Gospel of Mark Chapter 3

Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark

Chapter 3

Mark 3:1-6

1: Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. 2: And they watched him, to see whether he would heal him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him. 3: And he said to the man who had the withered hand, "Come here." 4: And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save

life or to kill?" But they were silent. 5: And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6: The Pharisees went out, and immediately held counsel with the Hero'dians against him, how to destroy him.

NOTES

2: And they watched him, to see whether he would heal him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him.

v2: "they" who watch are not named, though of course the previous pericope flows into this one, meaning that the writer probably wants to point to the Pharisees here. Watch! is an important keyword from Mark 13:32-37 on, but it also recalls the Watchers of the Book of Watchers in 1 Enoch, generally identified with priests who have become corrupted through intermarriage with forbidden females. Perhaps the writer is making a comment on the alliance between the priestly class and Roman colonial power.

4: And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent.

v4: Healing on the Sabbath was not forbidden under Jewish law.

v4: The whole question of the relationship between Jesus and the laws of Judaism is complex. John Meier (2003) lists some of the issues:

"(1) The first factor is by now generally recognized, given all the work done on textual traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls by scholars like Prof. Eugene Ulrich and Prof. James C. VanderKam. Fragments of manuscripts of the Torah found among the scrolls, when taken in conjunction with the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch and the standard Greek translation called the Septuagint (which has it own variants), indicate that the Hebrew text of the Mosaic Law circulating in Palestine around the turn of the era contained variant readings...
   (2) Various religious groups within Palestinian Judaism around the turn of the era obviously did not think that veneration for the Pentateuch excluded rewriting its laws (witness, for example, the Book of Jubilees).(FN9) At times, this rewriting aimed at making the laws of the Pentateuch coincide with a group's own practices (e.g., a solar calendar) or with a group's expectations for a utopian future temple (e.g., the Temple Scroll found at Qumran). Whether these examples of the so-called "Rewritten Bible" (which is a misnomer) were meant to replace, stand alongside of, or merely provide the definitive interpretive framework for the five-book Torah of Moses is still debated among scholars.(FN10)
    (3) A third and final factor is perhaps more difficult for us moderns to understand and hence requires more detailed discussion. Around the turn of the era, the Mosaic Law was open not only to competing interpretations of its text--interpretations both oral and written--but also to something more radical.
    After all, in itself, there was nothing terribly unheard of or surprising in the fact that, by the first century A.D., different legal interpretations as well as various legal practices that went beyond the Law competed for the allegiance of Palestinian Jews."

5: And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

v5: the word for "stretched" (exeteinen) is taken directly from the Septaugint, another indicator of OT construction by literary borrowing rather than oral recollection. Note that Jesus performs no action here; the hand is healed by command after being stretched out. Since Jesus performs no work here (talking is not work) he cannot be held to have violated the Sabbath (Meier 1994, p732n22). Meier (2000) elaborates further on this point:

"One of the remarkable aspects of the story of Jesus healing the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath is that, quite literally, Jesus does nothing. That is to say, he performs no action whatever. He does not touch the man, lay hands upon him, seize him by the hand, or raise him up, as is the case in some other Gospel accounts of Jesus' miracles. Jesus simply issues two verbal orders: the man is to stand up in the sight of the congregation and to stretch forth his hand. On doing that, the man finds his hand healed. Since Jesus has engaged in no physical activity whatever, it is unbelievable that the Pharisees, who differed both among themselves and with other Jewish groups on precise points of Sabbath observance, would think that they could have Jesus put to death merely for speaking healing words on a Sabbath."

v5: Another example of the writer's habit of obliquely referring to the Temple in his use of the OT. In 1 Kings, from whence this story comes, the man of God prophesies against an altar, recalling Jesus' action in Mark 13. Further, the prophecy refers to the killing of priests in high places. See the Excursus on the Temple Focus of Mark for more information on this passage.

6: The Pharisees went out, and immediately held counsel with the Hero'dians against him, how to destroy him.

v6: Redactional; in anticipation of Jesus' death. v2b "so they could accuse him" is also redactional.

v6: note that while the Pharisees watch Jesus to see if he violates the Sabbath, they immediately go out and plot against him -- still on the Sabbath.

v6: Understanding "the Herodians" to refer to the ruling House of Palestine, Gundry (1993, p154) argues that the Pharisees and the Herodians did not like each other, but that is no reason to assume they might not have worked together.

v6: What "Herodians" are meant is highly unclear. Herod Antipas, who executed John the Baptist, ruled Galilee at this time. The only other instance of the Herodians is in Mark 12:13, and perhaps in 8:15, where Jesus warns of the leaven of Herod. Of Herodians, Meier (2000) writes:

