17). The procurator cannot understand how anyone can face the state's threat of capital punishment with such determination, and will puzzzle over it again in 15:44, after the defendant is dead" [BtSM:378-9].
After the Barabbas event (ii. below), Jesus is then tortured at the hands of the Roman soldiers. Myers quotes Belo who comments that the way the soldiers treat Jesus is similar to the "ferocity [of] lower-rank police officials demonstrate when dealing with political prisoners ([Belo,] 1981:224,330-1). The soldiers mockery is ironic in that it shows who Jesus truly is. Myers: "Mark is at pains to demonstrate the irreconcilable hostility between Jesus and the Roman imperium" [BtSM: 380].
ii. Who is the Real Revolutionary? Jesus and Barabbas
Returns to 15:6 ... "The introduction of Barabbas describes him, like Jesus, as "bound" (15:1, 7 deo, meaning "in custody"). His name translates "Son of the Father." Is he therefore to be seen purely as a narrative fiction, a kind of counterpart, even imposter, to the political prisoner Jesus? Even if this is the case, Mark describes Barabbas in a manner that had concrete historical signification: as a Sicarius terrorist. Mark states matter of factly that he belonged to a cadre of imprisoned rebels "who had committed murder in the insurrection" (15:7 ...) This is the only time Mark uses the explicitly language of revolution (stasis appears seven times in Luke-Acts), and it may be that Mark is again appealing to reader-recognition of a specific person or event, for there was constant insurrectionary activity in Jerusalem during this period. What Mark calls "murder" (cf. phonos, 7:22) would have been characteristic of the modus operandi of the Sicarii (...) or "dagger men," who were infamous for their stealth in political assassination. Thus Mark's narrative concern here is to dramatize the choice. Jesus and Barabbas each represent fundamentally different kinds of revolutionary practice, violent and nonviolent, both of which have lead to a common fate: prison and impending execution.
"With the reintroduction of the crowd (15:8), it dawns on us that Mark has assembled every major force in the spectrum of Palestinian politics onto the stage for a final showdown. The Roman and Jewish authorities are there; so is the rebel leader; the "crowds" represent the popular masses. Jesus is there too, alone, abandoned by his community. It is a masterfully composed scene, representing a microcosmic arena of competing interests. Upon its outcome hangs not only the "life and death" of Jesus, but as in the staged climax to the first campaign narrative (3:1-6), the future of the entire social project of the Jewish nation. Hence the echo of the Deuteronomic ultimatum, ironically stated by the procurator in his final challenge onto the frenzied crowd: "What evil has he done?" (15:14, ... cf. ... 3:4). At the same time, this choice is no longer in the symbolic space of Judaism (i.e., the synagogue or temple), but the Roman sphere (the praetorium, 15:16). Acordingly, Mark protrays the scene in faint parody of a pagan "intertextual" tradition: the gladiator games of the Colosseum, in which combatants often included prisoners of war and criminals condemned to death. After the fight, the crowd was given "the choice to determine whether a wounded gladiator would be killed or allowed to live" (Merrit, 1985:68).
"The crowd - the "sheep without a shepherd" (6:34) - is caught between conflicting revolutionary claims: the "kingdom" vision heralded by Jesus and the restorationist vision represented by Barabbas the guerrilla. But it is only an apparent choice, for those mediating the contest are in fact the ones who presently hold social power with no intention of giving it up - after all, both candidates are prisoners. Between Pilate's taunts (and this is now we must read the procurator's "consultations" with the crowd) and the chief priest's frantic behind-the-scenes lobbying, Mark is indicating that the crowd is being manipulated to play into the hands of the status quo. As long as the masses succumb to the wily machinations of the ruling classes, their continued domination is guaranteed" [BtSM:380-1].
Myers points out that the language & the way the crowd "cries out" is similar to the demonic possitions - in essence, the crowd is possessed [BtSM:381].
14:1 - 15:20: Jesus' Arrest and Trial by the Powers (Mark 14:1- 15:20) [BtSM:Chapter Twelve (354ff.)]
"There is a painting by a Guatamalan artist, in exile in Australia, that depicts the Last Supper against the political landscape of Latin America. Swirling around Jesus in teh smoke-filled room is a vivid tableau; woven in and around the tweleve disciples are military generals cavorting with high-class prostitues, wealthy landowners making payoffs, guerillas whispering furtively, a peasant couple attending to their malnourished children, a priest saying Mass, land reforem organizers being attacked by vigilantes, several mutilated bodies under the table. There is no religious aura around Jesus; instead, he seems hemmed in, caught in the middle of the worldly passions, intrigues, and suffering of life as it really is.
