Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark
Chapter 14
Previous Chapter
Home
Topical Index
Next Chapter

Mark 14:1-11

1: It was now two days before the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth, and kill him; 2: for they said, "Not during the feast, lest there be a tumult of the people." 3: And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head. 4: But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment thus wasted? 5: For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor." And they reproached her.  6: But Jesus said, "Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7: For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me. 8: She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burying. 9: And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her." 10: Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them. 11: And when they heard it they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought an opportunity to betray him. 


NOTES
1: It was now two days before the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth, and kill him; 2: for they said, "Not during the feast, lest there be a tumult of the people."

v1-2: are Markan redaction, v2 harking back to earlier comments about Jesus' popularity being the reason that the Pharisees refrain from taking action (12:12).

3: And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head.

v3: the location is in the probably fictional town of Bethany. Gundry (1993, p812) notes that flasks were often broken over the dead and left shattered in coffins.

v3: in the OT kings were annointed by prophets who were male. The writer reverses that convention to great effect here (Myers 1988, p359).

v3: The annointing with costly oil recalls the annointing of Aaron the high priest, whom the writer of Mark has recalled on other occasions in the Gospel. Psalm 133:2 describes it thus:


It is like the precious oil upon the head, running down upon the beard, upon the beard of Aaron, running down on the collar of his robes!


v3: Sawicki (1992) writes:


Mark's text says that the woman "poured" the sweet ointment on Jesus's head (katecheen autou tes kephales).  It does not use the expected verb, myrizo, to indicate that she rubbed, daubed, or slathered him with it.  (This verb will be used later in Jesus's interpretation of the pouring as anointing: myrisai in v 8.) Yet in fact there was a custom among the Greeks according to which a woman threw something sweet over someone else's head.  Mark's text alludes to that custom with the verb katacheoKatachysmata, (literally "things dropped") means dessert food, sweet spicy treats, goodies.  But the term also signifies the domestic ritual through which the senior wife would welcome a newcomer to her household.

Sawicki also observes that a compilation of later Jewish writings, the Mishnah, knows it is customary for women to wear perfume bottles containing nard, for it contains rules regarding them. .

7: For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me.

v7-8: contain a prediction of Jesus' own death. It is not necessarily supernatural, in that it contains no detailed features that would require supernatural knowledge. However, this prediction is made in response to an event most probably created off the Elijah-Elisha cycle, the annointing of Jesus.

v7: Donahue and Harrington (2002) state "In its more familiar translation, 'the poor you will always have with you,' this is one of the most misinterpreted verses in the NT" (p.387). According to their interpretation, the verse refers back to the instructions on how to treat the poor in Deut:15:1-11:


Deut15:11
There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land. (NIV)

Jesus' comments make more sense seen as a reference to this command to be good to the poor.

8: She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burying.


v8: Sawicki (1992) notes;


"Mark means to say that something good was done with Jesus, and at the same time by means of Jesus. Later Mark has: ho eschen epoi~sen (v 8), literally "that which was happening, she made/produced/did."  The gist is not that "she did what she could"; but rather: "she made sense out of the situation."  The verb poie~ describes creative, inventive work of any kind.  It recalls the work of playwrights (poietai) or that of confectioners (hai demiourgoi, who at a banquet scene like Mark's are lurking just out of sight).  The creation that becomes the nucleus of the gospel message is "her memory," mnemosynon autes, the memory of Jesus that is attributable to her because she designed it.  Mark says that what she has created (ho epoiesen aute) will be discussed wherever the gospel is announced. This women's poietic production is no less than the identification of Jesus as Christ in terms of his death."


9: And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her."

v9: Crossan (1991, p416) has noted that one could make a much better case for the woman here being the author of Mark, than for the young man in 14:51-2. Her confession of Jesus' identity opens a frame that closes with the centurion's confession in 15:39. Though her memory will last forever, her name is never given. Markan irony again? Wills (1997, p117) points out that she is an ironic counterpart to the disciples, who do not understand (as usual). It should be added that the irony is increased because we know the disciples' names, while hers is not recorded.

10: Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them. 11: And when they heard it they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought an opportunity to betray him.

v10-11: "Judas." Judas occurs but three times in the Gospel of Mark, in once in Mark 3 and twice in Mark 14. Some exegetes, such as Helms, see this as a creation from Zech 11, but while Matthew's Judas is clearly partly related to that passage, the link is more tenuous in Mark. Mark's account is quite simple; note that Judas is not possessed by the devil, nor does he actually ask for money. Nor are we informed how Judas knew the chief priests were seeking to do away with Jesus quietly.

Mark scholar Ted Weeden (2001) summarizes the reasons why Judas' betrayal should be considered fiction in a short essay posted to the discussion group Kata Markon.

(1) Paul, whose letters predate the Gospel of Mark in most dating schemes, does not appear to have known of Judas' betrayal. 1 Cor 11:23, where Paul is often held to have said Jesus was "betrayed" in reality says only that he was "handed over or delivered up" (parededideto). The passage is often translated with the Gospels in mind. Weeden points out that it is strange that if a trusted disciple in the inner circle did betray Jesus, Paul does not use that information to attack the "false/super apostles" in 2 Cor. 10-13, particularly in 2 Cor. 11:13-15 (13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.(NIV)). Note how perfectly Judas would serve as an example here. Further, when Paul discusses the the resurrection appearances to various early Christian leaders in 1 Cor. 15, Paul cites "Peter and then to the Twelve"--- not "Peter and then to the eleven." Weeden argues that Paul's citation, which must date before the 50's, suggests that the Twelve are a coherent and faithful body of original disciples whose original integrity is in tact. Weeden sees the election held for Judas' replacement in Acts to be a fiction, invented to counter the invention of the story that an insider betrayed Jesus into the hands of his enemies. Note that while almost all exegetes believe that the famous passage in 1 Cor 15 where Jesus appears to the apostles is in fact genuine, some have argued that it is an interpolation and thus, this piece of evidence for Weeden's argument would fail. In fact, in addition to the arguments of Price, the fact that the passage contains a reference to the Twelve, the only one in the entire Pauline corpus, when it should say 11. Recognizing this as an "error," numerous ancient manuscripts have been corrected by scribes from "12" to "11."

(2) Other ancient Christian traditions that many scholars believe to be early, such as the Q traditions and the Gospel of Thomas, also do not appear to know the Judas story. Further, as Weeden observes, there is one Q saying, incorporated into Matthew, (19:28): where Jesus says "when the Son of the human shall sit on his throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." It is difficult to imagine how Jesus could be believed to have said that if the developers of this tradition had known of a betrayal by Judas. In Luke 22:21 Jesus sits down with the apostles and tells them that they will also sit on the twelve thrones judging the tribes of Israel.

(3) In addition to the lack of evidence from early Christian literature, the literary background of Mark is also a strike against Judas. The Gethsemane scene, as Weeden and many other scholars have noted, is built out of  2 Sam 15-17 and 2 Sam 20:4-10. In that sequence David is betrayed by his right-hand man, Ahithophel. Weeden argues that Mark modeled Judas after Ahithophel. In addition to the connections to the David epic, Weeden summarizes Shelby Spong's arguments for OT creation:


"....Among the interesting parallels between the two biblical stories Spong notes are the following (267): (1) Joseph was handed over "by a group of twelve who later became known as the leaders of the twelve tribes of Israel," (2) in "both stories [the story of Joseph and the story of Jesus] the handing over or betrayal was into the hands of gentiles,' (3) in "both stories money was given to the traitors- twenty pieces of silver for Joseph, thirty pieces of silver for Jesus," and (4) "one of the twelve brothers of Joseph who urged the others to seek money for their act of betrayal was named Judah or Judas (Gen. 3726-27)."

Weeden, following Spong, also points to the traditional hostility between northern and southern Palestine, writing:


"Mark's choice of IOUDAS as the name of Jesus' betrayer was carefully designed, in my view, to symbolize the southern kingdom of Judah (IOUDAS) and its successor the province of Judea in Mark's day."

One does not have to buy into Weeden's argument on the location of the community of the Gospel of Mark in order to see the force of his comments.


v10-11: Weeden's analysis of  the name IOUDAS raises another issue, the Markan polemic against the Jews. All of the canonical Gospel writers engage in polemics against the Jews to varying degrees. Although the majority of scholars hold that the Markan polemic against the Jews is not as strong as that of John or Matthew, certain evidence indicates that may not be the case. Here we see Judas in some way representing Judaism, surely a strong polemic against the Jews. In the sequence that the writer builds out of the Elijah-Elisha Cycle in Mark 12 and 13, the Jewish authorities are paralleled by the Priests of Ba'al. That is a powerful polemic, which may indicate a date when Jews and Christians had greater mutual animosity, well after 75. Against this, the writer may simply be heightening his portrayal of the evil of the Jewish ruling classes.

Jesus in Mark, while portrayed as superior to other Jewish teachers, still remains within established Jewish tradition. The Markan Jesus may have been critical of the Temple authorities, but no more so than other Jewish groups of the first century. The writer often portrays  Jews in a positive light. For example, Jesus instructs his disciples not to interfere with an exorcist working in Jesus' name. Joseph of Arimathea, in the heart of Jesus' enemies on the Council, is portrayed as a righteous man looking for the Kingdom of God, who buries Jesus' body as Jewish law and custom demand. Jesus instructs the rich man to keep the Torah commandments and love God (Donahue and Harrington 2002, p36-7). Like so much else about the Gospel of Mark, the depiction of Jews in Mark resists a simple solution.

v10-11: Tom Shepard (1995) points out that in contrast to Judas, for whom Jesus is worth little, not even a fixed sum of cash, the woman annoints Jesus with a valuable and costly ointment, clearly showing how highly she values Jesus.

