Ben C. Smith on the Original Structure of Mark

Well, it's the end of October, and I finally have time to come back to The Sword. Onward and upward!

Earlier this year I recovered the original structure of Mark and elaborated rules for doing so that anyone could use. I was thinking about attempting to publish it in an NT studies journal or present it at a conference as a number of people have been very supportive. So it was encouraging to see that someone has finally taken the time to review my proposed structure, and do so in a way that engaged with it seriously. Ben C. Smith has taken up the cudgel and produced a document that is rewarding to interact with. Ben's analysis has pointed to some fruitful new ways to understand the text. I'd like to thank Ben for this.

Ben begins:

I would like to call attention to an intriguing project on Marcan literary structure undertaken by Michael Turton, known on some discussion boards as Vorkosigan. His Historical Commentary on Mark, which in my judgment would be better named as a literary commentary on Mark, puts forward the view that Mark wrote each pericope in his gospel as a chiasm.

Actually, my Commentary began as a historical commentary, but evaluating Mark as a literary document is part of evaluating it as a "historical" one. The reason there is so much on the literary aspects is because the writer of Mark was literary artist of great skill who borrowed the conventional scenes of Greek fiction to develop one of the great texts of antiquity. I constantly found myself referring back to the literary aspects of the piece to understand its alleged historical claims.

Smith (seems cold to use a last name, so apologies) then goes to set forth my rules:

He also lists ten rules for the construction of his Marcan chiasms, which for convenience I repeat here,
though I highly recommend you read them for yourself on his site, since most of his rules come with examples:

1. The A' of the previous pericope is always the A of the next one.
2. All Markan chiasms have twinned centers. Many of the centers contain more complex ABBA, ABAB, or ABCABC structures.
3. Markan A brackets are almost always people shifting location.
4. Actions may constitute separate brackets.
5. Speeches, regardless of length, must be single brackets, so long as they are one speech directed at one audience.
6. Speeches may be broken up if there there appears to be a natural demarcation between two parts, when the audience has shifted. This typically takes place when there is a shift from an address to persons present in the narrative, to a general saying, often signaled by a formula like "Truly I say" or "But I tell you."
7. Actions plus speeches may be a bracket.
8. Actions plus speech followed by actions/descriptions are never a separate bracket.
9. Where the text "turns back on itself" — usually by way of explanation — a new bracket is indicated.
10. Where a verse involves a movement from one place to another, positing an interval of time between, a new bracket is demanded.

And then an insight.

The rules seem to group naturally into three groups, and it might be profitable to take a look at each group by itself.

Pericope seams.
Pericope bracketing.
Pericope centers.

I had never though of them as falling into three groups; indeed, I had seen them as largely provisional and the breakdown of Mark as a work in progress. Smith goes on:

Pericope seams.

Rule 1: The A² of the previous pericope is always the A¹ of the next one.
Rule 3: Marcan A brackets are almost always people shifting location.

My problem with this rule is that it appears to mask the fact that some of the A brackets are truly singular (describing only one movement) while others are actually plural (describing two or more separate movements). Take Mark 6.45-46, for example:

Immediately he made his disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. And after he had taken leave of them he went up on the mountain to pray.

Smith notes:

Turton groups this as one A bracket, though it contains at least two distinct movements (first the disciples into the boat, then Jesus up the mountain). Contrast this example with what is perhaps a more typical seam in Mark 6.12:

Actually, the reason I group this into one A bracket is because there are not 2 but three location changes here:

Immediately he made his disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, to Beth-sa'ida, while he dismissed the crowd.

And after he had taken leave of them, he went up on the mountain to pray.

And when evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land.

I have discussed this extensively on my blog and in the section in the commentary on the Bethsaida section, of which this pericope is traditionally scene as the first part. Some of the verses here have been interpolated and the entire section has been extensively tampered with. The reason I group these together is that thanks to the extensive redacting and re-arrangment, which in my analysis extends all the way from Mark 6:14 into Mark 11, it is now impossible to tell what the author's original A bracket was. Smith has unwittingly chosen the worst possible example -- one whose A bracket I do not believe came from Mark. This is not his fault, as you have to read my section on Bethsaida to understand that.

Nevertheless, this observation does not nullify the overall force of the rule, and we might merely regard the plural instances as less elegant transitions than the singular rather than as wholesale exceptions to the rule.

Well, there are several inelegant transitions, and they look like they have been tampered with in most cases.

Smith then goes on to say:

Pericope Bracketing
Rule 4: Actions may constitute separate brackets.

Rule 5: Speeches, regardless of length, must be single brackets, so long as they are one speech directed at one audience.
Rule 6: Speeches may be broken up if there there appears to be a natural demarcation between two parts, when the audience has shifted.
Rule 7: Actions plus speeches may be a bracket.
Rule 8: Actions plus speech followed by actions or descriptions are never a separate bracket.
Rule 9: Where the text turns back on itself, usually by way of explanation, a new bracket is indicated.
Rule 10: Where a verse involves a movement from one place to another, positing an interval of time between, a new bracket is demanded.

Rules 4-10 are bracketing guidelines: When is it permissible and when is it impermissible to jump to the next bracket? Of these rules, numbers 4 and 7 are worded loosely (with may, not must), number 6 is an exception to number 5, and number 8 essentially says that any given bracket will never sandwich speech between actions or descriptions. Number 9 tells us what to do with explanatory material (form a new bracket), and number 10 seems a logical offshoot of number 3, except that now we are merely moving to the next bracket within a pericope, not to the next pericope.

Smith goes on:

These bracketing rules seem less useful to me than the rules on the seams. I am not certain that Turton always follows them in his chiasms, or that they always can be followed.

For example, let me draw attention for a moment to rule 9, which says:

Where the text "turns back on itself" — usually by way of explanation — a new bracket is indicated.

After noting how nice my example works, Smith observes:

But do we not have much the same situation in Mark 1.16? Turton has the whole verse as a single bracket (emphasis mine):

And while he was going about by the sea of Galilee he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting about in the sea. For they were fishers.

The for in Mark 1.16 backtracks to explain why the brothers were casting into the sea of Galilee, just as the for in Mark 5.28 backtracks to explain why the woman was touching the garments of Jesus. Why then do we not make two brackets of Mark 1.16? But to do so, of course, would spoil the symmetry, since the second half of the passage offers no such explanation for James and John as the first half offers for Simon and Andrew. Perhaps rule 9 is more Turtonian than Marcan.

Alas no, and Ben has put his finger on another rule that I have been unable to articulate.

Let's have a close look at the structure of 1:16-20. It consists of a simple ABBA chiasm.....

A
Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel."

.......B..A And passing along by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen.

...................B And Jesus said to them, "Follow me and I will make you become fishers of men."

..........................C And immediately they left their nets and followed him.

.......B..A And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zeb'edee and John his brother, who were in their boat mending the nets.

...................B And immediately he called them;

..........................C and they left their father Zeb'edee in the boat with the hired servants, and followed him.

A And they went into Caper'na-um;


One of the delightful things about Markan centers is that they always have their own complex structures. Inside this ABBA chiasm is an ABCABC structure, as Smith agrees.

The reason that I did not break this out at the "For they were fisherman" is because it doesn't matter. You're not looking at a whole bracket but one part of the interior of a bracket. To wit, the actual structure looks like this:

A Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel."

.....B And passing along by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them, "Follow me and I will make you become fishers of men." And immediately they left their nets and followed him.

.....B And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zeb'edee and John his brother, who were in their boat mending the nets. And immediately he called them; and they left their father Zeb'edee in the boat with the hired servants, and followed him.

A And they went into Caper'na-um;

The sharp-eyed might note that the last verse of B and the first verse of B' are "hooked" linguistically; they both contain a reference to nets. The last verse is leaving them, and the next one is fixing them. The reason I have broken the parallels out so finely is because it shows one of the pleasures of recovering the original structure of Mark: appreciating its intricate, wheels-within-wheels structure.

But the thing is, if you use the "For...." as the beginning of a new bracket, you can make a very viable chiasm. Readers are invited to experiment. That simple-looking pericope is a masterpiece.