"Never have I seen a painting that more accurately captured the tenor of Mark's story of Jesus' last days. It is an intensely political drama, filled with conspiratorial back-room deals and covert action, judicial manipulation and prisoner exchanges, torture and summary execution. These themes are characteristic of our modern political narratives, but they rarely emerge in the standard interpretations of "Holy Week." Conditioned by centuries of liturgical and theological reproductions, we think of the "upper Room" as a lofty eucharistic moment, rather than as the conflict-ridden final hours of a fugitive community in hiding, whose solidarity is crumbling in the face of state power. We envision Gethsemane as Jesus' obedient submission to the preordained plan of salvation history, rather than the deep internal struggle of a leader coming to terms with the consequences of his subversive practice.
"Mark's "passion play" is precisely such a political tableau, painted with hues of trgedy, realism, and parody. In it Mark dramatizes the final conflict between the nonviolence symbolic action of Jesus, the security apparatus of the authorities, and the revolutionary yearnings of the rebels, the "war in heaven" being played out in the real life theater of Jewish and Roman courts, jails, and docks. Here the irrepressibly political center of the story (8:34f.) is articulated: "self-denial," "taking up the cross," and "losing one's life to save it" are finally enacted. And we would do well not to forget that this very narrative of arrest, trail, and torture is still lived out by countless political prisoners around the world today [BtSM:354-5].
Mark's passion narrative "brings a greater degree of representation of historical tradition than elsewhere in the Gospel - this even the most skeptical form critics concede." However, that doesn't mean that Mark's hand/agenda is not present: Following 10:33f. Jesus is handed over from the disciples to the chief priests/scribes to the gentiles/Pilate to the executioner.
3 Main Sections:
- 1. the last day of the community (14:1-52)
- 2. the double trail (14:53-15:20
- 3. Jesus' esecution and the "second" epilogue (15:21-16:8) [Myers address #3 in the next section]
Twin themes of conspiracy and betrayal are "linked to the trail by the episode of Peter's denial." "From this we can see that the narrative is a pathetic litany of failed discipleship and intrigue" (BtSM:355&6).
Trail episodes are of a parallel structure and linked to Jesus' execution by two devices: 1 - 24 hr. span (Jesus' arrest/trail take place at night, by next night he is dead and buried). 2 - tripple mockery:
"a. by Jewish security forces (14:65);
b. by Roman security forces (15:16-20);
c. by the gathered crowd at the cross (15:29-32).
"As we will see, each mockery ironically confirms the vocation of Jesus as prophet, Messiah, and king.
"The climax to the story is the third apocalyptic moment, defined by the two "cosmic portents" and the two great cries of Jesus (15:33-38). After Jesus expires on teh cross, the aftermath or "second epilogue" commences. It is structured around three responses to Jesus' death: by a Roman soldier who presided over the execution, a member of the Jewish council that condemned Jesus, and the woman disciples. The last act of the Gospel opens a few days later at the tomb, a scene consisteing of a dialogue between some women and a "young man." This ending functions to reopen the narrative of Jesus - just as the stone with which the tomb was sealed is "rolled away" - and points the reader back to the beginning of the story" [BtSM:356].
"Mark articulates this tragedy through a series of somber predictions, each of which is fullfilled within the story:
1. prediction: one will betray (14:18f.);
2. fulfillment: Judas' kiss (14:44);
3. prediction: all will fall away (14:27);
4. fulfillment: disciples' flee at the arrest (14:50);
5. prediction: Peter will deny Jesus (14:30);
6. fulfillment: Peter denies Jesus (14:67-71).
At the same time, Mark articulates a narrative counter-discource of hopeful "premonition," both overt and implied:
1. a promise that the stricken shepherd will again live to "go before" the community in Galilee (14:28);
2. the symbolic flight of the naked "young man" (14:51f.).
Both are "fulfilled" at the end of the story by the reappearance of a fully clothed "young man" who announces that Jesus indeed is continuing to "go before" the disciples in Galilee (16:5-7). Inserted into the dismal "resolution" of the subplots, these intimations promise that through the discipleship narrative collapses, it does not necessarily end, giving the reader hope and reason to continue reading" (BtSM:357).