Historical Commentary

Once again, the Elijah-Elisha Cycle is the basis for the plot of the Gospel of Mark:
 

Mark 14:1-10 2 Kings 9:1-13
Jesus is in a house Jehu is in a house
Jesus is annointed by the woman of Bethany Jehu is annointed King over Israel
Some present rebuke old woman Jehu's officers rebuke him

This pericope has a chiastic structure like many Markan pericopes. Because of the shifting targets in the second half of the chiasm, bracketing is difficult. Note how the speech of Jesus has the dual function of answering the disciples at one level, while talking directly to the reader at another level.


A
It was now two days before the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth, and kill him;

B
for they said, "Not during the feast, lest there be a tumult of the people."


C
 And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head.



D
But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment thus wasted? For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor."



D
And they reproached her.


C
But Jesus said, "Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me. She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burying.

B
And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her."
A
Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them. 

As Mack (1988) points out, Jesus is not dead, so the neither the woman nor the those objecting to her action could have known its significance. Such a significance exists only for the reader of the Gospel. The pericope is a construction aimed at the reader. Further, given that Jesus' prediction of his own death is based on an event that is probably created out of the Elijah-Elisha Cycle, and that the second section where Judas appears is based on the OT as well, nothing in this pericope indicates support for historicity.


Mark 14:12-25

12: And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the passover lamb, his disciples said to him, "Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the passover?" 13: And he sent two of his disciples, and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him, 14: and wherever he enters, say to the householder, `The Teacher says, Where is my guest room, where I am to eat the passover with my disciples?' 15: And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare for us." 16: And the disciples set out and went to the city, and found it as he had told them; and they prepared the passover. 17: And when it was evening he came with the twelve. 18: And as they were at table eating, Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one
who is eating with me."19: They began to be sorrowful, and to say to him one after another, "Is it I?" 20: He said to them, "It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me. 21: For the Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born." 22: And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." 23: And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24: And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25: Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."


NOTES
12: And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the passover lamb, his disciples said to him, "Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the passover?"

v12: follows the dating of v1. For the first time the writer shows concern with chronology. The author here has confused his Jewish customs. The Passover Meal was prepared on the day of rest prior to Passover, not during the day of Passover (which began in the evening, recall). Thus the meal served in v22-25 cannot be a Passover meal (Ludemann 2001, p94). This chronology is thus a creation of the writer's confused understanding of Jewish practices.

13: And he sent two of his disciples, and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him,

v13-16: These verses are a doublet of 11: 2-6, containing similarities in structure and vocabulary (Robbins 1976, Donahue and Harrington 2002, p393)


Mark 11:1-6 Mark 14:13-16
1: he sent two of his disciples 13: he sent two of his disciples
2: and he said to them . and he said to them
and...you will find... and...will meet you...
3: Say "The Lord... 14: Say... "The...
4: And they went away... 16: And they went out...
and they found... and found...
6 as Jesus had said.... as he had told them...
and... and...

v13: As Steve Carr (2004) observes, the writer of Mark states that the disciples were to be met by a man carrying a pitcher of water. Matthew 26:18 drops the idea that a Jewish man would do a woman's work.

 
17: And when it was evening he came with the twelve. 18: And as they were at table eating, Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me." 19: They began to be sorrowful, and to say to him one after another, "Is it I?" 20: He said to them, "It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me. 21: For the Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born."

v17-21: contain a supernatural prophecy and are unhistorical.

v17-21: the denigration of the disciples now reaches its climax as Judas goes off to betray Jesus even as Peter denies him.

20: He said to them, "It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me.

v20: Usually see as a reference to Psalm 41:9 (LXX 40:5):


Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.

But may also be related to Psalm 55 (Donahue and Harrington, p394):


12 If an enemy were insulting me, I could endure it; if a foe were raising himself against me, I could hide from him. 13 But it is you, a man like myself, my companion, my close friend, 14 with whom I once enjoyed sweet fellowship as we walked with the throng at the house of God. (NIV)

v20: Price (2003, p184) points out that the reference to the Twelve in this verse is missing from Matthew and Luke and may be from the hand of a later redactor. This is significant because this is the only time in the Gospel of Mark in which the term "the Twelve" is found on Jesus' lips. All other instances occur in verses created by the writer of Mark.

v20: Jesus does not mention Judas by name. Nor is his departure indicated.

 21: For the Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born."


v21: "better for that man...." The Jesus Seminar (Funk et al 1997, p117) argued that Jesus' words here consist largely of dialogue that would not have been able to survive transmission through the oral period. The one exception identified was the curse on the betrayer. This, however, the Seminar saw as a proverb likely to suit any number of contexts.

 22: And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body."

v22-24: The whole idea of a ritual Last Supper is in essence a supernatural prediction of Jesus' own death, and is not likely to be historical. The similar passage in 1 Cor 11:23-25 accepts the meal as symbol but not fact: "[Paul] is a skilful, if sometimes free-swinging, rhetorician and he knows the difference between saying that Yehusa was put to death at Passover and that his death was iconically similar to the events of Pessah. He endorses the latter and implicitly rejects the former" (Akenson 2000, p203). Mack (1995) notes that communal meals with sacred overtones were common in the Hellenistic world.


"Of some importance for our understanding of early Christian practice is the fact that it was customary for an association to take the name of a patron deity ('The Fellowship of Hercules'; 'The Company of Dionysus') and to acknowledge the purpose of its gathering by making some reference to the god at the appropriate juncture. At the beginning of the meal was one such appropriate moment. Another was when a round of wine was poured and toasts were to be made. It was then that a small libation to the god was in order and some form of invocation could be uttered" (p89).

Mack (1988) also observes:


"The meal is important to the historian because it is the only story in the passion account for which there is evidence of a precursor within early Jesus Christ traditions. The evidence for a precursor is the account of the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 11:23-26, a ritual text from the Hellenistic Christ cult. Mark's use of this cultic tradition is positive proof of his acquaintance with Hellenistic Christianity."(p275)


 24: And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

v24: Almost a direct cite of Exodus 24:8


Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." (NIV)

Some manuscripts of Mark add "new" before "covenant" but that is not generally accepted by scholars.

v24: Zechariah 9-14 figures prominently in the scenes before and after the Garden of Gethsemane. Here the verse may also reflect Zech 9:11:


As for you, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will free your prisoners from the waterless pit. (NIV)

v24: as with the "Kingdom of God" there is no discussion in Mark about what the "covenant" mentioned here might mean. Aside from a remark about "ransom for many" there is little explanation in Mark about why Jesus had to die. To understand these cryptic comments requires an interpretive scheme that does not exist in Mark.

v24: Psalm 23:5 may also lie behind events in this sequence.


5: Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of my enemies; thou anointest my head with oil, my cup overflows. (RSV)


25: Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."

v25: Doherty (1999, p251) identifies this as coming from Isaiah 25:6:


6 On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine- the best of meats and the finest of wines. 7 On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; 8 he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove the disgrace of his people from all the earth. The LORD has spoken. (NIV)

Historical Commentary

The underlying structure is 1 Samuel 10:1-7, where an annointing is followed by a command to carry out a task which displays the prophet's amazing predictive power.  In 1 Sam 10:1 Saul is annointed by Samuel, just as Jesus has just been annointed by the woman:


<>1: Then Samuel took a vial of oil and poured it on his head, and kissed him and said, "Has not the LORD anointed you to be prince over his people Israel? And you shall reign over the people of the LORD and you will save them from the hand of their enemies round about. And this shall be the sign to you that the LORD has anointed you to be prince over his heritage.

1 Sam 10:1 in the Septuagint has:


 "You will reign over the LORD 's people and save them from the power of their enemies round about. And this will be a sign to you that the LORD has anointed you leader over his inheritance (NIV)

Jesus then commands the disciples:


Mark 14
13: And he sent two of his disciples, and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him, 14: and wherever he enters, say to the householder, `The Teacher says, Where is my guest room, where I am to eat the passover with my disciples?' (RSV)

The basic parallel with 1 Sam 10:1-7 should be clear:


1 Sam 10:1-7
1: Then Samuel took a vial of oil and poured it on his head, and kissed him and said, "Has not the LORD anointed you to be prince over his people Israel? And you shall reign over the people of the LORD and you will save them from the hand of their enemies round about. And this shall be the sign to you that the LORD has anointed you to be prince over his heritage. 2: When you depart from me today you will meet two men by Rachel's tomb in the territory of Benjamin at Zelzah, and they will say to you, `The asses which you went to seek are found, and now your father has ceased to care about the asses and is anxious about you, saying, "What shall I do about my son?"' 3: Then you shall go on from there further and come to the oak of Tabor; three men going up to God at Bethel will meet you there, one carrying three kids, another carrying three loaves of bread, and another carrying a skin of wine. 4: And they will greet you and give you two loaves of bread, which you shall accept from their hand. 5: After that you shall come to Gib'e-ath-elo'him, where there is a garrison of the Philistines; and there, as you come to the city, you will meet a band of prophets coming down from the high place with harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre before them, prophesying. 6: Then the spirit of the LORD will come mightily upon you, and you shall prophesy with them and be turned into another man. 7: Now when these signs meet you, do whatever your hand finds to do, for God is with you. (RSV)

Not only is there a parallel in the structure here, but 1 Sam 10:2 even contains a reference to a father who is worried about his son, perhaps a hint from Mark about Jesus the Son and God the Father. 

At the higher level, the author of Mark has organized the three boat trips of Jesus, three healings, and two feeding miracles and the last supper into progressive triadic structures (Klosinski 1988, p207-8).

This pericope is two chiastic structures, lumped together. The first chiasm has a neat doublet at its center, a Where? question:


A
Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them.

B
And when they heard it they were glad, and promised to give him money.


C
And he sought an opportunity to betray him.



D
And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the passover lamb, his disciples said to him, "Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the passover?"



D
And he sent two of his disciples, and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him,
and wherever he enters, say to the householder, `The Teacher says, Where is my guest room, where I am to eat the passover with my disciples?'


C
And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare for us."

B
And the disciples set out and went to the city, and found it as he had told them; and they prepared the passover.
A
And when it was evening he came with the twelve.

The second structure looks like this.


A
And when it was evening he came with the twelve.

B
And as they were at table eating, Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me."


C
They began to be sorrowful, and to say to him one after another, "Is it I?"



