The crucifixion of Cleomenes III and his snake that converts the onlookers has been ignored by commenters in large part because a date for Mark has been assigned from the war due to Jesus’s supposed prediction (66-74; probably 70). This seems to be mostly apologetics because it establishes the earliness boundary, not the lateness one. We are very familiar with apocalypses from antiquity that are post the event they describe by a very long time, and so the date of the event doesn’t imply it happened near the fake prediction. As I said, Paul made the claim that despite the power of the crucifixion, if Christ is not raised your faith is futile and you are still in your sins (1 Cor 15:17). An initial question here is how is substitutionary atonement in play if the cross doesn’t deal with sin? In previous posts I’ve tried to argue for a moral influence cross rather than a substitutionary atonement cross. For my purposes here, the conversion of the soldier by the crucifixion of Jesus is going to be seen through different lenses depending on if the author is Mark (Truly this is God’s Son), Matthew (Truly this is God’s son), and Luke (Truly this is an innocent man) – and this solves a hermeneutic puzzle. Critical scholars have long thought the ending to Mark is shorter than the one handed down to us and lacks resurrection appearances. The oddity is that Mark also seems to be doing exegetical work on Paul’s letters, which means he is familiar with the resurrection appearance claims in Paul. It seems impossible that Mark would not have included resurrection appearances, but that is what we have.

When we see the connection to Cleomenes III in Plutarch, the confusion is cleared up

Some scholars propose that Mark might have used an existing passion narrative as a core around which he built his Gospel. This idea suggests that the basic structure of the passion story (the events leading up to Jesus’ death and burial) was already in circulation before Mark wrote his Gospel. This is supported by the observation that the passion narrative in Mark has a different style or focus compared to the rest of the Gospel, which might indicate Mark’s use of an earlier source

Literary studies of Mark show a deliberate progression towards the passion narrative, with thematic and structural elements that seem to point towards the crucifixion as the climax of the narrative. The use of Greek grammar, vocabulary, and foreshadowing in Mark’s Gospel is often noted as driving the narrative towards this conclusion, which might imply an initial focus on the passion story. However, not all scholars agree with the pre-Markan passion narrative hypothesis. Critics argue that the stylistic and thematic consistencies throughout Mark’s Gospel suggest a more unified composition by a single author rather than an accretion of different sources. Mark’s use of Greek, including frequent use of the conjunction “και” (and), is seen by some as characteristic of his writing style across the entire Gospel, not just the passion narrative.

In any case, I think what we can claim is the crucifixion is the central focal point in Mark, but the oddity for a Pauline Mark text is that the resurrection is only there as an afterthought, and mainly seems to be indicating that God vindicated Jesus and his followers from charges of criminality by Rome and the Jewish high council (the young man in the tomb, who was seen by society naked and as guilty as the naked Adam at the arrest, shows up in the tomb as purely dressed). Why? It seems that the climax was the crucifixion and conversion of the soldier at the cross.

In ancient literature, one theme we often see that is also in modern writing is misdirection, thinking the climax will be one thing when it actually turns out to be something else. There are many examples both ancient and modern.

For example, Oedipus Rex by Sophocles is often cited as a classic example of Greek tragedy, the climax might be seen as the moment when Oedipus discovers his true identity (that he has killed his father and married his mother). However, the traditional climax in terms of narrative tension might be considered the point where Oedipus blinds himself, an act not typically anticipated by the audience. The revelation of his actions is surprising, and rather than a physical confrontation, the climax centers on a psychological and moral one.

For another example, in the Iliad by Homer while the Iliad is full of battles, the moment where one might expect a climactic battle to resolve the central conflict does not occur. Instead, a significant emotional climax is when Hector says goodbye to his wife Andromache and son Astyanax, knowing he might not return from battle. This scene, laden with foreboding and pathos, subverts expectations by focusing on personal tragedy rather than the outcome of the war itself.

