Meditations at the Stations of the Cross on Sunday 14 April 2019
This was the inspiration behind the meditations at the Stations of the Cross on Sunday 14 April at St John the Baptist, Holland
New Test. Stud. vol. 41,1995, pp. 1-18
MARK 15.16-32: THE CRUCIFIXION NARRATIVE
AND THE ROMAN TRIUMPHAL PROCESSION
T. E. SCHMIDT
(Westmont College, 955 La Paz Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93108, USA)
Robert Gundry, in a new major commentary on Mark,1 advances
convincingly the thesis that the second Gospel is an extended
apology for the cross. More specifically, Gundry argues that Mark
portrays the passion of Christ as an aspect of his glory. This article
intends to follow that thesis up an avenue not travelled in
Gundry's commentary - namely the Via Dolorosa, which, I will
argue, replaces the Sacra Via of Rome and renders the passion a
triumph in a quite literal sense. In other words, I will maintain
that details of a particular segment of the crucifixion narrative
(Mark 15.16-32) evoke a Roman triumphal procession, and that
Mark designs this 'anti-triumph' to suggest that the seeming
scandal of the cross is actually an exaltation of Christ. In this
interpretation, many details of the crucifixion narrative that
appear to be incidental are in fact important features in a parabolic
drama which a late first-century Roman audience2 would be
uniquely situated to comprehend.
That Mark employs double meaning in the crucifixion narrative
at least to a limited extent is undeniable. His audience could not
miss the point of the accounts of the soldiers' enrobing and crowning
of Jesus (15.17) and of their inscription proclaiming him simply
'King of the Jews' (15.26). Commentators classify these accounts
as part of a general Markan scheme in the larger passion narrative
to portray mockery as a fulfilment of OT prophecy, especially Ps
22.7,18. This is satisfactory at one level of meaning, but there are
indications that Mark introduces a sublevel at this point in the
narrative which incorporates these accounts.
An odd feature of Mark 15.16-32 is that, in contrast to an
otherwise tightly worded passion narrative, this section includes a
number of very specific details. These include the gathering of the
whole guard, the requisition of a bystander to carry the cross, the
1 The Gospel of Mark. A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans,
1993).
2 While I acknowledge some debate concerning the addressees, I am persuaded that the
evidence favours Rome (see Gundry 1039-45) and that this article adds to that evidence.
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 May 2010 IP address: 129.11.21.2
2 T. E. SCHMIDT
translation of the name Golgotha, the offer and refusal of a drink,
the specification of the time of crucifixion, and the numbering and
placement of the bandits. It is not possible to account for all these
details in terms of OT allusions. If, alternately, Mark is attempting
to heighten the realism of his narrative, why to such an extent only
here and why these particular details? I will argue that parallels
between the crucifixion narrative and the Roman triumph supply
a unifying scheme which best accounts for these details both
individually and corporately.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRIUMPH
H. S. Versnel's detailed monograph Triumphus3 explains how the
Roman triumph evolved from Etruscan and Greek ceremonies
calling for an epiphany of Dionysos, the dying and rising god. In
the Athenian New Year festival Anthesteria, Dionysos, portrayed
in costume by the king, was carried into the city in a formal procession
which included a bull to be sacrificed. The king was a fitting
representative of the anthropomorphic god because Dionysos
was generally portrayed as the god who triumphs, especially over
men. The procession culminated in a cry for the epiphany of the
god (0p{anPe, triumpe in Latin4), the bull was sacrificed, and the
king appeared as the god. It is noteworthy that several ancient
cultures celebrated similar rites and tolerated the simultaneous
presence of the bull and the king, who both represented the god.
In Greece, Zeus eventually supplanted Dionysos. There are many
links between the two gods,5 but the shift may have centred on the
position of Zeus as king of the gods. In Rome, Zeus became Jupiter,
and the vestiges of homage to Dionysos (Bacchus), whose cult had
merged with that of Liber, added some significant details to the
sacral elements of the Roman version of the triumph.6
The Roman adaptation of the triumph allowed victorious generals
to replace kings as triumphators. Historians of the period
appear to downplay - or perhaps to assume - the sacral elements
of the triumph in their attention to its political aspects. As a result,
3 Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970. This paragraph summarizes pp. 235-300.
4 Versnel 11-55 argues that an exclamation derived from a pre-Greek word developed
independently in Greek and Latin.
5 Versnel (291-3) presents evidence that Zeus and Dionysos are different aspects of the
same god.
^ Pliny HN 16.4 explains that Liber invented the symbols of royalty, including the crown; in
16.5 he writes of varieties of plants used for different rewards.
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 May 2010 IP address: 129.11.21.2
MARK 15.16-32 3
we do not have a single description of the culminating moment of
sacrifice at the conclusion of a triumph but must piece together the
probable scene in the first century from a variety of extant sources,
both literary and monumental.
Dio Cassius7 describes an early Roman triumph after which subsequent
processions were patterned. First, the soldiers would proclaim
a victorious general as imperator and the senate would
decree a triumph. The triumphator appeared 'arrayed in the
triumphal dress and wearing armlets, with a laurel crown upon his
head, and holding a branch in his right hand . . .'He called
together the people, praised the gathered soldiers, distributed gifts,
and then mounted a tower-shaped chariot upon which he moved in
procession with a slave holding a crown over his head. He was
preceded into the city by captives and graphic representations of
his victories. Finally, 'the victorious general arrived at the Roman
Forum, and after commanding that some of the captives be led to
prison and put to death, he rode up to the Capitol. There he performed
certain rites and made offerings and dined in the porticos
up there, after which he departed homeward toward evening . . . '
The connection between the triumphator and Jupiter8 is remarkable.
The triumphal robe (ornatus Iovis), a garment of regal purple
embroidered with gold, and the gold laurel wreath, were both
taken from the statue of the god in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.
9 The face of the triumphator was painted red in imitation of
the same statue.10 The crowd cried triumpe, a call for the manifestation
of the god.11 It is remarkable that these and other signs
both of deity and of kingship were not recognized or acknowledged
during the republic due to contemporary views of 'political correctness'.
