CHIASTIC STRUCTURE:

A Key to the Interpretation of Mark’s Gospel

M. Philip Scott, O.C.S.O., Our Lady of Bethlehem Abbey
Portglenone, County Antrim BT44 8BL, Northern Ireland

published article
(Stock, 1984) prompted for him to describe and almost irrelevant that he should
Arecentlypublish
me to the
following paragraphs. They
a summary of an essay that grew out of an attempt to
are describe what happened exa ~ly as it took place, exactly
as perceived by eye and ear and as touched (cf. John
understand Mark 3:33 in relation to the major themes 1:1-2). For his description will be a function not merely
of Mark’s gospel. of memory but also and formally of his truth. That is
Studying the gospel with this end in view, I discovered not to say that an intelligent and veracious witness
that the passage was chiastically related to Mark 12 :37- falsifies the facts; for the false is opposed to the true, and
the question about the saying of the scribes that the our witness-we are assuming-is telling his truth. But
Christ is the Son of David. While getting on with the in communicating the truth of the event he makes the
investigation to which this spurred me, I came to realize event to have, over and above its contingent factuality,
very clearly that Mark’s gospel is not to be viewed for- the function of a &dquo;rhema,&dquo; a word, an utterance, to which
mally as a historical narrative but as an expression of all that is accidental in the event taken strictly as mean-
Mark’s understanding of the mystery of Jesus. That is ingful, is as unimportant as a regional accent is to a
not to say that the gospel is unhistorical but that Mark speaker’s expression.
has subordinated history and factual details to his over- Clearly, this gives rise to problems and creates a need
riding objective: to present across the scheme of his book for independent confirmation- there are three synoptic
as both linearly and chiastically arranged an ongoing and gospels-but the problems do not here interest us; what
gradual development of implicit meaning that is made is of interest is this: the content of Mark’s gospel is essen-
fully explicit in Jesus’s reply to the high priest (14:62). tially Mark’s truth, the expression of his convictions and
Of course, no one today thinks that all that is needed beliefs, of his understanding of and judgment on the per-
in order to get direct knowledge of the life and mind of sons and events of which he writes. And he shares these
Jesus is an examination of the facts that Mark with naive with us to mediate Jesus and the truth of Jesus to us.
objectivity has recorded in his gospel. But some may What we have in Mark’s gospel is Mark’s Jesus. And this
think that there was about Mark a certain naivete; Jesus may be less Christ than Matthew’s (cf. Matt 16:16
whereas in fact he was uncommonly subtle. And in order and Mark 8:29); he certainly is more God than Christ.
to get to know Mark’s Jesus, one must first get to know A final introductory point: one who thinks, who seeks
Mark the meticulous architecton. And once one has the intelligibility in events, is really more in touch than
adverted to the chiastic structure of his gospel one is a mere spectator. And so, though his description of
forced to recognize not only a careful and reflective and events necessarily contains the events as mediated by
perhaps a powerful mind but also a mediator who ini- his understanding of them so that the intelligibility that
tially at least stands between one and the persons of first was abstracted from the events as real is not re-
whom he writes and the events which he writes of and embodied in the event as described, perhaps modifying
explains. I say explains; for Mark does not merely record, description to the contours of its truth, he is, if he has
as we shall see below. truly understood, a more reliable witness than the mere
Explaining and expounding the truth are, like the truth spectator. For his true understanding, mediating between
itself, functions of the mind. Of course, if one has grasped events as real and as described, guarantees the truth of
the truth, one’s mind is isomorphic with the reality of the latter. Perhaps he does not tell us exactly what really
which one tells (Lonergan:499) and so, by expressing happened but he does tell us exactly what it really meant.
one’s truth, one can lead others to the reality. In the case And it is a fact witnessed to by the community of be-
where demonstration is lacking-as in hearing a wit- lievers that Mark truly understood. None of which
ness-the truth is appropriated by belief, which then means that Mark was an eyewitness of all he describes;
mediates the believer to the reality. But here something he may have been a witness of the witnessing of others.
must be stressed. But the same psychological factors apply.
Once a witness to an event has reached a true under- Having tried to understand Mark’s gospel through his
standing of what really happened, it becomes difficult chiasmus, I now wonder if, in those places where he
17
Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 10, 2015
 18

differs from Matthew and Luke and where the differences between C and D Mark had the unbelieving villagers call
allowed the slotting of an event into the chiasmus, he Jesus &dquo;the son of Mary&dquo; (6:3) and between D’ and C’ he
is not less the eyewitness than Matthew and Luke. For had the blind man call Jesus &dquo;Son of David&dquo; (10:47). The
a chiastic plan necessarily creates a priori needs to chisel next detail to be noticed was that immediately follow-
and carve the material. The quarryman delivers the ing D came the first prophecy of the passion (8:31) and
heaps of stone; the architect needs the stones cut and preceding D’, the second prophecy (9:30). After that it
dressed. Mark was not a quarryman; he was an architect. was easy to advert to the two angels (1:2;
16:5), one of
Is Matthew, then, &dquo;correct&dquo; in not having the question, whom was a witness to Jesus’ coming (1:2) and the other
&dquo;Who can forgive sins but God alone?&dquo; Is he &dquo;correct&dquo; in a witness to his going; and then to advert to the two
not having the question, ’Why do you call me good?&dquo; Not statements, &dquo;You are my Son...&dquo; ( 1:11 ) and &dquo;Truly, this
having these questions does not essentially alter mean- man was the Son of God&dquo; (15:39). It was then that the
ing ; but having them is having very good carriers of Transfiguration stood out as the unmistakable center of
meaning; and they fit beautifully into Mark’s chiasmus. the whole gospel, with 9:7, &dquo;This is my Son: listen to
him&dquo; as the pivot of the chiasmus. The following pat-
tern, therefore, emerges:
.