"In the last "momentes" of Jesus' life, Mark gathers together onto the stage all the characters in his political drama: Roman and Jewish authorities, the crowd, the disciples (in the background), and the rebels (represented by Barabbas and the social bandits). These scenes represent in microcosm the polemic of the story as a whole, Mark's final plea to the reader to choose the ideology of the Human One over the other competing social strategies, all of which are hostile to, yet unwitting accomplices of, the way of the cross" (BtSM:357).
15:21-32: The Way of the Cross (15:21-32) [BtSM:384ff.]
i. The Triumphal Gloat of Rome
Myers points out that this is "the political theater of imperial triumph. The Roman practice of putting its defeated milietary foes on parade is well documented (alluded to in the Pauline war of myths, Col 2:15). Josephus [gives an example: Simon bar Giora] ... In the provinces, with lesser "kings," a local public march to the executioner's stake suffficed for the same lesson in imperial omnipotence" [BtSM:384-5].
Why Simon the Cyrenian forced to carry Jesus' cross, and why even named? "The first ironic overtone": Simon just came from the fields ... he's rural just like the crowds who followed him down to Jerusalem, and cut the straw to line his way ... "Now Mark reproduces the scene in a negative image: Jesus exits Jerusalem in a Roman procession, accompanied (under duress) by a single rural dweller." 1. ironic closer to the Jerusalem narrative; 2. reminds us of Mark's use of the geopolitical/spatial tension: city/country and center/periphery
"Secondly, the episode has strong discipleship overtones. Simon the Cyrenian was "passing along" (paragonta) when he was pressed into service. This verb has occurred only two other times in Mark - in both cases describing Jesus' movement in the discipleship call stories (1:16; 2:13). Was not the name of the first man called by Jesus also "Simon"? And has not this former Simon, who along with the others was exhorted to "take up his cross" (... 8:34), deserted this calling? So does Markan irony have a different Simon "take up the cross" (...). Yet again it is an outsider (Simon was a father to Alexander and Rufus, names from which we must infer that he was a gentile) who, however unwillingly, answers teh call to discipleship, while the twelve are nowhere to be seen" [BtSM:385].
Myers quotes H.R. Weber [The Cross: Tradition and Interpretation. Eerdmans. 1975]:
"Sometimes the condemned had a tablet, stating the causa poena, the reason for his conviction, hung around his neck. Hen then had himself to carry the transverse bar of the cross (the patibulum) to the place of execution. There he was undressed and scourged, if this had not already been done. According to ancient custom, the executioners were allowed to distribute the condemned man's clothing among themselves. At the place of execution there usually already stood a ple (stripes or palu). ... The convict was then laid on the ground, both forearms or wrists were tied or nailed to the transverse bar, and he was then raised by the partibulum. ... If the condemned man was intended to be visible from afar, the high cross was chosen. Usually, though, the pole measured no more than about seven feet. This meant that wild animals could tear the crucified man apart. The feet of the victims were not supported by a footrest as Christian art has depicted it since the seventh century, but were tied or nailed to the pole. Usually, the condemned man "sat" on a peg (sedile or cornu) which was fixed to the middle of the pole. ... Generally, the crucified one died of gradual asphyxiation [1975:6]. [BtSM:385-6]
Jesus offered drugged wine (see Proverbs 31:6) - but refuses to remain consistent with his vow (14:25). His clothing "which once healed people (5:27f.; 6:56) but now, like thier owner, are impotent" the soldiers draw lots to win. "Here is the first of three allusions int eh execution narrative to the great Psalm of lament, Psalm 22 (22:18) [BtSM:386].
ii. The Derision of the Jews
"Jesus nailed to the stake at the "third hour" (about nine in the morning) - the first of Mark's three "watches of the cross" (15:25)." Mark then moves the reader's eyes up - from ground to sky "as the cross is raised. First we are shown the inscription ... the formal charges upon which Jesus was convicted: "King of the Jews" (15:26; the last of the five occurrences of this title). Pilate seems to have prevailed: Jesus is being executed for presuming to challenge the authority of Rome. With this the war of myths between Yahwism and imperialism, implied in the tribute episode (12:16), is definitively articulated. Those who would collaborate with the empire will "render" according to Caesar's inscription; those who would collaborate with the kingdom must "render" according to the inscription on the cross" [BtSM:386].
