A Centurion's "Confession": A Performance-Critical Analysis of Mark 15:39

Abstract

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.) In many respects, Mark 15:39 is deceptively simple. Immediately after Jesus dies and temple curtain is torn from top to bottom, centurion standing opposite crucifixion scene speaks seven uncomplicated words: .... The lexical meaning of these individual terms is not doubt, and christological significance of utterance, at this juncture Mark's story, is widely recognized. At issue, and what complicates an otherwise straightforward verse, is intended force of utterance. At level of story, what precisely did centurion mean when speaking these words? Is so-called confession a genuine expression of faith and devotion, a final, derogatory statement of mockery meant to belittle Jesus and his followers, or an ambiguous pronouncement whose cannot be determined?1 While various grammatical and historical issues weigh on interpretation of this statement, verse hinges on elements that are not readily obvious textual remains of Mark's story. Taken isolation and stripped from printed page, response might be construed a variety of ways. Most germane to problem is how Mark and/or early storytellers dramatized statement, since it makes a profound difference whether words were spoken with heartfelt sincerity or a condemnatory scowl. These paralinguistic and extralinguistic features- intonation of storyteller's voice, gestures, facial expression, and so on-are inherent all communication and, as Whitney Taylor Shiner has shown, used with skill and passion by early performers of Gospels.2 Unfortunately for modern reader, these additional conveyors of meaning have not been recorded our written artifacts. It has often been assumed that distinction between oral and written media is largely irrelevant, but a number of scholars have begun fruitful exploration of performance criticism, further demonstrating that meaning is intrinsically bound to particular mode of communication.3 Accordingly, objective of this essay is to situate Mark 15:39 within its oral context, recognizing that the medium is message.4 The is not to postulate about what, if anything, centurion actually said but to understand force of centurion's statement as reflected Markan passion narrative. Though it is impossible to revert to a pre-literate mind-set and our only remains are written documents, we can and must do a better job of attempting to reconstruct likely performance scenarios that are based on social realities of first century. I. ILLOCUTIONARY FORCE IN MARK A growing number of scholars have begun to assert that centurion's postcrucifixion remarks are not an expression of belief but a form of sarcasm intended to mock Jesus. While nothing statement inextricably leads to this conclusion, Donald H. Juel argues that derision is in accord with rest of taunts account of Jesus' trial and death.5 Likewise, Stephen D. Moore questions genuineness of response but focuses on consistent misunderstanding surrounding identity of Jesus and unlikelihood that a Gentile soldier succeeds where Jesus' elite hand-picked disciples have so singularly failed.6 Whatever objections might be raised, these interpretations expose one of more vexing problems biblical interpretation. That Gospels are derived from oral stories and influenced by dynamics of oral storytelling practices has been discussed at length, and need not be rehearsed here.7 The question raised by Mark 15:39 is how one interprets potential loss of meaning generated by gap between different communication media. Though all translation results communication loss, impact is even more pronounced transition from one media type to another. If, as Richard Watts suggests, it is difficult to detect ironic intent literature, then discerning force of centurion's remark is even more problematic since confession is situated a piece of orally derived literature that potentially obscures aim of original statement. …