D
He said to them, "It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me.




E
For the Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born."




E
And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body."



D
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it.


C
 And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

B
Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."
A
And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

At first glance these chiasms are difficult to grasp. But the writer has neatly balanced the two halves of each chiasm. First, overlapping geographical movement marks the border of each chiasm. The first half of each chiasm concerns betrayal, first by Judas, and then by all the disciples. The second half of each chiasm then matches Jesus' commitment to die to the the disciples' betrayal, producing some remarkable dramatic irony in the BCD brackets.

The literary structure, the strong presence of the OT, and the supernatural together indicate that there is no support for historicity from this pericope.


Mark 14:26-31

26: And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. 27: And Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away; for it is written, `I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.' 28: But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee." 29: Peter said
to him, "Even though they all fall away, I will not."  30: And Jesus said to him, "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." 31: But he said vehemently, "If I must die with you, I will not deny you." And they all said the same. 


NOTES.
26: And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

v26: Most scholars start the famous Passion Narrative with this pericope or the next one. Since the early 1900s scholarship has argued that this story was constructed on the basis of a source, since, unlike the previous portions of the gospel, it is composed of continuous narrative, rather than pericopes. As redaction-criticism and narrative criticism rose to prominence, Mark was more and more seen as the creator of the story (Theissen and Merz 1998, p445-6).

v26: The Mount of Olives is playing its expected role based on Zech 14:4 and current Jewish belief about where the Messiah would come from. The Mount of Olives, about 5 kilometers long, lies outside of Jerusalem along the Kidron valley. To get to there, one must pass over the brook of Kidron, which is in a ravine with steep sides. Mark has Jesus and the disciples doing this at night.

v26: the Greek verb exelthon, from exerchesthai, is the same as used in the LXX of David's flight from Jerusalem in 2 Sam 15:16 (Donahue and Harrington 2002, p401).

v26: as Raymond Brown (1994, p123) notes, the term "hymn" here most probably refers to a prayer after a meal, and not the hymns sung after the Passover meal. It would be odd of the writer of Mark not to include an explanation if this were a typical Jewish practice, when he does so elsewhere. In any case the singing of hymns after the Passover Meal is not attested to at that time, but only in the Mishnah at least 150 years later. Typically the hymns sung were Psalms 114-118. The writer cites Psalm 118 twice.

v26: "and they went out." It was Passover custom to spend the night in the city; for that reason the boundaries of Jerusalem were temporarily enlarged for the festival. Mark shows no cognizance of this practice (Brown 1994, p124).

27: And Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away; for it is written, `I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.'
 

v27: contains a reference to Zech 13:7:


"Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who stands next to me," says the LORD of hosts. "Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones.(RSV)


v27: The direct cite of Zech 13 here may recall the description of John the Baptist in Mk 1:1-8.

28: But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee."

v28: This prediction of an appearance in Galilee is a strong indicator that the current ending of Mark is truncated.

v28: Most exegetes see this verse and Mk 16:7 as having a very intimate relationship. Bultman, Dibelius, and Taylor all argued that 16:7 was a later insertion to harmonize with Matthew's account of Jesus appearing in Galilee, while other exegetes have taken the view that both are late insertions (see discussion in Brown 1994, p132). 14:28 is missing from the Fayum Fragment, a late second century text that seems to be harmonizing Matt and Mark.

29: Peter said to him, "Even though they all fall away, I will not."  30: And Jesus said to him, "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." 31: But he said vehemently, "If I must die with you, I will not deny you." And they all said the same.

v29-31: The author's classic theme of what clods the disciples of Jesus were has reached its height: they will deny even knowing Jesus, let alone understanding him.

30: And Jesus said to him, "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times."

v30: the word "twice" may be an interpolation here. Some manuscripts omit it. However, the idea that dawn came only after the second cockcrow is found in Greco-Roman literature (Brown 1994, p137).

Historical Commentary

Jesus makes three prophecies, one after another, all presented as supernatural foreknowledge.

This pericope also has a chiastic structure.


A
And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

B
And Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away; for it is written, `I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.'


C
But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee."



D
Peter said to him, "Even though they all fall away, I will not."



D
And Jesus said to him, "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times."


C
But he said vehemently, "If I must die with you, I will not deny you."

B
And they all said the same.
A
And they went to a place which was called Gethsem'ane; 

This chiasm should be very clear. The A brackets once again contain geographical movement. The B brackets have Jesus promising that all will betray him, and then they all deny that. In the C brackets Jesus' promise to see them after his death (kept) is contrasted to Peter's promise to stick with Jesus (failed). The D brackets contain the famous prophecy of Peter's denial. As with the previous pericopes in this chapter, once again the halves of the pericope contrast Jesus' commitment with the disciples' betrayal.

The presence of supernatural prophecy, OT construction, and Markan redaction all indicate that nothing in this pericope indicates historicity.


Mark 14:32-42

32: And they went to a place which was called Gethsem'ane; and he said to his disciples, "Sit here, while I pray." 33: And he took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. 34: And he said to them, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch." 35: And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36: And he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt." 37: And he came and found them sleeping, and he said to Peter,
"Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? 38: Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." 39: And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40: And again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer him. 41: And he came the third time, and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42: Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand." 


NOTES
32: And they went to a place which was called Gethsem'ane; and he said to his disciples, "Sit here, while I pray."

v32: "Gethsemane" is yet another place name with no known referent. Brown (1994, p148-9) argues for its historicity on the grounds that its likely derivation, from the Hebrew/Aramaic Gat-semani ("oil press"), has no known theological significance. 

v32: Raymond Brown (1994, p219-220) shows how this passage is actually a set of doublets:


Place: Mt. of Olives 14:32 Place: Gethsemane 14:32
Group of Disciples 14:32 Peter, James, John 14:33
Jesus moves away saying "sit here while I pray." 14;32 Jesus moves away saying "Remain here and keep on watching." 14:34
Jesus is greatly troubled 14:33 Jesus soul is sorrowful to death 14:34
Jesus prays that this hour might pass from him 14:35 Jesus prays that the cup may be taken from him 14:36
Jesus comes and find them sleeping 14:37 Jesus comes and finds them sleeping 14:40
"Simon, are you sleeping?" 14:37 "Do you go on sleeping, then?" 14:41
behond the Son of Man is given over 14:41 Behold the one who gives me over comes near 14:42


v32: Note that the writer does not specify where Gethsemane is; its location on the Mount of Olives is a deduction made by later readers.

33: And he took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled.

v33: Psalm 55:


5 Fear and trembling have beset me; horror has overwhelmed me.
6 I said, "Oh, that I had the wings of a dove! I would fly away and be at rest (NIV)



v33: Many scholars have seen a parallel to the Transfiguration, where the same three disciples are taken to the mountain to witness Jesus transfigured as the Son of God. This identification is inverted here when Jesus refers to God as "Abba" or "father." In the former scene Peter does not know what to say and was afraid, while in the Garden the disciples'"...eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer him."


34: And he said to them, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch."

v34: Very close to the Septuagint version of Jonah 4:9. Various Psalms, including Ps 42:6,12, and Ps. 43:5. (Psalm 42:50 in the LXX), are also in evidence.

v34: In the context of Judas' betrayal, one might also note Sirach 37:2:


Is it not a sorrow unto death when your bosom companion becomes your enemy?


v34: Mary Ann Tolbert (1989) writes:


"Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane.....is a superb example of of what is technically called an "interior monologue," a narrative soliloquy used at a critical moment to dramatize internal struggle. Interior monologue and stream of consciousness are commonly found combined in extended format in modern narrative, and thus we may not recognize the important but sparing use of interior monologue in acient writings. Its earliest appearance can be found in Homer, but Apollonus Rhodius, Virgil, Ovid, and Xenophon of Ephesus also employed and developed the device."(p214)

35: And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.

v35: Is the writer of Mark using the term "hour" in the eschatological context of 13:32, or does this usage of "hour" reflect only Jesus' anguish at his impending suffering and death.

36: And he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt."

v36: There are no statements in Mark in which Jesus refers to God as "my father." There are 36 such statements in John. The Gospel does not provide witnesses to this scene, so the words here must be from the writer of Mark.

v36: perhaps "cup" is a reference to 1 Cor 10:16. Brown (1994), based on the work of earlier scholars, notes both an OT and a Near Eastern tradition of the wrath of gods either drunk or served in a cup to be drunk. The term "cup of death" is also found in some Aramaic targums (Brown 1994, p169).

v36: Socrates was another tekton and teacher of wisdom who also died from a poisoned cup he drank because he had to.

v36: "Abba" here strongly echoes Galations 4:6 and also Romans 8:14-17. The term has Jewish precedents. Tomson (2001) writes:


"There is a story from the first century BCE about Honi, 'the Circle Drawer', who, because of his powerful prayer, saw himself as being 'at home' with his heavenly Father and for this, just like Jesus, was viewed with suspicion by the Pharsaic leadership (m. Ta'an. 3.8; Josephus, Ant. 14:22). There is literal witness to this form of address, 'Father', in a rabbinic writing that also is related to the ancient Hasidic circles (S. El. R. 19. pp111-12)."(p138)

37: And he came and found them sleeping, and he said to Peter, "Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour?

v37: may be a continuation of the Jonah theme, reflecting the Septuagint Jonah 1:6, where the ship captain wakes Jonah up, surprised that he is sound asleep.

v37: nowhere else in Mark does Jesus address Peter as "Simon."

38: Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."

v38: echoing the "willing spirit" found in Psalm 51:12 (Senior 1987, p79)


Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me. (NIV)


v38: the parallel with Mark 13:34-37 is strong, for after being admonished to watch, the disciples slept, and now the master has returned suddenly to rouse them, just as he had warned in Mk 13:34-7 (Brown 1994, p196).

v38: the distinction between "spirit" and "flesh" is Semitic in origin, and refers to two different perspectives of the human being as whole (Brown 1994, p198).

v38: Jeffrey Gibson (2001) suggested that this verse refers to Psalm 78:39-41, noting that


"What leads me to think this is not only the appearance within these verses of two of the key elements in Mk 14:38 ("testing", "flesh") but that the Psalm contains a history of God's steadfast willingness to be compassionate, forgive iniquity, and save Israel over and over again despite Israel's continued refusal after the Exodus to be true to the covenant, an unfaithfulness that is attributed to Israel's being 'but flesh'."

