Gospel of Mark Chapter 15

Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark

Chapter 15

Home

Mark 15:1-15

1: And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him to Pilate. 2: And Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" And he answered him, "You have said so." 3: And the chief priests accused him of many things. 4: And Pilate again asked him, "Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you." 5: But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered. 6: Now at the feast he used to release for them one prisoner for whom they asked. 7: And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barab'bas.

8: And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. 9: And he answered them, "Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?" 10: For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up. 11: But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barab'bas instead. 12: And Pilate again said to them, "Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?" 13: And they cried out again, "Crucify him." 14: And Pilate said to them, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Crucify him." 15: So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barab'bas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

NOTES

1: And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him to Pilate.

v1: The Greek "symboulian" may be read as "convened a council" or "prepared a plan" (Brown 1994, p.630-32). The manuscript tradition also contains another Greek phrase that means "prepared a plan," strengthening the latter reading (Donahue and Harrington 2002, p430). The writer's meaning here is not clear.

v1: contains the usual Markan redaction "as soon as" implying rapidly moving events. The chief priests, elders and scribes appear as a Markan plot device to drive the action. They crop up in v1 to take Jesus to Pilate; v3, to accuse Jesus before Pilate; v11 to stir up the crowd, and finally in v31 to mock Jesus in his death throes.

v1: Although some exegetes have attempted to argue that this consultation represented a second meeting to pass judgment in a capital case as required under Jewish law, recall that the Jewish day begins at sunset, so it is still the same day of the first trial.

v1: Jesus is bound for the first time here. Isaiah 3:10 (LXX), where the Just One is bound, and of course Isaiah 53:6, 12 (LXX), as well as Psalm 27:12 (LXX) are all sources for this scene.

Isa 3:10 (LXX) Woe to their soul, for they have devised an evil counsel against themselves, saying against themselves, Let us bind the just, for he is burdensome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruits of their works. (Brenton translation)

v1: Pilate. Roman administration is generally divided into two periods for analysis. In the first, from 6 CE to 41 CE, seven Roman governors (titled "prefects") ruled Judea. From 41-44 Agrippa, a Jewish king and descendent of Herod the Great, ruled Judea. After 44 the province reverted to direct Roman rule under 7 Roman governors, (titled "procurators") terminating in the inept Florus whose clumsiness provoked the Jewish War of 67-70. The second half of the period was one of seething revolt and unrest. It would be an error, however, to project this back into the period 6-41. In Judea there are no surviving records of an armed revolt or of Roman executions of notorious bandits, failed messiahs, or revolutionaries (Brown 1994, p677-679). As Tacitus tersely put it: "Under Tiberius all was quiet" in Judea.

Pilate was appointed not on merit but because he was a favorite of Sejanus, a power in Tiberius' court. Nevertheless, the fact that he governed for a decade argues that he must have been relatively competent. Additionally, although Tiberius moved against many of Sejanus' appointees after Sejanus' death in 31, Pilate remained in office for five more years, another signal of competence. Moreover, Judea was quiet during his term; the Roman legions were withdrawn, leaving local auxiliary troops to police the public order. Finally, although Pilate ruled for ten years, he never removed a Jewish high priest from office, unlike his predecessor Gratus, who had deposed four high priests during his eleven-year rule (Brown 1994, p694-695). In addition to Josephus, the New Testament, Tacitus, and Philo, Pilate is known from a single inscription found at Caesarea on the Palestinian coast in 1961.

2: And Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" And he answered him, "You have said so."

	v2: The Gospel of Mark does not contain enough evidence to warrant any conclusion about the legality of Pilate's trial under Roman law and custom. As Brown (1994, p726) points out, the account of the trial of Jesus ben Ananus (see below) in Josephus would probably look fairly implausible if anyone cared to make a case like that brought against the trial of Jesus under Pilate, but no scholar has ever challenged it.
	v2: Pilate asks if Jesus is the King of the Jews, although that term has never been used in the Gospel, including during the Sanhedrin trial. Since the writer does not say that the Jewish leaders gave Pilate any information, why didn't Pilate start out with more basic questions of the "where are you from?/what is your name?" variety?
	v2: As with the Sanhedrin, the accuser asks after Jesus' true identity, but in the Trial before Pilate the order is reversed; Jesus' silence follows rather than precedes the question.
	v2: Historically, the first use of the title "King of the Jews" was by the Hasmonean high priests when they established an independent Jewish state in Palestine a century or so before this time. Herod the Great also styled himself "King of the Jews." (Brown 1994, p731).
	v2: in a rare instance of agreement, in all four canonical gospels the Greek of this line is exactly the same.
	v2: Recall that Greek had no punctuation. Hence, in Greek this exchange is marvelously ambiguous, as either figure speaking could be asking a question or making a statement. It could read as Pilate saying "You are the king of the Jews" and Jesus replying "Are you saying so?" The narrator has clarified this by defining Pilate's comment as a question, leaving the ostensible ambiguity in Jesus' answer.(Fowler 1996, p198)