Mark introduces the political triangle again in next scene: kingdom vs. Ceasar, but what of the Jewish state? Again, Mark has all present - just as in the Pilate consults the crowd scene:
Jesus is crucified between two bandits - tells us how the "state" sees him (and notice that this is different from the Barabbas sicarius faction). "Social bandits on the other hand operated in the countryside; bandit leaders whose private armies came to defend Jerusalem [examples like John of Gischala and Simon bar Giora] ... . So too Jesus, who also operated in the rural areas and who came to Jerusalem, ..., with messianic pretension. However historical the tradition may be, Mark is making a very improtant ideological statement here. Mark has in the second sermon clearly dissociated Jesus from the means and ends of the rebel cause. Yet he shares their fate, as a common opponent to both Rome and the socio-economic staus quo. Jesus is traded for a Sicarius, taken for a social bandit; of all the fractions in Palestine, Mark situates Jesus alongside these.
"As if to underline the point, Mark tells us that the bandits were crucified "one on his right and one on his left" (15:27) - the very positions of "honor" for which the disciples had earlier competed (10:37). The implication is unmistakable: Jesus' call to messianic nonviolence asks no more, but certainly no less, of the recruit than do the rebels. The irony is that it is the armed insurgents, not his own disciples, who demonstrate the courage to undergo the "baptism" of death at the hands of the state (cf. 10:39f.). It is because of this very fact that Mark's Jesus can be said to stand in solidarity with the rebels he disagrees with, indeed the rebels who join the others in mocking his way. It seems to be that the lesson for disciples of messianic nonviolence still holds: only when our resistance becomes serious enough to be "reckoned with the transgressors" (to intone Is 53:12) will it be taken seriously by them as an alternative. Let it be recognized, says Mark, that those who have chosen armed struggle have taken up the cross, that place of honor, far more often than have practitioners of satyagraha" [BtSM:387].
Bystanders / the uncommitted crowds: "They "wag their heads," an illusion to the derision of fallen Isareal in Lamentations 2:15" and Psalm 22. Repeating the charge of 14:58, the crowd prepares the reader for the tension between the sanctuary and Jesus' body - get's dramatized in the 3rd apocalyptic moment - "concludes with the challenge, or plea, for Jesus to "come down" from the cross and "save himself" (15:30) [BtSM:388].
Chief priests and scribes (representing the collaborating ruling elite (15:31): Maintain parallelism with Romans in deriding Jesus' failed political attempts - Not only deride him as Messiah, but add Pilate's King, too. "This only confirms their collaboration with rome, though they correct Pilate's insult for 15:18. With yet more irony, in their taunt - "others he saved, himself he cannot save" (15:31b) - Jesus' opponents have once again exegeted the central messianic truth. Jesus was indeed committed to "saving" lfie (3:4), and he did indeed warn his disciples against trying to save their own life (8:36). The tragedy of the story is that no one has understood this paradox; his enemies ridicule it, his discipes have abandoned it.
"As I suggested in the opening lines of this chapter, there is a touch of desperation in their final challenge:
come down from the cross
that we may see and believe (15:32b).
Jesus' opponents are imploring him to repudiate the cross. ... They are prepared to believe, if (but only if) Jesus can salvage a narrative of triumphalism. Indeed so strong is this desire for a last-minute intervention that in the end one is conjured up:
See! He calls for Elijah! [15:35]
Let us see whether Elijah comes to take him down [15:36].
This is the pitiful culmination to the struggle for belief that has characterized Mark's story (cf. 9:24). How can Jesus be the King of Isreal, hanging on a Roman cross? As the bandits join in the chorus (15:32c), it is as if the whole of Palestinian political culture has issued a rejection of the way of Jesus. Things have hardly changed today" [BtSM:388-9].
15:33-38: Jesus Crucified: Third Apocalyptic Moment (15:33-36) [BtSM:389ff.]
i. The End of the World
"Mark shapes the final scene of Jesus' life concentrically:
- first judgement: darkness for three hours
- first cry in a great voice: Ps 22:1
- bystanders: "See he calls Elijah"
- man giving sour wine: "Let us see if Elijah comes"
- second cry in a loud voice; Jesus dies
- second judgement: rending of the sanctuary curtain
"Here Mark's war of myths reaches its culmination in two great judgement motifs. The first is a sudden darkness over the land for three hours (from the sixth to ninth hour, the second and third watches of the cross). Taken from Exodus 10:22, when Yahweh, in the war of myths with the pharaoh, blotted out the sun in Egypt for three days - the repudiation of the imperial order legitimized by the worship of the sun god Ra. Here, the motif represents the first indication that the apocalyptic "moment" spoken of in 13:24 is being realized: the fall of the dominate world order symbolized in teh unraveling of the cosmic forces or order in the universe" [BtSM:389].