The verses run:


39 He remembered that they were but flesh, a passing breeze that does not return. 40 How often they rebelled against him in the desert and grieved him in the wasteland! 41 Again and again they put God to the test; they vexed the Holy One of Israel.

In keeping with the writer's preoccupation with plundered temples, there is a reference to the destruction of the first "tabernacle" at Shiloh which was destroyed. Additionally, the Psalm ends with a reference to David, whose story the writer is paralleling in the Gethsemane section.

Ted Weeden (2001), responding to Gibson, adds


Third, LXX: Ps.77:39-41 is the only LXX passage in which the terms or concepts SARC, PNEUMA, and PEIRAZEIN (77:41=EPEIRASAN) appear together in close textual proximity. And strikingly they appear in Ps. 77:39-41 in the exact reverse order (SARC, PNEUMA, PEIRAZEIN) to the way they appear in Mk. 14:38: PEIRASMON (substantive instead of psalmic verb PEIRAZEIN), PNEUMA, SARC). Fourth, these three terms or concepts appear nowhere else in close proximity to each other in the NT except in Mt. 26:41, in which case Matthew renders Mk.14:38 almost verbatim (substituting only EISELQHTE for Mark's ELQHTE). So the evidence is quite convincing that Mark has drawn upon the LXX: Ps. 77:39-41 for constructing Jesus' admonition to the disciples in 14:38.


40: And again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer him.

v40: shows the disciples in their usual Markan framework, incompetently falling asleep.

41: And he came the third time, and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

v41: The opening clause is obscure: katheudete to loipon kai anapauesthe apechei. The verbs "sleep" and "rest" can be read several ways, as a plain statement of observation "You are still sleeping"; or as a question "Are you...?"; or as a command "Sleep...and take your rest." (Brown 1994, p207). Many scholars go with the second, for Luke, who copied Mark, has Why do you sleep?. The word apechei  has many meanings but most apt is probably the fact that it is a technical term meaning "paid in full" that was written on bills in the Hellenistic world.

Historical Commentary

The Elijah-Elisha Cycle forms the skeleton of the narrative (Helms 1988, p109) while the Psalms supply the dialogue:


Mark 14:32-42 1 Kings 19:1-5
Jesus is pursued by the authorities Elijah is pursued by Ahab and Jezebel
Jesus leaves his disciples behind  Elijah leaves his servant behind to wait for him
Jesus prays for deliverance from his task Elijah prays for deliverance from his burdens
Jesus tells his followers to arise An angel tells Elijah to arise

After Helms (1988, p109)

In Luke, who borrowed this story from Mark, the parallels are even clearer, and Luke adds the angel and language from the Septuagint.

Like the Syro-Phoenician woman, this pericope will also sink any positive criteria of Jesus' historicity. Some exegetes argue that it is formed in the later Christian community as an edifying story of Jesus, while others argue that it must be historical because the idea of Jesus crying is offensive to his status as the Son of God. There is no way to choose between these two clashing criteria, one of historical interpretation, the other of Christological interpretation.

A second line to take is that the pericope is unhistorical because no one was with Jesus in Gethsemane, but that is clearly low-grade skeptical nonsense, for the disciples rejoin Jesus and the marks of tears and prayer would have been obvious to them. Since the disciples flee Jesus at this point, however, there is no way they could have known the content of Jesus' prayer. It is simply Markan invention. 

The reality is that this pericope is shot through with OT construction-creation, based on weeping in the Psalms (Ludemann 2001, p98). One source if Psalm 22:24 (v25 in some translations)


For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help. (NIV)

Another is Psalm 31:


22: And I -- I have said in my haste, `I have been cut off from before Thine eyes,' But Thou hast heard the voice of my supplications, In my crying unto Thee.(YLT)

Psalm 69 also plays a role:


3: I have been wearied with my calling, Burnt hath been my throat, Consumed have been mine eyes, waiting for my God.(YLT)

Helms (1988, p111) points out that Jesus has just finished the Passover meal, at which Psalms 113-188 were recited. Look at Psalm 116...


10   I have believed, for I speak, I -- I have been afflicted greatly.
11   I said in my haste, `Every man [is] a liar.'
12   What do I return to Jehovah? All His benefits [are] upon me.
13   The cup of salvation I lift up, And in the name of Jehovah I call.
14   My vows to Jehovah let me complete, I pray you, before all His people.
15   Precious in the eyes of Jehovah [is] the death for His saints.(YLT)

..which contains certain elements of the Gethsemane passage -- the cup (death to Jesus but salvation to all), calling out to God, and a reference to a death in faith.

The chiastic structure of this pericope is as follows:


A
And they went to a place which was called Gethsem'ane

B
and he said to his disciples, "Sit here, while I pray."


C
And he took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. And he said to them, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch."



D
And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.




E
And he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt."





F
And he came and found them sleeping, and he said to Peter, "Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour?





F
Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."




E
And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words.



D
And again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer him.


C
And he came the third time, and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

B
Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand."
A
And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.

The parallels should be obvious.

The strong presence of the OT in this passage, both at the level of the details and at the structural level (see below), indicates that nothing in this pericope supports historicity.


Mark 14:43-52

43: And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. 44: Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, "The one I shall kiss is the man; seize him and lead him away under guard." 45: And when he came, he went up to him at once, and said, "Master!" And he kissed him. 46: And they laid hands on him and seized him. 47: But one of those who stood by drew
his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. 48: And Jesus said to them, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? 49: Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled." 50: And they all forsook him, and fled. 51: And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, 52: but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

NOTES
43: And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.

v43: Having moved the plot, Judas disappears here. The kiss, which is historically implausible (why would they need someone to identify Jesus, who was teaching publicly in the Temple?), may come from 2 Sam 20: 9-10, where another is betrayed by a kiss:


9 Joab said to Amasa, "How are you, my brother?" Then Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him. 10 Amasa was not on his guard against the dagger in Joab's hand, and Joab plunged it into his belly, and his intestines spilled out on the ground. Without being stabbed again, Amasa died. Then Joab and his brother Abishai pursued Sheba son of Bicri. (NIV)

Luke borrowed the story of the death of Judas from this passage (his language echoes the Greek of the Septuagint story), indicating an early Christian interest in it.

See also Proverbs 27:6:


Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses. (NIV)

v43: The writer of Mark does not indicate how Judas knew where Jesus was. Given that the author never mentioned that Judas left the Last Supper, surely the reader must be surprised to have him show up here. 


v43: Brown (1994, p247) notes that the Greek makes clear the crowd is a delegation from the authorities, not a rabble.

v43: Why does the writer of Mark repeat the information that Judas was "one of the Twelve?" Surely the reader could not have forgotten that! Brown (1994) argued that the author included that because it was part of his source. Perhaps, however, the writer is simply emphasizing the disciples' betrayal of Jesus.

v43: Tate (1995) points out that after having refused to arrest Jesus out of fear of the crowd, the leadership then arrests Jesus in front of a crowd of people.

44: Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, "The one I shall kiss is the man; seize him and lead him away under guard."


v44: There are numerous interpretations of this kiss. At one extreme scholars have argued that Judas regrets his act, and the warmth of the kiss (kataphilein = kiss warmly) indicates he was trying to show his love. At the other extreme, the warmth of the kiss is interpreted as Judas embracing Jesus so he couldn't escape (see discussion in Brown 1994, p252-253).

v44: Brown (1994), after reviewing some of the evidence for kisses as greetings in Jewish and Greco-Roman culture, remarks:


"...there is enough evidence of the kiss as a normal greeting among acquaintances to make plausible the theory that what Judas did would not have aroused suspicion" (p255)

v44: "the betrayer." The Greek word for betray never appears in Mark, and elsewhere in the NT only in Luke 6:16  Modern readers are conditioned by two thousand years of legend to see Judas as the "betrayer." Yet exegetes have found it extremely difficult to pin down exactly what Judas "betrayed." The word used to describe Judas' action more correctly means "handed over" and carries this meaning in the Old Testament as well (Klassen 1998, p395-7, 404).


47: But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear.

v47-48: E. A. Abbott (1914) argued that there was a line missing here, in which Jesus says something like "put it back in its place." Matt and John have that line referring to the sword, while Luke has read it to mean the ear that has just been cut off. As it is, the transition from v47 to v48 is extremely abrupt and the situation in which violence has broken out is left unresolved. The existence of this line is supported by the fact it completes the parallel with the OT.

v47-48: The existence of the Lukan error in reading the ear here instead of the sword may constitute a weak argument for Q. If Luke had Matthew in front of him with the correct reading of this line, why did he adopt the wrong one?

v47: many conservative commentators have argued that the use of the vague term "bystander" shows that Mark is concealing the identity of a disciple of Jesus. The reality is that the Greek word used by the author of Mark is only used to identify bystanders (Donahue and Harrington 2002, p415).

v47: the carrying of weapons on Passover was permissable, although the chronology is vague. It is not clear whether weapons would have been necessary in the Jerusalem environs. The author does not name the "bystander" with a sword as a disciple, so the attack on the chief priest's party need not have had anything to do with Jesus.

v47: the writer labels the victim "the slave of the high priest." The presence of the definite article "the" is unusual for a character who has not been introduced prior to this moment. Some scholars interpret this as a reference to Judas, who made himself a slave of the high priest.

48: And Jesus said to them, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me?

v48: Although some exegetes have seized upon the word "robber" here (which might also mean "insurrectionist") to say that Jesus was arrested as a political revolutionary, Paula Fredriksen (1988, p116) pointed that if Jesus had been arrested for political reasons, he would have been taken straight to Pilate. There would have been no trial before the Sanhedrin, and no need of one. However, the cogency of Fredriksen's argument hinges on whether the reader accepts that the Sanhedrin Trial is historical. If the writer invented it, then her argument is null.