5: But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered.

v5: Jesus' silence recalls Isaiah 53:7:

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. (NIV)

Note also that in the discourse in Mark 13, Jesus told his followers not to be anxious about what to say, but that the Holy Spirit would speak for them. Another fulfillment of Mark 13 as a Passion prediction.

v5: A. Y. Collins (1994) has also identified Psalm 38 in the background here:

11: My friends and companions stand aloof from my plague, and my kinsmen stand afar off.
12: Those who seek my life lay their snares, those who seek my hurt speak of ruin, and meditate treachery all the day long.
13: But I am like a deaf man, I do not hear, like a dumb man who does not open his mouth.
14: Yea, I am like a man who does not hear, and in whose mouth are no rebukes.(RSV)

Psalm 38 has also been identified with 15:40-1, the watching women, as well.

v5: Pilate functions as an effective double of King Herod in Mark 6:14-29) in the this scene. As Mary Ann Tolbert(1989) points out, Pilate:

"...like King Herod before him, initially responds positively to the man in his custody. Pilate, indeed, as the narrator informs the audience, recognizes that the accusation against Jesus arises out of the envy of the chief priests (15:10) rather than out of any crime Jesus has committed and seeks to release him (15:9, 12, 14). However, also as with King Herod, Pilate's nobler instincts collapse under the press of expediency..."(p273)

6: Now at the feast he used to release for them one prisoner for whom they asked. 7: And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barab'bas.

v6-7: Barabbas, literally "son of the father" is a probable doublet for Jesus himself (the Son of the Father). Indeed, there are manuscripts of Matthew that have "Jesus Barabbas" in this passage, and this must have been the case in the early days of Christianity, for Origen defensively insists that many manuscripts of Matthew in his time did not contain the offensive "Jesus" before "Barabbas." As a consequence some scholars have argued that this was the original usage in Mark (which Matthew copied) although this is a minority view. "Abba" was also a personal name in ancient Judaism, so the name may simply mean "Son of Abba."

The custom of releasing prisoners for feasts is not known anywhere in the Roman empire; occasionally prisoners were released on feast days as a specific act of clemency, but, as Crossan argues (1991, p390-1), Roman governors were more likely to postpone the execution or allow the family to bury the body, if they were inclined to clemency. Indeed, Origen, writing two hundred years later in the same part of the world, was surprised to find such a custom claimed in the Gospels. Pilate was not known for his mercy (see accounts in Philo or Josephus) but it is true that our only accounts of his governship come from his enemies. Pilate releasing Barabbas to a Jewish crowd is unlikely (Barabbas could hardly have been the only prisoner in Pilate's hands, so why release a bandit and murderer?), and further, it seems incredible that Pilate would release someone the crowd demanded, who is a known anti-Roman rebel and murderer. Finally, Barabbas himself appears to be fictional. The historical plausibility of this aspect of the scene is low.

v6-7: Some exegetes have argued that this scene is based on Esther. Tim Callahan (2004) notes:

"In a play given during Zagmuku, two actors portrayed characters who were the source of the roles of Mordecai and Haman in Esther, in that one expects royal honors but is put to death, while one seems destined for death but escapes with his life. This would also seem to be the source of Jesus called the Christ and Jesus Barabbas."

v6: Theissen and Merz (1998) note a possible criticism:

"A Passover Amnesty would make sense only if the person freed had an opportunity to take part in the Passover...the narrators had another chronology in mind than the dating of the death of Jesus now put forward in the Synoptics.(p427)

v7: "who had committed murder in the insurrection." What murder? What insurrection? Some exegetes have argued that Mark hides a story about an insurgency against Rome, seeing Jesus' disciples as advocating violence against Rome, and Jesus himself staying aloof from such an affray. Knowing which insurrection the writer referred to would also enable exegetes to refine their estimates of the dating of these events.

8: And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them.

v8: Note that Mark indicates the trial before Pilate is outdoors, for a "crowd came up." In Josephus' Wars of the Jews Jewish citizens are brought before the procurator Florus, scourged and crucified in the open:

Florus was more provoked at this, and called out aloud to the soldiers to plunder that which was called the Upper Market-place, and to slay such as they met with. So the soldiers, taking this exhortation of their commander in a sense agreeable to their desire of gain, did not only plunder the place they were sent to, but forcing themselves into every house, they slew its inhabitants; so the citizens fled along the narrow lanes, and the soldiers slew those that they caught, and no method of plunder was omitted; they also caught many of the quiet people, and brought them before Florus, whom he first chastised with stripes, and then crucified. Accordingly, the whole number of those that were destroyed that day, with their wives and children, (for they did not spare even the infants themselves,) was about three thousand and six hundred. And what made this calamity the heavier was this new method of Roman barbarity; for Florus ventured then to do what no one had done before, that is, to have men of the equestrian order whipped (21) and nailed to the cross before his tribunal; who, although they were by birth Jews, yet were they of Roman dignity notwithstanding. (2.14.9)

v8: Though some have argued that the crowd could not have known about Barabbas, in fact the writer only has them ask Pilate to perform his usual custom of releasing a prisoner ("as was his wont").

