Workload eases...more stuff coming up!

Finally killed the last of a major run of work...looking forward to reviews of the Embarrassment criterion and the Crucifixion, and the fruitcake ideas of an Italian academic who has decided the Gospels are really the story of the death of Julius Caesar, as well as updates to my Markan chiasms, and book reviews of Fowler's Let the Reader Understand and Bowersock's Fiction as History.

Mark in Chiasms, Completed and Annotated.

I have completed the chiastic structure of each pericope for the entire gospel and updated all my previous work. This laying out of Mark has paid dividends in my understanding of the author's original intention, and highlighted interpolations, redactions, and other text-critical issues. It has also shown the reason for many odd Markan habits, such as his doublets and duplications, and other puzzling features of Mark. In many cases these features signal the beginning of brackets.

To see the entire gospel laid out chiastically, with my comments on the side, go here. The page contains two large .jpg files -- the only way I could make sure it loaded up properly in each type of browser -- with my comments.

For the rules used in constructing these chiasms, please see the previous post here. There's still quite a bit of tinkering left, and I'll make a note of final adjustments and further comments on this site.

Michael

Chiasm Rules Update #2

I've expanded the rules for making Markan Chiasms. As I expand the rules, I am updating previous structures, today adding Rule 9 to yesterday's Rule 8. For updated Chiasms, see the second excursus to Mark 16 on my commentary.

1. Markan A brackets are almost always people shifting location

2. The A' of the previous pericope is always the A of the next one -- that is the only rule the writer never violates.

3. Actions may constitute separate brackets.

And they laid hands on him and seized him.

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

And Jesus said to them, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled."

5. 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.." For example, In Mark 10, Jesus says:

14: But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 15: Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."

This saying is two brackets, one directed at the apostles, and one the general saying.

But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."

6. Actions plus speeches may be a bracket:

Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, "The one I shall kiss is the man; seize him and lead him away under guard."

7. Actions plus speech followed by actions/descriptions are never a separate bracket. This is an incorrect bracket:

And when he came, he went up to him at once, and said, "Master!" And he kissed him.

Hence, wherever "And" signals a new action, seemingly tacked on to the end of the verse; even where it is placed in the same verse, it is wrong (Mark is wrongly pericoped and versified). The correct bracketing here is.

C: And when he came, he went up to him at once, and said, "Master!"
D: And he kissed him.

Similarly, Mark 14:4-5 is wrongly versified.

4: But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment thus wasted? 5: For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor." And they reproached her.

The actual verses, in line with the writer's original thinking, should read:

4: But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment thus wasted? For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor."
5: And they reproached her.

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

And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years, and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse.She had heard the reports about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. For she said, "If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well."

The "For..." signals the beginning of a new bracket.

And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years, and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse.She had heard the reports about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment.

For she said, "If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well."

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

And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.

This should properly be:

And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it.

When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.

Similarly, in the Gerasene Demoniac Scene:

And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped him; and crying out with a loud voice, he said, "What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me."

"And when he saw Jesus from afar...." signals the beginning of a new bracket.

Chiasms: Mark 11:27-13:1

Here is 11:27-13:1. All that is needed is to do 11:1-27, which has been surprisingly resistant, and then revise a few in the section from 8:22 to 11:1, and I can offer the entire back end of Mark, chiasmed more or less properly. Here's a look at what I've done today.

Mark 13: Chiastic structure

I finally cracked Mark 13, having the experience of Mark 4 (groan! now gotta go back and redo that!). The sequence breaks out by Jesus' warnings to heed, the marker "Truly I say...", and by shifts in the target of Jesus' declarations. Where a speaker shifts to a new target in a speech, a new bracket is warranted. As always, you can see the updated chiasms on my Commentary.

Latest Rules for Putting Together Markan Chiasms

I've expanded the rules for making Markan Chiasms. As I expand the rules, I am updating previous structures. For updated Chiasms, see the second excursus to Mark 16 on my commentary.