Chiastic Relation
of Mark 3:33 and 12:35 Chart Three .

A (1:2) An angel witnesses to his coming

One may wonder how the structure of the pericopes B ( 1:11 ) You are my Son
that contain these two questions of Jesus-one concern- C (2:7) Who can forgive sins ei me heis ho theos
D (3:29) The guilt of the scribes
ing his mother and the other, David-could have gone E (3:33) Who is my mother ... ?
unnoticed. Had it been noticed, much more would by
F (3:35) The primacy of doing God’s will
now have been written about chiasmus in Mark. For it
G (4:40) Who is this that the winds ... obey him?
is, I believe, one of the major clues to the chiastic struc- H (6:3) Jesus is called the son of Mary ,

ture of his gospel. The chiastic relation is as follows: I (8:27) Who do you say that I am?
’
J (8:31) Prophecy of betrayal, passion, resurrection
Chart One K (9:7) This is my Son: listen to him.
A (3:29) Jesus speaks of the guilt of the scribes J’ (9:30) Prophecy of betrayal, passion, resurrection
B (3:33) He asks a question about his human origin I’ (10:18) Why call me good? ... ei me heis ho theos
C (3:35) He speaks of the primacy of doing God’s will H’ (10:47) Jesus is called Son of David
C’ (12:28) He speaks of the primacy of the commandment G’ ( 11:28) By what authority do you do these things?
of love F’ (12:30) The primacy of God’s commandment of love
B’ (12:35) He asks a question about his human origin E’ (12:37) How is Christ David’s Son?
A’ (12:40) He speaks of the judgment on the scribes D’ ( 12:40) A judgment on the scribes
C’ ( 14:61 Are you the Christ the Son of the Blessed God?
One will, of course, ask about the center of the B’ 15:39) Truly, this man was the Son of God
chiasmus. Of that later, except to say that its absence A’ (16:6) An angel witnesses to his going
above is part of the clue. Having noticed this chiastic
About K (9:7) one can note the following, which, if K
relation, one is invited to search further. And as B and
B’ are questions, they help to bring other questions into did not relate to the chiasmus, one might dismiss as no
more than curious facts. Using the Greek text prepared
focus; and it soon emerges that B and B’ are &dquo;spatially&dquo;
related to other questions, so that B has one question by the Joint Committee responsible for the New English
before it and two after it, while B’ has two before it and Bible (and taking no account of variant readings, which
one after it. And all of these questions are in some way
could add perhaps several authentic words to the text
about Jesus. Thus: and perhaps remove some now accepted as authentic)
’
I reckoned that there are 11,050 words in Mark’s gospel,
.

Chart Two not counting beyond 16:8. And if one takes the trans-
A (2:7) Who can forgive sins ei me heis ho theos? figuration pericope to include verses 9:2 to 9:13, then
B (3:33) Who is my mother... ? -
there are 5,393 words before it and 5,447 after it. So, the
C (4:40) Who is this that the winds and the sea obey him? pericope is 27 words off center or approximately one-fifth
D (8:27) Who do you say that I am? of one percent of the whole. It can be said, therefore, that
D’ (10:18) Why call me good? None is good ei me heis ho the Transfiguration story is at the center of Mark’s gospel
theos in a way in which it is not at the center of Matthew’s
C’ (11:28) By what authority do you do these things? and certainly not of Luke’s.
B’ (12:37) How is the Christ David’s son? Now, if one takes the extremes of the chiasmus, A (1:2)
A’ ( 14:61 ) Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed God? and A’ ( 16:5) as reference points, then, even this small
According to my notes what next appeared was that inaccuracy is removed. Taking the word &dquo;arigel&dquo; ( 1:2) on

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 10, 2015
 19

one side and the word &dquo;youth&dquo; (neaniskon) (16:5) on the h 3:33 A question about Jesus’s human origin (end of prima
other as terms, in between them and the pericope there primae)
.

are on one side 5,375 words and on the other 5,376. h’ 12:35 A question of Jesus’s human origin (end of secunda
’

However, the center of the pattern is not the Trans- secundae) .

i 3:35 Primacy of doing God’s will

figuration pericope but the words, ’&dquo;This is my beloved ,

Son: listen to him&dquo; (9:7). And one may logically ask how i’ 12:30 Primacy of God’s commandment of love
far off center they are. In fact, in the pericope these words j 4:40 Who is this that the winds .... obey him?
I

have 100 before them and 101 after them-off center by j’ 11:28 By what authority do you do these things?
k 5:7 The Son of the Most High cast out devils
an inaccuracy of less than 1/100 of one percent of the
k’ 11:17 From &dquo;my house&dquo; he casts out thieves (ekballein
whole. cf. 1:34)
A problem seemed to arise about the third prophecy 1 5:19 Jesus bids a demoniac tell what the Lord has done for him
of the passion, which because it is the most detailed 1’ 11:23 Jesus bids a disciple ... the Lord has need of a colt
might be called the major one. The first and second m 6:3 The unbelievers call Jesus, &dquo;Son of Mary&dquo;