10: For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up.

v10: Looking at the larger literary structure of Mark, Jerome Neyrey (1998) has argued that the behavior of Jesus' enemies in Mark is driven by the social relations of the honor-shame culture of Palestine:

"Thus Pilate's perception that it was "out of envy" that Jesus was handed over is a striking clue which leads us to identify and connect seemingly disparate elements in the narrative into a coherent and plausible cultural scenario.(86) The narrative strategy in portraying Jesus envied seems to serve the basic rhetorical aim of the gospel, namely the praise of Jesus and the acknowledgment of him as Christ, Prophet and Lord -- that is, the Most Honorable person in the cosmos next to God."

v10: Donald Senior (1987) notes:

"The word used here for "envy" (phthonos) has connotations of malaicious intent or spite. The Book of Wisdom assigns "envy" (phthonos) as the devil's motivation for bringing death into the world (Wis 2:24)."(p111)

12: And Pilate again said to them, "Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?"

v12: And Pilate again said to them, "Then what shall I do with [the man whom you call] the King of the Jews?"

The material in brackets appears to be a longer addition found in many manuscripts.

4: And Pilate said to them, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Crucify him."

v14: Echoing Isaiah 53:9

He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. (NIV)

Other parts of this verse show up elsewhere in the story.

v14: Tolbert (1989, p273n2) points out that Pilate makes three attempts to release Jesus, just as Peter makes three denials of Jesus. In the typology of the gospel as delineated back in Mark 4 in the Parable of the Sower, Peter is rocky ground, while Pilate represents thorny ground. Both fail to recognize and respond to Jesus, but whereas Peter makes a comprehensive threefold failure, Pilate nearly succeeds in releasing Jesus, a partial success. This, Tolbert avers, shows the difference between the infertility of rocky ground and the stunted fertility of thorny ground. Dart (2003) links the three offerings of Jesus by Pilate to the three times times that the disciples fell asleep in the Garden, chiastically.

15: So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barab'bas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

v15: The verb here, paradidonai, is the same one used elsewhere when Jesus says he will be "given over" or "delivered over."

Historical Commentary
Several scholars (Helms 1997, p37, Evans 1995, Sanders 1995, p266)) have observed that this scene has strong similarities with, and may be related to, a passage in Josephus, from Book VI of Wars:

But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (23) began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost. (Whiston translation)

Craig Evans (1995:108) analyzed Josephus's account of Jesus ben Ananias. Like Jesus, he predicted doom on Jerusalem and the Temple, even referring to Jeremiah's prophecy of judgment against the temple (Jer 7:34), just as Mark did in Mk 11:17. Note that the Jewish authorities arrest and beat Jesus ben Ananias and hand him over to the Roman governor, who interrogates him. He refuses to answer the governor, was scourged and then released. Although Jesus was not released, Pilate asks the crowd in 15:9 whether they want Jesus released, and eventually does release Barabbas, who, though Evans does not make the connection, is a double of Jesus. Lawrence Wills (1997, p160) further fleshes out the parallels:

*he enters Jerusalem for a pilgrimage festival (Sukkot)
*he delivers an oracle against Jerusalem, the Temple, and the people
*he is seized by leading citizens
*he is beaten, later scouraged
*he offers no answer to interrogators
*he is taken by them to the Roman procurator
*he is considered a madman (exestokos; compare Mark 3:21 exeste, and also John 7:20)
*he prophesies his own death
*he dies

One should add, of course, that his name was "Jesus."

This scene also represents supernatural fulfillment of Jesus' prophecies from earlier in Mark. In Mark 12:7 the Wicked Tenants conspire to kill the vineyard owner's son, Jesus. That has now come true.
The basic frame is a doublet of the previous pericope (Ludemann, 2001):

Mark 14:53-65 Mark 15:1-20

Jesus before the Sanhedrin Jesus Before Pilate

14:53a 15:1

14:55 15:3

14.60 15:4

14:61a 15:5

14:61b 15:2

14:62 15:2

14:64 15:15

14:65 15:16-20

Finally, the overall frame of this chapter and the next is Daniel 6:

Mark Daniel 6

The chief priests and scribes try to trap Jesus with arguments over the law The satraps and adminstrators trap Daniel with a law

Joseph of Arimathea, a leader of the nation opposed to the spokesman for the people of God secretly reveres Jesus (as Pilate becomes steadily more Christianized in Christian legend, he assumes this role) Darius a leader of the nation opposed to the spokesman for the people of God secretly reveres Daniel

the death of Jesus is required by law (implied in Mark) the death of Daniel is required by the law of the Medes and Persians

Pilate is reluctant to execute Jesus, tries to convince crowd to let him go Darius is reluctant to put Daniel in the lion's den, Darius exerts himself until evening to save Daniel

Pilate, though distressed, is forced to put Jesus in a tomb
Darius, though distressed, is forced to put Daniel into a lion's den

Joseph of Arimathea looks forward to the kingdom of God Dairus tells Daniel his god will save him

At dawn, as soon as it was light, the women who cared deeply for Jesus go to his tomb Just after sunrise Darius who cares deeply for Daniel goes to the lion's den.