The epiphanic nature of the triumph remained latent until
the first century, as we will observe below.
In the latter period of the republic, as successive triumphators
attempted to align themselves with - and even upstage - military
heroes of the past, the processions became more complex, overlaying
traditional elements of ceremony with increasingly gaudy
and lavish displays.12 Ultimately, this longitudinal competition led
7 6.23 (Zonar. 7.21).
8 Versnel, 56-93.
9 Livy Epit. 10.7.10; Juv. Sat. 10.36; Suet. Aug. 94; Tert. Coron. 13.1; Serv. ad. Verg. Eel.
10.27.
1 0 HN 33.111; Serv. ad. Verg. Ed. 6.22; Isid. Orig. 18.2.6; and Tzetz. Epist. 97 (after Dio
Cass.); cf. Plut. Quaest. Rom. 98.
11 Versnel, 38-48.
1 2 For a chronological survey of triumphs exhibiting features discussed below, see: Livy
Epit. 1.10.5; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.34.2; Plut. Vit. Rom. 16 (the first triumph of Romulus);
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 May 2010 IP address: 129.11.21.2
4 T. E. SCHMIDT
to the triumph becoming the exclusive privilege of the emperor
from 20 BC onward. This change dramatically reduced the frequency
of the triumph but allowed it to take on a new and greater
significance. Now it was a tribute to an all-powerful individual,
who, upon his accession, might celebrate conquest of Rome rather
than conquest for Rome, or he might manufacture almost any pretence
for a display of power. Ultimately, for the mid-first century,
tyrants Gaius and Nero, this privilege brought the triumph
together with the notion of the imperator's own deification. Thus
the ceremony became reconnected with its roots as a display of the
ruler as a god. While we will observe a number of details of the
triumph that suggest points of contact with Mark's narrative, it is
in this relation between triumph and deity that the most profound
connection with the Gospel will begin to emerge.
THE TRIUMPH AND DISGRACE
Before beginning an analysis of Mark's passion narrative, it is
useful to observe that a relation between exaltation and ignominy
with reference to the triumph was familiar to ancient writers and
perhaps even to Mark. Although the ironic commentaries of Dio
Cassius on the disgrace of Sejanus (AD 31) and Vitellius (AD 68)
postdate those events by more than a hundred years, the accounts
themselves indicate a practice of 'anti-triumph' mockery roughly
contemporaneous with the NT period:
Thereupon one might have witnessed such a surpassing proof of human
frailty as to prevent one's ever again being puffed up with conceit. For the
man [Sejanus] whom at dawn they had escorted to the senate-hall as a
superior being, they were now dragging to prison as if no better than the
worst; on him whom they had previously thought worthy of many crowns,
they now laid bonds; him whom they were wont to protect as a master, they
now guarded like a runaway slave, uncovering his head when he would fain
cover it; him whom they had adorned with the purple-bordered toga, they
App. Pun. 66 (Lucius Scipio, 201 BC); Livy Epit. 36.40.1-14 (Quintus Minucius, 191 BC);
37.59.1-6 (Lucius Scipio, 189 BC); 39.5.13-17 (Marcus Fulvius, 187 BC); 39.8.1-5 (Gnaeus
Manlius, 187 BC); 45.38-41 (Lucius Paulus, 167 BC); 45.43.1-9 (Lucius Anicius, 167 BC); Dio
Cass. 20 (Zonar. 9.24); Plut. Aem. 32-4 (Aemilius Paulus, 167 BC); Diod. Sic. 31.8.9-12
(Aemilius, 167 BC); 7.21.1-4; App. Mith. 116-17 (Pompey 63 BC); Suet. Iul. 37; Dio Cass.
43.14, 19-22, 42; 44.11 (Julius Caesar); Dio Cass. 51.20.2; 51.21.8-9; App. B. Civ. 5.130
(Octavian, 29 BC); Dio Cass. 59.25.3 (Gaius, AD 40); 60.22.1; 60.23.1 (Claudius, AD 44); Suet.
Ner. 25 (Nero, c. AD 60); Dio Cass. 65.12.1a; Joseph. J.W. 7.5.4-5 § 123-57 (Vespasian and
Titus, AD 70); see also Tac. Hist. 2.89 (Vitellius enters Rome, AD 68); Livy Epit. 10.7.9
(general description of a triumph); Dion. Hal. 5.47.2-3 (contrast between triumph and lesser
ovation); Dion. Hal. 7.72.15-18 (sacrifice at Olympic festival).
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 May 2010 IP address: 129.11.21.2
MARK 15.16-32 5
struck in the face; and him whom they were wont to adore and worship with
sacrifices as a god, they were now leading to execution. The populace also
assailed him, shouting many reproaches at him for the lives he had taken
and many jeers for the hopes he had cherished.13
Vitellius in his fear put on a ragged and filthy tunic and concealed himself
in a dark room. . . . But the soldiers sought and found him; for naturally he
could not go entirely unrecognized very long after having been emperor.
They seized him, covered as he was with rubbish and blood (for he had been
bitten by the dogs), and tearing off his tunic they bound his hands behind
his back and put a rope around his neck. And thus they led down from the
palace the Caesar who had revelled there; along the Sacred Way they
dragged the emperor who had often paraded past in his chair of state, and
they conducted the Augustus to the Forum, where he had often addressed
the people. Some buffeted him, some plucked at his beard; all mocked him,
all insulted him . . ,14
It is possible that such events, coupled with the recurrent notion of
the kingdom as a reversal of human expectations, inspired a connection
for Mark between the death of Jesus and the Roman
triumph. But the concept of the triumph alone may have provided
sufficient inspiration, and there is evidence that Christ was understood
as triumphator prior to Mark's writing. In 2 Corinthians
2.14-15, Paul proclaims that Christ
always leads us in triumphal procession (Gpianpeuovu), and through us
spreads in every place the fragrance that comes from knowing him. For we
are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among
those who are perishing; to the one a fragrance from death to death, to the
other a fragrance of life to life (NRSV).
