Nathan Eubank, «Dying with Power. Mark 15,39 from Ancient to Modern Interpretation», Vol. 95 (2014) 247-268
This article examines the reception-history of Mark 15,39 to shed new light on this pivotal and disputed verse. Mark's earliest known readers emended the text to clarify the centurion's feelings about Jesus and to explain how the centurion came to faith. Copyists inserted references to Jesus' final yell around the same time that patristic commentators were claiming that this yell was a miracle that proved Jesus' divinity, an interpretation which was enshrined in the Byzantine text and the Vulgate. The article concludes that a 'sarcastic' reading is a more adequate description of 15,39 as found in B, NA28 etc.
05_Eubank_247_268 15/07/14 12:19 Pagina 248
248 NATHAN EUBANK
rion’s remark is something less than a full Christian confession. It
is unclear, therefore, whether the centurion refers to Jesus as the
unique son of God, consonant with the baptism and transfiguration,
or if he is merely calling Jesus a divine son.
The third and culminating ambiguity is the very tone and mean-
ing of the centurion’s remark. I have avoided referring to the cen-
turion’s words as a confession, for it is not clear that the centurion
is confessing anything other than scorn for Jesus. Perhaps the cen-
turion’s remark should be read as gallows humor which mocks the
pretentious claims of the crucified corpse before him: “Truly, this
man was a son of God” 4.
These three interpretive difficulties impinge on each other, and
any proposed solution for one must be able to account for the others.
In part I of this paper, I shall attempt to illuminate the complexities
of Mark 15,39 by surveying ancient, medieval, and modern
attempts to make sense of this verse. In part II, I shall defend a
modern interpretation that seeks to incorporate the best insights of
prior interpretations while avoiding their weaknesses.
I. Wirkungsgeschichte
1. Other Gospels
The Matthean passion narrative eliminates or lessens all three
of the ambiguities identified in the Markan version. In Matt. 27,54
the centurion is impressed, not by the way Jesus expired, but by an
1982] 361) writes: “The centurion, no doubt, meant far less than the truth
when he called Jesus ‘a son of God.’ But at least he meant that he had never
seen a better man die a nobler death”.
4
A “sarcastic” reading of 15:39 has found a number of recent defenders,
including D.H. JUEL, A Master of Surprise. Mark Interpreted (Minneapolis,
MN 1994) 74; ID., Mark (ACNT; Minneapolis, MN 1990) 227; ID., An In-
troduction to New Testament Literature (Nashville, TN 1978) 146. Here Juel
maintains that the centurion thought Jesus was innocent (i.e., ui`o.j qeou/ = a
good man). S. DOWD, Reading Mark. A Literary and Theological Commen-
tary on the Second Gospel (Macon, GA 2000) 162; R.A. HORSLEY, Hearing
the Whole Story. The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel (Louisville, KY 2001)
252; T. J. GEDDERT, Mark (Believers Church Bible Commentary; Scottdale,
PA 2001) 381; M. GOODACRE, The Case Against Q. Studies in Markan Priority
and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA 2002) 160.