Furthermore, many times those brackets that belong neither to the center nor to the seam of the chiasm seem weakly connected. Let me offer Mark 11.11-27 as an example. It consists of three distinct chiasms:

^A And he went into Jerusalem, into the temple; and when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve. And the next day, when they had gone out of Bethany, he grew hungry.

^B1 And he saw a fig tree from afar which had leaves, and he came to see if he might find anything on it.

^C1 And he came up to it and found nothing except leaves; for it was not the season for figs.

^C2 And he answered and said to it: May no one ever eat fruit from you unto the age.

^B2 And his disciples heard him.

^A And they came to Jerusalem.

^B1 And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple.

^C1 And he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.

^D1 And he would not allow any one to carry anything through the temple.

^D2 And he taught, and said to them: Is it not written: My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? But you have made it a den of robbers.

^C2 And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and sought a way to destroy him.

^B2 For they feared him, because all the multitude was astonished at his teaching.

^A And when it became evening they journeyed out of the city.

^B1 And, as they were journeying along early, they saw the fig tree withered up from the roots.

^C1 And Peter was reminded and says to him: Rabbi, behold, the fig tree which you cursed has withered up.

^C2 And Jesus answered and says to them: Have the faith of God. Amen, I say to you that whoever says to this mountain: Be taken up and cast into the sea, and does not doubt in his heart, but has faith that what he says will happen, it will be so for him.

^B2 On account of this I say to you, all things, as many as you pray and ask for, have faith that you have received them, and it will be so for you. And, whenever you stand praying, forgive if you have anything against anyone, so that your father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.

^A And they come again into Jerusalem.

Now, Turton admits that he has difficulty with the first chiasm in this portion of text, and that is to his credit, for it is unclear how his first A bracket does not violate rule 10:

Where a verse involves a movement from one place to another, positing an interval of time between, a new bracket is demanded.

The A bracket in question runs as follows:

And he went into Jerusalem, into the temple; and when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve. And the next day, when they had gone out of Bethany, he grew hungry.

This bracket looks like two or even three in one. Into the temple in Jerusalem is the first part; out to Bethany is the second part; and from Bethany on the next day is the third part. Each of these transitions involves a movement from one place to another with some interval of time between, and therefore demands, according to rule 10, a new bracket. Yet Turton has them all in one.

Yup. I think I noted somewhere that Mark 11:1-27 was the most difficult passage in the gospel to bracket. It was the last one I finished and I have never been satisfied with it. I suspect that the tampering in here has been severe, because there are no real viable chiasms. I accept all your criticisms, Ben; in fact, I echo them. There's something very wrong with that entire sequence -- material has been gapped out, I suspect.

I for one fail to see what these two lines have so in common that they belong in corresponding brackets. If these two lines fit into the same bracket pair, virtually any two lines will fit into the same bracket pair. The process seems arbitrary at times. Here is the last pair of B brackets:

1. 
   

1. And, as they were journeying along early, they saw the fig tree withered up from the roots.
2. On account of this I say to you, all things, as many as you pray and ask for, have faith that you have received them, and it will be so for you. And, whenever you stand praying, forgive if you have anything against anyone, so that your father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.

I can see the general relationship between the withered fig tree and faith, but I cannot see why these two particular lines share in that relationship any more intrinsically than any pair of lines from this pericope. The following combinations seem just as fit to me:

1. And, as they were journeying along early, they saw the fig tree withered up from the roots.
2. And Jesus answered and says to them: Have the faith of God. Amen, I say to you that whoever says to this mountain: Be taken up and cast into the sea, and does not doubt in his heart, but has faith that what he says will happen, it will be so for him.

1. And Peter was reminded and says to him: Rabbi, behold, the fig tree which you cursed has withered up.
2. On account of this I say to you, all things, as many as you pray and ask for, believe that you have received them, and it will be so for you. And, whenever you stand praying, forgive if you have anything against anyone, so that your father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.

Both of these pairs correlate faith with the withered tree just as the original pairs do, but both of these pairs cross B with C brackets. The only purpose for these brackets appears to be connecting the seams with the center. As such, the brackets themselves look arbitrary.

Sure. That was my problem in bracketing this. Jesus speech contains two signals of new brackets, the formulaic "...I say to you." Clearly two brackets are indicated there. So that's what I did!

To be fair, there are indeed times when the corresponding brackets match almost eerily. Take Mark 3.20-31a, for instance:

^A1 And then he went into a house, and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat.

^B1 And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying: He is beside himself.

^C1 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said: He is possessed by Beelzebub, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.

^C2 And he called them to him, and said to them in parables: How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom is unable to stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he is not able to stand, but is coming to an end. But no one can enter the house of a strong man and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house. Truly I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.

^B2 Because they had said: He has an unclean spirit.

^A2 And his mother and his brothers came.

While I am a little put off by the relative brevity of C¹ as compared to the length of C², the B brackets are a fine fit; the accusation of having an unclean spirit responds to Jesus allegedly being beside himself. Furthermore, Mark had to go out of his way to create this echo, using one of his most awkward explanations after the fact (since the accusation would logically precede the long demonological speech that Jesus delivers). So there are some cases in which Mark appears to be striving for some structure akin to what Turton presents us. I am just not convinced that Mark always strives for these kinds of structures, or that Turton has completely pegged the Marcan repertoire.

I'll deny the first half of that, but cop to the second. Anyway, as I point out, though not in the page Smith used, Jesus' long speeches are usually chiasms in and of themselves. For example, this one is a very nice succession of pairs:

A casts out demons by the prince of demons
A How can satan cast out satan?
B kingdom divided against itself cannot stand
B house divided against itself cannot stand
C satan risen up against himself and is divided,
C he cannot stand, but is coming to an end
B no one can enter strong man's house plunder his goods
B unless first binds strong man, then may plunder his house
A all sins forgiven and all blasphemies
A whoever blasphemes Holy Spirit is guilty of eternal sin

Smith continues:

Let me at this juncture remind the reader of rule 5:

Speeches, regardless of length, must be single brackets, so long as they are one speech directed at one audience.

Let me also remind the reader that rule 6 allows an exception to that rule:

Speeches may be broken up if there there appears to be a natural demarcation between two parts, when the audience has shifted. This typically takes place when there is a shift from an address to persons present in the narrative, to a general saying, often signaled by a formula like "Truly I say" or "But I tell you...."

Finally, let me call attention to Mark 14.41-42:

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.

Rise; let us be going. Behold, my betrayer is at hand.

Turton divides this monologue across two brackets, but do rules 5 and 6 allow it? There is no change of audience, is there? Both halves appear to be directed specifically at the disciples; neither is a general statement directed at the Marcan readership. There is certainly no but or truly I say to you kind of statement to mark off the new bracket for us.

It appears to me that either these two rules are poorly worded or we have a genuine exception to these two rules. Conversely, we have already seen an example of a bracket that could have been broken in two at the words truly I say to you. I refer to Mark 3.23-29, which Turton has as one bracket (emphasis mine):

And he called them to him, and said to them in parables: How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom is unable to stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he is not able to stand, but is coming to an end. But no one can enter the house of a strong man and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house. Truly I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.

While rule 6, worded permissively, allows us to divide this speech at the shift, in this case to do so would not work. Such flexibility, along with the ability to either break or reinterpret the rules, gives the impression that we could have made a chiasm work here almost no matter what was thrown at us.

These are both excellent points. Let's go back to Mark 14. It happens to be one of the first chiasms I made and is drastically in need of revision. Mea culpa! In fact the bracketing is in error, as Smith notes.

To return to Mark 3 above, it is odd that you picked that one, because I have always felt uncomfortable with that bracketing, and now you have identified why. Let's re-bracket it. My original scheme actually broke it out differently, and I simply failed to catch the "Truly I say unto you..." there. But now....

A Then he went home;

B and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat.

C And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, "He is beside himself."

D And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Be-el'zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons."

DAnd he called them to him, and said to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house.

C: "Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" --

B for they had said, "He has an unclean spirit."