Joyful news: Jesus is raised! Joyful news: Daniel lives

A mysterious young man, perhaps an angel, announces the news An angel shut the lion's mouths

Adapted from Helms (1988, p135)

The chiastic structure of this pericope is very complex and looks something like this:

A
And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation;

B
and they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him to Pilate.

C
And Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?"

D
And he answered him, "You have said so."

E
And the chief priests accused him of many things.

F
And Pilate again asked him, "Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you."

G
But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered.

H
Now at the feast he used to release for them one prisoner for whom they asked.

I
And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barab'bas.

J
And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them.

J
And he answered them, "Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?"

I
For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up.

H
But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barab'bas instead.

G
And Pilate again said to them, "Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?"

F
And they cried out again, "Crucify him."

E
And Pilate said to them, "Why, what evil has he done?"

D
But they shouted all the more, "Crucify him."

C
So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barab'bas;

B
and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

A
And the soldiers led him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion.

The writer also likes miniature chiasms, such as this one:

A: Now at the feast he used to release for them one prisoner
B: for whom they asked.
B': And he answered them
A': "Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?"(RSV)

Mack (1988) argues:

"The trial before Pilate was necessary simply because historical credibility demanded it. The Romans, rather than the Jews, executed criminals by means of Crucifixion."(p295)

The various literary and supernatural elements in this scene, the presence of OT construction at every level, the extremely complex literary structure, along with its low historical plausibility and a certain probability of creation out of non-Christian sources, indicate that there is no support for historicity in this pericope. Based on Mark, there is no way to know whether there was ever a trial before Pilate, whether Pilate was actually involved, or whether the Romans executed Jesus. As the writer of Mark presents it, this trial is most probably a fiction.

Mark 15:16-20

16: And the soldiers led him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. 17: And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on him. 18: And they began to salute him, "Hail, King of the

Jews!" 19: And they struck his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him. 20: And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak, and put his own clothes on him. And they led him out to crucify him.

NOTES

16: And the soldiers led him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion.

v16: the soldiers are not legionnary troops from Rome, but local auxiliaries, Greek speakers, recruited from neighboring provinces.

v16: After a trial outdoors, the soldiers now lead Jesus into the praetorium. Traditionally the praetorium has been identified with the Fortress Antonia in Jerusalem. However, no surviving historian identifies what building in Jerusalem was called the "praetorium." The praetorium was originally the seat of the Roman army leader which, when such individuals evolved into administrators of occupied territories, later became the term for the Roman governor's adminstrative center. Raymond Brown (1994, p706-10) identifies two possible candidates, the Fortress Antonia and the Herodian Palace in Jerusalem. However, the writer indicates neither and it is highly likely that we are looking at historians imputing knowledge to the writer of Mark he neither had nor needed. For all the author of Mark would have had to know was that Judea was Roman-occupied territory, so naturally it would have had to possess a praetorium, just as one can be sure that a given town in the United States has a City Hall even though one has never been there. Pilate's administrative seat was on the coast in the Roman city of Caesarea. He came up to Jerusalem only for festivals and such adminstrative duties as might take him there.

v16: T. E. Schmidt (1995) reads this as the beginning of a triumphal procession. The writer of Mark specifically states that they call together the whole cohort, difficult to believe for the mockery of a single prisoner. The use of the term praetorium may signify the local seat of power, but to a Roman reader it would recall the headquarters of the Praetorian guard in Rome, which always accompanied the triumphant leader. He concludes:

"We should consider the details here as chosen carefully to evoke a familiar occasion; namely, the gathering of the soldiery as the precursor of a triumph."(p6)

17: And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on him.

v17: T.E. Schmidt (1995) focuses attention on the purple coak and the crown of thorns:

"Both the combination and the very presence of these symbols is striking. The wearing of purple was outlawed for anyone below equestrian rank. The only available robe of this kind would be that of Pilate, but it is inconceiveable that he would lend such a precious garment to be struck and spat upon by common soldiers. Along similarly practical lines, one wonders where in the courtyard of a palace thorns would be available to form a crown. Are we to imagine that the solders delayed their mockery while someone looked for a thorn bush nearby? The strangeness of these details, their likeness to the ceremonial garb of a triumphator, and their combination with other details of the narrative suggest a purpose rather than a coincidence."(p7)

Schmidt notes that Matthew, recognizing the problem, changes the robe's color to scarlet.