1. Markan A brackets are almost always people shifting location

2. The A' of the previous pericope is always the A of the next one -- that is the only rule the writer never violates.

3. Actions may constitute separate brackets.

And they laid hands on him and seized him.

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

And Jesus said to them, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled."

5. 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.." For example, In Mark 10, Jesus says:

14: But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 15: Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."

This saying is two brackets, one directed at the apostles, and one the general saying.

But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."

6. Actions plus speeches may be a bracket:

Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, "The one I shall kiss is the man; seize him and lead him away under guard."

7. Actions plus speech followed by actions/descriptions are never a separate bracket. This is an incorrect bracket:

And when he came, he went up to him at once, and said, "Master!" And he kissed him.

Hence, wherever "And" signals a new action, seemingly tacked on to the end of the verse; even where it is placed in the same verse, it is wrong (Mark is wrongly pericoped and versified). The correct bracketing here is.

C: And when he came, he went up to him at once, and said, "Master!"
D: And he kissed him.

Similarly, Mark 14:4-5 is wrongly versified.

4: But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment thus wasted? 5: For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor." And they reproached her.

The actual verses, in line with the writer's original thinking, should read:

4: But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment thus wasted? For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor."
5: And they reproached her.

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

And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years, and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse.She had heard the reports about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. For she said, "If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well."

The "For..." signals the beginning of a new bracket.

Chiastic Structure: Mark 1:14-6:13

Hi y'all. Sick yet?

I mapped everything from 1:14-6:13 today. No doubt some tinkering will still be required. I take no responsibility for the parable section in Mark 4, it makes not one whit of sense. I stopped at 6:13 as the execution of JBap was so long and involved, and the rules for putting it all together are not clear to me. I did make a very nice chiasm out of it that pivoted on the doublet of the KIng's promise, but the brackets don't talk to each other beautifully like Markan brackets so often do. I also took a shot at the Water Walk but it is gibberish.

All the old chiasms I made for my Commentary were wrong, though the direction was right.

I didn't do Mark 1:1-14 because I don't know how to treat Mark 1:1-3. Yet.

Here ya' go:

Chiasms in Mark 8:22-11:1

Here are the structures for Mark 8:22-11:1. There are several that I am not satisfied with, and I rejected the ones I constructed in the Bethsaida section. Even the opening couple here are not very satisfying.

Mark 10: The chiasm

Here is Mark 10:1-11:1 pericoped in all its glory. I have relied on the following insights in constructing this.

1. Markan A brackets are almost always people shifting location

2. The A' of the previous pericope is always the A of the next one -- that is the only rule the writer never violates.

3. Actions may constitute separate brackets.

And they laid hands on him and seized him.

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

And Jesus said to them, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled."

5. 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.." For example, In Mark 10, Jesus says:

14: But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 15: Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."

This saying is two brackets, one directed at the apostles, and one the general saying.

But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."

6. Actions plus speeches may be a bracket:

Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, "The one I shall kiss is the man; seize him and lead him away under guard."

7. Actions plus speech followed by actions/descriptions are never a separate bracket. This is an incorrect bracket:

And when he came, he went up to him at once, and said, "Master!" And he kissed him.

Hence, wherever "And" signals a new action, seemingly tacked on to the end of the verse; even where it is placed in the same verse, it is wrong (Mark is wrongly pericoped and versified). The correct bracketing here is.

C: And when he came, he went up to him at once, and said, "Master!"
D: And he kissed him.

Similarly, Mark 14:4-5 is wrongly versified.

4: But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment thus wasted? 5: For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor." And they reproached her.

The actual verses, in line with the writer's original thinking, should read:

4: But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment thus wasted? For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor."
5: And they reproached her.

Here is the chiasm for Mark 10:1-11:1. Note that the chiastic structure gives a doubled geographic reference in the famous suspected "Jericho" deletion. Given the rules Mark uses, this doubled reference is now powerful evidence that a pericope has been removed.

The first pericopes are a bit funky and I may have to adjust them; I have since found this situation of tiny structures elsewhere in Mark. But after that they become complex and solidly balanced structures real fast.

Why is Mark linked to Peter? Maybe....