prophecies of the passion were chiastically related and m’ 10:47 The blind man calls Jesus, &dquo;Son of David&dquo;
were almost equidistant from K (9:7). But the most de- n 6:14-28 Innocence perversely done to death (John the Baptist)

tailed of the prophecies did not figure in the chiasmus. n’ 10:33 Innocence to be perversely done to death (Prophecy
Yet one would expect that if Mark was using a chiastic of the passion)
o 7:10 Honor thy father and thy mother
structure this major prophecy would have a place in the
o’ 10:19 Honor thy father and thy mother
chiasmus and have a related text. It was then that the
p 8:27 Who do you say that I am? (End of secunda primae)
martyrdom of John the Baptist emerged as the needed p’ 10:18 Why call me good? None is good but God alone (End
correlative (chap. 6). And that seemed to supply an of prima secundae)
answer to Taylor’s problem (Taylor). Taylor would have
q 8:31 Prophecy of rejection, passion, and resurrection
it that the story of John’s martyrdom is unique in the
q’ 9:30 Prophecy of betrayal, passion, and resurrection
gospel of Mark since it is the only story or incident in r 9:7 This is my beloved Son (Center of chiasmus)
the gospel that has nothing to do with Jesus. Consider-
Without question and as a simple matter of fact, the
ing the length and detail of the story, that would be, were
it true, strange indeed. But quite clearly Mark saw that foregoing is in Mark’s gospel; but there can hardly be any
the passion of John had-or he wished to portray it as reasonable doubt that the bulk of it is there by intention.
And that suggests that it is the key to the understanding
having-much to do with Jesus. For John, the greatest of the gospel and in particular to its structure. For the
of the prophets, not only foretold the coming of the
Christ but even in his death was prophet, foreshadow- way Mark has structured the chiasmus to span the whole
ing the death of the Christ. A careful reading of the text gospel and the way he has related the elements of the
chiasmus seem to have settled the plan of the book, even
brings to notice several similarities in the martyrdom from its basic structure.
of John and the passion of Jesus. After that I found the
general background of chiastic relations that Mark had
worked into his text. And one may believe that a careful Structure of the
analysis of it will show it to be a treasury rich in mean-
Gospel
ing and allusion. The following may justly be called the The chiasmus of questions, four of which are Jesus’
grand chiasmus. For easy recognition the couplets are
placed together:
own (chiastically related to each other and to the other
four) carries an ever increasing change of meaning, from
, Chart Four the indirect and vague to the direct and concrete, where
a 1:7 An angel (1:2) witnesses to his coming (Prologue)
the mystery of Jesus is directly faced, enabling one to
a’ 16:5 And angel witnesses to his going (Epilogue) work out the full significance of the Kyrios of 12:35 and
b 1:11 You are my beloved Son (Beginning of gospel proper) also of Jesus’ reply to the high priest. In the logic of the
b’ 15:39 Truly, this man was the Son of God (End of gospel development, Kyrios in 12:35 is equivalent to God; and
properl Jesus is condemned to death for blasphemy for equiva-
c 2:7 Who can forgive sins but God alone? .
lently claiming to be God. As we shall see below, the
c’ 14:61 Are you the Christ the Son of the Blessed God? question of the high priest, C’ (14:61) (cf. Chart Three),
d 2:16-20 The Bridegroom eats and drinks with sinner
d’ 14:22-26 The disciples eat his body ... He is leaving
together with Jesus’ reply to it is related chiastically to
C (2:7), in which is asked the first question, ’Who can
e 2:28 The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath
e’ 13:26 They shall see the Son of Man coming with power forgive sins but God alone?&dquo; and following which Jesus
f 3:13 On the mountain he chooses Peter, James, etc. is accused of blasphemy.
f’ On the mountain he instructs Peter, James, etc. The first function, then, of the chiasmus of questions
g 3:29 The guilt of the scribes
is to carry through to a finale the content of this first
g’ 12:40 A judgment on the scribes
.

