12. The Trial of Jesus before Pilate’s Tribunal. Ch. 15:1–15
1And straightway in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes, and the whole council, held a consultation,1 and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him up to Pilate.
2And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering saith unto him, Thou sayest.
3And the chief priests accused him of many things.2
4And Pilate again asked him, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they accuse thee of.
5But Jesus no more answered anything; insomuch that Pilate marvelled.
6Now at the feast he used to release unto them one prisoner, whom they asked of him.
7And there was one called Barabbas, lying bound with them that had made insurrection, men who in the insurrection had committed murder.
8And the multitude went up3 and began to ask him to do as he was wont to do unto them.
9And Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
10For he perceived that for envy the chief priests had delivered him up.
11But the chief priests stirred up the multitude, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.
12And Pilate again answered and said unto them, What then shall I do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?
13And they cried out again, Crucify him.
14And Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out exceedingly, Crucify him.
15And Pilate, wishing to content the multitude, released unto them Barabbas, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
In the narrative of Jesus’ trial by the Roman prefect Pilate, Mark was not concerned to produce a detailed report of the proceedings but to sketch a course of events significant for the salvation of mankind. Analogous to the account in Ch. 14:53–65, the tradition clusters around the interrogation, condemnation and subsequent mockery of Jesus. Yet between the two narratives there are profound differences. While Jesus was prosecuted under the Jewish law and condemned for blasphemy by the Sanhedrin, he was tried before Pilate under the Roman law governing lèse majesté or high treason. Other details in the two accounts correspond to this fundamental distinction. Thus Jesus is mocked by the attendants of the Sanhedrin as a messianic prophet, while the rude treatment he received from the Roman soldiery showed contempt for his pretensions to kingship. What is of utmost significance to Mark is that both the Sanhedrin and the Roman governor consigned Jesus to die as the Messiah, and that this course of events conformed to the will of God expressed forcefully in the solemn passion prophecy of Ch. 10:33–34.
The account of Jesus’ conduct before Roman authority was of primary importance to Mark’s readers. Many of them would be compelled to stand before a pagan tribunal and would be subjected to the same indignities he suffered. They were to expect no preferential treatment. Jesus had clearly said that his followers would be “handed over” to governors and kings for his sake and would be held in contempt (Ch. 13:9–13). From this account of Jesus, who was “handed over” to the Roman military governor, the Church learned that it experienced nothing which was not already familiar to its Lord, “who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession” (1 Tim. 6:13). Understanding the meaning behind Jesus’ humiliation from the context of the will of God, Christians could prepare themselves for their own passion narrative with faith and dignity.
1 The city of Jerusalem, together with the province of Judea which was under its jurisdiction, was designated “subject territory” in the time of the procurators.4 This signified that matters of legislation, the administration of justice, and government were subject to the supervision of the Roman provincial authorities. Generally speaking, however, the Romans permitted even the subject territories to retain their own legislation, administration of justice, and local government, and there is considerable evidence that Jewish authorities in Judea were allowed a great measure of self-government. The Sanhedrin exercised not only civil jurisdiction according to Jewish law but also a certain degree of criminal jurisdiction. Under certain circumstances it could pronounce a death sentence, but there is no definite proof that it could legitimately execute capital sentences. The “right of the sword” was reserved to the Roman magistrate as sole bearer of the full imperial authority (imperium). This was one of the most carefully guarded prerogatives of the Roman government and permitted no concessions.5
Consequently, the Sanhedrin had to surrender its prisoner to the Romans if the sentence of the court was to be carried out. The prefect could exercise the right of confirmation or he could reverse the death sentence passed by the Jewish council (cf. Jn. 19:10). Naturally, this alternative demanded that he acquaint himself independently with the subject of the conviction. In such a case a new trial had to be conducted before the Roman court, and the Sanhedrin would be required to convince the governor that Jesus had committed a capital offense under Roman law.6 Since blasphemy was not one of the crimes for which Roman law provided punishment, and was a subject which did not concern the Roman judge, this charge played no part in the trial which followed. The incendiary charge of high treason, which the Roman court could not possibly dismiss, was substituted in its place.7 This recasting of the indictment was necessarily one of the subjects of the resolution indicated by Mark in verse 1. This decision constituted the final action of the council and terminated its all-night session.
The official residence of the Judean procurators was Caesarea Maritima.8 When the Roman officials came to Jerusalem on special occasions, particularly at the great Jewish festivals, they took up quarters in the palace of Herod, which was situated in the northwest of the city.9 Josephus states explicitly that the procurator, Gessius Florus, lived there and held his court on the public square in front of the buildings (War II. xiv. 8, xv. 5). That this was true of Pilate as well may be deduced from the information that he had gilded votive tablets bearing Tiberius’ name erected in the royal palace (Philo, Legation to Gaius 38). Mark locates the Roman trial of Jesus in “the praetorium” (Ch. 15:16), which in this context can only mean the official residence of the governor. While the question whether the praetorium of Pilate is to be situated in the fortress Antonia, which was located northwest of the Temple, or whether it was identical with the palace of Herod has been disputed, the weight of evidence favors the latter location.10 Jesus was therefore bound and led through the city from the quarters of Caiaphas to the strongly fortified and handsomely equipped palace of the Herods, where he was accused of high treason before Pontius Pilate.
Pilate belonged to a special group of imperial administrators, consisting of men beneath the rank of senator, the so-called equestrian class or Roman “knights.” These magistrates, who owned a moderate minimum of property, were used to govern relatively small areas that required careful supervision. Their official title in the period prior to Claudius was not procurator but prefect (praefectus).11 So far as criminal and political jurisdiction was concerned, they possessed powers similar to those held by senatorial proconsuls and imperial legates.12 Pilate came to Judea in the year A.D. 26 as the fifth of the provincial prefects and remained in office ten years. He showed himself a harsh administrator who despised the Jewish people and their particular sensitivities.13
The detail that Jesus was delivered to Pilate’s forum early in the morning is a significant index of the historical accuracy of the tradition. It was necessary for the Sanhedrin to bring its business to Pilate as soon after dawn as possible because the working day of a Roman official began at the earliest hour of daylight. Legal trials in the Roman forum were customarily held shortly after sunrise, as Seneca noted in a wry comment: “All these thousands hurrying to the forum at the break of day—how base their cases, and how much baser are their advocates” (On Anger II. vii. 3). If the chief priests had delayed until morning to examine Jesus and then sought to bring him before the governor, they would have arrived too late and interrupted Pilate in the carefully organized leisure of a Roman gentleman.14 That is a major reason why the Jewish court conducted its own proceedings throughout the night.