"If we pass over the silliest explanations (though it is hard to decide which theories deserve that accolade the most), we may list major options for defining the Herodians as follows:(FN3) (1) a religious sect that claimed Herod was the Messiah, though proponents of this theory disagree on whether the monarch so hailed was Herod the Great (reigned 37-4 B.C.E.), Herod Antipas (4 B.C.E.-39 C.E.), Herod Agrippa I (41-44 C.E.), or Herod Agrippa II (48-ca. 93 C.E.); (2) more vaguely, a religious sect founded or favored by Herod the Great; (3) the Essenes; (4) the Sadducees or the Boethusians, the latter understood as a group closely related to the Sadducees or as a subset thereof; (5) a political party that supported a particular Herodian monarch or the Herodian dynasty in general; (6) officials, courtiers, or household servants of Antipas; (7) soldiers of Antipas; (8) Jews who disliked direct Roman rule by the prefects and who therefore wanted the territory of Antipas (or possibly Agrippa I, prior to 41 C.E.) to be extended to the limits of the former kingdom of Herod the Great; (9) followers of the Jewish revolutionary, Judas the Galilean (= Judah the Gaulonite, who led a revolt in 6 C.E.), or, more generally, extreme opponents of Roman rule; (10) a Roman sodality or collegium founded in honor of Herod the Great, similar to the sodalities founded in Rome to honor various emperors after their death; (11) Jews who belonged to the northern tetrarchies of Palestine, which were governed at various times by various members of the Herodian dynasty; (12) publicans or tax collectors; (13) the scribes; (14) a group called benê bathyra (= the sons of the city of Bathyra) in rabbinic sources. Some of these theories have been combined with each other in varying configurations and with different members of the Herodian dynasty being chosen as the referents. Complicating matters still further is that, while some authors think that Mark is historically accurate in placing the Herodians at the time of Jesus, other critics detect an anachronistic reference to supporters of either Agrippa I or Agrippa II."

According to Carrier (2005, p109) there was a group of Jewish religious believers in antiquity who believed Herod the Great to be the Christ. There are several references to them among the ancient writers.

Historical Commentary

Historicity cannot be supported here. First, it contains an impossible supernatural healing. Second, it is based on 1 Kings 13:4-6:

4 When King Jeroboam heard what the man of God cried out against the altar at Bethel, he stretched out his hand from the altar and said, "Seize him!" But the hand he stretched out toward the man shriveled up, so that he could not pull it back. 5 Also, the altar was split apart and its ashes poured out according to the sign given by the man of God by the word of the LORD . 6 Then the king said to the man of God, "Intercede with the LORD your God and pray for me that my hand may be restored." So the man of God interceded with the LORD , and the king's hand was restored and became as it was before. (NIV)

In 1 Kings the event takes place in an altar, in Mark it occurs in a synagogue. It is interesting to note that in the verse in 1 Kings 13 prior to this there is a reference to the 'Son of David' (Josiah) who will sacrifice the priests of the high places on the altar. After the Temple was taken, Titus had the Jewish priests slain.

The word for "stretched" (exeteinen) is taken directly from the Septaugint, another indicator of OT construction by literary borrowing rather than oral recollection.

The chiastic structure of this pericope is nicely balanced:

A	Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand.
	B	And they watched him, to see whether he would heal him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him.
		C	And he said to the man who had the withered hand, "Come here."
			D	And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?"
				E	But they were silent.
				E	And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart,
			D	and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand."
		C	He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.
	B	The Pharisees went out, and immediately held counsel with the Hero'di-ans against him, how to destroy him.
A	Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the sea, and a great multitude from Galilee followed;

Sanders (1995, 213-4) observes about the five 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."

The larger literary structure of these five periocopes may be deduced from this simple outline:

healing
disciple call/eating with sinners
fasting with disciples
hungering in the grain field
healing

Note how two pericopes that feature a miraculous healing and Sabbath violations bracket three pericopes that deal with eating.

The presence of the supernatural, the mix of redactional and fictive elements, including a sequence based on the OT, and the larger function of the pericope in the plot of Mark, render historicity unsupportable.

Mark 3:7-12

7: Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the sea, and a great multitude from Galilee followed; also from Judea 8: and Jerusalem and Idume'a and from beyond the Jordan and from about Tyre and Sidon a great multitude, hearing all that he did, came to him. 9: And he told his disciples to have a boat ready for him because of the crowd,

lest they should crush him; 10: for he had healed many, so that all who had diseases pressed upon him to touch him. 11: And whenever the unclean spirits beheld him, they fell down before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God." 12: And he strictly ordered them not to make him known.