question and on the way to prepare a definition for the

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 10, 2015
20

Kyrios of 12:35. And as we shall see, the linear develop- on this transcendental plane: the question is not so much,
ment of the chiasmus demands that Kyrios have the Is Jesus the Christ? as, Is the Christ God? What emerges,
same meaning as the explicit theos of 2:7 and 10, 18 and therefore, is the inadequacy of calling jesus &dquo;The Christ,&dquo;
the implicit theos of 4:40. Note that Jesus’ first difficulty if the title does not mean that its bearer is God.
with the rulers had to do not with any Messianic claim Without the connotation of divinity the word Christ
but with a claim to do what to the minds of his well- is left virtually without content, and the reader is dis-
informed hearers only God could do. tracted by it from the main question (2:7; 10:18; cf. 4:40).
Secondly, the chiasmus-as an investigation of its Quite clearly, however, the term comes into the narrative
structure reveals-settles the major and minor divisions for precisely the same reasons that gave rise to C and I’
of the gospel. And apropos of this it can be said that, if (2:7 and 10:18; cf. 4:40). Quite clearly, however, the term
it is true, it helps to settle the vexed question of Mark’s comes into the narrative for precisely the same reasons
plan, about which authors cannot agree. The following that gave rise to C and I’ (2:7 and 10:18/: the scribes raise
is the basic plan of the gospel: the question of divinity because Jesus claims power to
forgive sins; and the disciples see him as the Christ
Chart Five because of the exercise of a like divine-seeming power;
A (1:7) A prophet foretells Christ’s coming and Jesus himself raises the question about divinity
B (1:11) Voice from heaven: You are my Son because a young man, struck by the same exercise of
C (2:7) Who can forgive sins but God alone? (Blasphemy) power, calls him, &dquo;Good Master.&dquo; And then, Mark seems
I (8:27) Who do you say that I am? (The Christ) to bring the two together in 12:37 where the Christ is
J (8:31) A prophet foretells Christ’s passion Lord.
K (9:7) Voice from heaven: &dquo;This is my Son&dquo; In strict logic, however, it can be said that the text
I’ ( 10:18) Why call me good? None is good but God alone
presents one with alternatives: on the one hand, Jesus
C’ ( 14:61 ) Are you the Christ ... ? (Blasphemy) is both God and Christ and, on the other, Jesus is the
The physical passion follows. Christ but he is not God, although he exercises an author-
The relations in the above can be presented more ity that was thought to be exclusively the property of the
clearly in two lines, thus: Deity; God can forgive sins and so can the Son of Man
(2:10/, though he is not God. The latter alternative runs
up against the title, &dquo;Beloved Son,&dquo; proclaimed twice from
heaven; for unless the Son has the same nature as the
Father so that he does what the Father does because he
has that nature, no reason is given for his being called
Son nor for his being able to do what it had been thought
only God could do. In other words: either Mark presents
Jesus as God or his gospel presents us with more puzzles
than doctrine. It leaves us wondering with the disciples,
&dquo;Who is this that the winds and the sea obey him?&dquo; and
with the scribes, ’By what authority does he do these
things or who has given him this authority?&dquo;
The function of J in the above is dual: it ends the first Examining the pattern further, one will notice that
part with the passion and it begins the second part with after each of Jesus’ questions a new phase begins in the
a prophecy about the Christ. Note that when the Christ
gospel. Thus E (3:35) ends a section; on I (8:27) there
is first mentioned (I 8:27~ the passion follows in prophecy follows the section that is chiefly marked by Jesus’ fore-
and when the Christ is mentioned in C’ the passion telling of his passion; after I’ ( 10:18/, on the completion
follows in reality. Note too that the first question (2:7) of the discourse that follows the departure of the young
after the first declaration from heaven ( 1:11 ~ has to do man, there comes the statement that they were &dquo;on the
with divinity and that the first after the second declara- road to Jerusalem, and Jesus said to his disciples, Behold,
tion (9:7) likewise has to do with divinity ( 10:18). That we go up to Jerusalem ...&dquo;’, and with E’ ( 12:37) a sec-
these two questions belong to the basic plan of the gospel tion ends. Finally, as soon as Jesus, in replying to C’
seems certain; for it is they that most explicitly carry the (14:61) has declared that he is the Christ, the narration
notion for which Jesus was ultimately condemned. Fur- of the physical passion begins: &dquo;And some began (erxanto)
ther, both their position and the phrase, &dquo;None but God to spit on him...&dquo; (14:65 cf. 10:34).
alone,&dquo; argue very strongly that they have a similar func- Again examining the chiasmus, we see that with each
tion ; namely, to suggest that Jesus might be God. The of Jesus’ questions there is associated what I may call an
fact that the second queston is asked by Jesus himself intimation of divinity. See below Chart Seven.
out of his own self-consciousness (10:18) makes it the In this way the narrative of the public life ( 1:9-12:40)
more pointed of the two. And the whole chiasmus moves is divided into four parts, the first two of the four

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 10, 2015
 21

belonging to the first half of it ( 1:9-8:30) and the second Chart Eight
two to the second half of it (8:31-12:40). The Passion
Men bring a palsied man to Jesus (2:4);
Story then constitutes the third part of the gospel ( 14:1- T 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the sick man,
15 :47) ; and like the earlier parts, it too is divided into two, U &dquo;Son, thy sins are forgiven thee.&dquo; And there were scribes
the last part beginning with (14:65): &dquo;And some began to sitting there and thinking,
spit on him ....&dquo; and ending with the centurion’s words, V 7. &dquo;Why does this man speak like that?
’1n truth, this man was the Son of God&dquo; or perhaps with W He blasphemes.
15:47, &dquo;And ... (the women) beheld where he was laid.&dquo; X Who can forgive sins but God alone?&dquo;
There follows the epilogue of the resurrection, which has 8. Which Jesus knowing ... he said ...
A’ of the chiasmus corresponding to the A of the Y 10. ’But that you may know that the Son of man has
power (exousia) on earth to forgive sins&dquo; he said
Prologue. ...&dquo;Arise.&dquo;
14:61 The high priest asked Jesus,
Z &dquo;Are you the Christ ... ?&dquo; Jesus said, &dquo;I am (center)
Y And you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right
hand of the power (dynamis) and coming with the
clouds ...&dquo;
14:63 Then the high priest ... said,
X &dquo;What need have we of further witnesses?
W You have heard the blasphemy.
V What think you?&dquo;
U Who all condemned him to be guilty of death.
T 14:65 And some of them began to spit ... and to cover his face.