19: And they struck his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him.

v19: This pericope is the fulfillment of the supernatural prophecy given in Mark 10:33-4. The various parts of it all represent creation off the OT, controlled by Isaiah 50:6

I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting. (NIV)

v19: Price (2003, p312) contends that context is also provided by Micah in 1 Kings 22:24-27. In Mark the elements of Micah are found in Mark both Mark 14 and 15 (see 14:65).

compare Micah 5:1b

They will strike Israel's ruler on the cheek with a rod. (NIV)

20: And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak, and put his own clothes on him. And they led him out to crucify him.

v20: perhaps an allusion to the eschatological vision of Zechariah 3:1-5 in which a high priest receives sacerdotal garments in exchange for filthy robes (Crossan 1988, p128). Note that the high priest's name is Joshua, Hebrew for Jesus:

1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD , and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD , who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?" 3 Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." Then he said to Joshua, "See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put rich garments on you." 5 Then I said, "Put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him, while the angel of the LORD stood by. (NIV)

v20: Note that Jesus is led out through the streets of Jerusalem. The verb is used only here in Mark (Schmidt 1995, p8)

Historical Commentary
Another possible source, mentioned as a parallel in Crossan (1991) but adduced as a possible source by others such as Price (2003) is a passage from Philo's Flaccus, Book VI. As Herod Agrippa I is visiting Alexandria, the crowd there decides to play a prank on him.

VI. (36) There was a certain madman named Carabbas, afflicted not with a wild, savage, and dangerous madness (for that comes on in fits without being expected either by the patient or by bystanders), but with an intermittent and more gentle kind; this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths; (37) and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him; (38) and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state. (39) Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign; (40)

The name "Barabbas" may also have been suggested by "Carabbas;" the first letters differ by one stroke. It might also be noted that the two men in these back-to-back pericopes, Jesus ben Ananus and Carabbas, were considered both mad and harmless. Markan irony at work?

Raymond Brown (1994, p874-877) lists numerous possible sources, including the Carrabas story, games of mockery involving the appointment of a mock king, theatrical plays and mimes, and carnival festivals.

Vernon K. Robbins (1992) observes a widespread eastern Mediterranean tradition of such mockery, finding similarities to Mark's account in the mocking of a mock King at the Sacian feast of the Persians. Ranging more widely, he also notes that both among both pagans and early Christians it was was considered traditional for kings to give themselves up for the people, citing both 1 Clement 55 and the legend of Codrus, the last king of Athens, who went out to meet his enemies in slave's clothing and was killed by them, unrecognized, and so saved his people.

T.E. Schmidt (1995) has also related this to a widespread tradition of triumphs in antiquity. Here the Roman soldiers clothe Jesus in royal robes, just as the king or general entering the city. This tradition of triumphs originated as a celebration of the king's entrance into the city, after which he would appear as a god. Schmidt also notes that in Roman culture such anti-triumphs as depicted here in Mark were known. After his fall from power (31 CE) Sejanus was dragged before the Senate dressed in royal power, mocked and struck about the face. Similarly Vitellius, fallen from the position of Emperor, was led along the Sacred Way to the new Caesar, mocked and insulted by those lining the path. In many Roman triumphal processions human sacrifice, generally of captives, was practiced.

Paul in 2 Corinthians 2:14-15 writes;

14: But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumph, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. 15: For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16: to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? (RSV)

Schmidt (1995) observes that the reference to Christ as a leader in a triumph appears followed by the strange metaphor of fragrance. However, he points out that Suetonius records that as Nero entered the city of Rome after his accession, many were slain along the route, and perfume sprinkled over the area. Perhaps fragrance was part of the procession; indeed, some imagery suggests that incense was carried with the procession.

John Dart (2003, p71) has worked out a chiasm for this pericope and the adjoining one based on keyword structures:

A
delivered him to be crucified

B
soldiers led him away

C
they clothed him

D
in purple

E
make crown, place on head, salute

F
Hail, King of the Jews!

E'
struck head, spat on him, knelt

D
mocked in purple cloak

C'
put clothes on him

B
led him out

A'
to be crucified

The E/E' brackets have been compressed, but they also form a chiasm of actions with the line Hail, King of the Jews! in the center.

Dart's chiasm is not correct; certain elements are out of order. I have reconstructed it in the order that has come down to us to yield a chiasm with an alternating center, seen elsewhere in Mark.

A
And the soldiers led him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium);and they called together the whole battalion.

B
And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on him.

C
And they began to salute him, "Hail, King of the Jews!"

C
And they struck his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him.

B
And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak, and put his own clothes on him.

A
And they led him out to crucify him. And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyre'ne, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross. And they brought him to the place called Gol'gotha (which means the place of a skull).