2 While the Sanhedrin was essentially a bench of judges, judgment in a Roman tribunal was the sole responsibilty of the imperial magistrate. Those who usually sat with him on the bench, the barristers and officials, had no judicial power, but served only as legal advisors. In the eastern provinces of the empire Greek was the language most commonly used in the administration of justice, and Josephus states that in Judea the procurators conducted their legal proceedings with the provincials through interpreters (War V. ix. 2; VI. ii. 1). The proceedings, which were public on principle, were opened by an indictment on the part of the plaintiff and by a magisterial examination in which the principle of free assessment of testimony was exercised. The statements of the defendant and the evidence of witnesses were regarded as the chief source of proof. When all evidence had been taken this fact was declared by a herald. After consulting with his advisors, the magistrate announced his verdict from the judgment seat, and the sentence had to be executed immediately.15
The specialist in Roman law, A. N. Sherwin-White, has remarked that “in the hearing before Pilate, the Markan narrative fits the Roman framework well, considering that it was written with an entirely different purpose in mind.”16 Mark’s account of the trial proceedings is actually of a very summary kind, and must be supplemented by details from the other Gospels and from known Roman legal procedure.17 It must be assumed that when Jesus was handed over to the governor by court attendants that Pilate was informed either in writing or verbally of the accusations made against the prisoner. The first question addressed to Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?” indicates that the procurator had already been informed of such a charge when Jesus was delivered up at the praetorium, The chief accusation was that Jesus was guilty of high treason against the government because he wanted to make himself king of the Jews. The designation “king of the Jews” is a secularized form of “Messiah” which permitted Jesus’ messianic claim to be transposed into a political key inviting the decisive intervention of Pilate. The Sanhedrin certainly recognized that the words “king of the Jews” conveyed to the Roman governor an understanding essentially different from the designation “Messiah” which Jesus had accepted (Ch. 14:62). The new formulation meant “a leader of the resistance,” as shown by the remarks of Josephus concerning the riots which followed Herod’s death: “as the several companies of the seditious met anyone to give them leadership, he was created king immediately, in order to do mischief to the public; they were in some small ways hurtful to the Romans …” (Antiquities XVIII. x. 8). It must be considered highly ironical that having branded Jesus a blasphemer because he failed to correspond to the nationalistic messianic ideal, the council now wanted him condemned by the pagan tribunal on the plausible allegation that he made claims of a distinctly political character.
Jesus was the king of the Jews by virtue of his messiahship, but the implications in the secular designation were false. Therefore, he responded affirmatively to Pilate’s question whether he was the king of the Jews, but with a reservation which hinted that his own conception of kingship did not correspond to that implied in the question.18 If a concise, unreserved affirmation was implied in his response, Pilate would have declared the examination ended and passed sentence. The restrictive wording of Jesus’ admission, however, made necessary an examination of the accusers for the purpose of obtaining further information.19
3–5 The chief priests seized the opportunity of substantiating their charges, but only the evangelist Luke provides the details. According to Lk. 23:2 the Sanhedrin urged the multiple charge that Jesus was inciting the populace to riot, that he was forbidding the payment of taxes to Caesar, and that he had royal pretensions. When Pilate remained unconvinced, they reintroduced their first impeachment that Jesus was stirring up the people with his teaching throughout Judea and Galilee (Lk. 23:5). Such multiple charges were common in criminal jurisdiction in the provinces during the period of the Flavian emperors.20 While the report of these accusations is generalized in Mark, in practice there must have been only two or three spokesmen who alleged certain facts which Pilate must adjudicate.
After listening to the chief priests, Pilate challenged the accused to define his position, but to his astonishment Jesus refused to defend himself. Surrounded by unbelief and hostility, he manifested the exalted, sublime silence of the suffering servant of God (Isa. 53:7). Such silence was wholly unusual in the forum, and demonstrated a presence and a dignity which puzzled the prefect. Nevertheless, without a defense it would have been necessary for Pilate to have pronounced against Jesus.21 To judge from early martyr trials, those who refused to defend themselves were given three opportunities to change their minds before sentence was passed. Roman magistrates were as reluctant to sentence an undefended man as one who was inadequately accused (cf. Acts 25:16). As it was, Pilate was disinclined to believe that Jesus was guilty. In order to understand this it is important to remember that the Gospels preserve only an excerpt from the trial, and it is obvious that Jesus’ answer to the magistrate’s initial question was necessarily fuller than the reserved admission reported in verse 2. At this point it is possible to supplement Mark’s account with tradition peculiar to John alone (Jn. 18:33–38), where Jesus’ explanation of the nature of his kingship indicates why Pilate became convinced that he was not a political offender.22
The theme of Jesus’ silence is sustained throughout the Marcan passion narrative. From the time of his arrest until his death, he makes only two brief responses, one to Caiaphas and one to Pilate. He remains the passive one, in the conviction that the Son of Man must suffer and die (Ch. 8:31). Mark’s reader senses in Jesus’ passivity and silence that the sovereign Lord of history is accomplishing his mysterious purposes to which even the Son of Man must be submissive.
6 Pilate did not believe Jesus was guilty, but rather than pronouncing for acquittal he decided it would be politically expedient to deal with this case in terms of the paschal amnesty. Two forms of amnesty existed in Roman law, the abolitio or acquittal of a prisoner not yet condemned, and the indulgentia, or pardoning of one already condemned.23 What Pilate intended in the case of Jesus, who at this stage of the proceedings had not yet been sentenced by the court, was clearly the first form. It was the governor’s custom to release one prisoner upon popular request at the Feast of the Passover, and apparently he believed that the people would ask for Jesus. This mistaken conviction, with the consequences to which it led, becomes the focus of Mark’s concern in the verses which follow.
The historicity of the paschal amnesty has been disputed often,24 primarily because Josephus offers no evidence that such a custom ever existed. There is, however, a parallel in Roman law which indicates that an imperial magistrate could pardon and acquit individual prisoners in response to the shouts of the populace. This practice is illustrated by a papyrus document which may be dated A.D. 85, reporting the trial of one Phibion, who had locked up his alleged creditor and certain women of his household. The magistrate, G. Septimius Vegetus, the governor of Egypt, said to the defendant: “You deserve to be scourged for having imprisoned, on your own responsibility, a decent man and his women, but I will deal more humanely with you and will give you to the populace.”25 Although there is no evidence here of a regular amnesty on a feast, the case is analogous to the one before Pilate: the governor released a criminal at the wish of the people, an action that was consistent with his imperial authority. Moreover, a provision in the Mishnah tractate Pesachim VIII 6a (“they may slaughter for one … whom they have promised to bring out of prison …”), which is judged to belong to the earliest strata of the Mishnah, implies that the custom of releasing one prisoner or several at the Feast of the Passover must actually have existed in Jerusalem in the first century.26
7–9 In quelling an uprising the Romans had seized the insurgent Barabbas, who was charged with murder, together with some of his accomplices. Nothing is known about this insurrection, although Mark speaks of it as well known. In the period of the procurators revolts and bloodshed were constant occurrences (cf. Lk. 13:1; Josephus, Antiquities XVIII. i. 1; iii. 2), and the redemptive associations of the pilgrimage feasts only added fuel to a resentment of the Roman presence that constantly smoldered. The leader of this revolt seems to have been a popular hero, and may have been a leading Zealot, but little is known of him or his deeds.27 The surname Barabbas (Bar Abba, i.e. “son of Abba” or “son of the father”) was not uncommon among the rabbis.28 The fact that Barabbas is introduced prior to the reference to the petitioners in verse 8 suggests that the latter were supporters of the insurgent who came to the forum specifically to ask for his release.