NOTES

11: And whenever the unclean spirits beheld him, they fell down before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God." 12: And he strictly ordered them not to make him known.

v12: As if the demons were going to run around proclaiming to one and all that Jesus was the Son of God.

Historical Commentary:

This section is entirely redactional, from the hand of the author of Mark. as Donahue and Harrington (2002) note:

This narrative provides a transition between the first and second subsections of the gospel.(p120)

The structure is simple:

A	Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the sea, and a great multitude from Galilee followed;
	B	also from Judea and Jerusalem and Idume'a and from beyond the Jordan and from about Tyre and Sidon a great multitude, hearing all that he did, came to him.
		C	And he told his disciples to have a boat ready for him because of the crowd, lest they should crush him for he had healed many, so that all who had diseases pressed upon him to touch him.
		C	And whenever the unclean spirits beheld him, they fell down before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God."
	B	And he strictly ordered them not to make him known.
A	And he went up on the mountain, and called to him those whom he desired; and they came to him.

It is filled with Markan motifs -- demons (which do not exist) recognizing Jesus, great crowds crossing miles of wilderness to hear him, the sea (of Galilee), and of course, the command that his identity not be revealed. It contains no historical elements whatsoever.

Mark 3:13-19

13: And he went up on the mountain, and called to him those whom he desired; and they came to him. 14: And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach 15: and have authority to cast out demons: 16: Simon whom he surnamed Peter; 17: James the son of

Zeb'edee and John the brother of James, whom he surnamed Bo-aner'ges, that is, sons of thunder; 18: Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, 19: and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. Then he went home;

NOTES

13: And he went up on the mountain, and called to him those whom he desired; and they came to him.

v13: Markan redaction. Mountains always signal an important spiritual event in Mark.

14: And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach

v14: Walter Schmithals (1969, p68-70) observed that it is rare in the gospels that Jesus is quoted as referring to the Twelve. Generally, references occur only in the narrative portions. He concluded that the Twelve are a post-Easter institution retrojected into the Gospels. With the exception of 14:20 (which may well be an interpolation), all uses of "the Twelve" in Mark occur in redaction created by the writer of Mark. The Gospel of Mark thus offers us no reason to suppose that the Twelve are an institution of Jesus. Schmithals also argued that this list was transferred in from Acts, though that position has not gained support in the scholarly mainstream. Note that the various manuscripts of Mark name 13 or more apostles:

Levi, son of Alphaeus
James, son of Alphaeus
Simon, renamed Peter
James, son of Zebedee
John, son of Zebedee
Andrew
Philip
Bartholomew
Matthew
Thomas
Thaddaeus/Lebbaeus/Daddaeus (manuscripts disagree on the name)
Simon the Canaanite
Judas Iscariot

Note that "James, son of Alphaeus" and "Levi, son of Alphaeus" may be two versions of the same person. So while there are thirteen names, perhaps only twelve people are represented.

v14: Burton Mack (1988) observes:

"Thus the disciples in Mark betray thematic interests. Their prominent place in Mark's story of Jesus cannot be used to argue for "discipleship" as a common concept among Jesus movements before Mark's time. It is not unthinkable that Mark was active in turning lore about the "pillars" Cephas, James, and John (Gal 2:9) into stories about "disciples" of Jesus."(p79)

v14: Burton Mack (1988) observes:

"As for 'the disciples' they are not mentioned in the Q collection of sayings, nor in the letters of Paul. They appear for the first time in the Gospel of Mark."(p79)

16: Simon whom he surnamed Peter;

v16-19: Are the disciples historical figures? Price writes:

"It is astonishing to realize, for example, that the canonical lists of the Twelve (Mark 3:16-19, Matthew 10:2-4, Luke 6:14-16, John 21:2, Acts 1:13) do not agree in detail, nor do manuscripts of single gospels!" (2003, p186)

17: James the son of Zeb'edee and John the brother of James, whom he surnamed Bo-aner'ges, that is, sons of thunder;

v17: In the Gospel of John the term boas is used to denote oxen. Recall that Elisha was plowing a matched pair of oxen in the passage the writer of Mark parallels in Mark 1:16-20. One wonders if "sons of thunder" has been mistranslated here.

18: Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean,

v18: "the Cananean" means "zealous one" or "jealous one," not Canaanite as it superficially resembles. "Thomas" is not a proper name but probably a version of the Aramaic te'oma' (the twin)(Donahue and Harrington 2002, p125).

19: and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. Then he went home;

	v19: variously translated as "a house" and not "home."
	v19: This the first of three appearances by Judas in Mark.