Next come the first of the two cries or "death rattles." The first ("the great shout") is a reference to Psalm 22 (the psalms were known by their first verses) but also brings to mind the total abandonment and bitterness of "Jesus as the suffering righteous man. ... There is no reply to this agonized protest directed at heaven. Unlike the previous two apocalyptic moments, the voice from above is silent" [BtSM:389].
Elijah centers: Elijah was to rescue the godly in time of need according to popular belief (Myers quotes Taylor). This Great Shout recalls Isaian shout in the wilderness of 1:3 - Other two apocalyptic experiences also have Elijah - Myers points out that Elijah has already come via John, and no one listened/saw (blind/deaf motif). "But where is John/Elijah now? "Elijah has indeed come, and they did to him whatever they pleased" (9:13). There can be, in other words, no eleventh-hour rescue, for every servant of the vineyard owner shares the same fate at the hands of the tenants (12:1ff.)" [BtSM:390].
While the crowd wanted a miracle/a sign - their expectations are cut short in the Last Gasp and Death. Myers notes that is the "very gasp that caracterized the last gasps of the demon(s) as they were vanquished by Jesus in each of his two inaugural exorcisms (1:27; 5:7). The reader might at this point shudder. Is this the darkest reversal of all, inferring that the powers have "exorcised" Jesus? Has Mark's alternative symbolic field finally collapsed, the last victim of the steadily deteriorating narrative of betrayal and defeat? The evidence seems overwhelming. Elijah did not come, and heaven has remained silent. It was not the strong man who was bound, but Jesus; not the temple that was destroyed, but Jesus. Now he is dead; the story appears to have come to a grinding hault.
"Then, just as we are forced to capitulate to this irresistible narrative logic, Mark dramatically overturns it. At that moment the "sanctuary curtain (to katapetasma tou naou) was rent in two from top to bottom" (15:38). Taylor points out that "in the LXX to katapetasma ... is the curtain between the Holy of place and the Holy of Holies (Ex 26:31-37), but the words is sometimes used of the veil which covered the entrance to the Holy Place" (1963:596). Mark's narrative of subversion regarding the efficacy and authority of the temple cult now is given closure. Jesus' death has unmasked the fact that the "tear" (schisman) in the "old garment" is irreparable (2:21); the symbolic order as it is centrally embedded int eh sanctuary has been overthrown. Here then is the second great symbol of the "end of the world." The strong man has not prevailed, his "house" has been ransacked. But how can this be?" [BtSM:390].
ii. The Advent of the Human One
To understand how Mark can make such a claim, Myers invites us to look at the three apocalyptic moments synoptically:
"These moments have been placed like structural pillars at the beginning (Jesus' baptism", midpoint (Jesus' transfiguration), and end of the story. At the level of narrative, each moment is fundamental to the regeneration of the plot: the baptism opened the subversive mission of the kingdom, the transfiguration deepened it by confirming the second call to discipleship. Golgotha becomes the "practice" of the first two moments: "baptism" (which according to 10:38 is a metaphor for political execution) and "cross" (8:34).
"All three moments share four constitutive elements: (a) some kind of heavenly portent (which is otherwise eschewed by Mark); (b) a "voice"; (c) an indentificiation of Jesus as "Son of God"; and (d) relationship to "Elijah":
Baptism
a) heavens rent dove descends
b) voice from heaven
c) "You are my son, beloved."
d) John the Baptist as Elijah
Transfiguration
a) garments turn white clouds descends
b) voice from cloud
c) "This is my son, beloved"
d) Jesus appears with Elijah
Crucifixion
a) sanctuary veil rent darkness spreads
b) Jesus' great voice
c) truly this man was son of God.
d) "Is he calling Elijah?"
With this narrative identification between teh three mometns in mind, we can see how, at the level of ideological signification, the meaning of the third moment is to be understood in terms of the advent of the Human One" [BtSM:390-1].
Mark has Jesus resist the "Messiah" and "Son of God" tittles, instead Jesus uses "Human One" (which is a servant, will suffer, and die ... but also will vanquish the powers). Character is drawn from Daniel 7:9-14, "and this oracle brings immediate clarity to the war of myths taking place at Golgotha. For in Daniel's dream, it is precisely at the point at which the "beast" appears triumphant (Dn 7:3-8) that a counter-vision suddenly turns the tables. The beast is brought before a heavenly courtroom and, along with the other nations, is judged and forced to cede its sovereignty. ... Marks' apocalyptic intertextuality is specifically political here, as it was in 13:14; he again freely substitues the Roman-Jewish condominium for Antiochus Epiphanes IV as the new beast. The myth of the Human One overthrowing the rulers of the age is a revolutionary one that legitimizes resistance to teh dominatn order, and promises its demise" [BtSM:391].