In the course of the proceedings a substantial crowd came from the lower town to the praetorium to exercise the customary privilege of petition. Pilate apparently regarded their arrival as opportune. He could achieve his ends by guiding the amnesty negotiations along lines he had determined. Before listening to the people he seems to have presented as his own candidate for release “the king of the Jews.” His offer of generosity was doubtlessly tinged with irony, but he believed that the people would fall in line with his proposal.29
10 Pilate’s efforts to rescue Jesus were not dictated simply by motives of justice and humanity. On the contrary, the predominant motive of his actions was undoubtedly that anti-Semitic bias for which both Philo and Josephus faulted him.30 Because he despised the Jews, whom he regarded as an obstreperous and rebellious race, and seized every opportunity to let them see this, he inevitably adopted an attitude of resistance when he was asked to condemn the prisoner brought before him. He could not have failed to perceive that the insistence of the priests on the execution of Jesus was due to some hidden agenda. His suspicion of ulterior motives increased when he learned that the defendant was to be put to death as a political offender. It did not require any peculiar sagacity on Pilate’s part to realize that the spokesmen for the Sanhedrin were not acting out of loyalty to Rome. They clearly wanted to be rid of someone troublesome to them and they intended to use the Roman magistrate as their henchman. Seen in this light, Pilate’s reluctance to accede to the priests’ demand is understandable and inevitable. His determination to evade their scheme was undoubtedly strengthened when in the course of his examination of the accused it became clear he was anything but a political agitator.
11 Pilate had failed to consider that the populace, who were incensed about a Roman presence in Jerusalem, would never align themselves with him if they were asked to choose between a solution he proposed and one supported by the leaders of the Sanhedrin. Moreover, it is probable that the crowd had already agreed to seek the release of the freedom fighter Barabbas, whose bold actions seem to have won popular support. In Judea it was customary to confront the Roman authorities with as large and boisterous a delegation as could be mustered (cf. Acts 24:1; Josephus, Antiquities XVIII. viii. 4). With the encouragement of the chief priests the noisy crowd emphatically rejected Pilate’s offer and clamored for the release of Barabbas (cf. Acts 3:13f.). This tragic decision is best explained by the fact that Jesus had been formally condemned by the Sanhedrin as a violator of the law who deserved to die. There was no reason for the people, who openly regarded Jesus as a threat to the release of their man, to dispute this sober fact as represented by the spokesmen for the Jewish court who urged them to persist in their acclamation of Barabbas. That alone seems to account for their calloused response when Pilate inquired what should be done with Jesus.31
12–14 The rejection of his offer seems to have surprised the prefect, who continued to attempt to negotiate with the crowd. He consulted the will of the people with the ill-considered question, “What then do you want me to do with the king of the Jews?” If he had hoped that the populace would call for some milder form of punishment than that demanded by the chief priests he was mistaken. They promptly responded with the shrill yell, “Crucify him!” When the governor protested that no sufficient cause had been demonstrated and challenged the crowd to name the treasonable crime by which the Galilean had merited this punishment, the people contemptuously and persistently shouted their demand more loudly. The shouts of the crowd are probably to be categorized as “acclamations,” in accordance with the legal provision for decision upon popular demand.32 Both the leaders of the people and the inflamed crowd demanded not simply capital punishment, but the most ignominous form of death, crucifixion. Jesus must be declared guilty of high treason and punished with the full rigor of the law promulgated by the Emperor Augustus, the lex Iulia maiestatis.33
15 The tactical blunder of deferring to the riotous crowd in the matter of the paschal amnesty created the dangerous situation in which the point of control had passed from the magistrate to the excited people. On the ground of political expediency Pilate decided that he had no choice but to yield to the determined will of the now fanatical mob. In order to placate the people he released Barabbas and gave orders for Jesus to be scourged.34
A Roman scourging was a terrifying punishment. The delinquent was stripped, bound to a post or a pillar, or sometimes simply thrown to ground, and was beaten by a number of guards until his flesh hung in bleeding shreds. The instrument indicated by the Marcan text, the dreaded flagellum, was a scourge consisting of leather thongs plaited with several pieces of bone or lead so as to form a chain. No maximum number of strokes was prescribed by Roman law, and men condemned to flagellation frequently collapsed and died from the flogging.35 Josephus records that he himself had some of his opponents in Galilee scourged until their entrails were visible (War II. xxi. 5), while the procurator Albinus had the prophet Jesus bar Hanan scourged until his bones lay visible (War VI. v. 3). Although scourging was a customary preliminary to execution after a capital sentence (e.g. Josephus, War II. xiv. 9; V. xi. 1; VII. vi. 4; Livy XXXIII. 36), it was also inflicted as an independent punishment. According to Mark (cf. Lk. 23:16, 22; Jn. 19:1–4), the scourging ordered by Pilate preceded in time the sentence of crucifixion.36 Not until the governor pronounced a death sentence could the scourging be regarded as a prelude to crucifixion. The text is most intelligible on the understanding that the flogging took place, not in the public square in front of the praetorium, but inside the building, since Mark explicitly states that the mocking of Jesus took place within the courtyard of the palace (verse 16). It is scarcely credible that Jesus should have been taken into the governor’s residence after he had been scourged, since the mocking is a boisterous sequel to the scourging and was doubtless set in motion by the men responsible for its administration. The two phases of Jesus’ humiliation presumably took place on the same site.
The statement that Pilate “delivered him to be crucified” may have been formulated to call to mind Isa. 53:6, 12 LXX, where the expression “delivered” is used in reference to the sufferings and death of the servant of the Lord. The early Christians were less interested in the question whether the decision of the prefect was a legal sentence than in the fact that his action marked the fulfilment of OT prophecy. Nevertheless, while the statement is imprecise, it is equivalent to the announcement of the death sentence and means “he condemned him to death by crucifixion.”37 The mode of death had to be specified under Roman law, and it may be assumed that Pilate used the conventional form, “You shall mount the cross” (ibis in crucem) or “I consign you to the cross” (abi in crucem).38
13. The Mocking of Jesus. Ch. 15:16–20
16And the soldiers led him away within the court, which is the Praetorium;39 and they call together the whole band.40
17And they clothe him with purple, and platting a crown of thorns, they put it on him,
18and they began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!
19And they smote his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.
20And when they had mocked him, they took off from him the purple, and put on him his garments. And they lead him out to crucify him.