Historical Commentary: Price (2003, p55-6) argues that this pericope and the next are based on Exodus 18. Both juxtapose a dissatisfied family with an appointment of representatives and underlings, in the context of a semi-divine judge at work:

Exodus 18 (NIV)
2 After Moses had sent away his wife Zipporah, his father-in-law Jethro received her 3 and her two sons. One son was named Gershom, [1] for Moses said, "I have become an alien in a foreign land"; 4 and the other was named Eliezer, [2] for he said, "My father's God was my helper; he saved me from the sword of Pharaoh." 5 Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, together with Moses' sons and wife, came to him in the desert, where he was camped near the mountain of God. 6 Jethro had sent word to him, "I, your father-in-law Jethro, am coming to you with your wife and her two sons." [v6-12 omitted] 13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening. 14 When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, "What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?" 15 Moses answered him, "Because the people come to me to seek God's will. 16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God's decrees and laws." 17 Moses' father-in-law replied, "What you are doing is not good. 18 You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. 19 Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people's representative before God and bring their disputes to him. 20 Teach them the decrees and laws, and show them the way to live and the duties they are to perform. 21 But select capable men from all the people-men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain-and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 22 Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. 23 If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied." 24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said. 25 He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 26 They served as judges for the people at all times. The difficult cases they brought to Moses, but the simple ones they decided themselves. [v27 omitted]

Another commonly-suspected source for this is Joshua 4:1-8:

When all the nation had finished passing over the Jordan, the LORD said to Joshua, "Take twelve men from the people, from each tribe a man, and command them, `Take twelve stones from here out of the midst of the Jordan, from the very place where the priests' feet stood, and carry them over with you, and lay them down in the place where you lodge tonight.'" Then Joshua called the twelve men from the people of Israel, whom he had appointed, a man from each tribe; and Joshua said to them, "Pass on before the ark of the LORD your God into the midst of the Jordan, and take up each of you a stone upon his shoulder, according to the number of the tribes of the people of Israel, that this may be a sign among you, when your children ask in time to come, `What do those stones mean to you?' Then you shall tell them that the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of the LORD; when it passed over the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off. So these stones shall be to the people of Israel a memorial for ever." And the men of Israel did as Joshua commanded, and took up twelve stones out of the midst of the Jordan, according to the number of the tribes of the people of Israel, as the LORD told Joshua; and they carried them over with them to the place where they lodged, and laid them down there.(RSV)

The structure looks like this.

A	And he went up on the mountain, and called to him those whom he desired; and they came to him.
	B	And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach and have authority to cast out demons
	B	Simon whom he surnamed Peter; James the son of Zeb'edee and John the brother of James, whom he surnamed Bo-aner'ges, that is, sons of thunder; Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
A	Then he went home;

In fact an enormous number of possible models for the Twelve have been proposed, ranging from astrological and mythological, to Old Testament sets of Twelve. The vast range of possibilities makes it difficult to decide which one is right. Nor must we imagine that the writer of Mark had one particular model in mind; he was obviously capable of drawing on a number of texts. In any case, it is most likely that the names, with the exception of Peter and James and John, which may well come from Paul, are a creation of the writer.

Mark 3:20-30

20: and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat. 21: And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, "He is beside himself." 22: And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Be-el'zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons." 23: And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan? 24: If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25: And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.

26: And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27: But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house. 28: "Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29: but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" -- 30: for they had said, "He has an unclean spirit."

NOTES

20: and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat.

v20: Markan redaction

21: And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, "He is beside himself."

v21: Painter (1999) argues that the narrative contains gaps the reader must fill in:

"First, the reader needs to recognise that [Greek omitted] is a reference to the family although they have not yet been mentioned by Mark. Next, the reader needs to know what the family in Nazareth heard of the situation. There is no clear clue to enable the reader to grasp this. There is no indication how the news travelled to Nazareth. The family seems to arrive on the same day without any suggestion of a significant gap before their arrival to allow for travel both ways, of the message to them and then of their jounrey to Jesus. Of course, it can be argued that Mark had no idea of distances or wouldn't have cared had he known. More likely, Mark implies that those who went out...to restrain Jesus were close at hand, ....whoever they were, were not a family from a village miles away that has not been previously mentioned."(p504)

If the writer intends for this to be happening in Capernaum which he posits as Jesus' home, then there is no problem.

v21: the Greek for "family" here is actually idiom and can mean any kind of insider such as relative, confederate, and so on. It is normally interpreted as "family" because of the discussion in v31-35 (Gundry 1993, p171). In the Western text tradition (D and W) the text has the scribes, not his family, set out to seize him. Most exegetes believe the original version had "his family" and not "scribes," as the RSV translates here.

v21: the constructed nature of the pericope is evidence in that its first and last verse form a frame controlled by the idea that Jesus is possessed by/possesses an unclean spirit.

v21: Zechariah was a key prophet for early Christianity and for the writer of Mark. Zech 13:3 probably lies behind this passage.