49: Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled."

v49: day by day. Some exegetes have argued that that this implies a much longer period of teaching than is present in Mark's gospel, leading to the conclusion that John's chronology is superior. But the Greek could simply mean "by day" as opposed to "by night' (Donahue and Harrington 2002, p417).

v49: "...let the scriptures be fulfilled." These are the last words of Jesus to his followers.

v49: Emerson B Powery (2004) observes:


Despite Jesus’ reference to “the scriptures” (ai` grafai,), he specifies no text. Nor does the wider literary context provide any specific scriptural passages, although some scholars usually suggest possible allusions.4 In fact, it is difficult for modern interpreters to determine for which scriptural passages to search, since it is complicated by what action fulfills the scriptures. Is it Jesus’ arrest and betrayal or the total desertion of Jesus? ... such apparent ambiguity—that is, the omission of any precursor text—is intentional in the Gospel of Mark to highlight a broader claim that the whole of scripture, and not any one biblical text in particular, receives fulfillment in the activities of Jesus’ life.

51: And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, 52: but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

v51: this verse, difficult to understand and the subject of intense speculation by exegetes, spawned numerous textual variants. As Brown (1994, p295), notes, the fact that Matthew and Luke both eliminated the reference to nudity while generations of scribes edited it is evidence that it was seen as scandalous in antiquity. See the Excursus at the end of this chapter for more discussion.
 

Historical Commentary

At the intermediate level the Gethsemane passages seem to be a parallel of 2 Samuel 15 and 16 (Price 2003, p304; see also Donahue and Harrington 2002, p401; and Brown 1994, p125-6). The parallels are:
 


Mark 14 2 Samuel 15-16
Jesus is about to be rejected and executed David has been rejected by the people in favor Absalom
Jesus heads for the Mount of Olives, accompanied by disciples David makes for the Mount of Olives, accompanied by retainers
Peter vows loyalty to Jesus
Ittai vows loyalty to David
Jesus leaves 8 disciples behind and takes two with him a little way, and then leaves them. David leaves his retainers behind and sends three of his men back to Jerusalem.
Jesus is sorrowful unto death David is weeping for his horrible fate
Jesus resigns himself to God's will
David resigns himself to God's will
Someone cuts off the servant of the High Priest's ear. (in other gospels the parallel is completed, and the would-be killer is told to put away his sword) Abishai asks David's permission to behead Shimei, who has mocked David, but David refuses.
Jesus says Peter will deny him David says Shimei was sent by God to revile him. 
A young man betrays Jesus by running away A young man betrays David by informing on his followers.

Mark may have already prepared us for this scene with Jesus' famous error of "Abiathar" in 2:26, for in 2 Samuel it is Abiathar who escapes back to Jerusalem carrying the Ark of the Covenant, just as it is Jesus, who brings the new covenant to Jerusalem.


2 Samuel 15:24
and lo, also Zadok, and all the Levites with him, bearing the ark of the covenant of God, and they make the ark of God firm, and Abiathar goeth up, till the completion of all the people to pass over out of the city. (YLT)

There is also the use of the Greek from the LXX in v26 (see earlier comments on v 26)

Donahue and Harrington (2002, p418) point out that another possible parallel is a first century Jewish document, the Wisdom of Solomon. Even if the writer of Mark did not use it as a source, it nevertheless illustrates some of the currents in Jewish traditions at the time. The numerous parallels should be obvious.


Wisdom of Solomon 2
12: "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. 
13: He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. 
14: He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 
15: the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. 
16: We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father.
17: Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; 
18: for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 
19: Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 
20: Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected." 
21: Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, 
22: and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls; 
23: for God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, 
24: but through the devil's envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it. 

Aside from the bare fact of betrayal and fleeing disciples, all else appears to be Markan creation. It contains typical Markan features, including denigration of the disciples (v50), Markan doublets (v46 "seized him" doubles "laid hands on" and structurally, v 46 doubles v44). The mysterious young man of Mark 14:51-52 is discussed below.

Adelle Yarbro Collins (1994) observes of the arrest of Jesus:


"Most scholars have argued that such a humiliating story count not have been invented by the followers of Jesus. But in a situation in which an author is coming to terms with the enormity of the humiliation of the cross, such a story could well have been invented, as an incident in keeping with Jesus apparent abandonment by all."(p492) 

The subjectivity of such arguments from embarrassment should be clear. An exegete could argue that a story is too painful to be false, while another could point out that theology and the Old Testament demand such a story. Here Collins points out that if the Crucifixion is a true tale, the author might be motivated to invent a story to explain how such a thing could occur.

Richard Carrier (2005, p180-1) points out that a Roman ceremony decribed in Plutarch is remarkably similar to the tale from Mark. Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome, is killed by a conspiracy of the Senate, and ascends to Heaven amidst portents of darkness. Later he returns to earth, saying that he was a god sent down to earth to establish a mighty kingdom. Plutarch relates that at the Roman ceremony of Romulus' ascent, names were recited: the names of those who had fled his vanishing in fear. Their fear and flight were then acted out in public. Carrier observes that this is :


"...a scene so obviously paralle to Mark's ending of his Gospel that nearly anyone would have noticed -- and gotten the point. Indeed, Livy's account, just like Mark's, emphasizes that 'fear and bereavement' kept the people 'silent for a long time,' and only later did they proclaim Romulus 'God, Son of God, King, and Father.'" (p181) (italics in original)

<>Carrier's example sheds light on the problem of embarrassment in this passage. If we concede that the story of the disciples' flight must be true because it is too embarrassing to be false, the same argument should apply to the story of the flight from Romulus' ascent. However, the existence of the Romulus story as a prior model obviates any ability of the embarrassment crierion to turn this story into history.

The chiastic structure of this pericope is broken out below.

A
And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.

B
Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, "The one I shall kiss is the man; seize him and lead him away under guard."


C And when he came, he went up to him at once, and said, "Master!"



D
And he kissed him.




E
And they laid hands on him and seized him.





F
But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear.





F
[Return it to its place!]




E
And Jesus said to them, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled."



D
And they all forsook him, and fled.


C
And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body;

B
and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.
A
And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled.

Once the missing line has been restored to the chiasm, the parallels are clear and obvious.

This pericope as written contains no support for historicity, being derived entirely from OT sources. Some exegetes have argued that the historical kernel here is that Jesus' disciples must have fled, or else they would have been executed with him. Against this, there is no external source that explains or apologizes for this flight. Further, Judas is most probably an invention off of the OT, indicating that perhaps some of the other disciples are invented as well.


Mark 14:53-65

53: And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. 54: And Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire. 55: Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none. 56: For many bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree. 57: And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, 58: "We heard him say, `I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'" 59: Yet not even so did their testimony agree.  60: And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?" 61: But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" 62: And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." 63: And the high priest tore his garments, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses? 64: You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death. 65: And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to strike him, saying to him, "Prophesy!" And the guards received him with blows.


NOTES
53: And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled.

v53: Scholars have identified some of the problematical historical issues with the Sanhedrin Trial as (1) capital trials can only take place in daylight; (2), court proceedings may not take place on the sabbath, on festivals, and the corresponding days of rest; (3) A death sentence may not be passed on the first day of a trial, but can only in a new session on the following day; (4) Blasphemy consists solely of speaking the name of YHWH, which Jesus does not do in Mark; and, (5) the regular place of assembly is a hall within the Temple (the writer is usually seen to imply that the Sanhedrin met at the house of the High Priest). The Temple gates are closed at night.  Other scholars take issue with all these points, however.

v53:  Mahlon Smith (1998) points out additional problems.  (1) the court proceeding in Mark takes place on the evening of the busiest day of the year for the Temple priests. It is unlikely that they would have been willing to gather for a late-night trial; (2) the festival celebrations involved wine-drinking, further impairing the willingness and ability of the Sanhedrin to gather;  (3) in Jewish jurisprudence witnesses had to be examined days prior to the trial to ensure that they would be present for the trial; (4) the correct penalty for blaspheming is stoning, not crucifixion;  (5) any Jew, including Peter or any supporter, could have appealed his case and delayed the death sentence. 

v53: The Pharisees, depicted throughout the gospel as the enemies of Jesus, have disappeared from the narrative. The Herodians, also mentioned as his enemies, vanish like fog on a summer morn. The writer has permitted the scribes to be in on the kill, however.

v53: Due to the various contradictions between the behavior of individuals as depicted in the narrative, and behavior proscribed on feast days, Theissen and Merz (1998, p427) suggest that the chronology is wrong and Jesus was executed prior to Passover.

v53: Doherty (1999, p253) points out that the Septuagint version of Psalm 22, from which so much of the imagery of the Passion Narrative is drawn, actually reads "Synagogues of the wicked have circled me round." Our current OT is different:


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

v53: the writer of Mark does not name the high priest. Steve Mason (1992) underlines the problem of this lack of identification:


"In sum: on the one hand, it is remarkable that the Gospel authors unanimously and without equivocation know that the Roman governor at the time of Jesus' death was Pontius Pilate, and yet he is said by all of them to have been a mere pawn in the hands of the Jewish leaders. On the other hand, Mark does not even name the chief Jewish official; Matthew seems to have researched or recalled that his name was Caiaphas; Luke implies that he was Annas; and John makes Caiaphas an annually appointed high priest but places Jesus' significant trial before Annas.(p89)"

The reality is that Caiaphas was the longest-lasting of the Jewish high priests, serving more than a decade under two Roman governors (Rivkin 1991, p231). That the gospels are unsure who presided, despite the fact that he was the longest-serving high priest of the era, is a sign that they did not know and that this account is fictional.

v53: The number of individuals actually in the Sanhedrin appears not to have been fixed at this time, and may have consisted of representatives of elite groups rather than a fixed set of individuals (Brown 1994, p348-9).
54: And Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire.

v54: details like this fire in a courtyard in front of the Sanhedrin play a role in Jan Sammer's maverick reconstruction of the Passion being based on a Roman play.

v54: "at a distance." The Greek phrase here is identical to that used in the Septuagint version of Psalm 38:11 (Senior 1987, p87):


My friends and companions avoid me because of my wounds; my neighbors stay far away. (NIV)

v54: "courtyard of the high priest" The Sanhedrin probably met in or adjacent to the Temple. It is difficult to say where the writer of Mark has placed this meeting.