The references to scent appear to indicate a shift of metaphor,
but there is some evidence that first-century triumphs included
the distribution of aromatic substances along the route of the
procession, which would signify the preservation of life to those
who celebrated with the triumphator and impending death to the
train of captives, some of whom would be killed along the way.15
1 3 Dio Cass. 58.11.1-3.
1 4 Dio Cass. 64.20.2-21.2. Cf. Dio Cass. 12 (Zonar. 8.20), where Aemilius (225 BC) brings
captives to the city and mocks them for "having sworn not to remove their breastplates until
they had ascended to the Capitol'. Tac. (Hist. 3.67-8) writes with a similarly ironic touch of
Vitellius putting on mourning dress and leaving the palace in procession, carried in a litter.
1 5 One of the references is to a triumph celebrated by Nero soon after his accession. 'All
along the route victims were slain [and] the streets were sprinkled from time to time with
perfume' (Suet. Ner. 25.2). See also Inez Scott Rybert, Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art
(Rome: American Academy, 1955) figs. 81c, 82d (possibly) for depictions of incense being
carried in a triumphal procession. On the sacrifice of human captives during a triumph, see
Joseph. J.W. 7.5.6 §§ 154-5; Dio Cass. 6.23 (Zonar. 7.21); App. Mithrad. 116-17; Plut. Aem.
32-4. Alternately, Scott J. Hafemann (Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit. Paul's Defense of
His Ministry in II Corinthians 2.14-33 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990] 35^49) explains the
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 May 2010 IP address: 129.11.21.2
T. E. SCHMIDT
Whether or not Paul extends the metaphor, there can be no mistaking
his allusion in v. 14 to Christ as triumphator.
ELEMENTS OF THE TRIUMPH IN MARK 15.16-32
A verse-by-verse analysis of Mark 15.16-32 in light of the Roman
triumph reveals parallels which range in strength of credibility.
While the cumulative force of the comparison is significant, it is
noteworthy that the most obvious allusions are made at the
beginning of the narrative, perhaps signalling to Mark's audience
that there is more to come for those 'on the inside' (cf. 4.11).
15.16: specification of place and gathering of the whole guard
Mark is explicit that the courtyard of the palace is the rcpaucbpiov,
the Praetorium or military headquarters. While the term could
apply to military headquarters in general (cf. Acts 23.35), it was
the common designation in Rome for the place and personnel of the
imperial guard. The Praetorian guard, which made or broke the
power of emperors, was invariably present on the occasion of a
triumph; and, significantly, it was called together en masse.16 If it
were not for this custom of gathering, we might account for Mark's
naming of the palace courtyard as the praetorium as an incidental
detail. But he follows reference to the courtyard by informing us
that 'they called together the whole cohort' (avyKakovaiv OXTIV ify
mteipav). It would be extremely odd for the entire soldiery (at least
two hundred men) to be called together to mock and beat a single
prisoner. 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.17
apparent change of metaphors as a slight one from the death of the victims in a triumphal
procession to the imagery of OT sacrifice as a pleasing aroma to God.
1 6 See Suet. Calig. 19.3 (Gaius, AD 40); Dio Cass. 62.4.3 (Nero, AD 66); Tac. Hist. 2.59
(Vitellius, AD 68); Joseph. J.W. 7.5.4 § 123 (Vespasian & Titus, AD 71).
n Gundry (940) proposes that Mark wants to draw attention to the extent of the rejection of
Jesus in fulfilment of 10.33-4. He draws a connection to the specification of the 'whole council'
in 14.55 and 15.1. One might add to this the specification of 'all' the disciples fleeing in 14.27.
Against this view, the crowd in the immediately preceding 15.6-15 is not so defined, and thus
Mark misses a golden opportunity to include 'all' the Jewish people in this scheme. Moreover,
it is questionable that the praetorium would be understood as inclusive with respect to
gentiles. Acknowledgement of the fulfilment theme, however, does not conflict with the
triumph theme.
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 May 2010 IP address: 129.11.21.2
MARK 15.16-32
15.17: ceremonial dress
The extant accounts of Roman triumphs suggest that Mark's
wording in the beginning of v. 17 is formulaic. In one source after
another, the triumphator is introduced clad in, consecutively, a
ceremonial purple robe and a crown.18 Both the combination and
the very presence of these symbols is striking. The wearing of
purple was outlawed for anyone below equestrian rank.19 The only
available robe of this kind would be that of Pilate, but it is inconceivable
that he would lend such a precious garment to be struck
and spat upon by common soldiers.20 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 soldiers
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. A contemporary analogy would be to read that a
prison staff dressed a death row inmate in a tuxedo, cape, top hat,
and cane. The evocation would be more specific than that of
wealth. We would wonder, 'Why send the condemned man to the
opera?'
1 8 Livy Epit. 10.7.9; 30.15.11; Dio Cass. 62.4.3-6.2; 62.20.2-6; Dion. Hal. 5.47.2-3; Suet.
Tib. 17; Ner. 25; Plut. Aem. 34.4; cf. the same in reverse order in App. Pun. 66; Joseph. J.W.
7.5.4 §§ 123-57; see also generally 'triumphal attire' or 'triumphal crown', Suet. Ner. 13; Dio
Cass. Hist. (Zonar. 7.21) 6.23; 51.20.2; or simply 'purple robe', Livy Epit. 27.4.8; 31.11.11. The
robe was always a purple robe, but it appears that eventually (at least second century BC)
a particular robe was used, embroidered in gold and probably taken from the statue of
Jupiter in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. The crown was originally a wreath of laurel or
oak, later a wreath of gold taken from the aforementioned statue of Jupiter. In procession, the
triumphator would often ride holding the ceremonial golden wreath while an attendant held
another crown over his head.
There may be an additional element of mockery in the fact that thorns are used to form the
crown, since different kinds of foliage were employed for different awards (Pliny HN 16.5).
The thorns may constitute a soldierly comment on the worth of kingship over the Jews.
This is not to suggest that the soldiers themselves were self-consciously staging a mock
triumph. W. Lane (The Gospel according to Mark [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974] 559) finds
support in 1 Maccabees for the robe and crown as signifiers merely of Hellenistic vassal kingship.
