The Chiasm in Mark 12: Mark points a finger at Paul

The Chiasm in Mark 12:10-37: Mark points a finger at Paul

Introduction
In this essay I will first construct a chiasm that provides persuasive evidence that the writer of Mark knew and used the writings of Paul. A second structure, draped across this chiasm, may provide evidence that the writer of Mark thought of, or perhaps intended others to think, that the writings of Paul were scripture. The second part of this essay explores some of the fallout for the Gospel of Mark, early Christian history, and historical methodology, from connecting Mark to Paul.

The structure of this chiasm is based on a model of Markan chiasms that I am currently developing and preparing for publication. Markan chiasms differ from other types known in antiquity. Whereas most proposed chiastic structures in antiquity roll out and roll back in simple repetitive structures ABC-C'B'A', in general Markan chiasms are characterized by simple exterior structures that bracket complex interior structures. These interior structures, often, though not always, signaled by the presence of keywords, vary from chiasm to chiasm. The great variety of interior structures of Markan chiasms is one of the reasons they have not received the kind of attention they deserve, for they are difficult to spot. In addition, traditional versification and pericoping frequently mask or destroy chiastic structures in Mark.

1. Delineating the Chiasm in Mark 12:10-37

Mark 12 opens with the Parable of the Tenants. Four pericopes then follow:

Mk 12:13-17 Render unto Caesar what is Caesar
Mk 12:18-27 Sadduccees ask about marriage after resurrection
Mk 12:28-34 Which is greatest commandment?
Mk 12:35-44 A poor widow gives everything to Temple

The traditional pericoping masks another structure. Its basic framework looks like this:

Mk 12:10-11 Jesus is the Cornerstone
Mk 12:13-17 Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's
Mk 12:18-23 Sadduccees deny resurrection
Mk 12:25-27 Discussion of What Bodies will be like in Heaven
Mk 12:28-34 Commandment to Love
Mk 12:35-37 How can the Lord be the Son of David?

For the moment we will ignore 12:24 and the related verses. They will be returned to this structure later. Let us now take a look at what brackets this section from 12:13 to 12:34

Mk 12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118
Mk 12:12 They feared to arrest him

Mk 12:35-7 Citation of Psalm 110 "why do scribes say....???"
Mk 12:38 'Ware the scribes!.

Note that here we have two Psalm quotations followed by commentary about those who want to kill Jesus. Psalms 118 and 110 both relate to Simon Maccabaeus, the great Jewish leader. Psalm 118 celebrates Simon's entry into Jerusalem, while Psalm 110, the most widely cited scripture text in the New Testament, contains his name as an acrostic in Hebrew. The two Psalm quotes with related themes linked to the enemies of Jesus seem to function as A-A’ brackets for a chiasm:

Table 1.
A 12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118 and warning that they want to kill Jesus
B 12:13-17 Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's
C 12:18-23 Sadduccees deny resurrection
C' 12:25-27 Discussion of What Bodies will be like in Heaven
B' 12:28-34 Commandment to Love
A' 12:25-37 Citation of Psalm 110 and warning to beware of scribes

At first glance none of the parts, except for the brackets, appear to have an obvious relationship. "Render Unto Caesar" doesn’t really work as either a complement or an opposition to "Commandment to Love." Nor does a denial of the Resurrection appear to have much of a connection to a discussion of what bodies will be like in Heaven.

Among the many parallels between Mark and Paul noted by Donahue and Harrington (2002:40) is that just as in Romans 13:1-7 and 13:8-10, in Mark 12:13-17 and 12:28-34, a command to love follows an injunction to obey the governing authorities. Table 2 shows what results when we plug that insight into our chiasm.