16–19 The scourging of the Galilean who claimed to be king of the Jews caused a sensation among the detachment of soldiers quartered in the praetorium. They were auxiliary troops recruited from among the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine who were assigned to the military governor, and had accompanied him from Caesarea to Jerusalem to assist in the maintenance of public order. After the sentence had been carried out the soldiers, who knew from the trial of Jesus’ admission, proceeded to make a mockery of his kingship by an uproarious masquerade.41 Mark’s description suggests a kind of grotesque vaudeville: Jesus, bruised and bleeding, is pushed among the coarse soldiers who gathered in the expectation of a few moments of entertainment. From their point of view the condemned man represented a welcome diversion from the tension that always mounted in Jerusalem during the festival season. In imitation of the purple robe and the gilded wreath of leaves which were the insignia of the Hellenistic vassal kings (cf. 1 Macc. 10:20, 62, 69; 11:58; 14:43f.), they threw around Jesus’ naked body a faded scarlet cloak (cf. Mt. 27:28) or some shabby purple rug, and pressed down on his head a wreath plaited from the branches of some available shrub such as acanthus or of palm-spines. This pretendant to the throne would be both a vassal prince and a figure of fun. The so-called crown of thorns was not meant primarily as a torture but was part of the mock royal attire, like the robe. It may well have been an improvised caricature of the radiate crown signifying divine kingship and frequently depicted on coins then in circulation.42 When Jesus had been invested with the regalia of a vassal prince, the soldiers pretended to recognize his regal claim. The salutation “Hail, King of the Jews!” corresponds formally to the Roman acclamation “Ave, Caesar!”, the vocative admitting the royal prerogative, while the bending of the knee before Jesus parodied an essential requisite of Hellenistic homage to the ruler. The act of spitting at him may be interpreted as a parody on the kiss of homage which was customary in the East. On the other hand, the buffeting and striking of the exhausted prisoner with rods and with the fist was mere brutality. The several elements of this rough farcical play throw into bold relief the royal pretensions of Jesus and the vulgar mentality of the soldiery, who regarded him only as an object of ridicule since he dared to rival the sovereignty of the divine emperor.
20 The soldiers then removed the mock regalia and gave Jesus back his own clothes. Normally those condemned to be crucified were led naked to the place of execution and were scourged on the way while carrying the cross-beam (cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus VII. 69, “They accompanied him, beating his naked body with scourges”; Josephus, Antiquities XIX. iv. 5). Because Jesus had already been scourged, this custom was not followed. This fact also explains why the scourging which always precedes the Roman crucifixion was not administered. If it had been repeated, Jesus would have doubtless died by flagellation rather than by crucifixion. When he was clothed he was remanded to the execution squad consisting of four soldiers (Jn. 19:23) under the command of a centurion and was led out to be crucified.
14. The Crucifixion of Jesus. Ch. 15:21–32
21And they compel one passing by, Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go with them, that he might bear his cross.
22And they bring him unto the place Golgotha,43 which is, being interpreted, the place of a skull.
23And they offered him wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.
24And they crucify him, and part his garments among them, casting lots upon them, what each should take.
25And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.44
26And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
27And with him they crucify two robbers; one on his right hand, and one on his left.45
29And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ha! thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,
30save thyself, and come down from the cross.
31In like manner also the chief priests mocking him among themselves with the scribes said, He saved others; himself he cannot save.
32Let the Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reproached him.
Death by crucifixion was one of the cruelest and most degrading forms of punishment ever conceived by human perversity, even in the eyes of the pagan world.46 Josephus described it as “the most wretched of all ways of dying” (War VII. v. 4), and the shudder caused by the cross as an instrument of execution is still reflected in the English word “excruciating.” Yet in the Roman provinces crucifixion was one of the customary means of preserving public order, and the history of turbulent Judea is punctuated by accounts of men being crucified. So unimportant was the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth from a Roman point of view that Tacitus, in his review of the troubles in Judea, comments, “Under Tiberius nothing happened” (History V. 9, sub Tiberio quies).
Jewish criminal law made no provision for crucifixion. The hanging on a gibbet, prescribed by law for idolaters and blasphemers who had been stoned, was not a form of capital punishment but of humiliation, since it followed death. The public exposure of an executed person branded him as one cursed by God, in accordance with the provision of Deut. 21:23 (LXX): “for he is accursed of God who hangs on a tree.” These words were applied equally to one who was crucified. When the chief priests and the crowd demanded death by crucifixion for Jesus they expressed the conviction that he must take his last breath on the cross as one “accursed of God” (cf. Gal. 3:13).
In Christian perspective the cross of Christ is the focal point of the Gospel. Here God dealt definitively with the problem of human rebellion and made provision for the salvation of men. The unique character of Jesus’ sufferings lies in the fact that he went to the cross in fulfilment of his mission to bear the burden of the divine judgment upon sin (see on Ch. 1:9–11; 10:38; 14:36; 15:34). The obedience he manifested in submitting to the will of God reversed a pattern of disobedience which began with Adam and has been confirmed in all subsequent human experience (cf. Rom. 5:12–21). In the cross of Christ the Christian finds that place where God identified himself with man the transgressor and overcame the alienation of men by taking upon himself the death and wrath merited by human rebellion. The account of Jesus’ crucifixion thus became the centerpoint of the joyful tidings proclaimed by the Church, in the conviction that the message centering in the cross was empowered by God to overturn the note of offense and the objections of human cleverness and to bring men into the experience of redemption.
21 Jesus, together with two other condemned men, was conducted by a detachment of soldiers from the praetorium to the place of execution. The route followed normally led through busy streets in order to intimidate the people. It was customary for men condemned to die by crucifixion to carry the transverse beam of the cross (cf. Plutarch, Moralia 554 A: “Each of the condemned bore his own cross”). Jesus, however, had been so weakened by the scourging he had endured that he carried the beam only for a short distance. As the procession neared the city gate, the soldiers impressed a man who had just returned from the country to take the plank from Jesus and carry it to the site of execution. He was Simon of Cyrene, who appears to have been a diaspora Jew resident in Jerusalem. His full name served to distinguish him from other men of the same personal name. Mark alone mentions his two sons, Alexander and Rufus, who seem to have been well known to his readers. In Rom. 16:13 greetings are sent to a certain Rufus, and it is possible that he is identical with the man mentioned by Mark. Yet both names were in common use among Jews as well as Gentiles and permit no certain conclusion. A burial-cave used in the first century prior to the destruction of the Temple and belonging to a family of Cyrenian Jews was discovered by Israeli archeologists on the southwestern slope of the Kidron valley in November 1941. The intriguing possibility that this tomb was owned by Simon and his family is raised by an ossuary inscribed twice in Greek, “Alexander, son of Simon,”47 although the similarity to Mark’s record may be coincidental.
22 It was both Jewish and Roman practice to perform executions beyond the inhabited area of a town (cf. Lev. 24:14; Num. 15:35f.; 1 Kings 21:13; Acts 7:58; Plautus, Miles Gloriosus II. iv. 6f.). The place where Jesus was crucified lay outside, but near, the city wall (Jn. 19:20). Designated by the people Golgotha, “a skull,” the Aramaic name suggests a round, bare hillock, while the reference to the mockery of those who passed by on the road presupposed that the hill was not very high. In the early second century Jewish Christians in Jerusalem venerated an unprepossessing end of a rocky slope outside the city as the site both of the crucifixion and of Adam’s grave (Origen, Comm. in Matt. 27:32; PG XIII, col. 1777). The most probable site is near the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre in an area which lay outside the northern, or so-called second, wall.48 While the course of this wall is uncertain, it seems to have extended from the Garden Gate at the eastern end of Herod’s palace along a northerly direction, but then made a right-angled turn eastward, past Golgotha, but close to it on the eastern side, and on to the Antonia fortress.49
23 According to an old tradition, respected women of Jerusalem provided a narcotic drink to those condemned to death in order to decrease their sensitivity to the excruciating pain (TB Sanhedrin 43a). This humane practice was begun in response to the biblical injunction of Prov. 31:6–7: “Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress; let them drink and forget their poverty, and remember their misery no more.” In the first century A.D. the army physician, Dioscorides Pedanius, who made an intensive study of almost 600 plants and 1,000 drugs, observed the narcotic properties of myrrh (Materia Medica I. lxiv. 3). When Jesus arrived at Golgotha he was offered, presumably by the women since this was a Jewish rather than a Roman custom,50 wine mixed with myrrh, but he refused it, choosing to endure with full consciousness the sufferings appointed for him (cf. Ch. 10:38; 14:36).