It should be noted, however, that while these texts all mention the purple robe, only one
mentions a crown (1 Mace 10.20; cf. 10.62-4; 11.58; 14.43-5). Tiridates, king of Armenia, was
crowned as part of a triumph for Nero (Dio Cass. 63.4.3-6.2; Suet. Ner. 13), but the account
mentions only Nero as wearing purple.
1 9 Gundry (940, 942) assumes this in remarking that the soldiers must have employed one
of their own red cloaks to simulate royal purple. But even if this occurred, Mark's lack of
explanation leaves an image which would be remarkable to his audience.
2 0 Matthew, apparently recognizing the difficulty here, has Jesus dressed in 'scarlet'
(KOKKIVTIV, 27.28), probably a soldier's cloak.
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 May 2010 IP address: 129.11.21.2
8 T. E. SCHMIDT
15.18-19: mockery of the soldiers
When the triumphator appeared in the ceremonial garb, but before
the procession began, he met with the soldiers to receive their
accolades and to distribute gifts to them.21 So in the Gospel the
immediate sequel to the appearance of Jesus is the mock obeisance
of the soldiers summarized in w. 18-19. The shout, 'Hail, King of
the Jews!' may in fact correspond to a formulaic response in a
triumph. Although we do not have an explicit record of such a
response, Suetonius may provide a hint when he reports that
during a procession of Nero his escort 'shouted that they were
attendants of Augustus and soldiers of his triumph' (6.25).22
Mark makes reference in v. 20 to the removal of the purple robe
and the return of Jesus' own clothing after the mockery of the
soldiers. This is inconsistent with the custom of the triumphator
wearing the ceremonial robe throughout the procession, but it is
necessary in order to set up the division of Jesus' clothing by
the soldiers in v. 24. It does not suit Mark's purpose in this section
to make explicit by citation this allusion to Ps 22.19 (18), but it is
important enough in anticipation of the next section - especially
the quotation in 15.34 - that he leaves the description intact.
15.20b: the procession
Jesus is 'led out' (e^dyo-uow) through the streets of Jerusalem to the
place of crucifixion. The verb, used only here in Mark, is employed
commonly in the NT and elsewhere to denote a procession involving
the accompaniment of a key figure by others.23 When Mark
wishes to denote Jesus' private transportment during other stages
of his trial, he employs the more common (kayo) (14.44, 53; 15.16).
It would probably have been obvious to Mark's audience that a
prisoner would be taken from the place of imprisonment to the
21 Dio Cass. (Zonar. 7.21) 6.23; 63.4.3-6.2; Tac. Hist. 1.27; 2.59, 89; Livy Epit. 36.40.1-14;
37.59.1-6; 39.5.13-17; 45.38-41; 45.43.1-9. There is a familiar tradition of the soldiery
following in the train of the triumphator singing mocking songs - presumably to express the
victor's humility: see App. Pun. 66; Livy Epit. 4.20.2; 4.53.11; 7.3.8; Dio Cass. 43.19-22; Dion.
Hal. 7.72.11; Plut. Aem. 34.4. But this practice appears to fade or disappear as the divine
imperator becomes consistently the triumphator.
2 2 Cf. Dio Cass. 62.20.2-6; and see Suet. Calig. 22.3, where Gaius is hailed as Jupiter
Latiaris.
2 3 Luke 24.50; John 10.3; Acts 5.19; 12.17; 16.37; 16.39; 21.38.
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 May 2010 IP address: 129.11.21.2
MARK 15.16-32 9
place of crucifixion outside the city.24 Here the notion of a procession
and its prolongation is reinforced by the need for a passerby
to carry the cross (v. 21) and by the naming of a different place
to which he was taken. Moreover, it is possible that v. 22, which
may be translated 'they bore (cpepouaw25) him to . . . Golgotha',
signifies not only of the growing physical weakness of Jesus but
also the custom of the triumphator being borne in a portable curule
chair which was placed in his chariot. Thus the 'litter' of the
Afflicted One is in reality the curule chair of the Conquering One.
15.21: requisition of Simon to carry the cross
Simon is identified as Cyrenian and as the father of Alexander and
Rufus, who unlike (xiva) Simon are probably known to Mark's
audience as church figures.26 The account of Simon's requisition by
the soldiers as cross-carrier may serve simply to suggest the
wearying effect of a prolonged procession. But it may also suggest
another formulaic element in a triumph. A consistent feature in
the numerous monuments depicting triumphs is the sacrificial
bull, led along dressed and crowned to signify its identity with the
triumphator. But the bull is not alone. In nearly every one of these
depictions, walking alongside the bull, is an official who carries
over his shoulder a double-bladed axe, the instrument of the
victim's death.27 The parallel might appear to be coincidental, but
two remarkable details - Simon's link to the community of faith
via his sons and his non-complicity with events up to this point as
indicated by his having just arrived from out of town (epx6|xevov COT'
dypov) - suggest that Mark envisions his role as divinely planned.
This practically official function adds to the visual image of
2 4 Plaut. Mil. Glor. 2.4.6-7: '. . . you'll soon have to trudge out beyond the gate in that
attitude . . . arms outspread, with your gibbet on your shoulders'; Plut. De sera 554A: 'every
criminal who goes to execution must carry his own cross'; Artem. Oneir. 2.56:'. . . it signifies
that he will carry a cross. For the cross is like death and the man who is to be nailed to it
carries it beforehand'. For a detailed account of crucifixion in the NT world and extensive
bibliography, see H.-W. Kuhn, 'Die Kreuzesstrafe wahrend der fruhen Kaiserzeit. Ihre
wirklichkeit und Wertung in der Umwelt des Urchristenturns', ANRW 2.650-793.
2 5 The verb is used consistently in Mark for the sick or objects being carried: 1.32; 2.3; 4.8;
5.27-8; 7.32; 9.17-20; 12.15-16. The only exceptions are references to the blind being brought
to Jesus, which may be a formulaic consistency with other healing stories; and the ass being
brought for the triumphal entry (11.2, 7).
