Vorkosigan

I just posted this to JM. You guys can enjoy this to ponder for the holidays


I think I've put together a very powerful argument for Mark's use of Paul. This is from the excursus on Mark and Paul I am building for my website. Merry Christmas, ya'll. I keep forgetting here in balmy Taiwan what is happening there....brrrr

**********
What are the Scriptures?

Let's take a look at an interesting feature of Mark 12. It contains fascinating little chiasm......

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


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

The pericoping masks another structure. It looks like this:

Mk 12:10-11 Jesus is the Cornerstone
Mk 12:13-17 Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's
Mk 12:18-23 Sadduccees deny resurrection
Mk 12:25-27 Discussion of What Bodies will be like in Heaven
Mk 12:28-34 Commandment to Love
Mk 12:35-7 How can the Lord be the Son of David?

Please note: I have temporarily removed 12:24 and set it aside, to provide the heat for this dish. We'll plug that one back in in one moment. Let's now take a look at what brackets this section from 12:13 to 12:37:

Mk 12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118
Mk 12:12 They feared to arrest him
Mk 12:35-7 Citation of Psalm 110 "why do scribes say....???"
Mk 12:38 'Ware the scribes!

By now, the reader will have become alert: we're looking at another chiastic structure. Let's display it.

A Mk 12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118 and warning that the scribes want to kill Jesus
B Mk 12:13-17 Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's
C Mk 12:18-23 Sadduccees deny resurrection
C' Mk 12:25-27 Discussion of What Bodies will be like
in Heaven
B' Mk 12:28-34 Commandment to Love
A' Mk 12:35-7 Citation of Psalm 110 and warning to beware of scribes

Now I know you're all scratching your heads, because there doesn't seem to be a chiasm there. The parts don't really relate to each other, or perhaps only vaguely. There is though, but the chiasm is not about the Gospel of Mark. Nor is it about the Old Testament. It is about another set of writings entirely. The writer of Mark has hidden it with his usual unparalleled skill. So let's add what the writer of Mark didn't. (scroll down just a bit).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

A ROMANS 8:31 cites Psalm 118:6 (Mk 12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118 and warning that the scribes want to kill Jesus)
B ROMANS 13:1-7 Obey your government = (Mk 12:13-17 Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's)
C 1 CORINTHIANS 15 12-14 (What if there is no resurrection?) = (Mk 12:18-23 Sadduccees deny resurrection)
C' 1 CORINTHIANS 15 15:35-50 (What is the resurrection body like?) = (Mk 12:25-27 Like Angels in Heaven)
B' ROMANS 13:8-10 (Love is fulfillment of the Law) = (Mk 12:28-34 Commandment to Love)
A' 1 CORINTHIANS 15:25-26 cites Psalm 110 same as (Mk12:35-7 Citation of Psalm 110 and warning to beware of scribes)

Remember, Mark 12:24 has been set aside and retained for later use. Let's now restore it to its rightful place in the center of the chiasm:

A Romans 8:31
B Romans 13:1-7
C 1 Corinthians 15:12-14
D Mk 12:24: Jesus says you don't know the Scriptures.
C' 1 Corinthians 15:35-50
B' Romans 13:8-10
A' 1 Corinthians 15:25-26

Mark 12:24 contains a jibe from Jesus that refers to the "Scriptures." It sits in the center of a chiasm formed by passages arguably derived from the Pauline Corpus, bracketed by citations of two related Psalms about Simon Maccabaeus that are cited in both the referenced Pauline letters and Mark. Its hard to see this as anything other than a signal from the author of Mark that when he uses the "Scriptures" in a way that does not seem to refer to the Old Testament, he is referring to the Pauline Corpus. Perhaps it is Mark laughing at his reader: you don't know the Scriptures. If you did, you'd spot that they included Paul. And since nobody has since then, it is hard to argue that he was wrong.

I'm still refining this, but there's the gist. Enjoy your Christmas.