24 The fact of Jesus’ crucifixion is recorded with utmost restraint. The details were too familiar in the Roman world to require extended comment.51 Normally, the delinquent was stripped, and after having been scourged, his outstretched arms were nailed or tied with cords to the cross-beam, which he himself had been forced to carry to the place of execution (cf. Artemidorus, Oneirokritika II. 56: “He who is nailed to the cross first carries it out”). The cross-piece was then lifted up with the body on it and fastened to an upright stake already sunk into the earth to which the feet were now nailed. The cross thus formed by the upright and the transverse beam was probably in the shape of a T. A block of wood fixed about midway up the post supported the body.
While the use of nails to fasten a body to the cross is not widely attested,52 in June, 1968, a team of Israeli scholars discovered at Givʿat ha-Mivtar in northeastern Jerusalem a Jewish tomb which produced the first authenticated evidence of a crucifixion in antiquity. Among the remains in an ossuary were those of an individual whose lower calf bones had been broken and whose heel bones had been transfixed with a single iron nail.53 The pottery and ossuaries found in the tomb establish a date in the first century A.D. prior to the mass crucifixions of A.D. 70, when tomb burials were no longer possible. Detailed study of the find showed that the feet of the victim had been nailed together between a cross of olive wood and a piece of pistacia or acacia wood with a 17–18 centimeter iron nail which had hit a knot and bent in the process.54 Moreover, new light was shed on the position of the body on the cross:
“the feet were joined almost parallel, both transfixed by the same nail at the heels, with the legs adjacent; the knees were doubled, the right one overlapping the left; the trunk was contorted; the upper limbs were stretched out, each stabbed by a nail in the forearm.”55
The nature and date of these findings in the vicinity of Jerusalem provide concrete data on the manner in which Jesus was crucified.
The height of the cross varied. Normally it was not much higher than the stature of a man, so that the feet of the crucified nearly touched the ground. A high cross seems to have been used when there was the desire to make the victim visible for as wide a radius as possible. That the cross upon which Jesus was crucified was higher than normal may be deduced from the fact that the soldier who offered him a drink with a sponge soaked in vingar could not reach his mouth by hand, but had to extend it with a reed (verse 36). A higher cross also gives point to the scornful challenge for Jesus to “come down” (verse 32).
Crucifixion was essentially death by exhaustion. The time required for death naturally depended on the physical condition of the victim as well as on the manner by which the body was affixed to the cross. When nails were used physical torment was heightened, but ordinarily it was less protracted because death was hastened by the loss of blood. When men had been tied to the gibbet they sometimes remained alive for several days. Yet the weight of the body hanging on the cross frequently caused such a state of exhaustion that death occurred in a matter of several hours. When it was desired to hasten the death of one who was crucified, his limbs were beaten with an iron club (cf. Jn. 19:31–33).
Men were ordinarily crucified naked (Artemidorus II. 61). Jewish sensitivities, however, dictated that men ought not to be publicly executed completely naked, and men condemned to stoning were permitted a loin-cloth (M. Sanhedrin VI. 3). Whether the Romans were considerate of Jewish feelings in this matter is unknown. Roman legal texts confirm that it was the accepted right of the executioner’s squad to claim the minor possessions of an executed man.56 In the case of Jesus this was limited to his clothing, which probably consisted of an under and outer garment, a belt, sandals, and possibly a head covering.57 For these items the soldiers cast lots, oblivious to the fact that their gambling recalled the ancient lament of Ps. 22:18, “they divided my garments among them and for my raiment they cast lots.” What is in the OT a poetic expression of defeat and impotence is in Mark’s account a token of the powerlessness of Jesus in his humiliation.
25 The assertion that Jesus was crucified at “the third hour,” that is, about nine o’clock in the morning, is problematic. Not only is this statement unreconcilable with Jn. 19:14, where it is said that Pilate pronounced his verdict “about the sixth hour” (noon), but it appears to be out of sequence in the Marcan context. Mark stated the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion in verse 24a, and then proceeded to describe the division of Jesus’ clothing by the soldiers following his execution. The reference to the fact of the crucifixion once more in verse 25 appears an unnecessary duplication of information just provided. If it was the evangelist’s intention to specify the hour when Jesus was crucified he could have done so when the crucifixion was first reported, namely, in verse 24. In the place where the time reference now occurs, it conveys the impression of an afterthought. These considerations assume importance when it is observed that Matthew and Luke have accepted all Mark’s indications of time in their respective narratives of Jesus’ sufferings. Yet this verse has no parallel in either Gospel. The absence of a parallel in either Matthew or Luke can be satisfactorily explained only by the conjecture that the two evangelists did not find this verse in the copy of Mark used by them. This proposal is supported by the Gospel of Peter, whose author knew and used the canonical Gospel of Mark, which fails to indicate the hour when Jesus was crucified (Ch. 4:10), although the fact that the darkness began at midday (Ch. 5:15) and ended at the ninth hour (Ch. 6:22) is noted. This cumulative evidence suggests that verse 25, in spite of its firm textual support, is a gloss inserted by an early reviser who noticed that Mark had failed to state the hour when Jesus was nailed to the cross. Since he had no authoritative tradition at his disposal, he had to establish the hour of the crucifixion on his own authority. He chose the third hour because it appeared consistent with the three-hour interval presupposed in verse 33.58 If this analysis is correct, verse 25 has no independent value for determining the hour when Jesus was placed on the cross. That there was an interval between the act of crucifixion and the darkening of the sky seems to be presupposed by the reference to the mocking of Jesus by those around the cross. But the duration of this interval cannot be determined from Mark’s account.
26 On the way to the execution site a delinquent wore or had carried before him a wooden board whitened with chalk on which letters were written in ink or burned in specifying his crime. After the execution this summary statement was fastened to the cross above the head of the crucified (cf. Juvenal, Satires VI. 230; Pliny the Younger, Epistles VI. x. 3; IX. xix. 3; Suetonius, Life of Caligula 32; Life of Domitian 10). The notice attached to the cross on which the tortured body of Jesus hung bore, in black or red letters on the white ground, the inscription “King of the Jews.”59 It declared that Jesus had been sentenced to death as politically subversive of the authority of imperial Rome. The wording was designed to convey a subtle insult to Jewish pretensions and to mock all attempts to assert the sovereignty of a subject territory. The detail concerning the inscription, which conforms to Roman penal procedure and must reflect eyewitness report, is a solid historical fact.60 It provides the unimpeachable information that Jesus went to his death as the Messiah.