55: Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none.

v55: Compare Daniel 6:4


Daniel 6:4 At this, the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so.

Mark 14:55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none.

There are even similarities in the Greek of the Septuagint Daniel and Mark (Helms 1988, p118). Note that in the next two Chapters the writer will build his story using Daniel 6 as a framework.

56: For many bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree.

v56: follows Psalm 27:12


Do not turn me over to the desire of my foes, for false witnesses rise up against me, breathing out violence. (NIV)

The Septuagint version of this Psalm is slightly different, and instead of "breathing out violence" has "and injustice has lied within herself." (Helms 1988, p118) 

57: And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying,

v57: follows Psalm 35:11


False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not. (KJV)
Ruthless witnesses come forward; they question me on things I know nothing about. (NIV)


58: "We heard him say, `I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'"

v58: the three days may reference the Passion prediction. There is an OT expectation (Isaiah 40-60, Ezekiel 40-48) that the earthly Temple in Jerusalem will be destroyed and replaced with a perfect sanctuary. An Aramaic targum of Isaiah 43:5 adds the words "and the messiah will build the sanctuary."

v58: the writer of Mark uses the Greek naos, or sanctuary, not "Temple" as the RSV would have it.

v58: The Greek term "made by hands" is a technical term of contempt for idols in the Hebrew scriptures; they are "made by hands" (Brown 1994, p439). Much scholarly ink has been expended over the interpretation of what sanctuary is "not made by hands." Brown (1994, p440-443) lays out the choices. Is it the Christian community? A sanctuary of divine origin such as that of Exodus 15:17 and other Hebrew writings? Or the body of the Risen Christ?

v58: Brown (1994, p446), asks, if this testimony is false, why is it repeated later in the gospel by passers-by at the crucifixion who hadn't been to the Sanhedrin Trial? Surely that means that the writer intends for us to infer that at least this part of the testimony is true testimony. Tolbert (1989, p277) observes that the testimony is true in a distorted and conflated sense, for Jesus has stated in 13:1-2 that the Temple would be destroyed, and several times spoken of raising after three days. However, he has never linked those two ideas.

v58: May also relate to 1 Cor 3:16-7


16: Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? 17: If any one destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and that temple you are. (RSV)

60: And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?"

v60: "This is an example of the double negative (ouk....ouden) construction, a favorite Markan technique. It is possible to take 14:60b as comprising either one or two questions: 'Have you nothing at all to answer? What (is it that) these men are witnessing against you?'" (Donahue and Harrington 2002, p422) as the RSV does here. The presence of the distinctive style of the writer of Mark argues that the line is a fiction from his hand.

61: But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"

v61-2: are the writer's expression of Jesus' true identity as Messiah, Son of God and Son of Man, working in all three Christological titles. Jesus quotes Daniel 7:14 and Psalm 110:1 (Collins 1995, p143, Donahue and Harrington 2002, p423).

v61: encapsulates themes from Psalm 38:13-4, 39:9. Doubled in Mark 15:5. May also be influenced by Lam 3:28-30, in which the suffering one offers both silence and the cheek for striking:


28 Let him sit alone in silence, for the LORD has laid it on him. 29 Let him bury his face in the dust-there may yet be hope. 30 Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him, and let him be filled with disgrace. (NIV)

Constrast John, whose Jesus engages in a relatively lengthy debate with Pilate.


v61: "the blessed."  This is the only instance in the NT of that phrase being used as a title for God. The title "Son of the Blessed" is not found anywhere in NT or Jewish literature (Brown 1994, p469).

v61: John Collins (1995, p154-169) discusses at length the Danielic context of the messiah as Son of God in the Aramaic fragment 4Q246. After reviewing the "Son of Man" concept, Brown (1994) observes:


"All this evidence suggests that in apocalyptic Jewish circles of the 1st century AD the portrayal in Dan 7 had given rise to the picture of a messianic human figure of heavenly pre-existent origin who is glorified by God and made a judge" (p511).

The intersection of the Son of Man, Son of God, and the Book of Daniel was made long before the Gospel of Mark was ever set to paper.  


v61: David Seeley (1998) notes that Jesus death also fulfills Cynic ideals and models of the proper way to die.


"As the reader peruses the summary which Seneca provides of Cato's story, he or she must imaginatively re-enact the latter's grisly death. That imaginative re-enactment steels the reader's resolve, ideally enabling him, if necessary, to re-enact such a ghastly demise literally. To be constantly prepared to undergo even the most horrible death rather than forsake one's principles and morals means that one has become a true philosopher. One now regards even the body as "not one's own." This, then, is why the issue of following a model's suffering and even death is so central in first century CE, popular, Cynic and Stoic philosophy."

v61: Several exegetes have noted that the thrust of the Greek here indicates contempt for Jesus himself. Jeff Gibson (Function) writes:


the sense of the question Mark has the High Priest ask is not "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed", but "Are you of all people [God forbid!] the Christ ...?"(p2)

62: And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

v62: Note that in Matthew and Luke Jesus deflects the question of his identity, refusing to answer directly (Mt 26:64 ="Yes, it is as you say," Lk 22:67="If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer." ). Based on this agreement, Price (2003) speculates that our current version of Mark is incorrect and in the original version of Mark Jesus deflected his identity instead of admitting it. Grant (1963) notes:


According to Alexandrian and 'Western' manuscripts, Jesus said, 'I am,' and went on to predict the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven (14:61-2). Several questions arise here. (1) Caesarean manuscripts agree with Origen that the answer was less direct; they read, 'You have said that I am.' Do they preserve Mark's original reading, reflected in different ways in Matthew 26:64 and Luke 22:67-71? Or has the text of Mark been influenced by the later gospels?

Myers (1988, p376), points out that the short version of Jesus' answer could even be translated ironically: "Am I?" Crispin Fletcher-Louis (1997) points out that Jesus' assertion that he is the true High Priest automatically disqualifies the current high priest as a false one, making it clear just what blasphemy Jesus is engaged in. In a longer piece, Fletcher-Louis (2003) also argues that Jesus' claim to be high priest was a "blasphemous negation"(p27) of Caiaphas' position.

v62: David Hindley (2004) speculates that the writer of Mark may be engaged in a bit of sly word play. The Gospel of Mark is written in Greek. However, anyone familiar with Jewish scripture would immediately realize what "I am" meant in Hebrew: YHWH. And it is blasphemy to utter the name of God.   

v62: "Cloud" imagery is associated with God's presence in the Temple in several texts, such as 1 Kings 8 (Fletcher-Louis 1997).

v62: In the Book of Watchers (3rd century BCE) a model high priest is described who would ascend to heaven on the clouds (Fletcher-Louis 1997).

v62: "seated." Psalm 110:1, cited in Mk 12:36,, has the addressee raised to heaven and seated at the right hand of the Lord.
 

1: The LORD says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool." 2: The LORD sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your foes! 3: Your people will offer themselves freely on the day you lead your host upon the holy mountains. From the womb of the morning like dew your youth will come to you. 4: The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchiz'edek." 5: The Lord is at your right hand; he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath. 6: He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses; he will shatter chiefs over the wide earth. 7: He will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head.

The Psalm was a crucial one for nascent Christianity.

v62: Robert Fowler (1996, p118) suggests that the comment "and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven" is actually meant to be a parenthetical aside to the reader, not the words of Jesus. "I am" is a formulaic term of self-revelation commonly used by gods and goddesses in the Greek-speaking world, according to Fowler, and would itself have been sufficient to trigger the high priest's response.

v62: This is the last time "Son of Man" is used in the gospel.

63: And the high priest tore his garments, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses?

v63: This calls to mind 2 Kings 11:14:


....Then Athaliah tore her robes and called out, "Treason! Treason!" (NIV)

Athaliah, the Queen, is standing at the Temple when the true king, who had been hidden there, is brought out. The full text runs: 


12 Jehoiada brought out the king's son and put the crown on him; he presented him with a copy of the covenant and proclaimed him king. They anointed him, and the people clapped their hands and shouted, "Long live the king!" 13 When Athaliah heard the noise made by the guards and the people, she went to the people at the temple of the LORD . 14 She looked and there was the king, standing by the pillar, as the custom was. The officers and the trumpeters were beside the king, and all the people of the land were rejoicing and blowing trumpets. Then Athaliah tore her robes and called out, "Treason! Treason!" 15 Jehoiada the priest ordered the commanders of units of a hundred, who were in charge of the troops: "Bring her out between the ranks and put to the sword anyone who follows her." For the priest had said, "She must not be put to death in the temple of the LORD ." 16 So they seized her as she reached the place where the horses enter the palace grounds, and there she was put to death. (NIV)

In this scene Athaliah tears her robes when she sees the True King publicly revealed, just as the Chief Priest does. Whether this is an intended parallel or simply a coincidence is difficult to say. There is no question that the writer of Mark is intimately familiar with the text of Kings and has used it throughout his gospel. The passage connects the true king and the temple in a dramatic way, and may contain an indirect prophecy of the deaths of the destruction of the priests at Roman hands (in the death of the one who tore her robes). 


v63: 2 Kings 18-19 also offers a sequence in which an uttered blasphemy results in clothes torn (18:37, 19:1).