This chiasmus tells us that in chap. 2 the die was cast

with Jesus’s claim to do what his informed hearers knew
only God could do, that C (chap. 2) and C’ (chap. 14)
are essentially the same. And in particular about the

charge of blasphemy this must be said: Mark defines in

Chiasmus of the Cs C what he means by blasphemy-a claim to be God,
which was implicit in the claim to do what God alone
can do. In C’, if it is not to be reduced to an anticlimax,
Before showing schematically how the gospel is or- the charge of blasphemy must be taken to have essen-
ganized, particular attention must be drawn to the tially the same meaning. That is the logic of Mark’s plot;
chiastic relation between C (2:7) and C’ (14:61). For it and it imposes on the reader the task of examining the
is arguably a clincher for the view advanced in this paper text to see what in it Mark regarded as a claim to divin-
that the chiasmus of questions is the key to the inter- ity or might have so regarded. Where, then, in Jesus’
pretation of Mark’s gospel. It would seem too that an words to the Sanhedrin is there a claim to divinity?
understanding of the relationship between the Cs makes
it easier to be sure about the meaning of I’ ( 10:18); and
by a sort of reciprocal causality, a firmer grasp of I’ makes Claim to Divinity
more certain the relationship between the Cs and the

meaning of the gospel as a whole. Here we must take into consideration the fact that
After we have looked at the relation between the Cs, Mark was writing as Christian, a believer; and that he
it will be argued that the implications of C-either Jesus may have understood phrases and passages of Scripture
is God or he is a blasphemer-must be carried over to differently from the way orthodox Jews understood
C’ ( 14:61 ) and into Jesus’ reply to it. them. And texts that they regarded as Messianic he may
Examination of the pericopes containing the Cs makes have besides understood to contain implications of
clear that they are related chiastically and in a way that divinity that were utterly foreign to their interpretations.
shows Mark’s delicate sensitivity. Thus Jesus, who for- How probable this is we can gauge by looking at the letter
gives, is condemned; and Jesus, who sees the faith of to the Hebrews: its author recognized Jesus-&dquo;by whom
others, has his face spat upon and covered. What needs God made the world’ (Heb I :2~ and who was the &dquo;bright-
particular mentioning is how the question of the high ness of his glory and the figure of his substance&dquo; ( 1:3~-

priest and Jesus’ answer, &dquo;I am,&dquo; is the center of this in Psalm 109: &dquo;Sit on my right until I make your enemies
secondary chiasmus as 9:7, &dquo;This is my Son: hear ye him,&dquo; your footstool&dquo; (Heb 1:13) and in Psalm 8: &dquo;... the son
is the center of the grand chiasmus (cf. chart four). Bring- of man ... crowned with glory and honor ... and set
ing the Cs together, we get this: over the works of God’s hands.&dquo;

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 10, 2015
 22

So, when Mark tells us that Jesus, as he stood before whose aspirations were purely nationalist and temporal
the Sanhedrin, claimed to be the Christ and added, &dquo;You and at best exclusively Jewish; but they could never of
shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the themselves mean a divine person. But a claim to be God
Power (of God) and coming with the clouds of heaven,&dquo; would make altogether new demands on people and
we must ask first not how the Sanhedrin would have would have inevitable and predictable results: religious
understood those words but what Mark meant by them. faith and conversion on the one hand and rejection and
And from the clear reference to the psalm (psalms) and condemnation to death on the other. And that was the
from the plot of his gospel we can conclude only that claim Jesus made when he decided that the time for mak-
Mark wrote the words in the belief that they were a claim ing it had come; and he made it not before those who
to divinity. already had the beginnings of faith in him but before his
Whether that is precisely what the Sanhedrin would implacable enemies, who &dquo;sought to kill him&dquo; ( 14:1 ~, and
have taken the words to be is to be settled by historical at a time when silence alone could have saved him.
investigation. What Mark meant is to be settled primar- Clearly, he meant exactly what he said. But then, &dquo;...
ily by examining the context of the words and the argu- the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to
ment of his book. Other investigations are secondary to minister and to give his life a redemption for many&dquo;
that. (10:45).
Mark’s position is clear: Jesus claimed to be not simply
the Christ, not simply the Son of God, but God. And for
that he was immediately declared to be guilty of blas- Further Reflections on the Chiasmus
phemy and forthwith condemned to death. No other
charge was &dquo;proved&dquo; against him; witnesses were no Before going on to look at the linear relations within
longer sought. To the ears of his hearers, what he said the chiasmus, there are some details to be looked at. We
was blasphemous to the degree of meriting the death have seen that the ’tis’ (Who) questions about Jesus began
penalty. What degree of blasphemy was required for with 2:7. And though this is quite vague and only
incurring the death penalty or whether there were obliquely about Jesus, asked as it is because of this claim
degrees or whether any degree whatsoever merited the to forgive sins, it raises at the very beginning of the series
death penalty are not questions that can be answered the issue of divinity. In this way it determines the essen-
by examining Mark’s text. What that tells us is that Jesus tial nature of the series.
was condemned to death precisely as a blasphemer; For once Mark had introduced any sort of intimation
moreover, it tells us that Jesus had already been accused that Jesus might be God, there was no chance of its be-
of blasphemy for claiming to do what only God can do- ing allowed merely to slip off into oblivion. Nor did Mark
forgive sins (2:7-11 ); further, it tells us that he worked risk allowing it to be forgotten; for he brings it in again
a miracle to substantiate his claim to be able to do what in G (4:40), ’Who is this that the winds and the sea obey
only God can do; besides, by a chiastic relation, it shows him?&dquo;; and it emerges again in the first of the four ques-
that Mark intended that the earlier passage be related tions belonging to the second half of the narrative of the
to the trial of Jesus; and finally, it tells us what the state- public life, in I’ ( 10:18~, &dquo;Why do you call me good?&dquo; But
ment was for which Jesus was condemned to death note first the change here from the earlier form of the
precisely as a blasphemer. And it is a statement that can questions. In the earlier ones there is implicit the cer-
without any forcing carry the only meaning-a claim titude that Jesus was only man; but as his deeds belie
to divinity-that is proportionate to the earlier phases this, the questions begin to confront more directly the
of the narrative. And in the dynamics of the narrative mystery of Jesus. And fittingly, Mark introduces this new
it is so perspicuously a claim to divinity that if it was series with a question asked by Jesus: his challenge to
not intended to be such no explanation can be conceived the young man, asked out of his own self-consciousness,
of for its having been included. All the more so as the &dquo;Why do you call me good?&dquo; This is followed by the ques-
man making it is portrayed as being on trial for-and tion posed by the rulers, ’By what authority do you do
as knowing he was on trial for-his life. these things?&dquo;; then, Jesus, still challenging, asks, &dquo;How
Why precisely the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus must is the Christ David’s Son?&dquo;; and finally the direct ques-
remain another among the many mysteries of human tion put by the high priest, &dquo;Are you the Christ ... ?&dquo;
blindness and perversity. And reflections on it are out- The meaning of Jesus’s question to the youth must be
side the scope of this essay. But the inevitable climax insisted on. Considered without advertence to its
of Mark’s narrative was reached when Jesus declared that chiastic relation to the other questions, it has been
he was God. His unwillingness to be proclaimed Son of treated as an act of self-abasement; &dquo;I am not good. God
God, to have the disciples bruit abroad their belief that only is good&dquo;; but this is to reduce it to a triteness Mark
he was the Christ, is now explained. The titles, &dquo;Christ,&dquo; could not have intended. Cullmann (1963:93-95) relates
and &dquo;Son of God,&dquo; like &dquo;Good Master,&dquo; were ones that Jesus’ question to his liability to temptation, but-quite
could be used to make of him a rallying point for those apart from any disagreement one might have on