27 The cross upon which Jesus hung was situated between the crosses of two other men. The crime for which they had been convicted and executed may also have been high treason. Roman law distinguished between theft (furtum) and robbery (rapina, theft combined with violence), but neither of these crimes was regarded as a capital offense.61 The term used by Mark to describe them can legitimately be translated “robbers” (see on Ch. 14:48), but it is more probable that it designates men guilty of insurrection (as in Jn. 18:40). In Josephus it is constantly used for the Zealots, who committed themselves to armed conflict against Roman rule on the principle that God alone was sovereign in Israel. Josephus’ intention was to brand the Zealots as an illegal movement composed of a criminal constituency. He reports that the Romans crucified the Zealots they captured, which indicates that they were treated as serious political offenders. The execution of these men with Jesus, who was crucified in accordance with the law of high treason, suggests that they had been seized in connection with the insurrection mentioned in Ch. 15:7 and were tried and sentenced under the same statute.62
29–30 The crucifixion attracted a large crowd, a part of which indulged in derisive remarks to the crucified Messiah. The scornful allusion to the words of Jesus concerning the destruction of the Temple which had been introduced by witnesses in the proceedings at Caiaphas’ palace (see Ch. 14:58) serves to identify the first group of mockers as members of the Sanhedrin or court attendants who may have been privileged to sit in on the hearings. The expression “shaking their heads” recalls the derision heaped upon the poor but righteous sufferer in the Psalms (Ps. 22:7; 109:25) and the reviling of Jerusalem in her hour of abject humiliation (Lam. 2:15; cf. Jer. 18:16). The contemptuous challenge for Jesus to rescue himself and come down from the cross is intelligible in the light of an early Jewish dictum preserved in Midrash Tannaim III. 23: “Before a man puts his trust in flesh and blood, (i.e. another man) and asks him to save him, let him (i.e. the other) save himself from death first.”63 Mockery is an expression of verbal violence which inevitably accompanies the raw acts of violence in martyrdom, as Judaism was reminded in a synagogue homily on the sufferings of the people of God: “The peoples of the world mock the martyred people of Israel and say, ‘Where is your God? Why does he not save you?’ ” (Pesikta Rabbati 36).
31–32 By handing Jesus over to the Roman magistrate and successfully prosecuting their complaint, the chief priests and scribes brought to fruition a long-nurtured desire to destroy him (Ch. 3:6; 11:18; 12:12; 14:1f., 10f., 64; 15:1, 3, 11). Now they took the opportunity to congratulate themselves on their success. Though their words were not directly addressed to Jesus, the subject of their mockery was the powerlessness of the one nailed to the cross, and the inscription fastened to it. When they refer to others he had “saved” they undoubtedly think of Jesus’ healing ministry, but Mark intends his readers to understand these words in their full Christian sense. Paradoxically, the scornful words of verse 31b expressed a profound truth. If Jesus was to fulfil his mission on behalf of men he could not save himself from the sufferings appointed by God (Ch. 8:31). When the Jewish leaders mocked Jesus’ messianic claim they substituted for Pilate’s wording “King of the Jews” another expression. “Israel” is the proper designation for the people of God and “the King of Israel” is the correct Palestinian form of the claim of Jesus.64 There is cruel sarcasm in the challenge “come down now,” which seeks to throw into bold relief Jesus’ helplessness, while the addition “that we may see and believe” clothes their taunt in the garb of piety. The contempt shown for Jesus by those gathered about the cross may have encouraged the two others who were crucified to vent their rage upon him. In their eyes Jesus was a contemptible caricature of sovereignty, and they reproached him.
15. The Death of Jesus. Ch. 15:33–41
33And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.
34And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?65 which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?66
35And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elijah.
36And one ran, and filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Le be: let us see whether Elijah cometh to take him down.
37And Jesus uttered a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.67
38And the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom.
39And when the centurion, who stood by over against him, saw that he so gave up the ghost,68 he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.69
40And there were also women beholding from afar: among whom were both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
41who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him; and many other women that came up with him unto Jerusalem.
33 At noon, when the sun was at its zenith, it went into eclipse and remained darkened for three hours (cf. Lk. 23:45, “the sun’s light failed”). This was a miraculous darkening and a cosmic sign. The objection that a solar eclipse is astronomically impossible at the time of the Passover fails to appreciate the significance of the event, for which there are numerous parallels.70 Amos prophesied darkness at noon in the eschatological context of the Day of the Lord, where the darkness expresses “the mourning for an only son” (Amos 8:9f.). Philo spoke of a supernatural eclipse of the sun or the moon as signifying “either the death of kings or the destruction of cities” (De Providentia II. 50). The darkening of the sun marks a critical moment in history and emphasizes the eschatological and cosmic dimensions of Jesus’ sufferings upon the cross. This symbolic significance is already apparent in the Marcan time scheme: the darkness fills the interval between the crucifixion and the moment of Jesus’ death.71 There is, however, another, more ominous aspect to the darkening. In the plague of darkness which preceded the first Passover, darkness over the land was the token that the curse of God rested upon it (Exod. 10:21f.). The darkness that envelops Jesus in his death thus makes visible what the cry of dereliction declares, and throws into sharp relief the breadth and depth of the passion (cf. Gal. 3:13).
34 Crucifixions were marked by screams of rage and pain, wild curses and the shouts of indescribable despair by the unfortunate victim. The demeanor of Jesus during his death agony is not described by the evangelist. But about three o’clock in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice those shattering words borrowed from Ps. 22:1, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” This is the only saying from the cross recorded by Mark, and it is one of the most difficult to interpret.
In Ps. 22 the initial cry is an urgent appeal for God to intervene on behalf of the righteous sufferer. Jesus, on the cross, was living out the situation described in this eschatological psalm of suffering. He instinctively expressed his feelings in biblical language, imploring the help of God in a confident invocation and an anguished plea. The form of his words probably reflected the Targum, where the address is in Hebrew but the searching question is in Aramaic.
Various expedients have been adopted to cushion the offense of this passionate outburst. It has been argued that, in accordance with Jewish practice, the citation of the first verse implies the entire psalm, which ends on a note of triumph and serenity, and that Jesus’ words are an affirmation of faith that looks beyond the despair and tragedy of the cross.72 Alternatively, it is urged that Jesus felt forsaken, but in actuality he was not.73 Such explanations bear the marks of special pleading and are unsatisfactory. The sharp edge of this word must not be blunted. Jesus’ cry of dereliction is the inevitable sequel to the horror which he experienced in the Garden of Gethsemane (see on Ch. 14:33–34, 36). It must be understood in the perspective of the holy wrath of God and the character of sin, which cuts the sinner off from God (cf. Isa. 59:2). In responding to the call to the wilderness and identifying himself completely with sinners, Jesus offered himself to bear the judgment of God upon human rebellion (see on Ch. 1:9–11). Now on the cross he who had lived wholly for the Father experienced the full alienation from God which the judgment he had assumed entailed. His cry expresses the profound horror of separation from God. “Cursed is everyone who hangs upon a cross” was a statement with which Jesus had long been familiar, and in the manner of his death Jesus was cut off from the Father (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:21). The darkness declared the same truth. The cry of dereliction expressed the unfathomable pain of real abandonment by the Father.74 The sinless Son of God died the sinner’s death and experienced the bitterness of desolation. This was the cost of providing “a ransom for the many” (Ch. 10:45). The cry has a ruthless authenticity which provides the assurance that the price of sin has been paid in full. Yet Jesus did not die renouncing God. Even in the inferno of his abandonment he did not surrender his faith in God but expressed his anguished prayer in a cry of affirmation, “My God, my God.”