The brackets here are quite simple. The A brackets contain geographic movement with the usual repetitions of vocabulary. The other brackets should be clear from the vocabulary and thematic parallels.

The various elements of OT creation and traditions common around the Mediterranean and Ancient Near East, as well as its complex literary structure, indicate that there is nothing to support historicity in this pericope.

Mark 15:21-32

21: And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyre'ne, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross. 22: And they brought him to the place called Gol'gotha (which means the place of a skull). 23: And they offered him wine mingled with myrrh; but he did not take it. 24: And they crucified him, and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. 25: And it was the third hour, when they crucified him. 26: And the inscription of the charge against him read, "The King of the Jews."

27: And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. 29: And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads, and saying, "Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30: save yourself, and come down from the cross!" 31: So also the chief priests mocked him to one another with the scribes, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. 32: Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Those who were crucified with him also reviled him.

NOTES

21: And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyre'ne, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross.

v21: Simon of Cyrene. There are a number of proposals for who he was. Brown (1994, p913-916) reviews some of the points. Simon is absent from the Gospel of Peter and from the Gospel of John. Roman practice, as described by ancient sources, was to force the prisoner to carry his own cross. Further, the writer presents Simon as "compelled" but it is unlikely, given Roman policy for respecting local law, that the Roman soldiers would have forced a Jew to work on a major holiday like Passover. Yet we are never told Simon was Jew. Simon is a Greek name, along with Alexander, while Rufus is a Roman one. Nor would the soldiers have ordered Simon to help out of pity, since they had just abused and mocked Jesus. Brown's position is that perhaps Simon was ordered to help because Jesus was so weak the soldiers feared he might die before he arrived at the execution site. This position is viable whether one views the narrative as history or fiction.

Price (2003, 319-20), argues that Simon of Cyrene is a double of Simon Magus, from the Philistine town of Gitta, who according to Epiphanius claimed to have undergone a passion as the Son of God. "Gitta" is easily confused with "Kittim," a term for Cyrene (Cyrenaica is in what is now Libya). Cyrene was a Gentile town, but a Jewish colony had been established there (Blount 1993, p179).

Randel Helms (1988, p121-2) along with other scholars (Reinach, for example) has argued that Simon is the ideal apostle who is doing exactly what Jesus said a disciple must do in order to imitate him: take up his cross. Blount (1993) argues this same position from the point of view of rhetoric.

"Simon is a sort of 'every-human' who participates in a discipleship centered on God's divine plan. Everyone cannot function as Jesus. Everyone can, however, function like Simon.

Against this interpretation, however, it must be noted that Simon is compelled, and does not choose freely.

Helms also observes that 8:34 follows on 8:33, in which Jesus famously calls Simon Peter "Satan." Donald Senior (1987,p116) points out that the phrase "take up the cross" is the same in both passages. Is Simon of Cyrene a double for Simon Peter? Jesus says that whoever would follow him must first deny himself; Peter instead denies Jesus. Has the writer of Mark piled up irony here, showing a Simon denying himself to take up his cross, even as another Simon denies Jesus? Has he injected a historical figure into the passage? Or did these events occur as written? There's no way to know. One connection between 8:34 and 15:21 is that the mention of "cross" in 15:21 is the first time in the Gospel since 8:34. Jesus has managed to make 3 Passion predictions without mentioning the term even once.

Another way to look at the names mentioned in 15:21 is to remind oneself that as tradition develops, names are generally given to unnamed characters. Thus the high priest's servant who loses an ear in Gethsemane is unnamed in Mark, but in John becomes Malchus. Similarly, the unnamed bandits crucified with Jesus are given a variety of names in later Christian literature. If Mark is working off a source, perhaps he is merely giving a name to a character that has no name in his source.

T.E. Schmidt (1995) argues that Simon represents the person who accompanied the sacrificial bull in the processions, carrying an enormous double-bladed ax, the instrument of the victim's death.

Mary Ann Tolbert (1989), observing Mark's many affinities with ancient popular literature, writes:

"With the exception of the hero and heroine and perhaps a couple of faithful servants (Xenophon) or a faithful friend (Chariton), all of the other characters in the ancient novels are minor and appear for an episode or two and then disappear." (p76)

Simon of Cyrene may be, in the final analysis, simply one more minor figure whose job is to move the process along.

v21: Many exegetes have taken the phrase "coming in from the country" -- often translated as "returning from the fields" as a point against historicity, since work on a feast day was forbidden. But the writer of Mark does not give enough information about Simon to permit a sure judgment on the matter.

v21: Romans 16:13 refers to a Rufus.

v21: Interestingly, in chapter 7 of Josephus' The Jewish War there is a scene in which a man named Rufus seizes a man named Eleazar and carries him off to the Roman camp to be whipped and crucified, which he survives.

v21: Margaret Barker (Temple) points out;

"Signing with a cross was also a custom from the first temple. When Ezekiel received his vision of the destruction of Jerusalem, he saw the six angels of destruction and a seventh, who was instructed to pass through the city and mark a letter tau on the foreheads of those who were faithful to the Lord (Ezek 9.4). In the old Hebrew alphabet, the tau is a diagonal cross, the sign which was also used when the high priest was anointed on his forehead (b. Horayoth 12a)."