I got to thinking -- a bad habit when you have 40,000 chinese characters awaiting translation -- and revisited Mk 16:2-8 to see if I could create a chiasm. The problem is that 16:8 cannot possibly be the end of the gospel, because there is no A' bracket involving geographical location/ movement to balance the A bracket.......

A And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.

B And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?"

C And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; -- it was very large.

D And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.

D And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."

C And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them;

B and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

A It was the last day of the feast of the unleavened bread and many people were going out, returning to their houses since the festival was over.

...so, with cheerful disregard for good methodology, I leapt over to the Gospel of Peter to borrow the last line. It doesn't really work -- there's no transition there between B' and A', and the C' and B' brackets are doublets that suggest they originally might have been the center of the chiasm -- but while I was rooting around in Gospel of Peter, I realized that if Mark had originally written an ending that resembled GPeter, the legend of his connection to Mark might have its roots there. Here's the last section of GPeter:

"(58) It was the last day of the feast of the unleavened bread and many people were going out, returning to their houses since the festival was over. (59) But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, were weeping and grieving, and although everyone was mourning because of what had happened, each departed for his own house. (60) But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew took our nets and went out to the sea. And with us was Levi, the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord [. . .]"

Imagine if early versions of Mark had a sudden shift to the first person at that point, with Peter as the narrator (GPeter almost certainly knows the Synoptics). Then the legend of Mark's connection to Peter originated as an etiological myth to explain why the "I" suddenly cropped out in the now-vanished ending.

Just a suggestion.

Unveiled at Last! The Chiastic Structure of Mark 14-16

To heck with work.

Here is Mark 14-16:2 pericoped in all its glory. I have relied on the following insights in constructing this.

Rules:

* Markan A brackets are almost always geographical movement. The A' of the previous pericope is always the A of the next one -- that is the only rule the writer never violates.

*actions may constitute separate brackets.

• And they laid hands on him and seized him.

*Speeches, regardless of length, may constitute separate brackets, so long as they are one speech.

• And Jesus said to them, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled."

*speeches may be broken up if there there appears to be a natural demarcation between two parts.

*actions plus speeches may be a bracket

• Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, "The one I shall kiss is the man; seize him and lead him away under guard."

*actions plus speech followed by actions/descriptions are never a separate bracket. This is an incorrect bracket:

• And when he came, he went up to him at once, and said, "Master!" And he kissed him.

Wherever "And" signals a new action, seemingly tacked on to the end of the verse; even where it is placed in the same verse, it is wrong (Mark is wrongly pericoped and versified). The correct bracketing here is.

• C: And when he came, he went up to him at once, and said, "Master!"
  D: And he kissed him.

Similarly, Mark 14:4-5 is wrongly versified.

• 4: But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment thus wasted?
  5: For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor." And they reproached her.

The actual verses, in line with the writer's original thinking, should read:

• 4: But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment thus wasted? For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor."
  5: And they reproached her.

Notes: to complete these chiasms will require the restoration of two verses, one in Mark 14, where Jesus tells the would-be attacker to put up his sword, and the other in Mark 15, to oppose the Centurion's confession (see below). The former verse was proposed as missing almost a century ago, the latter to my knowledge has not yet been proposed. It is clear that the Gospel of Mark very badly needs new versification, pericoping, and chapter divisions.

Enjoy! Explanations tomorrow.

Clobbered by work...

I'm off line for a couple of days as I am overwhelmed with translation work. Looking forward to essays on the Embarrassment Criterion and the Crucifixion, more chiasms, and other fun stuff in March!

The Chiasm in the Crucifixion: Some Surprising Discoveries

I went back and redid the chiasm in Mark 15:21-41. First I found that my original construction was incorrect because it did not include Mark 15:40-41. I have also discovered that, most likely, a verse has gone AWOL in Mark. See discussion below.



First, the text-critical issues. It is clear that no verse now opposes 15:39. There are several possible solutions.

(1) 15:39 is interpolated, most likely back-interpolated from Matthew

(2) The B bracket is missing.

