12: And he rose, and immediately took up the pallet and went out before them all; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!"

Historical Commentary: Since magical healings of paralytics do not occur, that cannot be historical. Thus this incident cannot reflect a historical exchange between Jesus and his opponents. Instead it is the first of a collection of 5 such stories of conflicts between Jewish authorities and Jesus that culminate in their decision to kill him (Donahue and Harrington 2002, p110). Sanders (1995, p216) writes: "The collection, however, is the work of Mark or a previous author. The sequence of stories, where one follows another with no intervening narrative or discussion, and where the level of attack is steadily escalated, is dramatic but artificial." Similarly, Burton Mack (1988) observes: "One recognizes immediately that Pharisaic laws of purity are at issue and, as one might expect, Pharisees and scribes do figure in the stories as Jesus' opponents. Jesus succeeds in confounding them at every turn, of course, but one sees that his logic and authority depend upon assumptions his opponents would not have shared. The assumptions betray an exaggerated view of Jesus' authority, which means that the stories were told from the point of view of some Jesus movement for which authority had become a big issue."(p94) The story of the healing of the paralytic is dependent on the story of Ahaziah in 2 Kings 1:2-17 (Price 2003, p149). The author of Mark has inverted the story in illuminating ways, however. In that tale, the hapless King Ahaziah has fallen through a lattice, and asks the oracle of Ba'al-zebub whether he will get better. YHWH, miffed at the King's lack of faith in him, sends Elijah to head off the King's emissaries to the Philistine oracle. Elijah informs that that they can abandon their mission because YHWH has said the King is doomed. In Mark, the man descends through a roof to healing, not death, and is saved by his friends' faith in Jesus. Ahaziah, by contrast, descends through a lattice, and is doomed by his lack of faith. The parallel is inverted. The saying section in v5-10 is an example of a Cynic chreia, common in the Gospel of Mark (see below), in which the master shows off his wit by deflecting a rhetorical challenge from opponents. The saying establishes the canonical pattern for Mark, in which the challengers (Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Chief priests) lay down the challenge, but fade from mention after providing the excuse for the writer to show off Jesus' wit. Nothing in it supports historicity. Fletcher-Louis (2003) argues persuasively that Mark 1-6 presents Jesus as a High Priest, based on a priestly reading of Dan 7:13, where the Danielic Son of Man is given the authority to behave as a priest. Texts such as Exodus 28:36-38 and Lev 10:17 are straightforward OT precedents for the authority of the priest to remove sins, so Jesus as a priest would have no trouble doing that. Some scholars argue that the problem here is either that Jesus, a perceived human, has arrogated to himself powers that only God has, while other scholars argue that by forgiving sins, Jesus has challenged the Temple Establishment.  The basic structure of this pericope is a simple A-B-A' chiastic structure, one event is sandwiched inside another, very common in Mark. A detailed breakout of the chiastic structure reveals: A And when he returned to Caper'na-um after some days, it was reported that he was at home. B And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, not even about the door; and he was preaching the word to them. C And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. D And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; E and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay. F And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven." F Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" E And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question thus in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, `Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, `Rise, take up your pallet and walk'? D  But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" -- he said to the paralytic -- "I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home." C And he rose, and immediately took up the pallet and went out before them all; B so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!" A He went out again beside the sea;  A more complete discussion is offered in the Excursus on Literary Structures in Mark. This structure is also followed by a chreia (Mk 2:14-17) like other chiastic structures in Mark. In a private communication, Neil Godfrey (2005) suggested that this sequence is a doublet of the Tomb Scene in Mk 16:1-8. Just as the Tomb is blocked by a large stone, so the door is blocked by a large crowd. The paralytic resembles a cadaver, while the digging out of the roof resembles the removal of rock to make the Tomb. Scribes sit watching Jesus just as a young man is sitting as the women enter. Jesus knows what is the hearts of the scribes, just as the young man knows what is the hearts of the women. It should be further noted that in both cases the rising is connected to forgiveness of sins. Such correspondences are loose, and often not direct. But the resemblence is there. The scenes in which the dead are raised in Mark often suggest or echo the Death, Resurrection, or Tomb scene later on. Given its origin in the OT, its supernatural aspects, its Markan literary structures, and its place in the larger plot of Mark, nothing in this pericope can be used to support historicity.

13: He went out again beside the sea; and all the crowd gathered about him, and he taught them. 14: And as he passed on, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax office, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he rose and followed him. 15: And as he sat at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were sitting with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many who followed him.

16: And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?" 17: And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."

13: He went out again beside the sea; and all the crowd gathered about him, and he taught them.

14: And as he passed on, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax office, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he rose and followed him.

15: And as he sat at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were sitting with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many who followed him

16: And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?"

17: And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."