A And his mother and his brothers came;

That doesn't feel right either. I wonder if this pericope was trucked in from elsewhere. The scribes are coming down from Jerusalem here -- all the way to Galilee? I wonder if this is originally from Mark 10 or 11. Anyway, I'll get to work on this one. Good spot. Smith has a gift for spotting the ones that gave me trouble.

Update 09-26-2005: Mark 11.31-32 may break the rule:

And they argued with one another: If we say from heaven he will say: Why then did you not believe him? But shall we say from men? They feared the people, for all held that John was a real prophet.

The first action is arguing with one another. Then we have speech between the opponents of Jesus. Then the second action is fearing the people. (If it be argued that fearing the people is really not a separate action, but rather an explanation of the previous dialogue, then this bracket would seem to violate rule 9: When the text turns back on itself, usually by way of explanation, a new bracket is indicated.)

It isn't. By "actions" I have in mind a pretty strict definition: Speech followed by a physical action of the body.

I rather think that Turton has nailed the structure of this passage. Surely Mark intended to match the callings of the two sets of brothers point for point. But this structure is not actually a chiasm in any way, except for the fact that the seams both entail movement (into Galilee in A¹, into Capernaum in A²), and I have already indicated my approval of how Turton treats the pericope seams. But the heart and indeed greater part of the passage is utterly nonchiastic. The a-b-a-b and a-b-c-a-b-c options look very much to me like tacit admissions that Mark does not really aim for chiasms.

Naw. The pericopes are usually a simple ABCC'B'A' -- I break out the centers only for interest as there is no real need to. Consider the center of the Crucifixion scene:

F And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads, and saying, "Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!"

F' So also the chief priests mocked him to one another with the scribes, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Those who were crucified with him also reviled him.

But this center is fine grained:

F And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads, and saying, "Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!"

F' So also the chief priests mocked him to one another with the scribes, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Those who were crucified with him also reviled him.

It is an ABBA chiasm that goes

A: CRUCIFIED WITH HIM

B: MOCKERS

B: MOCKERS

A: CRUCIFIED WITH HIM

The fundamental issue is that things like F and F' are simply names for text divisions, which can be represented in different ways. There's no reason that you can't label this FGGF -- it would be exactly the same sequence of text divisions, but labeled differently.

The reason I don't do that is because I wish to highlight how the writer of Mark enjoys making different kinds of centers for his texts. Locating the center became, for me, an easy way to break out the chiasm. Additionally, I do believe that this is how the writer conceived the pericope, with the center at F/F' and not FGGF. This is because other centers form ABAB chiasms. Tus additional brackets cannot be arbitrarily added there.

A good example is the beating by the guards at the Sanhedrin. It has a nice rhythm.

K And the high priest tore his garments, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.

K' 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

This is an ABAB center:

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

And they all condemned him as deserving death.

K' 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.

This kind of long-short rhythm is really common in the Markan centers. For ABBA centers the divisions I make look arbitrary. It is only when you look at the different kinds of centers that the writer uses that you can appreciate why I broke it out this way.

Smith has already accepted this ABCABC structure of 1:16-20. What about 7:1-23? It has an identical interior.

But let us run with the rules at any rate. Perhaps they apply across the board in Mark even if labelling them chiastic is not always apt.

I TOTALLY agree. An NT scholar told me that in order to gain acceptance for them I would have to find a new word, because chiasm is overlain with old prejudices, understandings, and ideas. So far I can't. Any suggestions?

Let us peruse an example of a more chiastic center in Mark 6.1-6 as Turton would have it:

^A1 And he came out thence, and he came unto his fatherland, and his disciples followed him.

^B1 And when it was sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue. And many who heard were amazed, saying:

^C1 Whence did these things come to this man, and what is this wisdom given to him and such powers done through his hands?

^D1 —

^a Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?

^b And they were scandalized at him.

^D2 —

^b And Jesus said to them: A prophet is not dishonored....

^a ...except in his fatherland and among his kinsmen and in his house.

^C2 And he could not do any powerful feats there except that he laid hands upon a few sick and healed them.

^B2 And he wondered on account of their unbelief.

^A2 And he was going around the villages in a circle, teaching.

Note that D¹ and D² each have two subbrackets, a and b. I want to point out that these subbrackets do have a logic to them. The a brackets have to do with family relationships; the b brackets oppose scandal with honor. These relationships seem far from arbitrary, and appear to strike at the heart of the message of this Marcan passage.

Yes, that's one reason why they look right. I fact when I reviewed Dart's book I used this pericope. However: WARNING: this baby has been tampered with, as the manuscript evidence shows.

It is only fair to note, however, that a Marcan scholar by the name of John Dart has written a book called Decoding Mark in which he analyzes the gospel chiastically and determines that Mark never has doubled centers. Here then is Mark 6.1-6 as Dart would have it:

^A1 And he came out thence, and he came unto his fatherland, and his disciples followed him. And when it was sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue. And many who heard were amazed, saying: Whence did these things come to this man, and what is this wisdom given to him....

^B1 ...and such powers done through his hands?

^C1 Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?

^D And they were scandalized at him.

^C2 And Jesus said to them: A prophet is not dishonored except in his fatherland and among his kinsmen and in his house.

^B2 And he could not do any powerful feats there except that he laid hands upon a few sick and healed them.

^A2 And he wondered on account of their unbelief. And he was going around the villages in a circle, teaching.

Note the rather different structure at the heart of the chiasm. I want to point out that the central brackets do have a logic to them. The D bracket is the turning point of the whole pericope; the C brackets have to do with family relationships and also oppose carpenter with prophet as the true profession of Jesus. These relationships seem far from arbitrary, and appear to strike at the heart of the message of this Marcan passage.

OK....

In other words, two chiastically incompatible systems (one with doubled centers and the other without) produce two different yet logical patterns. Of course, Turton misses the correspondence of carpenter and prophet, while Dart misses the correspondence of scandal and honor.

Actually, Dart is not a Marcan scholar but a journalist of religion. His book is excellent. However, Dart's system has several errors. First, he cannot specify any rules other than Mark's pericopes have single centers. Second, in order to make his system work, he borrows freely from Luke. Third, he often rearranges or slides over the order of the verses (mine are always in order), because he bases things on linguistic links. Each of his chiasms is different.

It is important to realize that each of our analysts must miss at least one of these correspondences, for the brute fact is that Mark has arranged these important points in two different orders at the center of his pericope. The first sequence is carpenter, family, scandal; the second sequence is prophet, honor, kin. If we were to match the elements by letter we would have a-b-c and a-c-b. Turton and Dart have both taken care to line up family and kin, but then each had to make a choice as to which of the other matching pairs was going to stay, and which was going to go.

Actually, you've put your finger on the problem. Dart's lineup is according to his tastes, mine is according to a set of rules that I generated looking at other chiasms in Mark. I didn't take care to line up family and kin; they fell out that way!

This is one of the problems I have had in discussing this, for the reader assumes that I have made the chiasms work thematically. But that is the whole point. I haven't. I deduced them from rules and worked from there. If they work thematically, so much the better. But I never took care to line up this or that word; I pay no attention to that. Only afterwards, when I look at what is there, then I can see whether there are any nice thematic line-ups. The typical respondent says to me "Look, Michael, your thematic line-ups are entirely subjective" and then turns a deaf ear when I point out that I haven't lined them up thematically.

Smith has actually missed a problem here, which is why I regard this one as particularly tentative. The fact is that while the back half of the chiasm is pretty clear, there are several ways to do the front, and I can't decide how it should be brackets. In other Markan pericopes Jesus' words often occur in the bracket immediately after the center. In this one they fall in the center, and I don't like that. So Mark 6 is problematic for me.

But hang on....

Note that not even a nonchiastic a-b-a-b or a-b-c-a-b-c center can save this anomaly. The only possible solution is to combine b and c into a single bracket and try for a pattern of a-b-a-b. But it comes out looking like so:

^a Is this not the carpenter....

^b ...the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized at him.

^a And Jesus said to them: A prophet....

^b ...is not dishonored except in his fatherland and among his kinsmen and in his house.