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 10, 2015
 23

theological grounds with this-the place of the question Chart Nine

in the chiasmus makes it certain that there is no
1. 2:7 Who forgives ... but God alone?
reference to any liability to temptation. And to think 2. 3:33 Who is my mother ... ?
that Mark here represents Jesus as demurring on hear- 3. 4:40 Who is this that the winds ... obey?
ing himself called &dquo;Good Master&dquo; by a stripling is to be 4. 8:27 Who do you say that I am?
at variance not only with what follows: &dquo;Come! Follow 5. 10:18 Why call me good? None is good but God alone. ’

me!&dquo;-but with Mark’s compulsion to present Jesus as 6. 11:28 By what authority do you do these things?
God. Of course, strictly as man Jesus has not the good- 7. 12:37 How is the Christ David’s Son?
ness of God. But that is the point: a mere man could not 8. 14:61 Are you the Christ ... ?
have done the deeds Jesus did.
The young man calls Jesus &dquo;Good Master; being young In this pattern we see that the first is linearly related

and wealthy-definitely upper crust―he was uncon- to the fifth by reason of content and form, each relating
sciously patronizing the peasant preacher from Nazareth God to Jesus and each having the phrase, &dquo;... but God
(&dquo;Can anything good-agathon-come from there?&dquo; John alone&dquo;; and the fourth is linearly related to the eighth,
since each of them is about the identity of Jesus with
1:46). As had others, he had failed to understand in any
but the most shallow way the facts that had suggested the Christ. 1 and 4, then, are each related to the fourth
to him the propriety of calling Jesus, &dquo;Good Master.&dquo; But one following.
Jesus’ acts were divine-like raising the dead (5 :41)- Now, if we take that relationship as a heuristic device,
and he tells the youth that none but God does such as a possible clue to something Mark may have had in

deeds-as none but God forgives sins: &dquo;Why do you call mind, and apply it to 3 and 7 and then to 2 and 6 (the
me good?&dquo; Work out fully the answer to that, and you latter pair being the least easy to relate to each other),
will have reason to wonder if calling me &dquo;good&dquo; is good we generate some interesting ideas.