2 6 The names occur in Rom 16.13; 1 Tim 1.20; and 2 Tim 4.14; see the discussion of various
conjectures as to the significance of 15.20b in Gundry 953-4.
2 7 Ryberg figs. 54a, 54b, 55, 56, 58, 61a, 64, 65, 69a, 78a, 81b, 81 d, 82a, 96b.
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 May 2010 IP address: 129.11.21.2
10 T.E.SCHMIDT
instrument-bearer for the victim. It is the first of several evocative
details involving unwitting irony on the part of the soldiers.
15.22: specification with translation of the place of crucifixion
Crucifixions were common enough in the Roman world that major
cities set aside places nearby for them. There numerous bodies,
elevated and in various stages of suffering or decomposition, would
present a spectacle for the senses intended as a public warning
to potential malefactors. In Rome the place was the Campus
Esquilinus; in Jerusalem, it may have been either the site of the
present Church of the Holy Sepulchre or on the Mount of Olives
across the Kidron Valley from the temple.28 Mark gives the name
of the place, Golgotha, and then, untypically,29 he translates. In
Hebrew, Golgotha (n^J) denotes not an empty skull but more
generally the head.30 This is also true of the Greek translation
Kpdviov. Therefore, 'place of the head' or perhaps 'place of the
death's head' would be a more accurate rendering. The Vulgate
calvaria (as opposed to caput),31 the ambiguity of the English word
'head', and the popular image associated with Gordon's Calvary
may exert undue influence on modern translations.
It may be that Mark offers this translation simply to heighten
the sense of the macabre. But there is a remarkable coincidence
in the name of the place that may constitute another allusion to
the triumph. Dion. Hal. 4.59-61 (cf. Livy Epit. 50.55.5-6) records
the legend that, during the laying of a foundation for a temple on a
certain Roman hill, a human head was discovered found with its
features intact. Soothsayers proclaimed,
2 8 On Rome, see M. Hengel, Crucifixion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 54. Gundry (955)
argues for the Mt of Olives in Jerusalem based on the connection to a 'place of counting" and
the visibility of the temple from it (cf. 15.39); see E. L. Martin, Secrets of Golgotha (Alhambra,
California: Ask, 1988) 12-19, 43-64. A further argument: it would be natural for the Romans
to choose a place visible from the temple to display the consequences of disobedience to their
law.
2 9 The only other translation of a proper name is in 3.17, where Mark draws attention to
the disciples as the 'sons of thunder'.
3 0 Gundry (955) makes this point, citing Judg 9.53; 2 Kgs 9.35; 1 Chr 10.10; elsewhere the
term refers to numbering ('counting heads').
31 'Skull' is also rendered in Latin as calvaria (Vulg. 15.22). Celsus (Med. 8.1) employs caput
and calvaria interchangeably, calvaria technically for the bone under the scalp (2x), caput
more commonly for whole head (9x); in 7.7.15.C he employs calvaria more consistently. In Livy
Epit. 23.24.2 skull (calvam) and head (capite) are used in same sentence; in Pliny HN 30.53
calvaria is used for a dog's skull.
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 May 2010 IP address: 129.11.21.2
MARK 15.16-32 11
'Romans, tell your fellow citizens it is ordered by fate that the place in
which you found the head shall be the head of all Italy', (and) since that
time the place is called the Capitoline hill (K<xjma>\ivoq 6 Xotpoq) from the
head (KecpaAriq) that was found there; for the Romans call heads A )
c a p i t a ( & )
The temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, or more simply the Capitolium,
was the terminus of every Roman triumph. The procession would
wind through the streets to the Forum, and it would culminate in
the ascent of the triumphator to the place of sacrifice, the place
named after a death's head. This may be a linguistic and historical
coincidence, but to an audience prepared by the context to look
for double meanings, it would be a glaring and meaningful coincidence.
15.23: offering and refusal ofmyrrhed wine
just before the crucifixion
Wine mixed with myrrh was an expensive delicacy which probably
was not understood to deaden pain.32 Why myrrhed wine, why the
refusal, and why interject this seemingly unimportant detail here?
The supreme moment of the triumph is the moment of sacrifice,
depicted in formulaic detail by numerous sculptors of the period.
Just prior to the sacrifice of the bull, or in a few cases simultaneously
with that sacrifice, the triumphator (or sacrificant in
general) was offered a cup of wine, which he would refuse and
then pour on the altar (or, more rarely, on the bull itself).33 The
wine obviously signifies the precious blood of the victim, and the
links between sacrificant, wine, and victim signify their identity.
3 2 Pliny (HN 14.92) describes myrrhed wine as the finest. Elsewhere he writes of myrrh
used for scent and mixed with wine, but he never describes it as a sedative. Sour wine or
vinegar (15.36) was understood to deaden pain (e.g., Pliny HN 23.24-7). Dioscor. Ped. (JDe
mater, med. 1.52-64) describes various ointments employing myrrh which are occasionally
mixed with wine and various other ingredients. But although he describes raw myrrh as
having a soporific effect (1.64.3), in combination with other substances including wine he does
not ascribe this quality to it. Instead, myrrh in these concoctions appears generally to operate
externally to reduce throat inflammation. B. Sanh. 43a, citing Ps 68.22, refers to wine with
frankincense as a drug offered to (presumably crucified) criminals by 'the noble women of
Jerusalem'. The last phrase may constitute a connection, albeit a weak one: if myrrhed wine
had a sedative effect for which we lack documentation, its provision may signify an expensive
sacrifice of devotion along the lines of 14.3-9. This possibility, however, does not preclude a
reference to the theme of triumph.
3 3 For libation just prior to the sacrifice see Ryberg 143 and figs. 45d, 45e, 51, 61b, 64, 67,
68, 75a, 75b, 76, 77, 86, 93. For simultaneous libation, see figs. 66, 90, 91. For libation on
the bull itself, see figs. 17b, 97c. For texts describing wine used in sacrifice, see Dion. Hal.
7.72.15-18; Juv. 12.8; CaioAgr. 132,134; Ov. Fast. 4.778.