Myers warns us to watch out for the ways that "traditional theology" want "to salvage imperial theology of triumph" from the cross. "Mark, however, has given us narrative clues that indentify all the apocalyptic moments with teh one event of the cross. We recall that three times Jesus has predicted that his audience woud "see" the advent of the Human One: once to his disciples (9:1), once referring to the powers themselves (13:25), and once addressing the Sanhedrin (14:62). We now realize that the narrative of Jesus' execution does indeed fulfill his word: at the cross "some of" the disciples (represented by the women "watching" in 15:40) and the whole political spectrum of powers (including the members of the Sanhedrin) are all present. They are "seeing" the advent of the Human One on the cross. That this is the moment spoken of in 8:29f. and 13:24f. is a further confirmed by the two representative "apocalyptic portents." The sun darknens (the cosmic symbol), and the sanctuary curtain is rent in two (the political symbol). The world order has been overthrown, the powers have fallen (13:24f.).
"The judgement and "enthrownment" mysth of Daniel is renarrated in Mark's thrid apocalyptic moment of the cross. It represents the conclusion of teh "war in heaven," which, in the struggle between Jesus and temptation/Satan (1:13 = 8:33 = 14:38), is being enacted on earth. The Human One, who is given dominion over the powers in the mythic moment of "glory," is the very same Human One who "gives his life as a ransom for many" in the mythic moment of death. Here the war of myths between teh two opposing ideological systems reaches its zenith: just as it was Yahweh vs. pharaoh's sun god Ra, as it was the archangeel Michael vs. the prince of Persia (Dn 10:12f.), so now it is Jesus' "body" vs the "sanctuary." Once we see this we can understand the correlation between Jesus' prophecy of his death and resurrection "after three days" (8:31) and his opponents' allegation that he would destroy the sanctuary and construct a new one "within three days" (14:58). The first part of both have been fulfilled: Jesus has been "handed over and killed," and the "sanctuary made with hands" has been symbolically "destroyed" (the renting of the curtain). It now only remains to be seen how the narrative will raise up the new sanctuary "not made with hands" [BtSM:391-2].
15:39-47: Aftermath: Three Responses to Jesus' Death (15:39-47) [BtSM:392ff.]
This is the "2nd Epilogue" - symbolics of 2nd half of Mark reach their resolution. "Human One, coming in "power and glory" of the cross, has been "seen" by both those who conspired with Jesus and those who conspired against him. Now Mark narrates brief stories of three such "witnesses": a centurion, a member of the Sanhedrin, and the women disciples. Each vignette occures in two parts, such that all three are tightly woven together; in chronological order:
- centurion as witness of Jesus' death (15:39)
- women disciples "watch" the death (vv. 40f.)
- Joseph appeals for the body of Jesus (vv. 42f.)
- centurion as witness of Jesus' death (v. 46)
- Joseph buries Jesus (v. 46)
- women disciples "watch" the burial (v. 47)
The function of this "aftermath" is to provide a narrative bridge to the final encounter at the tomb, at which point the discipleship story is regenerated. Throughout this epilogue, the "body" of Jesus lingers as the narrative center, hinting that death has not had the last word" [BtSM: 392].
i. The Centurion: Rome Has Defeated Jesus
"The first reaction by any character to the death of Jesus is the famous "confession" of the Roman centurion in 15:39. This utterance is widely regarded in traditional exegesis as the "climax" of the Gospel, providing narrative (and theological) resolution to the "messianic secret." It is argued that Mark's christology stipulates that only "at the foot of the cross" can Jesus' "sonship" legitimately be extolled; ..." [BtSM:393]. Myers doesn't buy all of this. He does concent that there is true "insofar as it recognizes the necessity of the cross for a genuine profession of Jesus," but Myers points out that this was already clear back at the confessional crisis of 8:27ff. and doesn't believe that is the point here. As Myers states: "To put such a realization on the lips of a Roman soldier ("centurion" is a Latinism) - moreover the very one presiding at Jesus' execution - not only gives the man more credit that he deserves, it clearly betrays an imperial bias. It is yet another attempt to suppress political discourse in favor of theology" [BtSM:393].