enough. Thus 3 asks, ’Who is this that the winds and the sea
It was argued above that within the framework of obey him,&dquo; a question that gets a partial and inadequate
Mark’s gospel no other reply to the high priest’s ques- answer in the reply to 4, &dquo;You are the Christ.&dquo; This is

tion than a claim to divinity was possible; for without expanded in 7, which tells us that the Christ is Lord.
such a claim Mark’s gospel falls asunder. Why then did The answer to 3, therefore, is given in 7: he whom the
Jesus not say out clearly, &dquo;I am God&dquo;? It must be answered winds obey is the Lord. But how do 2 and 6 relate?
that he did so equivalently. But Jewish monotheism had ’Who is my mother ... ?&dquo; is a question about the
nothing in its explicit meanings about a Trinity of Divine human origin of Jesus; 6 is a question about his author-
Persons nor even of a duality of Persons in the Godhead. ity, and the authority in question, like the deeds that
What Jesus had to do, therefore, was make a statement provoke it, is not human; for first of all, 6 is chiastically
that distinguished him from the one whose Son he was related to 3 and, secondly, it arises after the temple inci-
and yet assert equality in nature with the Father. This dent in which Jesus has implicitly claimed jurisdiction
he did by the spatial metaphor in his reply: &dquo;You shall over the sacred precinct. The connection with 2 would
see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Power&dquo; seem, then, to be one of contrast; the question arose out
(exousia [2:7] has become dynamis [14:62]). Here quite of the incontestable fact that Jesus was a member of a
clearly is a distinction of persons, with one sitting on family, a man among men. Yet his conduct and his
the right of another. And he sits; so the one on the right claims have in them much that transcends the human;
is equal to the other. And as that Other is God, so is the for example, the claim to forgive sins. Hence the ques-
One who sits on the right. tion about his authority. But as his claims and miracles
To conclude this section on the chiasmus, it can be argue a superhuman source and authority, so this author-
remarked that a most authoritative, penetrating, and ity brings into question his originating within a human
moving exegesis on Mark 14:22-24, on the institution family. Now, as 2 is linearly related to 6 so is it chi-
of the Eucharist, is lost, if notice is not taken of the astically related to 7; and in 7 the Christ is Lord, the one
chiastic relation between d (2:16-20) and d’ (14:22-24) who is addressed-according to the psalm-and bidden
(chart four). Not only is the Eucharist for sinners but it sit on God’s right hand and who, therefore, preexists to
is perhaps even the celebration of a marriage. And Mark Jesus’ family relationships. In their linear relationship,
is the first we know of to associate the Eucharist with therefore, 2 and 6 present the paradox of Jesus: by what
a wedding feast, the first to call Christ the Bridegroom. authority or power can a man do such things? and how
can one who does such things have a mother, be a mere
man? Essentially, then, the second question points to
Linear Relations of Questions the transcendental level of questions 1, 3, 5 and 7. I say
transcendental; for 1 and 5 explicitly refer to God, 3 im-
For clarity’s sake we shall number the questions from plicitly does so, and 7 explicitly identifies the Christ with
1 to 8: the Lord (Kyrios); on the other hand, 2 and 4 are directly

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 10, 2015
24

about the man Jesus, and 6 and 8 are directed to him supporting it all and validating it is r (9:7), &dquo;’This is my
as a man. Two natures? Son: hear him.&dquo;
Parenthetically we can note how all this suggests a One can view r linearly in relation to b and b’ . First,
question about 2, ’Who is my mother ... ?&dquo; 2 fits per- Jesus is addressed, &dquo;You are my Son&dquo;; then, men are
fectly into Mark’s chiasmus; in form, content, and posi- addressed, &dquo;This is my Son&dquo;; next, man responds, &dquo;Truly,
tion it meets his structural requirements and also the this man (anthropos) was the Son of God.&dquo; Observe that
movement and aim of his gospel, which is to proclaim man here translates anthr5pos; but John the Baptist is
the transcendence and divinity of Jesus. The question an aner (6:20). The use of anthrdpos for Jesus seems to
is this: Is Mark’s account of the mother and brethren stress his humanity.
incident as factual as heretofore it has been taken to be? &dquo;You are my Son&dquo; tells us that the Second Person
Is it not conceivable that Luke’s account, which would receives even knowledge of himself from his Father, from
not fit into Mark’s chiasmus, is closer to the historical whom he receives all; ’This is my Son&dquo; is a revelation
event and that Mark has adapted the story to suit this made to men and a guarantee that Jesus speaks authen-
aim and pattern, reshaping it and changing Jesus’ words tically to explain to men the reality and nature of his
into a blunt question that must jolt his readers? relationship with the Father. And the response from man
the is faith: ’Truly, this man is the Son of God.&dquo;
Finally, note following:
Chiastically viewed, r (9:7) is the raison d’etre of it all:
the presence of God with men, Emmanuel, to whose
utterances human belief is no more than a moral corol-
lary. For God did not become man in order to be a man
but in order to save men: &dquo;propter nos homines descendit
de coelis,&dquo; &dquo;for us men and for our salvation he came
down from heaven and was incarnate of the virgin Mary.&dquo;
And so, Mark puts the Transfiguration at the very center
of his gospel, summing it all up.
But it would seem that 9:7 is specially linked to the
series of questions. Jesus has all from the Father ( 1:11 /,
In this C and I and I’ and C’ have the same linear rela- from whom and in relation to whom he knows himself
tionship, so that the two parts move from a question
and knows all things. He, therefore, has the answers to
about God to an affirmation that Jesus is the Christ. And, our human questionings. The inadequacy of calling him
of course, there is one linear movement from C to C’;¡ the Christ is shown up in 9:7; for Jesus is the Christ only
and as proportion demands, the second part of the move- because he is the Son of God. And immediately on the
ment is the more forceful. For both the question I’ and
injunction to hear him (9:7), there follows Jesus’ ques-
the affumative answer to C’ are Jesus’. Nor should it tion to the youth: if I do divine works (and am the Son
be dismissed as merely fanciful, if one thinks that Mark of God), is calling me &dquo;Good Master&dquo; and even ’The
may have intended I’ to be a partial answer to C: Who Christ&dquo; all that is due? The series of questions, then, and
but God? is answered by, None but God. all the elements of the chiasmus serve to concentrate
Now, if Jesus’ reply to the high priest as understood attention on the essential fact: if we would be saved, we
by Mark is not a claim to Godhead, all this careful must listen to Jesus; for he has the words of eternal life
arranging and developing of ideas collapses into bathos, (cf. Mark 10:29-30).
a sort of black comedy, with the hapless Jesus ending Before going on to look at the organization of the gospel
up-all by mistake, and that his own-not in the stocks effected by the chiasmus, it must be pointed out that
but on the cross. the chiasmus is self-explanatory, inasmuch as it has in
it the definition of the terms that constitute it. Moreover,
these terms are the ones required for the radical under-
The Center of the Chiasmus standing of the gospel; the gospel too, therefore, is self-
explanatory ; in other words: Mark explains himself.
The chiasmus as presented above is about Jesus. Even The chiasmus of questions can be understood if one
those elements that at first glance may not seem to have understands the word &dquo;God&dquo;; and that word is defined
a relevance to him do on reflection appear to have at least twice for the reader: God is the one who alone can forgive
some bearing on the Son of Man. o and o’ (chart four): sins; and secondly, God is the one who alone is good.
&dquo;Honor thy father and thy mother,&dquo; may very well be in With these definitions one has no need to go outside
the chiasmus as a safeguard against a misunderstanding Mark’s gospel to enquire after the meaning of its terms.
of 3:33-ineffective if the chiasmus is not recognized. And this is true of his use of Kyrios in 12:37. Being in
For as the Son of God would not dishonor his Father, the chiasmus, whose essential work is to carry the ques-
the Son of Man would not dishonor his mother. And tion about divinity, Kyrios also has this meaning of