And if any one again appears as a prophet, his father and mother who bore him will say to him, `You shall not live, for you speak lies in the name of the LORD'; and his father and mother who bore him shall pierce him through when he prophesies.(RSV)

v21: May also relate to 2 Cor 5:13

13: For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you.

22: And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Be-el'zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons."

v22: Be-el'zebul occurs in the OT only in 2 Kings 1, a passage Mark has already paralleled twice, in the opening account of John the Baptist, who resembled Elijah, and in the story of the paralytic in Mark 2:

2 Kings 1:1
Now Ahaziah had fallen through the lattice of his upper room in Samaria and injured himself. So he sent messengers, saying to them, "Go and consult Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron, to see if I will recover from this injury." (NIV)

Such references to parallels are common features in Mark.

23: And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan?

v23-28: Vernon Robbins (2002) states "As Jesus elaborates his response to the scribes, he uses the argumentative procedures of wisdom discourse that features parables, enthymemes, and contraries." Here he lays out the structure of the argumentation:

Proposition/Result: (23) How can Satan cast out Satan? [= Satan cannot cast out Satan.]
Rationale:

Case: (24) If a kingdom is divided against itself,
Result: that kingdom cannot stand.
Case: (25) And if a house is divided against itself,
Result: that house will not be able to stand.
Case: (26) And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided,
Result: he cannot stand, but is coming to an end.¡¨
[Unstated Rule: If a powerful domain rises up against itself, it will destroy itself.] Argument from the Contrary: Case: (27) "But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man;
Result: then indeed he may plunder his house."
[Unstated Contrary Rule: If one powerful domain overpowers another, it may plunder the domain it subdues.]
Conclusion As Authoritative Apocalyptic Judgment:
Rule: (28) "Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; (29) but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" ¡X
Case: (30) for they [the scribes] had said, "He has an unclean spirit." [= they had said that he cast out unclean spirits by an unclean spirit (Beelzebul), thus blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.]
[Unstated Result: The scribes never have forgiveness for their assertion about Jesus.]

24: If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

v24: Perrin (1967) observes:

"If we accept the fact of Jesus' exorcisms and this saying as relating to them, then it follows that the saying interprets the exorcisms. The Beelzebul controversy which Mark (3.19-22) supplies as the context for his version of the tradition with which we are concerned may or may not be historical, but it is certainly evidence for the fact that in the first century exorcisms as such were comparatively meaningless until they were interpreted."

Although Perrin argues for the historicity of the "Kingdom of God" concept, as he states, there is a relationship between the two, the healings and the Kingdom. Since the healings are most probably fictions created by the author of Mark working off of the Old Testament, that implies that the "Kingdom of God" is either a fiction from the hand of the writer of Mark, or was originally unrelated to the healing tradition.

27: But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house.

	v27: Either of two allegories may be in action here. Perhaps the "strong man" is Satan and Jesus is now plundering his house by casting out demons. Or perhaps the strong man is Jesus, who will eventually be led away bound, his house plundered by the betrayal of Judas, denounced as a blasphemer and executed as a criminal (Tolbert 1989, p100).
	v27: The Greek word for "goods" (closer to utensils) is the same as the word that designates the Temple vessels in Mark 11:16.
	v27: "binding" is a key theme in Mark. The Gerasene Demoniac (Mk 5:1-20) cannot be bound, while Jesus is led away bound to Pilate. It echoes themes in the Book of Tobit and other Jewish apocryphal works. In Tobit the Angel Raphael binds the demon Asmodaeus in the region of the upper Nile. Bound spirits also appear in Jubilees, where, according to Marcus (1998), the binding of the evil angels is equivalent to their removal from the seat of their power.

Historical Commentary

The writer of Mark has sandwiched one story, the accusation of possession by demons, inside the account of Jesus' relations with his family. This is a typical pattern in Mark. This creates a parallelism between Jesus' own family and the Jerusalem authorities (Crossan 1991, p318) that reflects negatively on the family of Jesus.

Price (2003) argues that this story is built out of the story of Moses, his family, and his appointment of judges over Israel (see previous pericope for details).

Davies and Johnson (1996) link this to the first pericope in Mark 6, arguing that both are Markan constructions:

"Further, the implication that Jesus' "relatives and his own house" give him no honor is almost certainly added by Mark who also constructed 3:20-35 to show Jesus' relatives' failure properly to appreciate him."