22: And they brought him to the place called Gol'gotha (which means the place of a skull).

v22: Golgotha is another place-name with no known referent. Simon of Cyrene disappears as quickly as he came, one verse later. Burrows (1977) writes:

"The main objection to the traditional site lies in the fact that it is now inside the city walls, whereas the crucifixion took place outside the city (Jn 19:20; Heb 13:12; Lev 16:27). Just where the northern wall was in the first century is not yet conclusively established, but it is difficult to find a convincing course for it that would leave the traditional Calvary and tomb outside. The persistence of the tradition in spite of this fact is a point in its favor. Some remains of what may have been a city wall have been found, but the area cannot be thoroughly excavated because it is covered with buildings. No other site, however, has any evidence at all to support it."

v22: T.E. Schmidt (1995) suggests that Golgotha may also be translated as head as well as skull. That would make Golgotha the Place of the Head. A Roman legend records that in Rome when a temple was being built on a hill, a human head was found with its features still intact. According to the legend, the soothsayers then said this meant the hill would be the head of all Italy. The hill was thus named Capitoline Hill. The significance of this should not be missed: the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus on Capitoline Hill, the Capitolium, the placed named after the Death's Head, was the terminus of every Roman triumph.

v22: The RSV smoothes out awkwardness here; the verse should more correctly read: "And they brought him to the Golgotha place, which is interpreted Skull-Place (Brown 1994, p933). Brown (1994, 936-7) observes that the Greek of "place of a skull" is also ambiguous. While in Mark and Matt it appears to be a direct translation of "Golgotha," in Luke "place" is not part of the designation, while in John the phrase is ambiguous and ancient scribes were divided on what is meant. Some manuscripts of John even read "He came out to a place called Skull." The Golgotha tradition also varies among manuscripts of Mark; some do not have the "the" before the place names. The idea that the narrative in Mark reflects tradition is obviously impaired by such confusion. The confusion over a simple place name should also reflect on the historicity of characters like Simon of Cyrene. And of course, while later tradition implies that Golgotha was a hill, the writer of Mark did not specify that.

v22: the verb "bring" here is unclear in its meaning. Does it imply that Jesus was physically carried, or just that he was compelled? Schmidt (1995) observes that the verb bring may be translated as bear, implying that Jesus was carried in mock triumph in a portable chair, as a king enjoying a triumph.

v22: If the site of execution is a Markan fiction, why did the author invent a place, rather than simply using the Mt. of Olives, a mountain already located outside of Jerusalem, which the author was familiar with, and from which the Messiah was expected to begin his activities?

23: And they offered him wine mingled with myrrh; but he did not take it

v23: Jesus has just said in 14:25 that he would not taste wine until he dies. According to Brown (1994, p941), wine mixed with myrrh was prized in antiquity. Perhaps from Proverbs 31:6-7:

6 Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; 7 let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more. (NIV)

v23: Raymond Brown (1994) writes:

"The contents of the Marcan narrative are to a great extent determined, both materially and verbally, by a desire to show fulfillment."(p901)

24: And they crucified him, and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take.

v24: Joe Zias has a good overview of Roman crucifixion practices online here.

v24: "casting lots" from Psalm 22:

18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing. (NIV)

v24: Berlin (2001), discussing the attempt of Haman to usurp the Kingship in the Book of Esther, notes the importance of garments in the Bible:

"The Bible provides indirect proof in that a person's garment represents the person and/or the position he holds. The transfer of a garment may signal the transfer of the office from one person to another. Aaron's son Eleazar dons the priestly garments of his father as he inherits the priestly office (Num 20:25-28); when Elisha receives Elijah's cloak it means that he has replaced Elijah (2 Kgs 2:13-15). David's cutting off a corner of Saul's cloak (1 Sam 24:4) registers in both men's minds as the symbolic taking of the kingship."

v24: does not tell us how they crucified him. Victims could be either nailed or tied to a cross, in various positions and ways, involving affixing, but also sometimes impaling. The "cross" could be a stake or plank, or crossed wood in many different shapes. The author of Mark may be implying nailing, since throughout this scene he is tracking Psalm 22, whose 16th verse says:

Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. (NIV)

Zech 12:10 may also be playing a role:

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

Psalm 119:120 (118 in the Septuagint) states:

Nail my flesh with your fear; for I am afraid of your judgments

This verse is cited by the Epistle of Barnabas (5:14) as a prophecy.

v24: Although skeptics have long pointed to tradition of dying and rising Gods around the Mediterranean, much of the research they rely on is antiquated, incorrect, or useless. Richard Carrier (2003) outlines the issues here. Bruce Metzger's (1968) discussion, though dated and somewhat polemical, looks at some of the problems here.

v24: Although commentators rarely point it out, there is a certain savage irony in having a carpenter die affixed to a piece of wood.

v24: As Mahlon Smith (1998) has pointed out, in 14:1 the chief priests fear that his execution during a feast will cause a riot, but then they go ahead and have Jesus executed during a feast anyway.