Table 2.
A Mk 12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118 and warning that the scribes want to kill Jesus)
B Romans 13:1-7 Obey your government = (Mk 12:13-17 Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's)
C Mk 12:18-23 Sadduccees deny resurrection
C' Mk 12:25-27 Like Angels in Heaven
B' Romans 13:8-10 (Love is fulfillment of the Law) = (Mk 12:28-34 Commandment to Love)
A' Mk 12:35-7 Citation of Psalm 110 and warning to beware of scribes

As Table 2 shows, the two parallel passages from Romans 13 fall neatly into the B-B’ bracket of the chiasm. Is there another passage from Paul that parallels the C-C’ bracket?

There is. Mark 12:25-27 has the same theme as 1 Cor 15:35-50, a discussion of what bodies will be like in heaven. Further, just prior to that in 1 Cor 15, there is a discussion of those who deny the Resurrection -- just like the Sadduccees, whom the writer of Mark explicitly avers deny the Resurrection (note that of Jesus' opponents in Mark only the Sadduccees get such an explicit description of their beliefs, yet they only appear once). That gives us two blocks of material here that relate Mark and Paul. The table below displays the result of inserting the parallels from 1 Cor 15:

Table 3.
A Mk 12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118 and warning that the scribes want to kill Jesus
B Romans 13:1-7 Obey your government = (Mk 12:13-17 Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's)
C 1 Corinthians 15:12-14 (What if there is no resurrection?) = (Mk 12:18-23 Sadduccee denial)
C' 1 Corinthians 15:35-50 (What is the resurrection body like?) = (Mk 12:25-27 Like Angels in Heaven)
B' Romans 13:8-10 (Love is fulfillment of the Law) = (Mk 12:28-34 Commandment to Love)
A' Mk 12:35-7 Citation of Psalm 110 and warning to beware of scribes

The B-B’ and C-C’ brackets form neat parallels to the Pauline epistles. Further, if we return to 1 Corinthians 15, we find that there is the same citation of Psalm 110 that the writer of Mark uses. Further, it is located in 1 Cor 15:25-6, right between the two blocs of material that the writer of Mark is echoing. This yields:

Table 4.
A Mk 12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118 and warning that the scribes want to kill Jesus
B Romans 13:1-7 Obey your government = (Mk 12:13-17 Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's)
C 1 Corinthians 15:12-14 (What if there is no resurrection?) = (Mk 12:18-23 Sadduccees denial)
C' 1 Corinthians 15:35-50 (What is the resurrection body like?) = (Mk 12:25-27 Like Angels)
B' Romans 13:8-10 (Love is fulfillment of the Law) = (Mk 12:28-34 Commandment to Love)
A' 1 Corinthians 15:25-26 cites same passage from Psalm 110 as Mk 12:35-7

All that is needed to complete the chiasm is a citation of Psalm 118 in Romans. Sure enough, there is one in Romans 8 (recall that there were probably no chapter divisions in the letters that the writer of Mark used). Thus, our complete chiasm is:

Table 5.
A Romans 8:31 cites Psalm 118:6 Mk 12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118 and warning
B Romans 13:1-7 Obey your government = (Mk 12:13-17 Render unto Caesar)
C 1 Corinthians 15:12-14 (What if there is no resurrection?) = (Mk 12:18-23 Sadduccees denial)
C' 1 Corinthians 15:35-50 (What is the resurrection body like?) = (Mk 12:25-27 Like Angels)
B' Romans 13:8-10 (Love is fulfillment of the Law) = (Mk 12:28-34 Commandment to Love)
A' 1 Corinthians 15:25-26 cites same passage from Psalm 110 as Mk 12:35-7

Or, in simplified form:

A: Romans 8
B: Romans 13
C: 1 Corinthians 15
C': 1 Corinthians 15
B': Romans 13
A': 1 Corinthians 15

If we return to the dispute that centers around Mark 12:24, we can construct an ABB’A’ chiasm that I believe is typical of the interior of Markan chiasms.