What about seeing Mark's "penchant for radical narrative reversals" applying here? Myers feels this is impossible: "First, Mark sets up the scene with the centurion "standing over against" Jesus on the cross (ho paretekos ex enantias autou); such spatial tension usually in Mark connotes opposition (enantios in 6:48), not solidarity. Secondly, this centurion will momentarily reappear to confirm to Pilate that Jesus has ineed died (15:44f.). The fact that the man did not defect from his role as a Roman soldier loyal to Pilate erases the possibility that this is meant by Mark as a _discipleship_ story. ... Thirdly, is the matter of the "confession" itself. Many have pointed out that the centurion's words could just as easily be interpreted as a general Hellenistic statement of respect: "This man was a son of God." Nor does his solemnity ("Truly ...", alethos) carry particular weight, for Mark twice previously has put this exclamation on the lips of the discipleship community's opponents (12:14; 14:70). yet even if we do accept this as a confession, we have no guarantee of, and the theologians offer no good reason why we should assume, its legitimacy. After all, Jesus as "Son of God" has previously been uttered "legitimately" only by Mark (1:1) at the beginning, and by the heavenly voice in the first two apocalyptic moments (1:11; 9:7). Every other occurrence of the designation "son" in reference to Jesus has been attributed to either demons or political opponents (3:11; 5:7; 6:3; 14:61). In other words, the title does not necessarily represent a "confession" at all, but more often the hostile response to those struggling to gain power over Jesus by "naming" him. And is not this view more appropriate to the political discourse of Mark to this point? rome has triumphed over the Nazarene, he has been "named" by the executioner who pronouces him "dead" (15:44f.).
"The only difference between the exclamationm of the centurion and that of demon or high priest is that Jesus cannot silence or repudiate it, for he is dead. It is therefore up to the reader to discern. Our best clue lies in the thrid apocalyptic moment's contrariety to the first two. Whereas Elijah was "present" at both baptism (in the person of John) and the transfiguration (in the vision), at the cross it is those who deride Jesus who invoke Elijah. The heavenly (possitive narrative coordinate) portents have been replaced with an earthly one: the rent sanctuary curtain (negative coordinate). And the "reliable testimony" from the clouds is here silent. Against all this, are we to see the centurion's words as trustworthy? If so, we will have failed to learn one of the most salient lessons of the whole story, which is that those in power indeed "know who Jesus is," and are out of destroy him, whereas those who follow him are often unsure who he is, but struggle to trust him nevertheless. In the end, the only reliable postexecution "witness" to Jesus will be a "young man," who tells the women that Jesus is alive and that the discipleship adventure may continue" [BtSM:393-4].
ii. Joseph: The Sanhedrin Had Defeated Jesus
Myers skips the cameo of the women to move onto talking about Joseph, another "oppressor's response," the last named bit-character. Myers relates: "This episode is similarly ambiguous - and similarly misunderstood by most commentators. It begins with the penultimate temporal marker in the story: evening (opsias genomenes). The long day of Jesus' condemnation and death is drawing to a close - there remains only for body to be removed from the cross. mark is careful to mention that we are on teh eve of the Sabbath, for two reasons. First, it provides a narrative balance to the story of Jesus' ministry: it had commenced in relation to the Sabbath (1:21), and his vocation of public healing ministry had started "when evening had come" (opsias de genomenes, 1:32); so too it ends on the Sabbath eve. Secondly, the issue of the Sabbath, a point of conflict throughout the story, will come into play one last time" [BtSM:394].
Is Joseph's act an act of mercy? Myers doesn't think so: "But once again, such a view withers under closer scrutiny. Joseph is described as "affluent" (euschemon; "the papyri make it clear that this means a wealthy landowner," Jeremias, 1969:96). He is also a member of the council (bouleutes), presumably the Sanhedrin (15:43). In other words, Joseph, like the centurion, is one who has been deeply complicit in the process by which Jesus was executed. Mark distinguishes him (the emphatic hos kai autos is almost as if to say "but he unlike the others") by telling us that he was "expecting the kingdom of God." The verb (prosdechomenos) is derived from teh hospitality verb dechesthai so important to Mark's ideology of "kingdom receptivity" (6:11; 9:37; 10:15). But given that in Mark the closes scribes get is "not for from the kingdom of God" (12:34), we are unsure what to make of this description" [BtSM:394-5].