As I said, despite the power of the cross, for Paul you are saved through the resurrection. This is reiterated in Roman’s 10:9, “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” The above examples illustrate how ancient literature often used climaxes not just for plot resolution but to delve deeper into themes of fate, morality, and human emotion, which can sometimes lead to climaxes that are less about action and more about revelation or emotional impact. The climax in Mark is not the cross and resurrection, but the cross and conversion of the soldier. Mark thus notes the focal point should not be the resurrection. As Ehrman notes, Mark starts his gospel by Jesus calling people to repent and proclaiming the Kingdom is imminent – not his death and resurrection. The story of the rich young man shows he will be saved by following the law and giving all his money to the poor, not Jesus’ death and resurrection. We see something similar with the story of the sheep and goats in Matthew. Gethsemane shows Jesus did not think he needed to die to fulfill God’s plan. What we seem to have in Mark is a window into the historical Jesus amidst Mark’s Pauline influence; or in other words, in Plutarch’s language, the “Parallel Lives” of (i) Paul’s Jesus and (ii) the historical Jesus. Mark thus presents a Pauline Jesus while leaving traces that work against the Pauline paradigm of the resurrection. In other words, it’s irony and maybe even satire. We see the figurative “twinning” of Jesus or Jesus having a twin in certain later apocryphal and Gnostic texts. In the diverse early Christian landscape, with its numerous sects and beliefs, the concept of Jesus having a twin could also be seen as part of the cultural storytelling where figures often had counterparts or reflections, much like in other mythologies where gods or heroes have twins. This might not be intended to be taken literally but as a part of the broader narrative or theological discourse. The original ending of Mark is abrupt, with a Pauline caricature of women fleeing from the tomb in fear and silence, which some scholars interpret as a satirical or ironic commentary on human response to divine revelation – perhaps suggesting disbelief or the irony of humans missing the point of Jesus’ resurrection. Mark uses irony, hyperbole, and other rhetorical strategies which might align with satirical techniques and serve to convey theological truths or critique societal norms

For just a few examples, the frequent use of irony in the passion narrative, particularly during Jesus’ trial and crucifixion, might be seen as a form of satire. For instance, the mocking of Jesus as “King of the Jews” by Roman soldiers (Mark 15:16-20) juxtaposes their derision with the Christian belief in Jesus’ true kingship, highlighting the ignorance and irony of their actions. This could be interpreted as a critique of Roman power and the Jewish leadership’s betrayal.

Mark portrays the religious leaders (scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees) in a way that often highlights their hypocrisy or misunderstanding of the law and scripture. Jesus’ confrontations with these figures, like in Mark 7:1-23 where he criticizes their adherence to tradition over the actual teachings of the Torah, could be seen as a satirical critique of religious hypocrisy. As I’ve discussed previously, Jesus’ corrupt trial by the Jewish high council on Passover eve, like Jesus’ tantrum at the huge, highly guarded temple, scream satire.

Some of Jesus’ parables in Mark could be read with a satirical tone, especially when critiquing the social or religious norms of the time. For example, the Parable of the Vineyard (Mark 12:1-12) where the tenants kill the owner’s son, can be seen as a pointed critique of the religious leaders who reject Jesus, the son in the parable.

Regarding a relationship between Mark and themes in Plutarch like crucified Cleomenes III and the snake, this can be broadened to the point that there are similarities in style and structure between the works of Plutarch and the Gospel literature, particularly in how they both focus on the character and moral lessons rather than strictly historical narratives. For instance, Plutarch, known for his “Parallel Lives,” where he compares Greek and Roman figures, wrote biographies intended to highlight moral and ethical lessons. Similarly, the Gospels aim to convey the life and teachings of Jesus with an emphasis on moral and spiritual guidance rather than comprehensive historical detail.

An analysis by scholars often points to the biographical style of the second century, where the focus was less on citing sources and more on the moral character and deeds of the subjects, a style that can be seen in both Plutarch’s works and the Gospels. This is discussed in contexts where scholars compare the narrative techniques of ancient biographers like Plutarch to those of the New Testament authors, suggesting that the Gospel writers followed a similar biographical convention of focusing on character and moral lessons over detailed historical citation. The methodological similarities in how both Plutarch and the Gospel writers approached their subjects indicate a shared cultural and literary tradition of biography in antiquity.

FOR MY INDEX OF RECENT HISTORICAL JESUS POSTS, SEE “The Next Quest for the Historical Jesus (2024)” Anthology by James Crossley (Editor), Chris Keith (Editor) – FINAL Updated Blogging Index