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 May 2010 IP address: 129.11.21.2
12 T.E.SCHMIDT
The connection is confirmed by the similar adornment of the
triumphator and the bull. In other words, the bull is the god who
dies and appears as the victor in the person of the triumphator. All
of this is of course shorthand for a long process of ritual development,
but for our purposes the formulaic element is clear: at the
crucial moment of a triumph, the moment of sacrifice, expensive
wine is poured out. In Mark's account, the next words are 'and they
crucified him'. These words constitute either an abrupt transition
from a trivial detail or a connection between wine and sacrifice.
14.25 supplies precedent for such a connection, and the sequence of
events here may add another detail to an emerging picture of Jesus
as simultaneously triumphator and sacrifice.
With regard to the sacrifice itself, it should be noted that 'it was
not merely a thanksgiving sacrifice for the victory, but was at the
same time looked upon as a sacrifice pro salute rei publicae pointing
to the future'.34 This forward-looking, community-oriented,
soteriological function for the sacrifice gains in significance in view
of the fact that a victorious Hellenistic king was given the title
CTCOTTIP when he entered his city, and his arrival was celebrated as
the napovoia of a god.35 Key terminology and the key element of
the triumph were clearly adaptable to the Christian kerygma and
may have contributed to Mark's perception of the crucifixion as the
antitype of the triumph.
15.25: specification of the hour of crucifixion
The reference to 'the third hour' as the time of the crucifixion
corresponds roughly to 9.00 a.m.36 in modern reckoning. While in
translation this appears to be unusually specific, the expression is
used elsewhere (Matt 20.3; Acts 2.15) to denote simply 'the beginning
of the day'.37 The triadic chronological references - three
specifications, each in multiples of three - may possess multi-level
significance.38 Thus the introduction of chronology here, like the
immediately preceding reference to the division of Jesus' garments,
34Versnel,392.
3 5 Ibid., 386-8, 393. Versnel links ccurrip in Roman parlance to 'one who bears good fortune'
and notpouaia to the adventus of emperors. See n. 48 below on the emperor as acorrip.
36 G. Delling, 'copa', TDNT 9.680; cf. John 11.9 on the daylight being divisible by twelve.
3 7 Matt 20.3; Acts 2.15. Similarly, 'the sixth hour' (15.33; Matt 27.45; Luke 23.44; cf. John
19.14) appears to serve as a general designation for 'midday': Matt 20.5; John 4.6; Acts 10.9.
3 8 Gundry (945, 957-8) argues that the 'third hour . . . sixth hour . . . ninth hour' reference
is intended to stress the shortness of the time on the cross. The double triadic reference may
also be suggestive of the completeness (i.e., divine plan) of the events.
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 May 2010 IP address: 129.11.21.2
MARK 15.16-32 13
may be necessitated by later references. It might be noted,
additionally, that the detail is entirely consistent with the timing
of a triumph according to the few chronological details available.
Assuming that the events recorded in 15.16-24 occupied two or
three hours, the mustering of the soldiery in v. 16 probably coincided
with reveille, about dawn. A Roman triumphal celebration
occupied an entire day, and this necessitated final preparations for
the procession about dawn.39 Thus Mark's chronological detail,
while probably serving another primary purpose, supplies yet one
more coincidental correspondence to a triumph.
15.26: the placard
The inscription 'King of the Jews' is clearly ironic and contiguous
with the earlier mockery by the soldiers, who presumably compose
and affix the announcement to the cross. The repetition of the title
may be the second part in a triadic structure, together with the
culminating pronouncement, also from a soldier, of Jesus' divine
sonship (v. 39).
It was common for the victim of Roman justice to wear a sign,
often around his neck, announcing his crime to passers-by.40 It was
also common in a triumph for lictors in the procession to carry
placards announcing the peoples conquered by the triumphator.41
If the acclamation 'King of the Jews' in v. 18 following the rigging
out of Jesus evokes the verbal accolade given by soldiers to a
triumphator at his appearance, the presence now of an identical
39 Joseph. J.W. 7.5.4 § 123: 'At the break of dawn (nep! avrijv axonivnv nSn TT|V em) Vespasian
and Titus issued forth, crowned with laurel and clad in the traditional purple robes.' Dio Cass.
63.4.3: 'Everything had been thus got ready during the night; and at daybreak (anatp TiiiEpo;)
Nero, wearing the triumphal garb and accompanied by the senate and the Praetorians,
entered the Forum.' Plut. Aem. 34.4: 'On the third day, as soon as it was morning (ecoBev \izv
zx>&\>c) . . . [the procession began]'. To my knowledge, no other accounts of triumphs make
references to the time of a triumph's beginning. It commonly ended with an evening banquet
(e.g., Dio Cass. [Zonar. 7.21] 6.23; App. Pun. 66).
4 0 Dio Cass. 54.3.6-7 (involving crucifixion following procession through the Forum);
73.16.5; Suet. Calig. 32.2; Dom. 10; Juv. Sat. 6.230; Pliny Ep. 6.10.3; 9.19.3.
4 1 Depictions of lictors carrying placards during triumphal processions are evident on the
Arch of Titus (Ryberg fig. 79b) and the Arch of Benevento (a procession of Trajan, Ryberg fig.
82b-c). These show that such placards, which were carried on poles approximately eight feet
in height, were about the same size that one would expect for a placard attached to a cross:
approximately one foot in height and two feet in width. Dio Cass. 62.20.2-6 describes wooden
panels borne aloft upon which were inscribed Nero's victories; App. Mithr. 2.117 and Pliny
HN 7.26 describe tablets or banners recording Pompey's conquests; cf. the pictographs (almost
certainly accompanied by inscriptions) described for Vespasian's triumph following the Jewish
War (Joseph. J.W. 7.5.5 §§ 139-47).
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 May 2010 IP address: 129.11.21.2
14 T. E. SCHMIDT
inscription may reinforce the image of one whose conquests are
portrayed for the admiring crowd. In terms of a direct parallel to a
triumphal procession, the placard would be better situated before
or during the journey to Golgotha, but the strength of the tradition
(one of few details identical in all four gospels) may have precluded
such alteration. Alternately, but still consistent with the general
scheme, Mark may not have in view the placard-carrying during a
procession but simply the accolade given at its culmination when
the triumphator is raised above the crowd.
