The chiastic structure of Mark 3.31-35.

[Ben C. Smith]

Is the following chiastic structure typical or atypical of Marcan chiasms?

Greek:

Mark 3.31-35:

A1 31 Καὶ ἔρχεται ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔξω στήκοντες ἀπέστειλαν πρὸς αὐτὸν καλοῦντες αὐτόν.

• B1 32 καὶ ἐκάθητο περὶ αὐτὸν ὄχλος, καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου [καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαί σου] ἔξω ζητοῦσίν σε.
  • C 33 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτοῖς λέγει· τίς ἐστιν ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί [μου];

• B2 34 καὶ περιβλεψάμενος τοὺς περὶ αὐτὸν κύκλῳ καθημένους λέγει· ἴδε ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί μου.

A2 35 ὃς [γὰρ] ἂν ποιήσῃ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, οὗτος ἀδελφός μου καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ μήτηρ ἐστίν.

English:

Mark 3.31-35:

A1 31 And His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him, and called Him.

• B1 32 And a multitude was sitting around Him and said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You."
  • C 33 And answering them, He said, "Who are My mother and My brothers?"

• B2 34 And looking about on those who were sitting around Him in a circle, He said, "Behold, My mother and My brothers!

A2 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother."

Every single item in the chiasm contains a tight variation of "mother and brothers," and the B1 and B2 lines contain two other agreements ("was/were sitting around him" and "behold"), each of them quite unessential in nature, yet still striking to ear and eye.

Also of note, the standard versification of this passage seems to have recognized at least something of its natural structure, dedicating a new verse division to every new element of the chiasm.

For whatever it may be worth, Michael Turton structures this section completely differently; but to pass over the above correspondences, line by line, seems futile to me. Turton is, I think, guided by a conviction that all Marcan chiasms are certain to follow a certain set of rules, the same set each and every time.

But I think the outline above speaks for itself, regardless of whatever rules the rest of Mark may or may not follow. Am I wrong?

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

It is a curious way of writing when you look at it like that. I know little or nothing about Marcan chiasms other than the standard stuff -for example in Mark 2:27: "The sabbath (a) was made for man (b), and not man (b') for the sabbath (a'), = taking the simple form: abb'a'. My guess is that the existing chiasms aren't standardized or don't follow an exact pattern. Not sure if that helps or hinders the case for the authenticity of canonical Mark.

Isa 6:10 is a chiasm of two tricola (tristichs):

A Make the mind of this people dull,
B and stop their ears,
C and shut their eyes,
C so that they may not look with their eyes,
B and listen with their ears,
A And comprehend with their minds, And turn and be healed.

But Mark is written in prose form. That's odd ... unless it wasn't originally written in prose form. Which might challenge the idea that it was intended as history.

[Ben C. Smith]

It is a curious way of writing when you look at it like that. I know little or nothing about Marcan chiasms other than the standard stuff -for example in Mark 2:27: "The sabbath (a) was made for man (b), and not man (b') for the sabbath (a'), = taking the simple form: abb'a'.

My first exposure to chiasms was along those lines: little phrases or sentences which follow such a recursive structure. Later it was pressed upon me that sometimes larger passages can be structured that way.

In Mark 3.31-35, I noted the obvious verbal correspondences, but of course the thematic ones are just as striking. In A1 and B1 "mother and brothers" are literal kin; in B2 and A2 "mother and brothers" are surrogate kin; in C, of course, the hinge between the two concepts is provided: "Who?"

[Secret Alias]

But do you think that if there are chiasms then the ur-gospel must have been developed as verse? Even Irenaeus's comments about gnostic developing centos necessarily implies verses. I know of no centos outside of the gospel literature which are developed as prose. I know of no chiasmic structure outside of verse - unless again the gospels. Do these two points suggest - no matter how tentatively - that the canonical gospels descended from a gospel written in verse. My point again - you know how obtuse my observations are inevitably (i.e. never the intended trajectory) - but it implies to me something recited orally https://books.google.com/books?id=yOcJC ... ed&f=false Centos and chiasms are never found in prose I don't think. They represent literary properties unique to verse.

[Secret Alias]

I guess the Pentateuch isn't poetry per se. Maybe my point isn't a good one.

[Ben C. Smith]

I guess the Pentateuch isn't poetry per se. Maybe my point isn't a good one.

I have certainly seen chiasmic structures in Genesis. There are some in the Book of Mormon, too, I believe. Maybe it began with poetry, but I think it spread to prose.

[Secret Alias]

I wonder whether the structure is intended to emphasize the distinction of the περὶ in verse 32 and the κύκλῳ in 34 - as two levels of knowledge - you know the Clement/Origen/Alexandrian idea about those 'outside' and those 'inside' = the gnostics. That's why the chiasm is there.

[Secret Alias]

περιβλέπω is a very Marcan term too. Seems to emphasize - alone with the κύκλῳ - that Jesus is standing at the epicenter of a circle, like that crazy round dance in the Act of John. In verse 32 the terminology means 'on all side' - my sense is like a square - and then there is Jesus at the epicenter of a circle.

[Secret Alias]

περιβλεψάμενος τοὺς περὶ αὐτὸν κύκλῳ καθημένους
looking around at the around him in a circle sitting

[Blood]

If they wrote the texts in chiasms, why do all existing ancient examples have the text in prose? Doesn't that destroy the chiasm?

Nothing I've read on chiastic structures in Biblical texts ever addresses this, the most basic of questions.