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 10, 2015
 25

divinity; otherwise its place in the chiasmus is in- as the Son of God (15:39), or else it ends with the burial
explicable. (15:47). In what follows the small introductory letters
refer to the grand chiasmus (chart four).

The Plan of the Gospel

Chiastically Determined
Mark’s gospel is a structure of meanings or of develop-
ing meaning. To seek elsewhere for its plan is futile, as
a look at the lack of agreement among commentators

proves; for no two of them seem to have found quite the

same divisions in the text.

Taking the chiasmus in conjunction with the way the

story unfolds and in relation to coincidental phrases that
Mark uses here and there, one finds three main parts,
which can conveniently be called prima, secunda, and
tertia. Each of these is divided into two parts, which can
conveniently be called prima primae, secunda primae,
and so on. There is a brief prologue and an epilogue.
Chapter 13 can be regarded either as part of secunda
secundae or as a supplementum to it-this latter would
be an aid to memory. The epilogue may be regarded as
beginning either immediately after the death of Jesus
( 15:39) or after his burial, in which case only the first
8 verses of chap. 16 will be in the epilogue. Apropos of
this, it should be noted that the structure of the chiasmus
remains completely within the gospel taken with the
short ending. This confirms the view that the long
ending is a later edition. I propose, therefore, the follow-
ing division of the text as being in agreement with the
evidence.
The book is divided into parts by the development of
meaning: this development is not made explicit but is
indicated by a series of questions. These move from the
first, vague and indirect (&dquo;Who can forgive sins but God
alone?&dquo; 2:7), to the last, direct and concrete (&dquo;Are you
the Christ, the Son of the Blessed God?&dquo; (14:61). Prima
primae ends when Jesus, who has earlier claimed divine
authority (2:10J, vaguely suggests he had a trancendent
origin (3:33); secunda primae carries this on with a
somewhat less vague and somewhat more direct ques-
tion about the person of Jesus (&dquo;Who is this ... 4:40) and
ends with a beginning of recognition (&dquo;You are the
Christ,&dquo; 8:27); prima secundae has its high point and then
draws to an end when Jesus, who has been addressed as
&dquo;Good Master,&dquo; refers the one who has so addressed him
to the source of that goodness (10:18); and secunda
secundae has the direct question put to Jesus, ’By what
authority do you act?&dquo; (11:28/, and ends when Jesus, once
again suggesting a transcendent origin, identifies the
Christ with David’s Lord (12:37); prima tertiae ends when
Jesus declares to the high priest that he is the Christ, There is much more requiring to be said about Mark’s
the Son of God, and is forthwith condemned to death chiasmus. This must be said here: the chiasmus is an
for blasphemy (14:61); secunda tertiae ends when Jesus indispensable instrument of interpretation for students
dies on the cross and the centurion acknowledges him of his gospel. And so much so, that an interpretation that

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 10, 2015
26

stops short of seeking out possible chiastic relations and Lonergan, C. F. Bernard
1961 Insight, A Study of Human Understanding. London:
examining the implications of any that are found must
Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd., p. 499.
be considered technically unfinished. Taylor, Vincent
1959 The Gospel According to St. Mark. London: Mac-
millan and Co. Ltd.
Source Material Cullmann, Oscar
1963 Christology of the New Testament. London: SCM
Press Ltd., p. 93 ff.
Stock, Augustine
1984 Chiastic Awareness and Education in Antiquity.
Biblical Theology Bulletin 14:1, 23.

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 10, 2015