15.27: specification of the number and placement
of those crucified with Jesus
The account of criminals being executed alongside Jesus appears
to be an unnecessary interruption of the narrative. Moreover, to
report the association of Jesus with criminals without reference to
an apologetic text like Isa 53.12 (cf. text history and Luke 22.37)
appears to detract from Jesus' uniqueness and to supply an awkward
reminder to gentile readers that crucifixion was shameful.
Interpretive schemata that stress the humiliation of Jesus regard
the criminals as evidence of the depth of his suffering; schemata
that stress the exaltation of Jesus regard the criminals as a foil to
his innocence. While these explanations are plausible, the triumph
theme accounts more satisfactorily for at least one key detail.
In the world of Mark's audience, placement on the right and left
of a central and elevated person signified royal enthronement. In
Mark 10.37 (par. Matt 20.21) the mother of two disciples requests
that her sons be seated on his right and left when he is enthroned.
42 Josephus alters an OT narrative to convey the image
of a king flanked by his son and general.43 Historians of imperial
Rome commonly mention the emperor along with two consuls who,
in theory if not practice, presided with him over the affairs of state.
The traditional location for the emperor to display himself before
4 2 G. W. E. Nicklesburg ('The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narrative', HTR
73 [1980] 172) cites this passage as evidence that Jesus' throne is the cross. Gundry (960)
objects that sitting on a throne (10.35-40) and hanging on a cross do not equate. The more
relevant equation, however, involves elevation coupled with right and left placement.
4 3 Joseph. J.A. 6.11.9 § 235: Abner and Jonathan are seated at Saul's right and left; in the
underlying biblical text (1 Sam 20.25) Jonathan is standing and Abner is seated at Saul's side,
with neither right nor left specified. Similarly, Josephus reinforces the Roman affirmation of
Herod's kingship (c. 28 BC) by reporting that 'when the Senate adjourned, Antony and Caesar
went out with Herod between them . . . in order to sacrifice and to deposit the decree in the
Capitol' (J.A. 14.14.5 § 388).
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 May 2010 IP address: 129.11.21.2
MARK 15.16-32 15
the people was the rostrum, which was elevated approximately ten
feet above the Forum floor. In the triumph itself, the triumphator
was normally alone, and at the conclusion he was borne in a
portable curule chair to the rostrum,44 from which it was a short
walk to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus for the culminating
sacrifice. The few exceptions to this pattern of individual display
are notable both because they occur at the point of elevation to the
rostrum and because they occur very near to the time of Mark's
writing.
Suetonius records a triumph of the youthful Tiberius at the culmination
of which he 'took his seat beside Augustus between the
two consuls' (Suet. Tib. 17). In AD 44, Claudius returned to Rome
after a military campaign and celebrated a triumph. Tn this he
followed precedent, even ascending the steps of the Capitol on his
knees, with his sons-in-law supporting him on either side' (Dio
Cass. 60.23.1). When Vitellius accepted the title imperator at Lugdunum
in AD 68 he 'spoke in praise of [his conquering generals]
Valens and Caecina in public assembly and placed them on either
side of his own curule chair' (Tac. Hist. 2.59). In AD 71 Vespasian
celebrated his triumph over the Jews with Titus beside him in
the triumphal chariot and Domitian riding alongside (Joseph. J. W.
7.5.4 § 152). From that point the three perform together the culminating
events of the triumph (§§ 153-7).45 In each instance enumerated
above, a threesome appears elevated above the admiring
throng in order consciously to communicate power through solidarity,
and that among those in the most obvious positions to
disrupt it, close relatives and military leaders. It is probable, then,
that the crucifixion of criminals on either side of Jesus is a
conscious expression of the mockery of his kingship on the part of
the soldiers. That is, they comprise the mock equivalent of those
displayed on either side of an enthroned ruler. Their importance
is confirmed by the triadic mockery which follows immediately in
w. 29-32 and now may be seen as ascensive:46 Jesus is reviled first
by the general Jewish populace ('those who passed byO, then by the
religious leaders, and finally by his 'vice-regents'.
4 4 See Livy Epit. 10.7.9; 30.15.11; Dio Cass. 62.4.3-6.2; Tac. Hist. 2.59; Suet. Tib. 17.
4*> There are of course numerous instances of dignitaries being placed at the side or near the
imperator as a show of solidarity of power. For examples in the context of triumphs, see Dio
Cass. 63.4.3-6.2; App. B. Civ. 5.48; Suet. Claud. 24.
4 6 Mark's triads are often ascensive. In the passion narrative, see 14.32-42, 60-4, and 66-
72; earlier examples include 4.20; 9.43-8; 12.2-6; 13.9, and 13.32.
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 May 2010 IP address: 129.11.21.2
16 T.E.SCHMIDT
Summary of Triumph Elements in 15.16-32
Before concluding with some observations which may shed light on
Mark's specific motive for presenting the crucifixion in such a
scheme, I will review the preceding material by means of a 'decoded'
version of the narrative:
The Praetorians gather early in the morning to proclaim the triumphator.
He is dressed in the triumphal garb, and a crown of laurel is placed on his
head. The soldiers then shout in acclamation of his Lordship and perform
acts of homage to him. They accompany him from their camp through the
streets of the city. The sacrificial victim is there in the procession, and
alongside walks the official carrying the implement of his coming death. The
procession ascends finally to the Place of the (Death's) Head, where the
sacrifice is to take place. The triumphator is offered the ceremonial wine. He
does not drink it, but it is poured out on the altar at the moment of sacrifice.
Then, at the moment of being lifted up before the people, at the moment of
the sacrifice, again the triumphator is acclaimed as Lord, and his viceregents
appear with him in confirmation of his glory. Following the lead of
the soldiers, the people together with their leaders and the vice-regents
themselves join in the acclamation. The epiphany is confirmed in portents
by the gods: 'Truly this man is the Son of God!'