Historical Commentary:   This pericope presents a historically implausible call of a disciple, Levi, who promptly disappears from this gospel and is never mentioned again. Even granting that the Pharisees existed at this time, they do not seem to have been active in Galilee, nor does there seem to have been much basis for conflict between Jesus and them. Recall that the writer of Mark seems to have some knowledge of Paul's letters. In Galatians, which the writer may be alluding to above, Paul says that he persecuted Christians prior to his conversion. If the writer had access to Philippians, where Paul claims to have been a Pharisee, it would not have been difficult to put two and two together and conclude that the Pharisees opposed Jesus. The structural features of this pericope and the preceding one show how the traditional pericoping and versification of the Gospel distort proper understanding of its structure. The chiastic structure runs from 2:1-13. The traditional pericoping destroys the chiasm by moving 2:13 into the next pericope. The structure of this passage is laid out below. A He went out again beside the sea; B  and all the crowd gathered about him, and he taught them. C And as he passed on, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax office,  C and he said to him, "Follow me." B And he rose and followed him. A And as he sat at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were sitting with Jesus and his disciples; B for there were many who followed him. C And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?" C And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; B  I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." A Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; Note the parallels with the previous disciple call: Peter and Andrew James and John Levi And passing along by the Sea of Galilee, And going on a little farther, And as he passed on,     he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen.    he saw James the son of Zeb'edee and John his brother, who were in their boat mending the nets. he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax office,   And Jesus said to them, "Follow me and I will make you become fishers of men."        And immediately he called them; and he said to him, "Follow me."  And immediately they left their nets and followed him. and they left their father Zeb'edee in the boat with the hired servants, and followed him. And he rose and followed him. Due to the Cynic parallels for the saying and the fact that the discipleship call is a literary doublet based on an earlier passage which in turn draws on the OT (as well as being somewhat implausible), there is no support for historicity in this pericope.

18: Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people came and said to him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?" 19: And Jesus said to them, "Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20: The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from

them, and then they will fast in that day. 21: No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; if he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. 22: And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but new wine is for fresh skins."

18: Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people came and said to him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?"

21: No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; if he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. 22: And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but new wine is for fresh skins."

Historical Commentary This pericope has a simple ABBA chiastic structure: A Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; B and people came and said to him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?" B And Jesus said to them, "Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day. No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; if he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but new wine is for fresh skins." A One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. A clear supernatural prophecy of Jesus' own death, and thus, ahistorical. Because the answer of v19 depends on the question of v18, the latter must also be ahistorical. Scholars currently have no clear method of determining whether the sayings here go back to Jesus. Given that they show clear affinities to other Jewish sayings and Cynic chreia, despite the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar, it seems impossible to demonstrate the historicity of any information in this pericope.

23: One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24: And the Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?" 25: And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him:

26: how he entered the house of God, when Abi'athar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?" 27: And he said to them, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; 28: so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath."

25: And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him:

26: how he entered the house of God, when Abi'athar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?"

27: And he said to them, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath;

Historical Commentary  Sanders (1995, 213-4) points out that the Sabbath was not a fast day. He observes about the conflict stories. "The collection, however, is the work of Mark or a previous author. The sequence of stories, where one follows another with no intervening narrative or discussion, and where the level of attack is steadily escalated, is dramatic but artificial." Some exegetes have seen this pericope as a doublet of Mark 2:13-17. Donahue and Harrington (2002), write: The "violation" here is committed by Jesus' disciples and not by Jesus, and its precise nature is obscure. Eating the standing grain was permitted... Among some Jewish groups their action might be equivalent to "harvesting grain," which was prohibited (Exod 34:21; Jub 2:29-30; 50:6-13; m. Shab. 7:2). they might also have violated the prohibition against eating on the Sabbath something not prepared in advance (CD 10:22). While Mark does not mention "eating," Matthew (12:1) and Luke (6:1) say that the disciples plucked and ate, which brings Jesus' biblical defense (since David and his followers presumably ate) into line with the charge.(p111)  Later on in the gospel Jesus will transform 5 loaves of bread in one of the feeding miracles. Since Jesus references an event which occurs later in the Gospel and which is an invention of the writer of Mark, both the errors and the foreshadowing indicate v25-6 is a literary construction of Mark. Another signal of invention here is the Pharisees, who show up merely to drive the plot, then disappear. It is because the construction of the events in Mark is so clearly artificial that scholars turned to explore the sayings for signs of historicity, only to find that they can generally be traced to common Jewish and Hellenistic philosophical and wisdom traditions. After reviewing both the scriptural errors and flaws in Jesus' arguments, Meier (2004) concludes: "If this scene gives us a true picture of the biblical knowledge and teaching skill of the historical Jesus, then the natural and very effective response of the Pharisees would have been not fierce anger and concerted opposition but gleeful mockery. They would have laughed their heads off-and invited the populace to do the same-at this uneducated woodworker who insisted on making a fool of himself in public by displaying his abysmal ignorance of the very scriptural text on which he proposed to instruct the supposedly ignorant Pharisees."(p579) Some scholars have argued that a possible clue that this story is later development is that it is not Jesus but his followers who are accused. Later Christians had conflicts over the Law and behavior with Judaism. However, that is hardly conclusive, and such a stance is ruled out methodologically here. Meier argues, based on the incompetent argument Jesus presents here, that this passage must be a polemical creation of later Christians, since the historical Jesus was an impressive arguer and debater, in Meier's view. Loader (1998) notes that Mark contains the only tradition that describes the controversies as attacks on Jesus' disciples, and thus, this constitutes a point of weakness for the historicity of such stories. In any case, the writer of Mark may simply be portraying the disciples in another troublemaking role, this one as attracting censure for the teacher because of their behavior. Parrott (1993) argues, based on the work of Vernon Robbins, that the writer has created a version of a Hellenistic rhetorical form. This has a variant structure: A One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; B A and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. B And the Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?" B A And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him how he entered the house of God, when Abi'athar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?" B And he said to them, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath." A Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. Because of the many literary features of this pericope, the artificiality of the conflict, and the commonality of the concepts in the sayings, nothing in this pericope may be used to support historicity.