Myers points out that by a member of the Sanhedrin having to "make bold" for Jesus' body, shows how firmly in control Pilate really is. "But it also suggests that the Jewish leadership was anxious to hastily dispose of the whole matter before any protest could be made. Some see Joseph's action as a dignifying one: rather than leaving Jesus' corpse (...) at the mercy of the elements and wild animals, as was often the case with victims of crucifixion, he placed it in a proper tomb (15:46). But Mark makes no mention that Jospeh tended to any of the traditional offices or rites of burial stipulated in Jewish law. Thus it is equally possible to interpret this as a hurried burial, the final indignity. Taylor points out that even the verb describing Joseph's wrapping of the body (15:46 eneilesen) is "unseemly," used of fettering prisoners ... holding people fast in a net ... and generally in a bad sense" (1963:601).
"This interpretation is confirmd by the fact that later the women disciples in 16:1f. take spices to the tomb - that is, they attempt to give proper last servies. So R. Fuller:
"It must have been a scandal to the disciples that none of them had been present to pay the last honors to their Master. ... There is no reason why, if the body of Jesus had been cast into a grave by his enemies without proper burial, the women should not have gone to the tomb with the intention of giving Jesus a proper burial if they could [{Reginald H. Fuller. The Formation of Resurrection Narratives. Macmillan.} 1971:55f.]
"Fuller further points out that this explains why Mark links Joseph's action to the approaching Sabbath" [BtSM:394-5]. With all the Sanhedrin's concern about Sabbath ritual/purity, this episode presents Joseph as taking care of ritual piety/purity before the approaching Sabbath rather than any mercy for/toward Jesus.
Myers also points to internal similarities: Jesus in a tomb, just like John's disciples upon John's execution; the "linencloth" reminds us of the discipes disertion; nor can the disciples be there to "entomb" Jesus as were John's; the discipes "were not there to "take up the his cross," and they are not there to "take his body" (cf. 14:22). The episode ends with Joseph rolling the stone against the tomb (15:46). This act symbolically closes the narrative of Jesus, the debacle complete.
"This aftermath does not present a new narrative landscape full of hope and triumph, as maintained by those who would have us marvel at the "confession" of a "repentant centurion" and the "merciful action" of a "secret Sanhedrin disciple." Rather, these stories are ambiguous in the extreme, suggesting if anything that Jesus' enemies have had, literally, the last word. His executioner has named him, in stark contrast to Jesus' lead disciple who denied his name (14:66ff.). It was not "Elijah" (15:36) who "took down" Jesus (kathaireo, "the technical term for the removal of a crucified person," Taylor, 1963:595), but a member of the council (15:46). Jesus is sealed away in a tomb, and the collaborative powers that joined to put him there have taken over the narrative. The discipleship community has disappeared. Except for the women [BtSM:396].
iii. The Women: True Disciples
"At the end of each stage of this twofold death/burial drama Mark makes reference to some "watching" women (15:40, 47). Of itself, this vigil would not necessarily be significant, for it was customary for charitable Jerusalem women to attend to the crucified. But Mark is quick to tell us that these women were not Jerusalemites, but Galilean disciples of Jesus (15:41). Nor does he stope there; in one sweeping phrase, he describes the group in a manner that virtually epitomizes them as model disciples. Not only did they "follow" (ekolouthoun), but they "served" Jesus throughout the Galilee ministry. Here at the end, as at the very beginning of the story (1:31), Mark tells us that it is women who serve (diakonein), as if to say that they alone understand the true vocation of leadership (diakonia, 9:35, 10:43). Secondly, these women came up (sunanabasai auto) with Jesus to Jerusalem, and have stayed with him to death. In other words, not all deserted Jesus at Gethsemane. The women now become the "lifeline" of the discipleship narrative.
"The women have done the two things that the males in the community found impossible: they have been servants, and they continued to follow Jesus even after he was arrested and executed. Who are these women? Three are named, of which one appears to be Jesus' mother - if the "mother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon" in 6:3. This suggests an unnarrated reversal of the position of Jesus' mother as it was protrayed in 3:31. But there is no reason to rule this out: moreover, she is here described not as "mother" but as disciple (cf. 3:34). In any case, whoever the three women are, Mark presents them as an alternative to the three men of the former inner circle (Peter, James, and John): they are the true disciples.
"This is the last - and, given the highly structured gender roles of the time, surely the most radical - example of Mark's narrative subversion of the canons of social orthodoxy. The world is being overturned, from the highest political pwer to the deepest cultural patterns, and it begins within the new community. It will be these women, the "last" become "first," who will be entrusted with the resurrection message. Yet even if the narrative inference is that the women emerge as the true community leaders, even here Mark's portrait of them remains profoundly unromanticized and finally abiguous, as we will see as we turn to examine the last act of the drama" [BtSM:396-7].