Truly awkward, and very rough on the dialogue in ways that seem inconsistent with rules 5 and 6. Had Mark really been thinking in terms of a good chiasm he could surely have worked all this out! But he did not, leading me to suspect that he was not necessarily trying to create a chiasm, at least not of the particular variety that Turton suggests in his rules.

Oh, the writer of Mark most definitely created a chiasm here, it is just that it is non-obvious. Believe me, I spent many nights wrestling over Mark 6:1-6. The back end is solid, but the front I do not get yet. Have you read Dart's book? Dart's book is useful, but his analysis is wrong. Dart's understanding has to be judged against the fact that he accepts Secret Mark, which Carlson has recently demonstrated is a forgery by Morton Smith -- and produced what he called a Markan chiasm for it. That renders all his chiasms absurd, for Secret Mark is a forgery. My analysis, by contrast, shows that it is non-Markan in every way. Where my system can be tested, it produces solid results.

Smith then goes on to the weakest part of his argument.

It would weaken the chiastic thesis somewhat if one could apply the same or very similar rules to authors other than Mark and come up with chiastic structures.

Actually, the discovery of authentic chiasms in other texts would only strengthen my view. But never mind that, because Smith's are nothing like authentic.

In what follows I have tried to arrange passages from Josephus into chiasms. I have had to change only rule number 3, since Josephus, not writing about an itinerant preacher in particular, does not tend to connect his paragraphs with movement from one locale to the next. Rather, his connections are changes from one political event to the next, or from one crisis to the next.

Smith gives us no reason to accept his last assertion there. He asks to decide whether Josephus intended this:

^A1 But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased.

^B1 So he bid them get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them that, when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there.

^C1 So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village which was called Tirathaba they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together.

^C2 But Pilate prevented their going up by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and footmen. He fell upon those that had gotten together in the village.

^B2 And when it came to an action some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight.

^A2 And they took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.

The A brackets oppose the rebel Samaritan leader with the official Roman leader, Pilate, and also enclose the whole episode in a political context. The B brackets contrast coming together with being put to flight. The C brackets are action and reaction in turn, and also center wholly around what took place at the village.

Smith than says:

I submit that this chiasm is at least as well constructed and logical as very many that Turton identifies in his study.

No, Ben, it is not like anything I have done, because you have matched it thematically and not by a set of rules that you can specify. What you did not do was study Josephus for months painstakingly reconstructing how he organized his own writing, and produced a set of rules that enable you to specify how he put together his document. In fact Smith's comparison is entirely arbitrary and subjective and has nothing to do with what I am doing. This problem right here is in fact the most serious one I face, for many would-be critics simply do not take the time to grasp that I am not working thematically. That is why criticisms like this not only miss the mark, they are not even shooting at the target. This type of criticism works much better for Dart.

For example, as far as I can see, Smith could break that passage up into many or fewer brackets. The A1 bracket could be two; so could the C2. Why did Smith do it that way? He cannot not tell us, because he himself does not know in any meaningful sense. In fact Smith has proffered a small point in my favor: my rules, when applied to non-Markan writings, produce arbitrary gibberish. Yet when applied to Mark they produce thematically-related passages that also have a nice rhythm to them.

Josephus, Antiquities 20.5.1 §97-99:

^A1 Now it came to pass while Fadus was procurator of Judea....

^B1 ...that a certain enchanter, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them and follow him to the river Jordan.

^C1 —

^a For he told them that he was a prophet, and that he would by his own command divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it.

^b And many were deluded by his words.

^C2 —

^a However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them.

^b Falling upon them unexpectedly, he slew many of them and took many of them alive.

^B2 They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head and carried it to Jerusalem.

^A2 This was what befell the Jews in the time of the leadership of Cuspius Fadus.

This chiasm is fascinating to me because it employs one of the two nonchiastic complex centers that Turton allows. Was Josephus as quirky as Mark?

Cuspius Fadus dominates the A brackets. Theudas occupies the B brackets, which respectively summarize his attempt and his failure. The C brackets form the center. The a subbrackets turn a prophetic act into a wild attempt. The b subbrackets turn many deluded into many slain.

Why are the A1 and B1 brackets separate here? Smith could not tell us. By the way the A1 and B1 brackets are divided, he ought to divide the A2 bracket into two brackets. Conclusion? Smith doesn't really get what is going on, because he didn't spend months painstakingly tinkering to get an understanding of how Josephus works, much less how Mark works. Smith has not used my rules at all -- there is no narrative sequence so long in Mark and thus there are no rules for decoding it.. In the Gospel of Mark speeches break up narrative, and my rules incorporate that understanding. Whatever Smith has done, it has nothing to do with what I did.

Are we tapping into the thoughts of Mark or Josephus? Or are we getting a bit too creative as literary critics? Iudicet lector; let the reader judge.

I hope the reader will judge. In fact, I hope every reader will spend some time interacting with my chiasms.

Once again, I would like to deeply thank Ben for his efforts. It is extraordinarily difficult to find anyone to seriously check this out. I especially appreciate the level of detail in Smith's analysis, and the way he zeroed in on weak spots and areas where I am uncertain. I also like it that he reviewed the rules, yet found several of them not wanting. There's still much to learn, and my structural analysis of Mark is very much a work in progress.

Thanks!

[Christianity] [chiasms]

Pursuant to previous discussions on the bibliologs about presentations, a friend tossed me this link from Harvard:

Maxims for Malfeasant Speakers

• First and foremost, your work is clearly superior to all others and this fact entitles you to ignore any complaints that others may have if they happen to follow you in the speaking schedule.
• Use the words "new" and "important" often when describing your work. It is particularly vital that both words show up in the title, the abstract, the first paragraphs, and the conclusion.
• Make it clear that, even if other people's names are associated with the work, your did most of it all by yourself. The others will understand you are only getting the credit you deserve.
• Don't bother distinguishing between what is planned and what has been accomplished. Anything that isn't finished yet cannot be that difficult; it's just a matter of doing it.
• Repeat, often, things your audience already knows.
• Repeat, often, things you have already said.
• Use lots of adjectives and adverbs.
• Use lots of acronyms and jargon.
• Remember that form is more important than content: Make sure your visuals conform to corporate standards, even if they don't say anything of consequence.
• Remember that form is more important than content: Use lots of gratuitous graphics in your visuals.
• Spend a very long time on each slide.
• Repeat the information on each slide at least three times:
  • before you show the slide,
  • while it is projected, and
  • after you have passed it.
• Take much longer than your allotted time, even if you don't have that much to say.
• Whenever possible, draw figures and write out equations while giving the talk. This adds to the suspense and gives you excuses should they not quite support your point.
  Better yet, write out tables of data during the talk.
• Always have many slides, each with many, many points on them, all in very tiny fonts.
  Better yet, print the entire presentation on slides and read it out loud.
• Use the "strip tease" technique when working with overhead transparencies. By slowly revealing each point on each transparency with a paper blind, you keep your audience from getting ahead of you. They shouldn't be allowed to read any faster than you can speak.
• Stand between your audience and the projection screen. If they have to peer around you to see what's on your slide, that will force them to pay attention.
• If you must point to something on a slide, be sure to point to the slide itself. Never point to the screen; it is much more effective to put big shadow next to your material than simply to point to it.
• Speak softly so everyone has to listen real hard to what you are saying. That way they will hear what they want to hear, rather than what you said, and it won't be your fault if they misunderstand you.
• Answer all questions in fine detail. The person asking seldom wants just the answer to their question. Besides, this may be the last chance you will ever have to convince the audience that you have complete mastery of the topic.
• Go off onto tangents, especially tangents of tangents. This shows that your work touches all aspects of your field and the human condition.
• Should the moderator tell you that your time is up, look surprised, but keep right on going at the same pace as before. Otherwise your audience will be disappointed that they did not hear your entire talk.
• Never rehearse your talk, or review the slides if you have not given it in a long time. This removes the spontaneity, and, besides, the audience enjoys it when you get lost or confused; it adds humor to the presentation and they don't really see it as wasting their time.

Out of Commission Til October

I owe lots of people replies, but I am so swamped that it is unlikely I'll be back here before the second week in October. My most profuse apologies.