Tolbert (1989, see table below) also sees this pericope and the opening of Mark 6 as related at the structural level.

Mark 3	Mark 6
3:7-12 by the sea,	6:31-34 go to lonely place by boat,
crowd from many towns,	crowd from all the towns
boat ready so as not to be crushed,
heals many	teaches crowd

3:13-19	6:7-13,30
calls and appoints twelve	calls and sends out twelve
twelve to be sent out to preach and have authority over demons	gives them mission instructions and authority over demons

3:19-35	6:1-6
seized by those near him as "beside himself."	teaches in his native place, rejected by relatives and neighbors

Ludemann (2001, p24) considers the information that Jesus' family thought he was out of his mind and wanting to seize him to be historical, since it was "too offensive for it to have been invented." He also notes that Matt and Luke delete these ideas. Once again we have a naive, faulty deployment of the embarrassment criterion, since neither writer nor audience are known, so it cannot be known who would have taken offense, and at what. Many exegetes interpret this gospel as a handbook on how to be a disciple. Here Jesus acts as the model, showing that his way is more important than relationships with families. Further, far from being too offensive to invent, it is a signature Markan theme that those close to Jesus did not understand him. Finally, recall that the writer's Christology is Adoptionist. That means that he sees Jesus as an ordinary human whom God Adopted to be his Son (in Mk 1:11). As Paul noted in Romans 8:14-17, believers were the adopted sons of God.

This pericope can only be seen as "embarrassing" if the reader sees it through the lens of later Church doctrine about the nature of Jesus, which defined him as the pre-existent Son of God, who of course could never be possessed. But for the writer of Mark, it was probably perfectly natural that an ordinary man who suddenly thought he was the Adopted Son of God should be suspected of possession by his loved ones; indeed, it would strange if he were not. The full irony of their misunderstanding is in fact perfectly consonant with the same misunderstandings of Jesus' real identity elsewhere in Mark, and typically Markan. Jesus is in truth possessed, but by God, not a demon. Hence, as Fowler (1996) points out, the debate here is not over whether Jesus is possessed. Rather, it is over whether the spirit that possesses Jesus is good or evil.

The structure of this pericope and the adjoining one is blurred by the traditional pericoping, which has read the writer's intent incorrectly. Lambrecht (1999) originally identified the basic chiastic structure. I have broken it out slightly differently.

A	Then he went home; and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat.
	B	And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, "He is beside himself."
		C	And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Be-el'zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons."
		C	And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house. "Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" --
	B	for they had said, "He has an unclean spirit."
A	And his mother and his brothers came;

The repartee of the scribes and Jesus form a nifty little chiasm all by themselves. It is organized around pairs of paired keywords in paired lines, demons/satan, kingdom/house, concluded in the pair of lines in the center that collects the keywords satan/divided/stand into one structure. It then unrolls out with the keyword strong man/house signaling an opposition to the previous pair of kingdom/house. The final paired structure opposes demons/satan to blasphemy/holy spirit. This structure is a masterwork.

A	casts out demons by the prince of demons
A	How can satan cast out satan?
B	kingdom divided against itself cannot stand
B	house divided against itself cannot stand
C	satan risen up against himself and is divided,
C	he cannot stand, but is coming to an end
B	no one can enter strong man's house plunder his goods
B	unless first binds strong man, then may plunder his house
A	all sins forgiven and all blasphemies
A	whoever blasphemes Holy Spirit is guilty of eternal sin

Note also how this section is bounded by two passages meaning exactly the same thing:

"He is possessed by Be-el'zebul..."
.....
"He has an unclean spirit."

The chreia is in the next pericope, but it consists of a simple setting and response:

Setting: mother and brothers outside asking for you
Response: who are my mother and brothers? Here they are! Anyone who does the will of God!

Robert Funk (1997) presents the Jesus Seminar's conclusions:

"In its present context in Mark and Q, Jesus employs this bold analogy to underscore the point that no one can invade Satan's domain (of demons) without first overpowering Satan. It is difficult to conceive of the early Christian community attributing this robust and colorful figure of speech to Jesus if he did not, in fact, say it. In addition, the saying is attested in three independent sources, one of which is Thomas 35:1-2 where it appears without narrative context. This means that it can be traced back to the oral period preceding the written gospels." (p. 52)

In the Seminar's view, Christians after Jesus suffered from a strange brain malady which rendered them unable to think of anything "robust and colorful" on their own, leaving them to be benumbed recorders of Jesus' words. Another problematical statement here is the idea that Thomas is independent of Mark, when in fact it appears to depend on Mark.