A Chreia A: Whose wife is she, anyway? (Setting)
B Mk 12:24: Jesus says you don't know the Scriptures and God's Power
B' Jesus says the dead are raised, and cites Scriptures: "I am the God of ..... Jacob"
A' Chreia A': You fools! He's the God of the living, not the Dead! (response)

The A-A’ bracket provides the setting and response of the chreia. Mark 12:24 is actually two opposed ideas; here the versification obscures the way the writer of Mark composed the interior of the chiasm. Note that the B-B’ structure is actually a miniature ABB’A’ structure, in which the first half offers the Scriptures and God’s Power, while the second half provides an example of each, respectively raising the dead (B’), and a citation of scripture (A’):

B Mk 12:24: Jesus says you don't know the Scriptures and God's Power
B' Jesus says the dead are raised, and cites Scriptures: "I am the God of Abraham....of Jacob"

The entire chiasm, assembled, is the most complex one in the Gospel of Mark. The table below depicts the entire construction:

Table 6.
A Romans 8:31 = Mk 12:10-11
B Romans 13:1-7 = Mk 12:13-17
C 1 Corinthians 15:12-14 = Mk 12:18-23
D-A Chreia A: Whose wife is she, anyway? (Setting)
D-B Mk 12:24: Jesus says you don't know the Scriptures and God's Power
C' 1 Corinthians 15:35-50 = Mk 12:25-27
D'-B' Jesus says the dead are raised, and cites Scriptures:
D'-A' Chreia A': You fools! He's the God of the living, not the Dead! (response)
B' Romans 13:8-10 = Mk 12:28-34
A' 1 Corinthians 15:25-26 = Mk 12:35-7

The writer has constructed a variation on his usual pattern of complex interiors, with a CD-CD pattern that contains his typical ABB’A’ structure, in this case interpolated between the C-C’ brackets.

The heart of this structure, however, is the arrangement of Pauline parallels. It is difficult, at least for this writer, to look at those parallels and not conclude that the writer of Mark directly knew and used at least some of the writings of Paul.

However, if the foregoing chiasm was insufficient to persuade, Mark 12:10-37 contains another structure that may clarify the writer’s intention of how these parallels were to be understood. In this other structure in Mark 12:10-37 the writer appears to emphasize the importance of the theme of "scripture." The fact is that this chiasm is draped over a ping-pong match about scripture between Jesus and various discussants. Consider the following:

(Jesus) 12:10: Have you not read this scripture:
(Discussant) 12:19: "Teacher, Moses wrote:
(Jesus) 12:24: Jesus said to them, "Is not this why you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God?

(Jesus) 12:26: And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses
(Discussant) 12:28: And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the first of all?"
(Jesus) 12:35: And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, "How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? 36: David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared,

Observe how Jesus' actions and Markan keywords structure this sequence. Jesus cites Scripture and identifies it four times. Each time when Jesus names and cites Scripture, his remarks are sandwiching something about scripture being asked or quoted at him by someone else. The keywords that tie together the sequence are clear even in the English translation: scribe, writing, and scripture are keywords throughout the sequence. And yet, in the parallels that underlie this, the scripture being cited is Paul. The writer has also dropped another broad hint: this sequence is the first time in the Gospel that the word scripture appears. And there it is, on Jesus' lips, citing a "scripture" that occurs in both Paul and Mark, in a section which consists of discussions of what scripture says, filled with parallels to Pauline thought. The entire passage seems to indicate that the writer of Mark not only directly used Paul, but regarded Paul as scripture.

2. Implications

A. Local Structural Features
At the level of narrative composition, the chiasm in 12:10-37 may explain why the Sadduccees appear here, and only here, in the Gospel of Mark. Their most conspicuous trait is a disbelief in the Resurrection, as the writer of Mark explicitly reminds us at the beginning of the pericope. Because of this, they make convenient foils for a discussion on denial of the Resurrection.

B. Explaining Some Features of the Gospel of Mark
The writer's familiarity with the Pauline scriptures explains many puzzling features of the Gospel of Mark, as well as accounts for certain pieces of "historical" knowledge.

1. Markan use of Paul may also explain what the writer meant when he has Jesus exclaim “Let the Scriptures be fulfilled!” without any apparent reference to the Old Testament (Mk 14:49), or when Jesus makes his Passion Predictions with the implied reference to scripture that cannot be readily identified. In that case, he most likely means Paul, which apparently functioned as scripture for him.