Michael

Still Swamped...

...and not likely to clear this week. Bored? You can check out our clean-up after supertyphoon Talim rolled over Taiwan. I took a set of pics here, and some of the aftermath here. I hope you will donate to the victims of Katrina: American Red Cross

Congratulations to Stephen Carlson!

The Carlson clan added another member this week, Paul Walter!

Back from Vacation...

I've been on the road most of last week, first to Kaohsiung, and then to Taipei to see Robin Gibb in concert. But Michael and Neil, I'll have some stuff for you tomorrow, hopefully.

Michael

New site for Journal of Higher Criticism

The Journal of Higher Criticism by Robert Price has a new URL and a new editor:

http://www.atheistalliance.org/jhc

[Christianity]

Blogging Depression

For those you who are total blog addicts, The Nonist offers a pamphlet on blogging depression.

There is a growing epidemic in the cyberworld. a scourge which causes more suffering with each passing day. as blogging has exploded and, under the stewardship of the veterans, the form has matured more and more bloggers are finding themselves disillusioned, dissatisfied, taking long breaks, and in many cases simply closing up shop. this debilitating scourge ebbs and flows but there is hardly a blogger among us who has not felt its dark touch. we're speaking, of course, about blog depression.

Top Ten Jesus Books

Please excuse the absence....been away down in southern Taiwan

It's interesting to look at the different lists of books on Jesus put out by the Bibliologgers:






Scott McKnight
1. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God
2. B.F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (long philosophical intro)
3. J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology. Vol. 1: The Proclamation of Jesus
4. C.H. Dodd, The Founder of Christianity
5. J.D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered
6. G.B. Caird, New Testament Theology, chp. 9.
7. G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew
8. H.J. Cadbury, The Peril of Modernizing Jesus
9. B. Wiebe, Messianic Ethics
10. D. Kraybill, The Upside-Down Kingdom

Michael Bird
1. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God
2. James Dunn, Jesus Remembered
3. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew
4. Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus
5. Annette Merz & Gerd Theissen, The Historical Jesus
6. E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism
7. Ben Witherington, The Christology of Jesus
8. Scot McKnight, The Teachings of Jesus in National Context
9. Henry Cadbury, The Peril of Modernizing Jesus
10. Markus Bockmuehl, This Jesus

Sean du Toit

1. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God
2. G.B. Caird, New Testament Theology, chp. 9. [Jesus and the Jewish Nation]
3. B. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus
4. Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel
5. Craig A. Evans Jesus and His Contemporaries
6. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew
7. R. H. Horsley Jesus and the Spiral of Violence
8. E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism
9. Ben Witherington, The Christology of Jesus
10 James Dunn, Jesus Remembered

Loren Rossen
1. The Historical Figure of Jesus, by E.P. Sanders, 1993.
2. Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God, by William Herzog II, 1999.
3. Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet, by Dale C. Allison, 1998.
4. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, by John P. Meier, 1991, 1994, 2001, ?
5. Jesus of Nazareth: King of the Jews, by Paula Fredriksen, 1999.
6. The Message and the Kingdom: How Jesus and Paul Ignited a Revolution and Transformed the Ancient World, by Richard A. Horsley and Neil Asher Silberman, 1997.
7. Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus, by Donald Akenson, 2000.

My own list would look something like this:

1. Thiessen and Merz, The Historical Jesus
2. Meier, A Marginal Jew Vol 1-3
3. Brown Death of the Messiah
4. Stephens & Winkler. Ancient Greek Novels.
5. Price. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man
6. Metzger. A Textual Commentary on the New Testament
7. Crossan. The Birth of Christianity
8. Ludemann Jesus After 2000 Years
9. Helms. Gospel Fictions
10. Evans Authenticating the Activities of Jesus

There are several things I noted about the lists and comments, but most striking to me is the paucity of works that deal with the literary and methodological aspects of studying Jesus. Carlson has an excellent list of NT-related primary and secondary stuff but it is also light on methodology. Facts do not exist; they are constructions of methodology, and that is just as true of facts about Jesus as about anything else. Anything not supported by a reliable and publicly available methodology is simply assertions from the Well of Subjectivity. That is why I have included the works by Theissen and Merz, Helms, Evans, Price, Ludemann, and Crossan -- in one way or another they either reflect on or offer different kinds of methodologies. Several other works, such as Stanley Porter's recent work on criteria in HJ research, also do this. Conversely, that is why works like NT Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God and Sanders' The Historical Figure of Jesus are not on this list. The latter does not offer any methodological perspective for understanding the history, and the former is essentially an explication of NT Wright's theology about Jesus.

The lists on the Bibliologs tend to be slanted toward the conservative side of exegesis, one reason I have included the Stephens and Winkler collection of ancient Greek novels. I think many on the conservative side would be quite shocked to find out that the sequence of events at the end of Jesus' career -- entering the city to cheering crowds, being taken for a divine being, getting arrested, having a trial before the local potentate, being tortured, hung on a cross, and surviving it, are staple scenes in Hellenistic fiction. I doubt there is any history of Jesus in the Gospels, save what the writer of Mark brought in from the letters of Paul. In my view, familiarity with the motifs, stereotypes, construction practices, and conventions, of Hellenistic fiction should be mandatory for students of the NT. This problem of ignoring Hellenistic fiction also crops up in work that compares the Gospels to Hellenistic writing -- usually the scholar compares the Jesus stories to Hellenistic biography or history and ignores Hellenistic fiction. (ex: "A question too often neglected" Mattila, S. L. N. T. Stud. v41, 1995, 199-217). The underlying axiom of Gospel research is that the stories are history (criteria of historical presumption), and this is reflected in the choice of comparison. It is time that axiom was given up.....

I followed the links on Michael Pahl's and Steve Carlson's sites, and bumped across this:

Doug Chaplin writes:

Those who approach the historical data wishing to construct an alternative narrative of historical information (and only narrative makes data information in the discipline of history) to that of the gospels will be influenced for example by just how materialistic conception of history they have. Does historical event include, for example, healing (whether presumed to be psychosomatic or inexplicable)? Or exorcism (whether presumed to be a response of faith creating the right circumstances within that culture for the healing of a diseased mind by trust in a more powerful authority figure, or inexplicable)? These are not, strictly speaking, questions of methodology, but part of the basis of an overarching set of presuppositions or philosophical foundations.

I disagree. These are questions of methodology. Scholarly methodology is done by methodological naturalism; anything else is apologetics. Healings would be perfectly acceptable; miraculous healings would not. Many NT writers have attempted to dodge a commitment to scholarship by arguing that methological naturalism amounts to an unscholarly a priori. That is both unscholarly and incorrect. Methodological naturalism is the foundation of western scholarly and scientific work and predates the development of historical Jesus studies. Essentially such arguments put forward by apologists are like ecologists claiming that they needn't pay attention to conservation of energy laws because they are an a priori developed by chemists.

A further problem, quite apart from the claim that materialism is not a question of methodology, is that natural law represents a set of reliable and useful rules that permit others to understand and repeat one's inquiry. Once these are suspended under the rubric of a priori, how can inquiry take place in the utter absence of rules? All that is left is the preferences of the exegete.

Trevor Pinch outlined the problem in one of his books on psychic research and science. Once one suspends natural law, controlled inquiry is not possible. Imagine two test subjects, one in NY and one in Seattle. NY turns over a set of cards, and Seattle nails them, all 25, correctly and in order. Consider one restricted set of possibilities and where they go....

1. Seattle is reading NY's mind with ESP powers
2. Seattle is using clairvoyance to predict what card will be turned over.
3. Seattle is reaching out with telekinesis to re-arrange the cards in NY to the desired order.
4. Seatlle is mind controlling his witnesses in Seattle so that they report only what he wants them to report.
5. A bystander/witness in the experiement is doing 1,2, 3, or 4.
6. Some random non-witness has, for reasons of his own, decided to reach out and touch the experiment with some variation of 1,2,3 or 4.