Michael

Chris Weimer

I'm getting the feeling, Vorkosigan, that you imply that Paul writing about a possoble historical Jesus, but not necessarily, produced letters that Mark (or whomever) took to write gMark, which then Luke took to add, and then finally Matthew yielded yet another based on both Mark and Luke. Do you agree with this? I must say, this is so far my understanding.

Vorkosigan

Not quite. Paul may or may not know of HJ. Mark riffs on Paul. Matt writes off Mark. Redactor combines narrative from Mark into extant Discourse of John the Baptist to produce Gospel of JOhn. Finally, Luke comes along, aware of all those plus probably Paulines and GPeter and other stuff, makes Luke and probably Acts. Although Doherty abused me for thinking Luke wrote Acts, so I have to double check the evidence after I am done with my Mark site next week.

Vorkosigan

Chris Weimer

Quite more complext than my model, I must say, although I'd estimate you have a few more years at this than I.

Anyway, what happened to your Mark site? I looked at that thread you made a while ago where you had a link, and the site was taken down. Where is it now so I can add it to my bookmarks.

BTW - I think Luke wrote Acts, yet I still give him priority over Matthew.

Clivedurdle

Assume Mark did use Paul. Mark could still be turning a MJ into an alleged HJ. By the way - why do we talk about mythical jesus? Wouldn't it be more sensible to talk of a mythical Christ who is turned into a hero figure Jesus? The concept of messiah is ancient, the making of this figure part human part god - a bit like Achilles - the adding together of a Jesus and a Christ - is a next step, a further step is the alleged making real of this Jesus.

What external evidence is there about dating Mark and Paul? Could they have known each other in Rome? Did Paul exist? Did Mark write the lot? Did someone else write it all?

Vorkosigan

I moved the Mark site to a new URL, vastly expanded it, and am keeping it under wraps. Launch date is Jan 1 at the moment, and then I get to find out who this woman and these two children who mysteriously live in my house are.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

He did?
Vork: Romans 8:31 cites Psalm 118:6 (Mk 12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118 and warning that the scribes want to kill Jesus)

JA:
ROM 8:31 What, then, shall we say unto these things? if God `is' for us, who `is' against us?
PS 118:6 Jehovah `is' for me, I do not fear what man doth to me.
mk 12: 10: Have you not read this scripture: `The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; 11: this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?"
Is related to Psalm 118:22 The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone.

JA: There is nothing in common between Rom 8:31 and Mk 12:10-11 except that they both rely on Psalms 118. I notice an "=" or "same as" is missing here compared to the other parts of the chiasm. Anything there?

Secondly, if I found a passage in Mk 4:12, and another in Mk 8:35 and another in Mk 9:12 and then I found passages with matching themes in 1 Cor 23, Gal 9 and Phillipians 4:9 respectively - will I be able to argue validly that that is a Chiasma Mark copied from Paul?
Or would I argue that Paul relied on Paul for certain ideas and that the chiastic structure creatable is just a coincidence?

Thirdly, when do we depart from the idea that Mark used Psalms (or the OT) to the idea that Mark used Paul - is it strictly based on the Chiasma?

Fourth, is it valid to posit cross-epistolary chiasma? IIRC, Romans was not written concurrently with 1 Corinthians. If I am right, any apparent Chiasma is coincidental. Would you agree with that?

"Merry Kreethmas", Thylvethter thaid "When the pather callth, dont anther"

Chris Weimer

The chiasm is only an added weight to the theory, let's first determine if enough parallels between Mark and Paul indicate that Mark relies on Paul. Also, can you explain that Mark 12:10-11 thing again, I don't think I quite got it the first time. Thanks.

Ted Hoffman

I thaid Romans 8:31 ith not thematically related to Mk 12:10-11

Chris Weimer

Mythical Jesus works too. Yeshua was a common name coming from Yehoshua the appointed one of Moshe and something like "God saves" - IIRC, it was more of a title than a name. Compare Lk. 1:31