Given the presence of Markan invention at several levels of this pericope, and the inapplicability of the embarrassment criterion, nothing in here may be construed to support historicity.

Mark 3:31-35

31: And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him. 32: And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you." 33: And he replied, "Who are my mother and my brothers?"

34: And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35: Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother."

NOTES

v31-32: Markan redaction.

35: Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother."

v35: Psalm 39:9 (LXX) says "teach me to do your will, for you are my God.

v35: "brother, sister, mother" but not Father, of whom Jesus has only one.

v35: This is also a Cynic thought. For example, when Alexander, the king of Macedonians, was asked by someone where he kept his treasure, he said: "In these!" pointing to his friends. Theon of Alexandria, Progymnasmata: Chreia 158-161

v35: Guijarro (2004) defines this unit from the source-critical perspective that sees this unit as going back to Jesus:

"These teachings about the relationship of the disciples among themselves and with God reveal that Jesus configured the group of his closest disciples according to the model of the family. He formed with them a surrogate family, in which they could find support, protection and identity. The gospel scene in which Jesus declares that his true family are his closest disciples, those that put into practice God's will (Mark 3:31-35), is therefore a faithful reflection of the kind of group formed by Jesus and his disciples."

v35: Painter (1999) sees as one possibility that the writer of Mark is attacking the status of the Jerusalem leaders who are members of the family of Jesus. By identifying Jesus' family as those who follow Jesus, and not necessarily those related to him, the writer of Mark denigrates the status of the Jerusalem in-group.

v35: Funk et al (1997) notes that the dialogue here focuses on comparing those who are "outside" with those who are "inside." Outside and inside are important considerations in Mark.

Historical Commentary:

Many exegetes interpret this gospel as a handbook on how to be a disciple of Jesus. Here Jesus acts as the model, showing that his way is more important than relationships with families. Like so much else Jesus says, the saying is a common Cynic thought.

Mark 3:7-35 is inverted and doubled by Mark 6. Mary Ann Tolbert (1989) gives the details:

Mark 3	Mark 6
3:7-12 by the sea,	6:31-34 go to lonely place by boat,
crowd from many towns,	crowd from all the towns
boat ready so as not to be crushed,
heals many	teaches crowd

3:13-19	6:7-13,30
calls and appoints twelve	calls and sends out twelve
twelve to be sent out to preach and have authority over demons	gives them mission instructions and authority over demons

3:19-35	6:1-6
seized by those near him as "beside himself."	teaches in his native place, rejected by relatives and neighbors

Additionally, Ched Myers (1988, p139) argues that this pericope closes a chiastic structure with the form A-B-C-B'-A' that governs the opening chapters of the Gospel of Mark.

Chiastic Structure of Opening Chapters of Mark (after Myers 1988)
A	exorcism clash/discipleship and family (1:16-31)
	B	ministry of compassion to masses (1:32-39)
		C	Main "campaign narrative" (1:40-3:36)
	B'	ministry of compassion to masses (3:7-12)
A'	exorcism clash/discipleship and family (3:13-35)

Here is the structure of this pericope:

A	And his mother and his brothers came;
	B	and standing outside they sent to him and called him.
		C	And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you."
		C	And he replied, "Who are my mother and my brothers?"
	B	And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother."
A	Again he began to teach beside the sea.

Given the structural features of this pericope, and the fact that the saying is one found in Cynic philosophy, there is no support for historicity anywhere in this pericope.

Excursus: Mark-Q Overlaps

"...if these coincidences were explained by the Markan knowledge of Q. At first sight the similar divergences of Matthew and Luke from Mark give reason to believe that Mark is not their only common source. The deviations from Mark are then explained by means of Q. But, as soon as Q is reconstructed, one should conclude that it was also Mark's source. So far as I see, this result simply contradicts the premise, which should consequently lead to a re-evaluation of the premise. That is to say, if Mark used Q as a source, Q can no longer be reconstructed only on the basis of Matthew and Luke"(Dunderberg 1995, p502).