...this eventually brings us to:

7. The world is simply an imagined event in the mind of Seattle etc.

Given the variety of posited supernatural powers (the Christian God is said to have unlimited power), how can one design a controlled experiment? Once you give up natural law as the basis for inquiry, inquiry must thereupon cease, since without repeatable rules no methodologically sound assertion can be made.

[Christianity] [historical Jesus]

Jesus seen again, on a pierogi

Yes, the rumors are true. If you hurry, you can still get a chance to bid on this Jesus face that appeared on a pierogi.

[Christianity]

Light blogging

I'm snowed under by a blizzard of translation work this month. So light blogging until September here. In the meantime, enjoy some pictures of the local wildlife....

Bethsaida II: Recovering the Original Structure of Mark

In analyzing the Bethsaida section, three other pericopes need to be explored as well. As discussed earlier in this work, the tale of the death of John the Baptist (6:14-29) has been expanded with material from the Book of Esther in a very unMarkan way. The very next pericope, 6:30-44, also seems to be non-Markan. Here is the structure:

A..And they went away in the boat to a lonely place by themselves.

.....B..Now many saw them going, and knew them,
..........and they ran there on foot from all the towns,
..........and got there ahead of them.

..........C..As he went ashore he saw a great throng,
...............and he had compassion on them, because
...............they were like sheep without a shepherd;

...............D..and he began to teach them many things.

....................E..And when it grew late, his disciples came
........................to him and said, "This is a lonely place,
........................and the hour is now late; send them away,
........................to go into the country and villages round
........................about and buy themselves something to eat."

.........................F..But he answered them, "You give them
.............................something to eat."

..............................G..And they said to him, "Shall we go
...................................and buy two hundred denarii worth
...................................of bread, and give it to them to eat?"

...................................H..And he said to them, "How many
........................................loaves have you? Go and see."

...................................H..And when they had found out,
........................................they said, "Five, and two fish."

..............................G..Then he commanded them all to sit
...................................down by companies upon the green
...................................grass.

.........................F..So they sat down in groups, by hundreds
..............................and by fifties.

....................E..And taking the five loaves and the two fish
.........................he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and
.........................broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples
.........................to set before the people; and he divided the two
.........................fish among them all.

...............D..And they all ate and were satisfied.

..........C..And they took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces
...............and of the fish.

.....B..And those who ate the loaves were five thousand men.

A..Immediately he made his disciples get into the boat
.....and go before him to the other side, to Beth-sa'ida, while
.....he dismissed the crowd.

There are several indicators here of a non-Markan hand at work. First, the use of the word compassion, which shows up only in other places where the text appears to have been redacted. Second, the extensive use of narrative in the second half of the structure -- Jesus rarely goes so long in a pericope without uttering something portentious. Third, the completely unMarkan center, which has a very unMarkan rhythm. Compare, if you will, the very Markan center of the Sanhedrin trial (RSV):

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.

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

Note the prolix/pithy balance so common in complex Markan centers. The center of 6:30-44 does not resemble that nice rhythm in any way. Further, the brackets do not balance each other in true Markan style. The outside brackets, BCDE/EDCB can be construed to relate, but the interior brackets FGH/HGF do not relate to each other at all. Compare again the Sanhedrin Trial, where, when Jesus gives his non-answers, in the opposite brackets, Peter denies Jesus. Similarly, in the opening bracket the High Priest accuses Jesus of being Christ, in the paired closing bracket, the maid accuses Peter of being a follower of Jesus. Mark's brackets are usually very tightly structured, whereas the writer of this passage, 6:30-44, did not take the time to make sure the interior worked correctly.

Hence, 6:30-44 is not from the hand of the writer of the original Gospel of Mark.

In addition to 6:14-29 and 6:30-44, another pericope needs to be explored: Mark 10:46-52. This pericope contains the famous verse, Mark 10:46, which many exegetes believes signals that something has been removed. I have deliberately refrained from showing the chiasm for this pericope to give the reader a feel for its rhythm (text is RSV).

A And they came to Jericho; and as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great multitude, Bartimae'us, a blind beggar, the son of Timae'us, was sitting by the roadside.

B And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

C And many rebuked him, telling him to be silent;

D but he cried out all the more, "Son of David, have mercy on me!"

E And Jesus stopped and said, "Call him."

F And they called the blind man, saying to him, "Take heart; rise, he is calling you."

F And throwing off his mantle he sprang up and came to Jesus.

E And Jesus said to him, "What do you want me to do for you?"

D And the blind man said to him, "Master, let me receive my sight."

C And Jesus said to him, "Go your way; your faith has made you well."

B And immediately he received his sight and followed him on the way.

A And when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Beth'phage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, and said to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat; untie it and bring it. If any one says to you, `Why are you doing this?' say, `The Lord has need of it and will send it back here immediately.'"

The first thing to notice about this pericope is the A bracket

And they came to Jericho; and as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great multitude, Bartimae'us, a blind beggar, the son of Timae'us, was sitting by the roadside.

There's absolutely no question that this is unMarkan. The standard Markan A bracket has a location change that is both singular and concrete. Thus, I join with those who say that something has been removed here. In my own view it is most likely to be Mark 7:1-23, in which the scribes come down from Jerusalem. That is easy to see if Jesus is in Jericho on his way to the big city, but difficult to imagine if Jesus is in Galilee.

Another striking thing about this pericope is the center of it. From the C bracket to the B' bracket, this pericope consists entirely of brackets containing a single action, with the exception of the center F' bracket. This kind of rhythm is entirely unMarkan. I do not believe that this pericope is from the hand of the original writer of Mark.

Yet another sign of unMarkan origin is the pericope's allusion to Plato through the name of its central character, Bar-Timaeus. In Plato's dialogue of the same name, Timaeus, it is not difficult to find the parallel between Jesus -- about to be executed -- and Socrates -- eventually to be executed, as well as Peter, James, and John, and Socrates' three friends. Socrates, like Jesus, is a tekton. Bar-Timaeus is blind, and Timaeus has a discussion of optics and the physics of the eye. Like Jesus, Socrates will enlighten his companions as to the truth. The name stinks of literary invention, and this would make it the only pericope in Mark with an origin in Plato or some other Hellenistic literature. All in all, this pericope would not seem to be from the hand of the original writer of Mark.

Let us now summarize our findings about the long interpolated section that starts in Mark 6 and continues to Mark 10 (and probably into Mark 11 as well). This list strikes out everything not original to Mark, according to my analysis. Redacted but original text is in bold.

Mk 6:14-29 Herod executes John the Baptist
Mk 6:45-56 Jesus walks on water
Mk 8:1-13 The second feeding miracle, of 4000
Mk 8:22-26 Jesus heals a blind man, who sees men like trees walking
Mk 8:27-33 Jesus makes first Passion prediction; "Get thee behind me, Satan!"
Mk 8:34-38 Jesus says you must deny yourself and take up cross to follow him
Mk 9:1-13 Jesus is transfigured on a mountain with Moses and Elijah
Mk 9:14-29 Jesus heals an epileptic that the disciples failed to heal
Mk 9:30-37 Jesus makes his second Passion prediction
Mk 9:38-41 Whoever is not with me is against me....
Mk 9:42-50 If your hand offends you, cut it off; salted with fire
Mk 10:1-12 Teachings on divorce
Mk 10:13-16 Kingdom belongs to children
Mk 10:17-31 The rich getting into heaven is like a camel.....
Mk 10:32-34 Jesus makes his third Passion prediction
Mk 10:35-45 James and John want to be at Jesus' right hand
Mk 7:1-23 Pharisees criticize Jesus for eating with unwashed hands (moved)

Note how this would flank the Temple episode with iterations of Psalm 110 and 118 in Mark 10-11 and Mark 12, and with Pauline material in Mark 10 (divorce and food laws) and in Mark 12 (taxes and love). It is likely that other parts of this narrative have been re-arranged, but the unsettled nature of the narrative section makes it difficult to tell.