35–36 The plea “Eli, Eli” was misconstrued, or wilfully misinterpreted, as a cry for help to Elijah75 by those standing around the cross. Presumably they were Jews or Palestinian recruits who were familiar with various strands of folk piety. Later Jewish sources illumine the popular belief that Elijah will come in times of critical need to protect the innocent and rescue the righteous.76 On the call from Jesus a soldier soaked a sponge in a wine vinegar diluted with water and reached it up to his mouth on the end of a reed or a shaft. A sour wine vinegar is mentioned in the OT as a refreshing drink (Num. 6:13; Ruth 2:14), and in Greek and Roman literature as well it is a common beverage appreciated by laborers and soldiers because it relieved thirst more effectively than water and was inexpensive (e.g. Plutarch, Cato Major I. 13; Papyrus London 1245, 9). There are no examples of its use as a hostile gesture. The thought, then, is not of a corrosive vinegar offered as a cruel jest, but of the sour wine of the people.77 While the words “let us see if Elijah will come” express a doubtful expectation, the offer of the sip of wine was intended to keep Jesus conscious for as long as possible.
37 Jesus maintained consciousness to his last breath; in the moment of death, an inarticulate cry burst from his throat. The strength of the cry indicates that he did not die the ordinary death of those crucified, who normally suffered long periods of complete exhaustion and unconsciousness before dying.78 The stark realism of Mark’s statement describes a sudden, violent death. Jesus’ death differed from the common experience of men in two respects. It was the death which God caused him to die for us (cf. Chs. 8:31; 10:45; 14:24); and death was not his debt to sin but a reality to which he submitted. The meaning of his death becomes clear only from the perspective of the triumph of the resurrection which marked his vindication and demonstrated that death had no claim upon him.
38 The statement concerning the rending of the Temple veil is difficult. There were in fact two hangings in the Jerusalem Temple. An outer curtain separated the sanctuary from the forecourt (cf. Exod. 26:37; 38:18; Num. 3:26; Letter of Aristeas § 86), while the second, or inner, veil partitioned the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies to which the high priest alone was admitted on the Day of Atonement (cf. Exod. 26:31–35; 27:21; 30:6; Lev. 16:2, 12–15, 21, 23; 24:3; 2 Chron. 3:19; M. Yoma V. 1). It is not at once apparent whether Mark’s reference is to the inner or the outer veil. A tearing of the exterior curtain would have the character of a public sign, comparable to the darkness that covered the land. The rending of the interior veil would be visible, presumably, only to a few priests and could have been concealed from public knowledge by the Jewish authorities. The detail “from top to bottom” suggests an actual and irreversible occurrence which coincided with the moment of Jesus’ death. The reference then is to the magnificent curtain which in Herod’s Temple hung before the entrance and was visible from the forecourt when the doors were opened during the day (cf. Mt. 27:51, 54). This conclusion is supported by the fact that Jewish and Jewish-Christian traditions, which are divergent but clearly refer to the same event, speak of an astonishing happening at the entrance to the sanctuary, not at the partition between the sanctuary and the Holy of Holies.79 The early Church Fathers commonly interpreted the event as a warning sign of the impending destruction of the Temple, confirming the sober prophecy of Ch. 13:2.80 That an intimate connection exists between the destruction of the Temple and the death of Jesus is established by the tradition preserved in Ch. 14:58 and the taunt of Ch. 15:29. The rending of the Temple veil is a public sign that the rejection of the Messiah by the leaders of the people discloses a failure in sensitivity to the divine purpose so serious that it seals the disaster of A.D. 70. Jesus’ death and the destruction of the formal structures of Judaism are inseparably bound together.
39 The centurion who stood facing Jesus was the Roman officer who superintended the execution.81 He had followed each stage of the crucifixion exactly, and knew that Jesus had not died the normal death of crucified men (see above on verse 37). The strength which he possessed at the moment of death was so unusual the centurion spontaneously acknowledged Jesus’ transcendent dignity. In Mark’s account the reason for the exclamation is unmistakably the manner of Jesus’ death, rather than any accompanying event.
By “Son of God” the centurion presumably meant that Jesus was a divine man or deified hero who accepted humiliation and death as an act of obedience to a higher mandate. It can be expected that his words reflect a religious point of view shaped by popular Hellenism. Mark, however, clearly intended his readers to recognize in the exclamation a genuine Christian confession, in the consciousness that these words are true in a higher sense than the centurion understood. In this light the centurion’s words constitute an appropriate complement to the affirmation of Peter that Jesus is the Messiah in Ch. 8:29 and the triumphant climax to the Gospel in terms of the programmatic confession of Jesus in Ch. 1:1. It is probably significant that in the preface to the Gospel there is a rending of the sky and the proclamation that Jesus is the divine Son (Ch. 1:11) to which correspond the rending of the Temple veil and the confession that Jesus is Son of God in Ch. 15:38f. The fact that the truth of Jesus’ person was publicly declared, whether intentionally or unintentionally, by a Roman was undoubtedly important to the Christians in Rome. In contemporary practice the designation “Son of God” had been arrogated for the Roman ruler, who was worshipped in the state cult. Most effectively, therefore, Mark reports that the centurion proclaimed that the crucified Jesus (and not the emperor) is the Son of God.82 His words provide a discerning Gentile response to the death of Jesus.
40–41 Contemporary testimony indicates that at the place of execution crucified men were often surrounded by relatives and friends (e.g. TJ Giṭṭin 48c; Tos. Giṭṭin VII. 1). Mark mentions certain Galilean women who had accompanied Jesus and assisted him in a material way. Their active service of love was a mark of true devotion to him. The related passage, Lk. 8:1–3, states that these women had experienced healing from Jesus, and specifies that Mary Magdalene had been released from severe demonic possession. She is distinguished from other women named Mary by the surname Magdalene, which designates her birthplace, Magdala, a fishing village on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Little is known concerning Mary, the mother of James and Joses, but her sons appear to have been well known in the early Church (cf. verse 21). According to Mt. 27:56 Salome was the wife of Zebedee and the mother of the disciples James and John. The significance of the presence of these women to Mark is that they were eyewitnesses to the primary events proclaimed in the gospel, the death (verses 40–41), burial (verse 47) and resurrection (Ch. 16:1) of Jesus. The details of what took place could be substantiated by their testimony.
16. The Burial of Jesus. Ch. 15:42–47
42And when even was now come, because it was the Preparation,83 that is, the day before the sabbath,
43there came Joseph of Arimathaea, a councillor84 of honorable estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God; and he boldly went in unto Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.
44And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while85 dead.
45And when he learned it of the centurion, he granted the corpse to Joseph.
46And he bought a linen cloth, and taking him down, wound him in the linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of a rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.
47And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.