64: You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.

v64: Blasphemy: there is no evidence that it was blasphemy to claim to be, or to have claimed on one's behalf, to be the messiah, the Son of God. Since the charge as presented is clearly nonsense, the actual charge remains a mystery. Or perhaps, by emphasizing the lack of valid charge, the writer wishes to present the proceedings as a kangaroo court, showing that the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus unjustly.

v64: Scholars have objected to this scene on two grounds. First, Jesus did not commit any blasphemy, and second, crucifixion was an inappropriate punishment for blasphemy.

v64: The writer of Mark reports that they all condemned him, although later Joseph of Arimathea is represented as a secret believer. Note that although Jesus is generally represented as facing the trials alone by commentators, in the Sanhedrin Trial Joseph of Arimathea is present as a secret believer in Jesus.

v64: Jeff Gibson (Function) has observed parallels between the trial of Zachariah, son of Baruch, described in Josephus' The Jewish War, and the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin in Mark:


"Here, as in Mk 14:54-63, we have a capital trial before a hastily summoned Sanhedrin. Here, as in Mk.
14:54-63, the trial occurs in the Temple precincts and in an atmosphere not only of crisis but of
eschatological expectation centering in the God of Israel's imminent deliverance of his people from
oppression and the destruction of Israel's enemies. Here, as in Mk. 14:54-63, those who convene the trial believe in holy war. Here, as in Mark, we have the appearance of false witnesses and the sounding of the
theme of a predetermined verdict. Here, as in Mark, the one brought into court is a figure who is known
and identified as standing in opposition to the ideology of those who have convened his trial. Here, as in
Mark, the accused speaks out forcefully against the ideology of those who would condemn him. Here, as
in Mark, the remarks of the accused evoke from his accusers both physical and verbal expressions of rage
and indignation. Here, as in Mark, we find an outworking of a theme that standing on the side of the
accused creates risks for those who might do so. And here, as in Mark, the one accused is handed over to
mockery and an ignominious death."(p11)

Here, Gibson argues, the writer of Mark was attempting to compare the Sanhedrin to the Zealots who had rebelled against Rome and attempted to realize God's kingdom on Earth in a way that the Markan Jesus had rejected.

65: And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to strike him, saying to him, "Prophesy!" And the guards received him with blows.

v65: From Isaiah 50:6


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

v65: 1 Kings 22, where lying prophets denigrate the Lord's true prophet, Micaiah, is also playing a role here:


1 Kings 22:24 Then Zedekiah son of Kenaanah went up and slapped Micaiah in the face. "Which way did the spirit from the LORD go when he went from me to speak to you?" he asked. (NIV)

v65: Only Mark and Matthew have parallel mockery scenes to go with the parallel Jewish and Roman trials. Such parallelism is literary, not historical, in origin.

 v65: Even as the guards slap him and mock him for being a false prophet ("Prophesy!") his prophecy of Peter's denial is coming true in the courtyard outside.
 

Historical Commentary:

This account is secondary creation by the author of Mark or his source, a doublet that is a classic Markan feature, doubling the trial before Pilate in the next chapter. Ludemann (2001, p101) lays out the parallels:    


Mark 14:53-65 Mark 15:1-20
Jesus before the Sanhedrin Jesus Before Pilate
14:53a 15:1
14:55 15:3
14.60 15:4
14:61a 15:5
14:61b 15:2
14:62 15:2
14:64 15:15
14:65 15:16-20

Ched Myers (1988, p370) adds other parallels: both trials end in consultations, the Sanhedrin with its members, and Pilate with the crowd. Each offers an immediate verdict and then mockery. As Myers (p372) notes, the double trial presents a problem. If the Jews did not need to consult Rome to have a troublemaker executed, then there is no need for the second trial before Pilate. If Roman approval was required, then why was Jesus executed by the Romans?

The various parts of the trial are created out of Daniel and the Psalms (Helms 1988, p118).

The predominance of OT construction at all levels, and the creative presence of Markan style and literary structures, ensure that there is no support for historicity from this pericope. Whether Jesus was ever tried by the Sanhedrin is now impossible to know, at least from the information given in Mark.

The numerous historical problems with this scene have led some exegetes to regard it is an unhistorical later addition to the Passion Narrative. 


Mark 14:66-72
66: And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came; 67: and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, "You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus." 68: But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you mean." And he went out into the gateway. 69: And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, "This man is one of them."  70: But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, "Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean." 71: But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, "I do not know this man of whom you speak." 72: And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, "Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." And he broke down and wept. 

NOTES
70: But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, "Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean."


v70: Peter is identified as a Galilean here. Galileans were lampooned for being dull-witted and provincial. Here the only way they could have identified him as a Galilean is by his accent. Perhaps this is another example of the writer's denigration of the apostles, this time depicting them as thick-headed provincials with marked accents.

72: And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, "Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." And he broke down and wept.

v72: Ted Weeden (2001), one of world's foremost experts on the Gospel of Mark, writes:


"Why is it--- given the inescapable evidence in the Pauline correspondence and the Gospel of Thomas of apostle attacking apostle in the early church --- why is it, I ask rhetorically, that when it is clear there were cases where an apostle sought to undermine the authority of another apostle, and even defame him, that interpreters of Mark have such a difficult time believing that anyone could write a Gospel with the intention of carrying out a vendetta against Peter and the rest of the disciples known, as "the Twelve" - a vendetta whose sole unvarnished purpose was to discredit, defame and characterize Peter and the others as apostates? Why is that so difficult to imagine, when the same thing was going on in Corinth and in the Thomistic tradition years  before Mark even thought about writing a Gospel? Why is it that so many Markan interpreters refuse to recognize or accept the possibility that --- by his demeaning portrait of the disciples and refusal to grant them a resurrection appearance (as does Matthew, Luke and John), in which Jesus specifically commissioned them to be apostles --- Mark is engaging in an attack upon the apostolic authority of the Twelve, much the same as Paul and his opponents endeavor to undermine the apostolic authority of each other in Corinth?"

Another major Markan scholar, Werner Kelber, has also argued that the writer's negative depiction of the disciples implies that he was engaging in polemic against the Jerusalem centered Church of which James and Peter were pillars. Against this, Ched Myers (1988) has read Peter's failure as tragic rather than negative and polemical, arguing that Peter is eager, and protective, but also dense, excitable, and stubborn and deluded. "Just like us," concludes Myers (1988, p106). In Myers' view this take on the disciples reduces the narrative distance between the disciples and the reader.

v72: George Young (2000) similar notes:


"In addition to the proposed purpose(s) put forward by Eszter Andorka (fairly well 'sanctioned' purposes, I should add), there is also the possibility that Mark was written as a satirical polemic against both the Jews/Jerusalem community, on the one hand, and this new Jewish sect (Jesus/Christianity), on the other. The striking similarities between Mark and the Mennipian Satire (first pointed out by Bahktin; cf. also the stylistic similarities between the GMark and Petronius' Satyricon, particularly the Cena or Dinner episode), and its subsequent canonical demotion by the Christian community (i.e., its 'place' between Mt. and Lk.), as well as many other things (e.g., its controversial content and organization, evidenced by Papias' rather poor apology that Mark is not a fictional account, or misleading, and so forth, as well as the outright rejection of GMark by Epiphanius in the 4th century, who believed that the GMark was written by an apostate Christian, as well as similarities between some of Celsus' critiques of Jesus/Christianity and certain polemics found in GMark [most notably the notion of 'secret knowledge/passages,' very much like our present 'Secret Gospel of Mark,' and so on), all this suggests that the purpose of Mark may not have been to promote Christianity, but rather to sabotage it through subtle satire and, in some instances, outright mockery. I realize this is a departure from the canonical explanations of Mark's purpose (I also admit that attempts to determine the 'purpose' of Mark are inherently tenuous; after all, can we really know the Mind of Mark?), but it is a hermeneutical departure that seems to make more sense to me."

v72:  As Camery-Hoggat (1992, p49), surely there is something ironic about a man named "Rock" who falls apart at the end.

Historical Commentary:

The embarrassment criterion is often invoked here, dating back to Origen, who used the story to demonstrate how trustworthy the Gospels were, as they did not hide the disgrace. The scene represents supernatural prophecy fulfillment. Note the beautifully ironic touch of Jesus' prophecy of Peter's denial coming true even at the very moment when Jesus is being mocked for being a false prophet.

Paul makes no mention of this event in his epistles, despite his clashes with Peter. As Weeden (2001) notes:


"In fact Paul makes no explicit reference or even the slightest allusive hint of any disaffection upon the part of any one in the inner-circle of Jesus' followers."

"Likewise, there is no reference or allusion to a Petrine denial in any other pre-Synoptic tradition. Not a trace of it can be found in Q. And nothing in the Gospel of Thomas would lead one to believe that any of the tradition(s) behind that Gospel knew of Peter denying Jesus. Had the author of Thomas known of the denial, he could have used it as sufficient cause alone for the elevation of Thomas over Peter in GTh. 13. For in that saying it is clear that what is at stake is that the author is trying to prove that Thomas, rather than Peter or Matthew, is Jesus' most trusted confidant and most favored disciple."

"To pursue support for my position further: if such a Petrine denial is historical, then I find it quite strange that nowhere in the NT is there any reference to Peter ever offering a *mea culpa* and receiving forgiveness for his denial. It is particularly striking that in none of the resurrection-appearance stories is there any suggestion that Peter offers or has offered a *mea culpa* and is forgiven by the risen Jesus."


Joe Wallack (2004) points out:



Jesus and Peter in their Respective Trials
And they led Jesus away to the high priest"
(Jesus taken by Force)
"And Peter followed him afar off"
(Peter taken Voluntarily)
"and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes."
(Jesus' audience is Authority)
"and he sat with the servants"
(Peter's audience is Servants)
"For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together."
(Jesus' witnesses are False)
"they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto."
(Peter's witnesses are True)
"And Jesus said, I am."
(Jesus defends with the Truth)
"But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak."
(Peter defends with a Lie)
"Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death." (Jesus' audience doesn't believe a True defense) "And when he thought thereon, he wept"
(Peter's audience believes a False defense)

I have worked out the chiastic structure of this pericope and the preceding one. Here it is:


A
And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled.

B
And Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire.


C
Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none.



D
For many bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree.




E
And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, "We heard him say, `I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands."





F
Yet not even so did their testimony agree.






G
And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?"







H
But he was silent and made no answer.








I
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"









J
And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."