Divine Sonship and the Epiphany of the Imperator
In another article471 argue that w. 33-9 focus on the rejection of
the Jews and the transfer of insight concerning Jesus' identity to
the gentiles. This implies, among other things, that the pronouncement
of the centurion in v. 39, which repeats the title 'Son of God'
for the first time since 1.1, is the culminating statement of Mark's
Gospel.48 The significance of this for the present article can hardly
be overstated, because it makes the moment of Jesus' death, the
moment of sacrifice, the culmination of Mark's parable of triumph.
More particularly, Mark is presenting an anti-triumph in reaction
to the contemporary offensive self-divinization efforts of Gaius
and especially Nero. In other words, he intends to portray Jesus
parabolically to a Roman gentile audience as the true epiphanic
triumphator.
4 7 'Cry of Dereliction or Cry of Judgment: Mark 15:34 In Context', Bulletin for Biblical
Research 4 (1994) 1-11.
4 8 It should be noted that the reaction of the centurion is not only to the rending of the
temple veil but to the series of portents beginning with the darkness (v. 33) and especially the
loud cry (v. 37). Such portents often accompanied the deaths of important figures to affirm
their posthumous divinization: see Dio Cass. 56.29.3-4; Plut. Caes. 69.3-4; Suet. Iul. 88;
Claud. 46; Vesp. 23.4. For similar portents generally, see Dio Cass. 44.17.2; 51.17.4-5; Lucian
Peregr. 39; Paus. Ach. 25.3; Ov. Met. 7.200-6; Verg. G. 1.475.
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 May 2010 IP address: 129.11.21.2
MARK 15.16-32 17
We observed earlier the progression of the triumph in the
century preceding Mark's writing from a celebration of military
victory on the part of military servants of the state to a gaudy
display of power reserved for its sole ruler. The symbols which lay
behind the tradition historically were re-emerging; the king as
victor and the god as victor were merging.49 L. R. Taylor explains
that Augustus initiated the divinization-in-life of the emperor
while retaining republican protocol by promoting the cult of his
Genius in Italy and by encouraging his worship after the Hellenistic
style of god-king veneration in the eastern provinces. She
concludes:
When the blood of victims began to be shed in Genius worship, the cult
departed from the precedents which prescribed bloodless offerings for the
Genius and took on the forms that belonged to the worship of the incarnate
god-king. Its usual sacrificial victim, the bull, had long before been the
symbol of the divine king in Egypt and had come down into the Hellenistic
cult as a favorite victim in the worship of the monarch. Thus the Genius of
the Roman emperor had inherited the cult of the Hellenistic monarch who
appeared before his subjects as an incarnate god.50
It was the emperors of the mid first century who began to set
republican protocol aside and to take the triumph to its furthest
limit. Suetonius reports (Calig. 22.3—4) that Gaius would regularly
visit the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in order to engage in
confidential chats with the deity, even to the point of making
obscene threats if the god does not 'lift him up'. He required that
courtiers hail him as Jupiter Latiaris and built a temple to his own
godhead containing a statue with which the emperor regularly
exchanged clothing. Nero's conduct in public triumphs confirms his
own flirtation with divinity. When, as the culmination of one procession,
king Tiridates did obeisance to the emperor, he said, 'I
have come to thee, my god, to worship thee as I do Mithras'
(Dio Cass. 63.5.2). On this occasion, Nero himself was dressed in
triumphal garb, and the canopy over his head depicted him in the
attitude of the god, 'driving a chariot, with golden stars gleaming
4 9 R. Payne (The Roman Triumph [London: Abelard-Schuman, 1962], esp. 175-80 on
Trajan) describes further development beyond the scope of this paper. By the second century,
triumphal sacrifice was occurring directly to the emperor, who was increasingly depicted in
statuary in divine attitude and dress.
50 L. R. Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Middletown, Connecticut: American
Philological Association, 1931) 246. In an appendix (270-83), Taylor documents scores of
ascriptions of divinity to Augustus, including the title acoxrip. See also Versnel, 56-93 for an
extended argument for the identification of the triumphator as Jupiter and the suppression of
explicit identification out of republican sympathies.
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 May 2010 IP address: 129.11.21.2
18 T.E.SCHMIDT
all about him' (Dio Cass. 63.6.2).51 During another triumph, he was
hailed as, among other things, Apollo and 'Divine Voice' (Dio Cass.
62.20.5).
CONCLUSION
As these events were occupying centre stage in Rome, members
of the Roman church were struggling to understand and communicate
the notion that God had revealed himself in the person
of Jesus, understood as both Crucified One and Coming One, as
acorrip whose jiapoucna was anticipated. It would have been natural
for them to make comparisons between Lord Christ and Lord
Caesar, and it would have been natural for them to look for
evidence of God's sovereignty at the moment of his humility.
Assuming that Mark had at his disposal numerous details to serve
several purposes in recounting the events of the passion, it is
plausible that he would select and arrange some of these details to
hint at a correspondence between the seeming mockery of Jesus
and the futile adoration of the imperator. The common element is
the soldiery, who start out intending to mock but are in the end, in
the person of the centurion, compelled to recognize the true Son of
God, the true Lord who is manifested triumphant at the moment of
his sacrifice.
Would Mark be so subtle as to craft the passion narrative in
parabolic form? A legitimate question, the answer to which spells
the difference between a series of more or less remarkable coincidences
and a unifying theme for the passage. There may be some
precedent in the Gospel for subtleties which are left to the
audience's power of discernment (11.12-14; 8.14-21) or allusions
which invite explanation by those who recognize them (e.g. 1.6,12-
13; 14.62). A defence of Mark's opaqueness in this instance,
however, may lie not in an assessment of his usual style but in the
contemporary political climate. If he writes for a Roman audience
during or just after a period of Neronic persecution, it would be
prudent to employ subtlety so that hostile eyes 'may indeed see but
not perceive' (4.11) the meaning of this particular 'parable'. The
intriguing but unanswerable question is whether some in Mark's
audience found evocative what we must leave as speculative.
51 Ryberg (fig. 79a) shows Titus in a triumph similarly posed, in a chariot drawn by four
horses and with a winged figure holding a crown over his head.