(3) A balancing verse has been removed, but is still preserved in Matthew.

I believe that the correct answer is (3). The C bracket currently has three elements:

A: And they offered him wine mingled with myrrh; but he did not take it.
B: And they crucified him,
C: and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take

In Matthew there is a verse following this sequence:

[then they sat down and kept watch over him there.] (Mt 27:36)

That neatly opposes the centurion's declaration in 15:39. By adding that to the C bracket (and waving good-bye to the B bracket), we now get:

A: And they offered him wine mingled with myrrh; but he did not take it.
B: And they crucified him,
C: and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take
D: then they sat down and kept watch over him there.

This beautifully parallels the C' bracket in this scene with 15:39 added:

A: And some of the bystanders hearing it said, "Behold, he is calling Eli'jah."And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink, saying, "Wait, let us see whether Eli'jah will come to take him down."
B: and Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed his last.
C:And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.
D: And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that he thus breathed his last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!"

My personal conclusion is that a verse is missing in Mark, and should be restored. The reader is invited to take their pick of (1), (2), or (3).

The A brackets also neatly parallel each other:

A: And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyre'ne.... the father of Alexander and Rufus,
A': There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo'me,

A: who was coming in from the country,
A': when he was in Galilee,

A: to carry his cross.
A': followed him, and ministered to him;

A: And they brought him to the place called Gol'gotha (which means the place of a skull).
A': and also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem.

In this final bracket a Markan theme is exhibited -- a mountain (Golgotha) opposes Jerusalem.

This provides, I think, strong evidence that both ends of this chiasm are literary creations. At least one set of these people, and probably both, never existed. Certainly the events did not occur as depicted.

Note also how there is a mother of two sons, just as Simon is the father of two sons.

The Final Piece: The Chiasm in the Mocking Scene

Here is the chiasm in Mark 15:16-20.



All of the pieces of the trial and crucifixion are now assembled. It's clear that Dart was right about almost everything except Markan centers, which are complex. Here the writer of Mark alternated the centers. Going by the centers only....

Sanhedrin Trial: ABAB
Pilate Trial: ABBA
Mocking Scene: ABAB
Crucifixion: ABBA

A clear pattern.

I'll have the crucifixion up in a few minutes after I tinker with it a little.

Modeling Mark's Chiasms: Mark 14, the Sanhedrin Trial

Sorry about the hiatus! Work overwhelmed me the past few days.

Here is the beautiful chiasm in Mark 14. I now have the entire chiastic structure from Mark 14:53 to Mark 15:39 laid out, I need to spiffy up some details and reconfigure Dart's chiasm for the mockery scene. I should have the whole thing laid out tomorrow night. Thanks to Joe Wallack over at Infidels for an important clue to how this one works, and also Gerd Ludemann's Jesus After 2000 Years. Enjoy!



Mark's chiasms are very complex, and this one here is a variant of his most common ABBA center; it goes ABAB.

This just realized: the final A' in there should be Mark 15:1
And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him to Pilate.

Sorry!

Modeling Mark's Chiasms: Mark 10

I've nailed the model Markan chiasm. Here's another example, from Mark 10.



The pattern is typical of Markan chiasms, opening and closing with geographical movement, and having the usual ABBA center. The A brackets contain movement, the B brackets oppose two miniature chiasms built around Jesus/God and last/first. The E brackets both contain messages about leaving everything to follow Jesus, while the F brackets represent another pattern often seen in Mark, where a problem is posed in the first bracket whose solution is expounded in the opposite bracket. Thus How can the rich enter the Kingdom? is solved by observing that with God, all things are possible. The G brackets contain a obvious miniature chiasm that integrates the chreia structure into the chiasm as a whole. The structure of the C/D brackets is flexible and may be collapsed into one bracket.

One thing I like about Mark is the role that chreia structures play in the center of his chiasms.....more to come.

Previous articles on chiastic structures in Mark:
Mark 15:1-15
Mark Definitely Knew and Used Paul

Mounce is here!