K
A
And the high priest tore his garments, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?"











B
And they all condemned him as deserving death.










K'
A
And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to strike him, saying to him, "Prophesy!"











B
And the guards received him with blows









J'
And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came; and seeing Peter warming himself,








I'
she looked at him, and said, "You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus."







H'
But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you mean." And he went out into the gateway.






G'
And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, "This man is one of them."





F'
But again he denied it.




E'
And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, "Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean."



D'
But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, "I do not know this man of whom you speak."


C'
And immediately the cock crowed a second time.

B'
And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, "Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." And he broke down and wept
A'
 And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; 

This one has a variant on the usual Markan ABBA center. Instead, it goes ABAB.

The lack of external support for this event, and the fact that it is a supernatural prophecy fulfillment, indicate that there is no support for historicity in this pericope.


Excursus: Who is the Naked Young Man of Mark 14:51-52?


14:51 And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; 52: and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

Few verses in Mark have inspired more speculation than the identity of the naked young man who flees when Jesus is arrested. In conservative and apologetic circles, where the writer of Mark is often interpreted as little more than a stenographer of Peter, the naked young man is sometimes seen as someone the author knows, but does not name because the young man, now old, is still alive when the Gospel was written, and the author fears reprisals. Dibelius (1949) is a good example of this common and naive argument for historicity: "This inglorious episode would not have been told (Mark 14:51, 52) if the young man had not been known to the earliest narrator."

Among mainstream exegetes the young man is often seen as OT creation on Amos 2:16:


and he that is courageous among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day, says Yahweh

along with perhaps Micah 2:8:


Lately my people have risen up like an enemy. You strip off the rich robe from those who pass by without a care, like men returning from battle.

Genesis 39:12 has also been tagged, beginning with the Church Fathers (Brown 1994, p301):


11 One day he went into the house to attend to his duties, and none of the household servants was inside. 12 She caught him by his cloak and said, "Come to bed with me!" But he left his cloak in her hand and ran out of the house. (NIV)

Note that while each of these proposals accounts for the Young Man's scandalous state of undress, none accounts either for the linen or the presence of the Young Man himself.

Exegetes have often proposed that the young man here is connected to the young man in Mk 16:5, who announces that Jesus is gone. Others have argued that he is Mark himself. Koester views the young man in the context of Secret Mark and believes him to be an insertion by  later redactor (2000, p173). However, as Brown (2003, p108) noted, the use of "a certain young man" rather than a definite article ("the" young man) indicates that Mark has not introduced the character. Some interpret the young man's disappearance as an allegory representing the flight of the apostles, and his reappearance at the tomb as representing their restitution and eventual success (Brown 2003, p108-9). Haren (1998, p526), arguing that the young man is actually the raised Lazarus from John, sums up the problems with this passage:


"The difficulty here is that Mark 14,51, if read literally, strongly implies a close association between the young man and Jesus. As Vanhoye pointed out, the verb used is not the akolouqein by which Mark usually describes even the disciples' following of Jesus but the intensified sunakolouqein, of which there is only one other occurrence in Mark and, outside of Mark, one more in the New Testament (Luke 23,49)"

Fowler (1998) also makes the same identification, based, like Koester, on an analysis of Secret Mark. Another point of view, summarized in McVann (1994), sees the young man as a baptismal initiate, who begins naked, as initiates do, and then reappears clothed in white, like a successful initiate, in Mark 16:5. Tate (1995, p69)) points out that the theme of clothing links the Young Man at the Tomb, and the Naked Man in the Garden, with the Gerasene Demoniac, who appears fully clothed.

Howard Jackson (1997) points out that the motif of running away naked when faced with the necessity of violent action is practically a type scene in ancient literature. After giving several examples, he closes with two he suggests are pertinent, arguing:


"The Demosthenean incident is clearly told in part for humous effect but this should not obscure the extent to which its attendant circumstances exactly parallel those of the Lysian and Markan incidents. Here too, as there, we have the same basic sequence of events: seizure (again involving a garment), fear, escape, loss of the garment to the clutches of the assailants. I suggest that this is all hardly a coincidence."(p285)

Jackson does not argue that the writer is directly paralleling the Greco-Roman examples, but instead is drawing on a common motif in order to vivify his narrative. As Jackson notes, Bar-Timaeus also shed his clothing after Jesus cures his blindness, which, Jackson argues, was done to make the narrative more interesting and energetic. However, Jackson's solution, while accounting for the nudity and the flight, cannot account for the presence of the young man.

Any analysis of the presence of the young man must begin where the writer of Mark began, with 2 Sam 15-17. The basis of the solution offered here is that the young man of Mark 14:51-2 relates to the young man of 2 Sam 17:18, who betrays David, just as the young man betrays Jesus running away when Jesus is threatened.


17 Jonathan and Ahimaaz were staying at En Rogel. A servant girl was to go and inform them, and they were to go and tell King David, for they could not risk being seen entering the city. 18 But a young man saw them and told Absalom. So the two of them left quickly and went to the house of a man in Bahurim. He had a well in his courtyard, and they climbed down into it. 19 His wife took a covering and spread it out over the opening of the well and scattered grain over it. No one knew anything about it. (NIV)

Note that this passage not only contains a young man who betrays David, but also a well into which those hunted are placed, a motif that echoes the Tomb story of Mk 16:1-8. This yields the following parallel:


A young man betrays Jesus by running away A young man betrays David by informing on his followers.

However, the linen must still be accounted for. One possibility is 2 Sam 6:14-15, which offers:


David, wearing a linen ephod, danced before the LORD with all his might, while he and the entire house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouts and the sound of trumpets.(NIV)

In that passage David is rebuked by Michal for disrobing in public. Note how well the figure of David fits the quotation from Amos, since David is of course a person that is "courageous among the mighty." Could the young man be an allusion to David? This possibility is further suggested by the fact that the Gethsemane scene implicitly links Jesus to David by paralleling 2 Sam 15-17, where David is betrayed. Moreover, in the underlying parallel to the Gethsemane scenes of Mk 14:32-42, the Ark of the Covenant is alluded to, for in 2 Sam 15-17 Abiathar is charged by David with taking the Ark back to Jerusalem, while in 2 Sam 6:14-15 it is David himself who is bringing the Ark back to Jerusalem. Finally, recall that in the Mk 14:24 during the Last Supper Jesus has specifically described himself as the "covenant" using Moses' words from Exodus. This swirl of allusions accounts for the appearance of the young man in Mk 14:51-2 quite neatly, yielding a complete set of parallels:


Mark 14 2 Samuel 15-17
Jesus is about to be rejected and executed David has been rejected by the people in favor Absalom
Jesus heads for the Mount of Olives, accompanied by disciples David makes for the Mount of Olives, accompanied by retainers
Jesus leaves 8 disciples behind and takes two with him a little way, and then leaves them. David leaves his retainers behind and sends three of his men back to Jerusalem.
Jesus is sorrowful unto death David is weeping for his horrible fate
Someone cuts off the servant of the High Priest's ear. (in other gospels the parallel is completed, and the would-be killer is told to put away his sword) Abishai asks David's permission to behead Shimei, who has mocked David, but David refuses.
Jesus says Peter will deny him David says Shimei was sent by God to revile him. 
A young man betrays Jesus by running away A young man betrays David by informing on his followers.

If the Naked Young Man is David, that also provides another piece of literary fallout. The writer has Jesus cross Palestine as Elijah, get arrested as David, and crucified as Daniel. Here, when the Naked Young Man flees, the allusions to 2 Samual 15-17 and David also end. The next section covers Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin and has other origins.

However, as Richard Carrier (2004) pointed out to me in a series of private discussions, the Greek of the LXX uses a different word for "young man" than the writer of Mark does.

If you are among the exegetes who link the young man of 14:51-52 with the young man who appears to the woman at the Tomb in Mk 16:5, then the solution based on 2 Sam 6:14-15 is incomplete, for it does not encompass the young man of Mk 16:5. However, there may be a solution that does. In the Old Testament a messenger of God is of course an angel, few of whom are named, just as the young man of Mk 16:5 goes unnamed. In Daniel 8 an angel named Gabriel appears as the messenger of God who explains to the "Son of Man" the meaning of a vision. In Jewish tradition Gabriel is seen as the messenger in linen of Ezekiel 9-10, who accompanies 6 others to the Temple in Jerusalem where he announces the wrath of God on Israel:


9:3: Now the glory of the God of Israel went up from above the cherubim, where it had been, and moved to the threshold of the temple. Then the LORD called to the man clothed in linen who had the writing kit at his side 4: and said to him, "Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it." 5: As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion.6: Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were in front of the temple.

If we see the messenger in Mk 16 as the angel Gabriel then the linen is explained, and the idea of "fleeing naked" is explained by the allusion to Amos. Under this solution it is easy to see a clever reference here to the horrors of the siege and destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem that culminated the Roman-Jewish War of 66-70 CE, which the writer of Mark is almost certainly aware of (or perhaps the second conflict of 135 CE). This would also nicely fall in with the writer's Temple-focused hypertextuality. Finally, those who are wont to argue that the writer of the Gospel is mentioned in the passage may take heart from the fact that in Ezekiel 9:2 and 9:11 the man in linen is said to carry a writing case at his side. Hint, hint.

However, Richard Carrier (2004) pointed out to me that the Greek of the LXX uses the word for "cloth" instead of "linen" in the Septuagint version of Ezekiel 9-10. Richard is not getting invited to any parties at my house.


Having offered my solutions, I, like Poirot, will now have the honor of retiring from the case. Whoever the young man of Mark 14:51-52 was, he has certainly left behind a great deal of dirty linen.

Previous Chapter
Home
Topical Index
Next Chapter
Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark
Chapter 1 Chapter 9 Home
Chapter 2
Chapter 10
Chapter 3 Chapter 11 Topical Index
Chapter 4 Chapter 12
Chapter 5 Chapter 13 References
Chapter 6 Chapter 14
Chapter 7 Chapter 15 Contact Author
Chapter 8 Chapter 16