42–43 In antiquity the execution of a condemned man did not mark the final moment of his humiliation. Roman law dictated the loss of all honors in death, and even the right of burial was determined by magisterial decree. Writing of the age of Tiberius, Tacitus remarks that “people sentenced to death forfeited their property and were forbidden burial” (Annals VI. 29). Apparently the nature of the crime or the manner of execution played no significant role in this matter. It was not at all uncommon for a body to be left upon a cross either to rot or to be eaten by predatory birds or animals.86 The release of a corpse for burial depended solely upon the generosity of the magistrate. In actual practice, if the relatives of a condemned man sought permission for burial, the body was normally given to them. Cicero had permitted the burial of confederates of Catiline in response to the request of their wives (Plutarch, Antonius 2; Cicero, Orationes Philippicae II. vii. 17), and Philo reports that before a great festival, like the emperor’s birthday, the bodies of those who had been crucified were given to the relatives for proper burial (Against Flaccus X. § 83). From such examples of legal praxis as have been preserved in documents from this period the practice in Palestine under Tiberius can be estimated. In most instances the request of relatives for the body of one executed was honored. The major exception to this was that permission to bury one convicted of high treason was denied on principle.87 Whenever such a request was granted the action represented a special dispensation by the imperial magistrate. Moreover, the famous jurist in the age of Trajan, Neratius Priscus, specified that there could be no ceremony nor public mourning in connection with the interment.88
The burial of the dead as an act of piety is attested in the OT and later Jewish sources (cf. 2 Sam. 21:12–14; Tobit. 1:17–19; 2:3–7; 12:12f.; Sirach 7:33; 38:16). Josephus says explicitly, “we consider it a duty to bury even enemies” (War III. viii. 5). Jewish law prescribed that those hung should be taken down and buried before sundown (Deut. 21:23; cf. M. Sanhedrin VI. 6; TB Sanhedrin 46b, Baraitha). Although cursed of God, a body was not to hang on a cross after dark lest there be a defiling of the land, and it was considered unthinkable that burial should be denied to anyone, not even a convicted criminal. An area far outside the city of Jerusalem had been consigned for the burial of executed criminals (Tos. Sanhedrin IX. 8f.; M. Sanhedrin VI. 7).
The request for the body of Jesus would normally have come from a member of his family or from his disciples (cf. Ch. 6:29). Mary, however, must have been emotionally exhausted by the course of events, and there is no evidence that Jesus’ brothers or sisters were in the city. The disciples had fled. In the absence of those related to the crucified Messiah, Joseph of Arimathea, a much respected member of the Sanhedrin whose piety is clearly indicated by the statement that he was looking for the fulfilment of Israel’s messianic hope, courageously asked permission to bury the body of Jesus. His surname indicates that he was originally from the village of Ramathaim-zophim (cf. 1 Sam. 1:1), about 20 miles northwest of Jerusalem (Eusebius, Onomasticon 32). His earnest expectation of the coming redemption had apparently attracted him to Jesus and his teaching concerning the Kingdom of God. His request was daring because it amounted to a confession of his commitment to the condemned and crucified Jesus.89 As a member of the council undoubtedly he was familiar with the Roman regulations governing the disposal of a corpse. Despite the fact that Jesus had been crucified for high treason and that Joseph was unrelated to him, he boldly petitioned the prefect for the right of burial. The approach of the Sabbath, which began at sundown, lent urgency to his action if burial was to be completed within the time prescribed by pentateuchal law (Deut. 21:23).
44–45 Pilate regarded the request seriously. He was surprised, however, that Jesus was already dead. Since contemporary records show that crucified men often lived two or three days before dying, there was something extraordinary about the rapid death of Jesus. Mark alone mentions the detail that Pilate assured himself from the centurion responsible for the superintending of the execution that Jesus had been dead for some time. He then released the corpse for interment. The release of the body of one condemned of high treason, and especially to one who was not an immediate relative, was wholly unusual and confirms the tenor of the Gospel account of the Roman trial (Ch. 15:1–15). Only if Pilate had no reservations concerning Jesus’ innocence of the charge of lèse majesté, but had pronounced sentence begrudgingly to placate the irate mob, would he have granted the request of the councillor.90
46 The removal of the body from the cross, the purchase of linen cloth, and the actual burial are actions expressed of Joseph alone. The implication of the sentence, however, does not exclude the presence of others who assisted him (cf. Jn. 19:39–42). At least the removal of the body and the closing of the entrance to the tomb Joseph could not have accomplished alone. As an eminent person, he undoubtedly had servants who must have attended to many of the details required during the brief time between the granting of permission for burial and sunset. It seems necessary to read the entire verse in a causative sense, i.e. he caused the body to be taken down from the cross, linen cloth to be purchased, and the body prepared for burial. With servants to assist him, two hours was sufficient time for accomplishing all that was required.91
Once the body was removed from the cross, it was hastily prepared for interment. Mark speaks only of the tight wrapping of the corpse with fine linen. This detail indicates that the body of Jesus was accorded an honorable burial. While none of the Gospels speaks of the washing of the body, this was considered so important in Jewish practice that it was a permitted action on the Sabbath (M. Shabbath XXIII. 5; cf. Acts 9:37; TB Moed Qaṭan 28b). It is unlikely that Joseph took time to secure the linen cloth and yet left the corpse bloody. The statement that Jesus was buried according to the Jewish tradition (Jn. 19:40) furnishes presumptive evidence that the body was washed before it was wrapped tightly with linen.
The body was then carried a short distance to a tomb which had been cut from bedrock, where it was placed on a stone bench or a shelf cut into the rock parallel with the wall of the chamber.92 The necessity for haste, because of the impending Sabbath, dictated that a grave near the place of execution be used (cf. Jn. 19:41f.). The site traditionally identified as the tomb of Jesus and its immediate vicinity is now known to have been a cemetery in the first century.93 As was frequently the case in Palestine, this cemetery utilized an abandoned quarry, where several centuries before stone-cutters had worked their way back into a hillside, leaving a rugged scarp into which tombs were cut in the early Roman period. The façade cut into the hillside opened into an antechamber, at the back of which a rectangular doorway about two feet high led inside (cf. Jn. 20:5, 11, they “stooped to look inside”). Burial itself took place within an inner chamber. Ordinarily in this period such a tomb was sealed with a flat stone slab wedged into place to shut out animals or intruders. The Marcan account speaks of some sort of stone which could be rolled into place. This may have been only a boulder, but if the tomb was an exceptionally fine one, it may have had an elaborate disc-shaped stone, about a yard in diameter, like a millstone, which was placed in a wide slot cut into the rock. Since the groove into which the stone fitted sloped toward the doorway, it could be easily rolled into place; but to roll the stone aside would require the strength of several men. Only a few tombs with such rolling stones are known in Palestine, but all of them date from the period of Jesus.94
47 Two of the women who had been present when Jesus died (verse 42) were observers of his burial. This fact was significant since the burial assumed importance in the early proclamation of the gospel (1 Cor. 15:4). As Jewish culture placed no value on the testimony of women (M. Rosh Ha-Shanah I. 8),95 their presence on the scene in the Marcan account can only be explained as factual. The absence of any reference to an open expression of mourning suggests that the women followed the burial of their Lord with silent pain. Open manifestation of sorrow was unnecessary. Moreover, it was prohibited by law in this instance (see on verses 42–43). The detail that the women saw the place where Jesus’ body was laid to rest is primarily important because it confirms the identity of the tomb specified in Ch. 16:5 with that in which Jesus’ body was interred. The account of the burial thus finalizes the passion narrative and prepares for the report concerning the empty tomb and the resurrection of Jesus on Easter morning.96