Does the Gospel of Mark have a chiastic structure, as many exegetes have posited? It seems almost impossible that it does not, given the writer's obvious interest in recursive structures, but reconstructing it is extraordinarily difficult. Most exegetes tend to place the pivot point of the Gospel in Mark 8, where Jesus is spotted as the Christ by Peter. But Mark's smaller structures do not pivot on theologically important material, but on material that is dramatic for narrative purposes. For example, the center of the Sanhedrin Trial and Peter's denial is Jesus getting beaten by the guards. The Crucifixion centers on Jesus being mocked. A glance at other centers will show that theologically important material is generally outside the center. Hence, it is likely that the center of chiasm is not where exegetes put it, in Mark 8, but where the narrative pivots, at the fateful decision to cleanse the Temple, or in Mark 9, where the Transfiguration links the Baptism and the Crucifixion.

It is easy to pick out oppositions on either side of this divide. For example, front and back offer a sequence of 5 conflict stories and a major parable. Each parable structures the forthcoming narrative. Pauline material flanks either side of the Temple Cleansing. One might oppose the Gerasene Demoniac to Jesus' predictions in Mark 13, while John's announcement of Jesus' entry into the world surely parallels the now lost ending where Jesus exits the world and the disciples are sent out into it to preach. However, the element of subjectivity in such speculations is too high to be convincing.

In the next post we'll take a look at the larger structure of the Gospel.

The Bethsaida Section in Mark

Introduction

Helmut Koester, one of the most important and influential New Testament scholars, has spent a career studying the Gospels. One of his most important arguments is that the so-called "Bethsaida Section" of Mark (Mark 6:45-8:26) is an interpolation by a later redactor. In 6:45 Jesus goes to Bethsaida, and again in 8:22 Jesus is reported as going to Bethsaida. After that Jesus makes his sole visit to Caesarea Philippi, and Bethsaida vanishes from Mark.

For Koester, the signal that something is amiss lies in the fact that nothing in this section is reproduced in Luke. Koester (1990) argues that although it is possible that Luke's copy of Mark was simply missing some pages, certain features of the Bethsaida Section differentiate it from the rest of the Gospel of Mark.

First, the Bethsaida section is characterized by doublets of material from elsewhere in the Gospel. The water walk in Mark 6:45-56 doubles the similar event in Mk 4:35-41. The second feeding miracle, Mark 8:1-13, is a manifest double of the first in Mark 6:30-44. There are two healings of a blind man in the Gospel, Mark 8:22-26 and Mk 10:46-52, and as Beavis has noted, Mk 8:22-26 is a structural double of Mk 8:27-33. Two of the healings, Mk 7:31-37 and Mk 8:22-26, are the only two in the Gospel where Jesus heals through manipulation (elsewhere he heals by word, gesture, simple touch, or taking of the hand). These two healings are missing in Matthew. Several peculiarities of the Greek may also indicate another writer's hand. For example, a Greek verb meaning "to understand" occurs four times in the Bethsaida but only once outside of it. Koester argues that Matthew knew an expanded version of Mark that had the Bethsaida section, while Luke did not.

In this essay I will use the structural features of Mark to analyze the Bethsaida section. Several important conclusions will emerge. First, the tampering in Mark is far more pervasive than is generally recognized by scholars, extending from 6:14 all the way to the end of Mark 10. Second, this section does not consist of material that is either Markan or not Markan in strictly dichotomous fashion, but in fact is a mix of genuine Mark imported whole from elsewhere, genuine Mark than has been redacted, and non-Markan pericopes inserted as a whole units. After the Bethsaida section has been analyzed, the larger structure of Mark will be explored.

Bethsaida by the Pericope: Analysis

• Mark 6:45-56

The Bethsaida section is generally held to begin at 6:45, although Dart placed it a couple of verses earlier. For those who cannot instantly recall, including this writer, Mk 6:45-56 is the Water Walk by Jesus. The pericope is generally held to be a doublet of Mark 4:35-51 and appears to be a creation from the OT. It also contains parallels to similar pagan stories. Here is the structure (Mark text from RSV):

A..Immediately he made his disciples get into the boat
......and go before him to the other side, to Beth-sa'ida,
......while he dismissed the crowd. And after he had taken
......leave of them, he went up on the mountain to pray.

.....B..And when evening came, the boat was out on the sea,
..........and he was alone on the land.

...........C..And he saw that they were making headway
................painfully, for the wind was against them.

.................D..And about the fourth watch of the night
......................he came to them, walking on the sea.

........................E..He meant to pass by them, but when
.............................they saw him walking on the sea they
.............................thought it was a ghost, and cried out;

........................E..for they all saw him, and were terrified.

.................D..But immediately he spoke to them and said,
......................"Take heart, it is I; have no fear."

...........C..And he got into the boat with them
................and the wind ceased.

.....B..And they were utterly astounded,
..........for they did not understand about the loaves,
..........but their hearts were hardened.

A..And when they had crossed over,
.....they came to land at Gennes'aret,
.....and moored to the shore.

This pericope is originally from the hand of the writer of Mark, but it has been tampered with. The center (E/E') is very Markan -- it has the prolix/pithy rhythm of a true Markan center, and the second part is a summary of the first. In Markan centers one bracket typically summarizes and comments on or explains the other, with one bracket often much longer. For example:

D...That evening, at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons.

D'..And the whole city was gathered together about the door.

Note how the second sentence simply repeats the information given in the first, but in a way that stresses it. Such repetition is also common in the Old Testament. Another example:

F...And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

F'..And he said this plainly.

Again, we have the pattern of long-short, with the second bracket not adding information to the first, but simply stressing it. Here's another with the doubled center pattern:

E.....A...And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!"

.......B...And the disciples were amazed at his words.

E'....A...But Jesus said to them again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

.......B...And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, "Then who can be saved?"

Here we have the common long-short pattern, doubled. There are several pericopes with this pattern.

However, in Mark 6:45-56 tampering has occurred in the B' bracket:

.....B..And they were utterly astounded,
..........for they did not understand about the loaves,
..........but their hearts were hardened.

The opening phrase in blue is certainly Markan. Many of the writer's B' brackets contain similar expressions of awe at the power or wit of Jesus. Compare the B' bracket in Mk 2:1-12 (healing of the paralytic):

B'..so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying,
......"We never saw anything like this!"

or Mk 12:13-17 (render unto Caesar)

B'..And they were amazed at him.

However, the verses in red are very unMarkan, spoiling the rhythm of the pericope, and containing the kind of explanation that the writer of Mark rarely engages in. The theme of hearts hardening occurs only in Mark 8:14-21 which is blatantly unMarkan, and is probably an insertion here by the redactor who also inserted that pericope. On the whole this section of Mark 6:45-56 is an original Markan creation.

The summary that follows has the following structure:

A..And when they had crossed over, they came to land at
.....Gennes'aret, and moored to the shore.

.....B..And when they got out of the boat, immediately
..........the people recognized him, and ran about the
..........whole neighborhood and began to bring sick people
..........on their pallets to any place where they heard he was.

.....B..And wherever he came, in villages, cities, or country,
..........they laid the sick in the market places, and besought him
..........that they might touch even the fringe of his garment;
...........and as many as touched it were made well.

A..Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him,
.....with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem,
.....they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled,
.....that is, unwashed.

This type of narrative summary has parallels elsewhere in the Gospel and is probably from the writer of Mark as well. However, the bracketing is not easy, because there is a verse that signals that the structure has been disrupted.

.....B..And wherever he came, in villages, cities, or country,
..........they laid the sick in the market places, and besought him
..........that they might touch even the fringe of his garment;
...........and as many as touched it were made well.

Typically in Mark text like that in red above, where "And...." begins a concluding summary of the previous action, signals the beginning of a new bracket. The original structure was probably ABCCBA, but Mk 7:1-23 has been interpolated at this point and at least one verse has gone AWOL here.

• Mark 7:1-23

I recently blogged on this important pericope. The structure of it first.....

A..Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes,
....who had come from Jerusalem, they saw ..that some of his disciples ate
....with hands defiled, that is, unwashed.

........B..(For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands,
.............observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market
.............place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many
.............other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and
.............vessels of bronze.) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do
.............your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders,
.............but eat with hands defiled?"

...............C..A And he said to them,"Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites,
........................as it is written,

........................B.. `This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far
...............................from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines
...............................the precepts of men.'