2. Many historical features of Mark may be attributed to the writer's use of Paul.

A. Jesus was designated, not born, the Son of God
Philippians 2:6-11
B. Jesus was of Davidic Descent
Romans 1:3
C. Jesus was handed over (betrayed)
1 Cor 11:23
D. Importance of Peter, James and John
Galatians 2:9
E. Pharisees hate Jesus
Philippians 3:5-6
F. Peter = Cephas
Several places in the Paulines, including 1 Cor 9:5 in some manuscripts
G. Peter is married and has a mother-in-law
1 Cor 9: 5
H. Abba, Father
Galatians 4:6
I. Divorce in Mark 10:12
1 Cor 7
J. Last Supper
1 Cor 11:23-5
H. Jesus Raised on the Third Day
1 Cor 15:4

3. It is widely argued that the Gospel of Mark is about discipleship, and that an important aspect of it is imitating Jesus. "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." A possible source for this would be 1 Cor 4:15-6, where Paul writes: "Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me." Similarly, "Food" and "eating" as a metaphor for the message of Jesus and its reception may stem ultimately from 1 Cor 10:1-4, where Paul writes: "I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ." The term "seed" is used as a metaphor for teaching and the message of God several times in 1 Cor and once in 2 Cor.

4. The writer of Mark's knowledge of Paul would also explain why the Crucifixion scene, as Crossan and others have pointed out, appears to be a complete fiction. While Paul lays great emphasis on the Crucifixion of Jesus, he never gives any details of the event. Paul's lack of detail compelled the writer of Mark to invent the Crucifixion scene from the Old Testament through his usual "midrashic" techniques. Similarly, the writer of Mark ignores Jesus' early life because Paul does.

5. Peter in Mark: the writer's attitude toward Peter is puzzling on its face. While he attributes narrative prominence to Peter, and by implication, historical prominence, he does not appear to know of the story that Peter was the first pope. Hence, nowhere in Mark is a prominent leadership position for Peter alluded to. This may indicate an earlier date for Mark, prior to the development of that legend. However, looking at the issue through the lens of Mark's connection to Paul, it seems plausible that the writer of Mark does not attribute formal status to Peter because Paul does not either. Further, Mark's negative attitude toward the leadership in Jerusalem may also be explained by Paul's attacks on them.

6. Mark 13:9-11 says:

9: "But take heed to yourselves; for they will deliver you up to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them. 10: And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11: And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.

while 13:21-22 add:

21: And then if any one says to you, `Look, here is the Christ!' or `Look, there he is!' do not believe it. 22: False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.

Could these passages have the stories told in Paul's epistles in mind?

7. More speculatively, I do not believe in Q. A few of the Mark-Q overlaps, for example, the pronouncements on divorce, the reliance on the holy spirit to speak through the believer in a trial, the "sign" remarks, taking up one's cross, the mustard seed (to "seed" metaphors in 1 Cor) seem traceable ultimately to Paul through Mark, providing additional arguments against Q.

C. Implications for Historical Methodology

A commonly-used criterion in historical Jesus studies is that of multiple attestation. It can no longer be regarded as valid where it involves relationships between Paul and the Synoptics.

Similarly, the putative but flimsily-supported oral tradition is no longer needed to explain the writer of Mark's knowledge of the early days of the Christian movement. Under this view, he sources everything about it from Paul, or invents it from older Jewish literature.

This also puts to rest the claim of Papias, currently held largely by conservatives, that the source of the Gospel of Mark was Peter. It was clearly not.

Finally, the idea of Mark as a Pauline gospel also raises another issue: which gospel did Marcion really have? The Patristic fathers indicate that it was a version of the Gospel of Luke. However, the writer of Mark apparently considered the Pauline letters to be scripture, a trait he had in common with Marcion.

To view this chiasm more clearly than this format permits, please see the slightly shorter version of this in my Mark commentary.