I've decided to learn Koine as my project for this year, and I was delighted to find Mounce's Greek For The Rest of Us and Basics of Biblical Greek (workbook), along with Davis' Beginner's Grammar of the Greek New Testament in my mailbox courtesy of Amazon yesterday. Watch out, world! Soon I shall be moving from being completely ignorant to completely wrong!

For those interested in some self-study, Peter Kirby is leading a study group entitled Greek Study with Mounce over at Ebla Forums aimed at tyros like your trusty writer. The hardworking Kirby, whom I have on good authority is actually a set of triplets, is well known for his many websites, including the wonderful Early Christian Writings.

Secret Mark, Mark's Secrets: Decoding Mark

Decoding Mark
John Dart
Trinity Press International (October 1, 2003), 213 pages

Decoding Mark is a fascinating book in many ways, full of speculation on the meaning and literary structure of the Gospel of Mark, two topics near and dear to my own heart. This is a useful book, rich with suggestions, ideas, insights, and marred only by Dart's acceptance of the forged gospel fragment of Secret Mark as authentic text from an early redactor, and reverence for its probable forger, Morton Smith. Despite the importance of this fraud in the construction of his book, his commitment to it is less damaging than one might think at first glance, as we will soon see.

Exegetes who have written on Mark basically fall into two groups: those who see the writer of Mark as a dullard with poor Greek, and those who, Crossan's words, find it difficult to overestimate the brilliance and creativity of its author. Dart, the news editor of the Christian Century magazine, is among the latter, and hence, in my view, one of those who truly understand the Gospel of Mark.

Decoding Mark is aimed at the educated lay reader and thus Dart begins the work by inviting the reader to take a look at Secret Mark in the first two chapters. Secret Mark is an additional passage of the Gospel of Mark discovered by the scholar Morton Smith in an Israeli monastery in the 1950s. The manuscript has never been found, and many scholars doubt its authenticity. After this titillating glance into the nuts and bolts of academic conference making, arguments over the authenticity of Secret Mark, Dart then begins to attack the problem of what Original Mark might have looked like. In this he follows the trail blazed by Helmut Koester and others, attempting to discern what the Gospel of Mark must have looked like prior to getting worked over by later redactors.

Dart follows in the tracks of many other scholars in seeing Mark as a carefully arranged set of chiastic structures. While many exegetes, including this writer, see chiasms in Mark, none of us agree on their exact construction. For example, Dart writes:

"Mark uses no double or matching midpoints. That is, you'll find, not ABCC'B'A' but ABCB'A'. Chiasms in some other ancient texts may have twin centers, but not in Original Mark."

whereas I see Mark's complex centers as the real clue to his genius, and believe he does use twinned centers. Nevertheless, on most things his approach is excellent, focusing on building chiasms out of keywords and linked motifs and ideas. For example, his chiasm in Mark 6:1-6 (p70) runs:

A 1: He went away from there and came to his own country; and his disciples followed him. 2: And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him?
.....B What mighty works are wrought by his hands!
.........C 3: Is not this 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 took offense at him.
.........C' 4: And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."
.....B 5: And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them.
A 6: And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went about among the villages teaching.

This lays out Dart's system, based on keyword structures. It is very convincing and in the main correct, except that he has the center wrong, because of his misunderstanding how the centers of Markan chiasms work. In Mark the chiasms are actually triumphs of complexity. This chiasm actually looks like this, in my view:

A He went away from there and came to his own country; and his disciples followed him.
.....B And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, "
.........C Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands!
..............D......A Is not this 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 took offense at him.
.............D'......B' And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor,
......................A' except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."
.........C' And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them.
.....B' And he marveled because of their unbelief.
A' And he went about among the villages teaching.

A and A', as typical in Mark, involve geographic movements. In B and B', the crowd marvels at Jesus, probably ironically, while he marvels back at them. In C and C' the theme of mighty works appears. The D and D' structure have at the core the common ABB'A' structure so characteristic of Markan interiors, with element pairs of family and kin opposed to each other in A and A', while B and B' give us offense as opposed to honor. Note that the center structure inherently opposes Jesus to the crowd: they take offense at him, so he says to them, another chiastic pattern. What Dart has missed is that the writer of Mark often integrates chreia, witty sayings common among philosophical schools in antiquity, into the centers or ends of his chiasms. Mark 6:4 is one such saying, which the writer fashions into a chiasm, a very common approach.