...................................C..You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast
........................................the tradition of men."

...............C..A..And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the
........................commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!

........................B..For Moses said, `Honor your father and your mother';
.............................and, `He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him
.............................surely die';

...................................C..but you say, `If a man tells his father or his
........................................mother, What you would have gained from me is
........................................Corban' (that is, given to God) -- then you no longer
........................................permit him to do anything for his father or mother,
........................................thus making void the word of God through your
........................................tradition which you hand on. And many such things
........................................you do."

........B..And he called the people to him again, and said to them, "Hear me,
.............all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a man which by
.............going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man
.............are what defile him."

A..And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples
....asked him about the parable.

The center has a paired triplet structure seen elsewhere in Mark (the Calling of Peter, James and John, for example). If you unpack it, it looks like this

A ACCUSATION
B QUOTE OF SCRIPTURE
C EXPLANATION OF HOW TRADITION IS REJECTED BY PHARISEES

This is the signature of the true writer of Mark, and this entire pericope is from his hand. The pericope is followed by a discussion of the significance of the exchange.

A..And when he had entered the house, and left the people,
......his disciples asked him about the parable.

.....B..And he said to them, "Then are you also without
..........understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes
..........into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it
..........enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes
.........on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

.....B..And he said, "What comes out of a man is what
..........defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of
..........man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder,
..........adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness,
..........envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things
..........come from within, and they defile a man."

A..And from there he arose and went away to the region of
.....Tyre and Sidon.

This too is very Markan, with the explanation given in a separate structure, inside a house. Mk 7:1-23 is unquestionably from the hand of the writer of Mark in its entirety.

• Mark 7:24-30

This pericope is non-Markan and has been created and inserted as unit. My rules for analyzing structures in Mark will create a chiastic structure for this pericope, but not a Markan one.

A..And from there he arose and went away
......to the region of Tyre and Sidon.

.....B..And he entered a house, and would not have
...........any one know it; yet he could not be hid.

..........C..But immediately a woman, whose little daughter
...............was possessed by an unclean spirit, heard of him,
...............and came and fell down at his feet.

................D..Now the woman was a Greek,
......................a Syrophoeni'cian by birth.

......................E..And she begged him to cast the
...........................demon out of her daughter.

......................E..And he said to her, "Let the children first
..........................be fed, for it is not right to take the children's
..........................bread and throw it to the dogs."

..............D..But she answered him, "Yes, Lord; yet even the
...................dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."

.........C..And he said to her, "For this saying you may go
..............your way; the demon has left your daughter."

.....B..And she went home, and found the child lying in bed,
..........and the demon gone.

A..Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went through
......Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, through the region of the Decap'olis.

The non-Markan nature of this pericope is signaled by several things, but for our purposes the central structure -- or lack thereof -- is the key:

......................E..And he said to her, "Let the children first
..........................be fed, for it is not right to take the children's
..........................bread and throw it to the dogs."

..............D..But she answered him, "Yes, Lord; yet even the
...................dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."

.........C..And he said to her, "For this saying you may go
..............your way; the demon has left your daughter."

This is a triparte exchange, and there is nothing else like it in Mark. There is no way to bracket it to yield a proper Markan chiasm with a prolix/pithy center. Nor do ask/answered questions typically occur in Markan centers. The chiasm here is simply a pleasing ordering of the verses, but it is not a real Markan structure. Hence, this pericope is non-Markan. It should be noted that numerous exegetes have drawn attention to the fact that it seems to authorize a mission to the Gentiles, which makes it anachronistic. On the whole, the writer of Mark never wrote this.

• Mark 7:31-37

This pericope is also non-Markan, although it has a superficially Markan feel that may indicate simply very heavy redaction.

A..Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went through Sidon to
the Sea of Galilee, through the region of the Decap'olis.

.....B..And they brought to him a man who was deaf and had an impediment
..........in his speech; and they besought him to lay his hand upon him.

..........C..And taking him aside from the multitude privately, he put his
...............fingers into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue;

................D..and looking up to heaven, he sighed, and said to him,
...................."Eph'phatha," that is, "Be opened."

................D..And his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and
.....................he spoke plainly.

..........C..And he charged them to tell no one; but the more he charged
...............them, the more zealously they proclaimed it.

.....B..And they were astonished beyond measure, saying, "He has done
..........all things well; he even makes the deaf hear and the dumb speak."

A..In those days, when again a great crowd had gathered, and they had
.....nothing to eat, he called his disciples to him, and said to them,

Note how each bracket consists of verses that are simple statements. The writer of Mark typically varies the length of his brackets, and the centers usually have a nice rhythm. Note also how the A' bracket does not signal a concrete change of location, but simply announces that the scene is over and has shifted. The writer of Mark likes to use concrete locations when he shifts to a new pericope. None of those is definite, but the non-Markan pattern and habits signal that this one is probably not from the writer of Mark either.

• Mark 8:1-13

This pericope is a literary creation based on the tale of the miraculous feeding in Elijah that was already used in Mark 6. The question here is who bears responsibility for this.

Observe first how the A bracket is long, and contains a wordy explanation of Jesus' plans. In other words, the first verse sets up the action of the pericope in a very wordy way, which is highly unusual in Mark. This verse thus strikes me as having been extensively modified, if original to the writer of Mark. Note how the term "compassion" is used, which occurs also in another pericope I consider tampered with, as well as in Mk 1, where Jesus has compassion on the beggar, and which Bart Ehrman has argued persuasively is an insertion. "Compassion" here may well signal tampering.

A..In those days, when again a great crowd had gathered,
.....and they had nothing to eat, he called his disciples to
.....him, and said to them, "I have compassion on the crowd,
.....because they have been with me now three days, and
.....have nothing to eat; and if I send them away hungry to
.....their homes, they will faint on the way; and some of them
.....have come a long way."

.....B..And his disciples answered him, "How can one feed
...........these men with bread here in the desert?"

..........C..And he asked them, "How many loaves have you?"

...............D..They said, "Seven."

....................E..A..And he commanded the crowd to sit down
..............................on the ground; and he took the seven loaves,
..............................and having given thanks he broke them and
..............................gave them to his disciples to set before the
..............................people;

.........................B..and they set them before the crowd.

....................E..A..And they had a few small fish; and having
..............................blessed them, he commanded that these also
..............................should be set before them.

.........................B..And they ate, and were satisfied;

...............D..and they took up the broken pieces left over,
....................seven baskets full.

..........C..And there were about four thousand people.

.....B..And he sent them away;

A..and immediately he got into the boat with his disciples,
.....and went to the district of Dalmanu'tha.

Here in the A' bracket we have returned to the usual pattern of the writer of Mark, a concrete location change. All in all, I suspect this one is originally from the writer of Mark, with modifications. The "sign" saying that caps it is most probably from the writer of Mark as well, since it appears to draw on Paul (1 Cor 1:22-3).

• Mark 8:14-21

This hideous pericope was someone else's unclever design. It is possible to form a chiastic structure with my rules here, but it is merely an artistic arrangement of sentences and not a true Markan pericope (I'm not going to bother to block it out properly.

A And he left them, and getting into the boat again he departed to the other side.

B Now they had forgotten to bring bread; and they had only one loaf with them in the boat.

C And he cautioned them, saying, "Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees
and the leaven of Herod."

D And they discussed it with one another, saying, "We have no bread."

E And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, "Why do you discuss the fact that you
have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened?
Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember?
When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets
full of broken pieces did you take up?"

E They said to him, "Twelve."

D "And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?"

C And they said to him, "Seven."

B And he said to them, "Do you not yet understand?"

A And they came to Beth-sa'ida. And some people brought to him a blind man,
and begged him to touch him.

It is obvious that the set of questions in EEDC does not form a true Markan center, since the discourse is unbalanced between first and second half. Numerous exegetes have commented on the enigmatic nature of this discourse, and on Jesus' strange behavior. This pericope was never from the hand of the writer of Mark.

Next Post in this Series: Further Analysis of Related Pericopes in Mark

[Christianity] [historical Jesus] [Gospel of Mark]