25: And it was the third hour, when they crucified him.

v25: The "third hour" was dropped by both Matthew and Luke.

v25: Jesus is executed on Passover, according to Mark. In the context of Jesus' role as High Priest, recall that Passover is the only sacrifice not offered by a priest.

v25: Paul in 1 Cor 5:7 notes:

Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. (RSV)

26: And the inscription of the charge against him read, "The King of the Jews."

	v26: The RSV once again smoothes out the writer's awkward doublets, for in Mark's Greek the "inscription" is "inscribed." Note that the placement of the inscription was not described, although the fact that passers-by could see it indicates that the writer was probably thinking of it as being above Jesus' head. There is no evidence from antiquity for the practice of placing an inscription with the charge above the condemned. The inscription is different in each of the canonical gospels and in the Gospel of Peter. The writer once again leaves out an important detail, not saying who did the inscribing.
	v26: Ludemann speaks for many when he argues that this could not have been invented, as it would have caused "serious political difficulties" for the Church (2001, p108), and so, under the criterion of difference, must be authentic. This another misapplication of the embarrassment criterion. There was no Church in the time when the Gospel of Mark was written, and further, Mark was written by an individual, not an institution, whose attitude toward the inscription is unknown. This detail is utterly consistent with the writer's practices throughout the Gospel, in which Jesus' enemies ironically correctly identify him when they intend to mock him. Numerous scholars have dismissed the inscription as an invention of the writer of Mark.
	v26: T.E. Schmidt (1995) points out that it was common for those suffering a Roman judgment to be forced to wear a sign proclaiming his crime for all to see. In a Roman triumph, he notes, the lictors in the procession carried signs announcing the territories taken by the general. Schmidt also observes that the writer of Mark may have had in mind the moment at the end of the triumphant procession when an accolade is given to king or general.

27: And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left.

v27: Two other bandits (or perhaps 'insurrectionists'; Greek: lestai) are crucified with Jesus.

v27: as Mary Ann Tolbert points out (1989), exegetes have argued that these two thieves, one on each side of Jesus, must be historical. However, she observes, where James and John ask if they can sit at Jesus' side in Heaven, Jesus replies in Mark 10:40, saying:

40: but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared."

Tolbert analyzes this:

"While Jesus can promise them strife and persecution, he cannot grant them "to sit at my right hand or at my left...for that honor is "for those for whom it has been prepared." Later in the midst of the cruifixion, all the disciples having fled, the reader meets "those for whom it has been prepared," the robbers, not James and John, and the reader also realizes clearly that in the Gospel of Mark, despite what the disciples might wish, Jesus' coming "in his glory" is Jesus crucified on a cross. The narrative develops its own sense and coherence, if one will but look for it before rushing too quickly out of the text into history."(p31-2).

It should be added that the portrayal of those sitting at Jesus' left and right hand as thieves/insurrectionists may well be yet another of the writer's endless attacks on the disciples.

v27: Schmidt (1995) aso notes that this echoes several practices associated with triumphant emperors. The image of three raised about the crowd recalls the Emperor flanked by his two consuls. It also recalls Vespasian celebrating his triumph over the Jews in 71 with his sons Domitian and Titus riding beside him.

v27: Jesus was transfigured with Moses and Elijah; he is crucified with two thieves.

28 "and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "He was counted with the lawless ones"

v28: Some manuscripts of Mark have a v28 "and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "He was counted with the lawless ones" (Isaiah 53:12)" but most authorities consider this a spurious addition. It has no opposite in the chiastic structure of this passage, another point against it.

29: And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads, and saying, "Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30: save yourself, and come down from the cross!" 31: So also the chief priests mocked him to one another with the scribes, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. 32: Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Those who were crucified with him also reviled him.

v29-32: from Psalm 22:

7 All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads: 8 "He trusts in the LORD ; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him." (NIV)

Markan irony, of course, since Jesus will rescue himself by living again.

9: And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads, and saying, "Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days,

	v29: the Greek of "wagging" (kinein) is the same as is used in the Septuagint version of Psalm 22.
	v29: Brown (1994, p446) points out that passers-by would not be likely to know that Jesus had been accused of this falsely, for which of them would have been at the trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin? Therefore, he concludes, it is most likely that the author wants the reader to believe that Jesus had actually made such a claim where it had been heard by the public.