Nevertheless -- despite this one failing -- Dart strikes more deeply and more correctly than anyone I have read on the topic of chiasms to date (haven't seen Breck yet). Unlike many who do this, Dart has a systematic approach that enables him to locate and demonstrate, with probably as great an objectivity as can be obtained on this subject, the structures that underlie this complex piece of literature, one of the most important in human history.

After demonstrating his methodology, Dart then goes on to address many of the mysteries of Mark. He attempts to reconstruct what the author saw as its original structure, finding a five-act framework in which each act is preceded by a messenger sequence. Five acts was the usual format for the Attic play, and Dart is not alone in finding a five act structure in Mark. He also addresses the question of whether the famous Bethsaida Section is an interpolation, answering in the affirmative (a conclusion I had also tentatively come to), but beginning it slightly later than most critics. One of the most effective ways Dart supports his chiasms is by showing how they confirm certain critical guesses about the structure of Mark, as well its relationship to the other Gospels. Dart also attempts to solve the perennial problem of the Naked Man in Mark 14:51-2 -- what exegete can resist that? -- but since his solution relies on Secret Mark, it must be discounted.

One of Dart's most important contributions is showing how the disparate parts of the Gospel actually relate to one another, and elucidating the larger structure of the Gospel. For example, he links the disciple call in Mark 1:16-20 to Simon of Cyrene and the Crucifixion (15:21-31) by use of catchwords. Note how in each passage the words echo each other passing along/passerby, Simon/Simon, father (in boat)/father (of brothers), casting (nets)/casting (lots). In Dart's view the beginning and echo each other. I was pleased to see that Dart believes that the Gospel pivots in Mark 10, where I had also located it, not Mark 8, where most critics put it.

Moving on to the controversy over Secret Mark and Original Mark, I'd like to explain, why, in my view, Dart went wrong. Note first that Secret Mark is a pastiche built out of pieces of the Gospel of Mark.



The reason that Dart was able to integrate Secret Mark so effectively into his chiasms is not because his methodology is flawed but because Secret Mark is constructed out of the Gospel of Mark, naturally echoing its themes and keywords. Because Dart relies on motifs and keywords in building his chiasms, Secret Mark did not present any difficulties to his methodology. Dart's confusion is a tribute to the skills of the forger.

Light in tone and very accessible, Decoding Mark is an enjoyable book, and even better, a very useful book. Dart has gone farther into the structure of Mark than anyone else, and even where the reader fails to give assent, he cannot fail to be stimulated.

Off for a couple of Days

I'm out of commission due to overwork. But I'll be back with reviews of Decoding Mark and a discussion of the criterion of embarrassment with regard to the Crucifixion.

An Open Letter to NT Scholars

Guys. It's time.

I frequently peruse the websites of NT scholars and I am just as frequently disappointed in what I find: brilliant, insightful, useful work -- that I can't get to because it's not online.

I'm not arguing that everything should be online. There is so much good work that has been done from the 60s, 70s, and 80s and 90s that could be and should be online, though. I suggest a ten-year rule: anything before 1995 should be available online.

Just think: that will make scholarship available to the humiliores, an ideal often expressed in modern scholarship but rarely honored. For individuals who live in non-Christian or developing regions and nations, online access to such scholarship is not merely convenient but imperative. It may also lead to increased interactions with the scholarship of others, the revival and expansion of ideas proposed but never elaborated on, and so on. There's no downside here.

Stuff from the Dark Ages prior to the invention of digital word processing may exist only in hardcopy. But even something like that can be photographed in a moment and the images popped on a server.

So now I'm begging. Take a moment. Get out your digital cameras. Fire up those scanners. Prod your student workers. But get those older works online where the world can see them!