For more than two centuries scholars have been aware that the three gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are closely related to each other. Sussing out the exact parameters of this relationship is known as the Synoptic Problem. In New Testament scholarship, especially North American, the prevailing model of the interrelationships between Mark, Matthew, and Luke has been termed the "Two-Source Theory." In this model Mark was the first gospel written and is held to be a source used by both Matthew and Luke, who also used a separate source for the sayings, not found in Mark, that they preserved in their gospels.Under this theory Matthew and Luke both know Mark, and they both know the Sayings Source, but neither knows the other. Because the wording of the sayings in Matthew and Luke is close, the Sayings Source must have been a written document. The designation "Q" (from German Quelle, "source") is given to this hypothetical document (it has never been found) containing sayings of Jesus that was used by Matthew and Luke in the construction of their gospels. There are numerous variations on this theory, and a minority of scholars, driven largely by conservative apologetics, continues to claim that Matthew was the first gospel written. Readers interested in exploring these ideas are urged to visit Mark Goodacre's New Testament Gateway, one of the best New Testament sites on the web, and explore the links there that relate to the Synoptic Problem. For more in-depth presentations than the Net is capable of, Christopher Tuckett's Q and the History of Early Christianity remains the strongest statement in favor of Q, while Goodacre's intelligent and accessible The Case Against Q represents a powerful attack on the whole idea.

One major problem faced by Q proponents is the question of the so-called Mark-Q Overlaps. These are major agreements between Matthew, Mark, and Luke in what most scholars believe to be sayings taken from Q. Although scholars disagree on the exact boundaries of this material, most scholars place the Temptation Narrative (Mk 1:12-13), the Beelzebul Controversy (Mk 3:20-30), the Parable of the Mustard Seed (Mk 4:30-34), the mission charge (Mk 6:7-13), the request for a sign (Mk 8:11-12), along with some parts of Mk 13:1-31(Tuckett 1996, p29) within the Mark-Q overlaps. Q proponents have argued that the overlaps are not a serious problem for them, since they believe that the Overlaps show that Mark is later than Q.

I have identified a stylistic feature of Markan usage that appears in all three Synoptic gospels that strongly suggests that the originator of the Ba'al-Zebub story is in fact the writer of Mark. In the Excursus on Markan Interreferences at the end of Mark 2 I pointed out a feature of the writer: he tends to cite passages that he parallels elsewhere in the Gospel. Here in Mark 3:20-30 is a good example of that.

Recall that the term "Be-el'zebul" occurs only once in the Old Testament, in 2 Kings 1. The complete sequence of 2 Kings 1:1-8 runs:

1: After Ahab's death, Moab rebelled against Israel. 2: Now Ahaziah had fallen through the lattice of his upper room in Samaria and injured himself. So he sent messengers, saying to them, "Go and consult Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron, to see if I will recover from this injury." 3: But the angel of the LORD said to Elijah the Tishbite, "Go up and meet the messengers of the king of Samaria and ask them, 'Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going off to consult Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron?' 4: Therefore this is what the LORD says: 'You will not leave the bed you are lying on. You will certainly die!' " So Elijah went. 5: When the messengers returned to the king, he asked them, "Why have you come back?" 6: "A man came to meet us," they replied. "And he said to us, 'Go back to the king who sent you and tell him, "This is what the LORD says: Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are sending men to consult Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron? Therefore you will not leave the bed you are lying on. You will certainly die!" 7: The king asked them, "What kind of man was it who came to meet you and told you this?" 8: They replied, "He was a man with a garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist." The king said, "That was Elijah the Tishbite." (NIV)

There are numerous mentions of demons in the Old Testament, some more than once, in addition to the Jewish apocryphal literature such as 1 Enoch and texts like The Testament of Solomon. Why pick this one? The mention of Ba'al-Zebub is like a flare launched out of the Old Testament to attract the reader back to 2 Kings. There the reader will discover that the writer of Mark has paralleled this passage twice before in his Gospel. First, in Mk 1:1-8, he uses it to describe John the Baptist:

2 Kings 1:8	Mark 1:6
8: They replied, "He was a man with a garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist." The king said, "That was Elijah the Tishbite." (NIV)	6: Now John was clothed with camel's hair, and had a leather girdle around his waist, and ate locusts and wild honey.

Next, in the conflict story of Mk 2:1-12, the writer offers us a version of the death of King Ahaziah. The paralytic is lowered through the roof, while the King falls through a lattice. The paralytic is healed because he has faith in Jesus, while the King dies because he does not have faith in God. The writer is using the story in 2 Kings to comment on the story he is writing, a splendid example of his hypertextual skills. The mention of Ba'al-Zebub is there to make sure that we do what generations of readers have done, go back to 2 Kings and see what it says there, and then reflect back on the story of the writer of Mark. Note that in 2 Kings 1:8, it is the King himself who identifies Elijah. The writer of Mark probably wants the reader to go back and complete the quotation and thus find out who John is.

In sum, Mk 3:22 presents us with a textbook example of a Markan interreference, a stylistic feature that is a creation of the hand of Mark. That has certain implications for the Mark-Q overlaps.

Both of these passages, Mark 3:20-3:30 (Beelzebub Controversy) and Mark 2:1-12 (Healing of the Paralytic) are preserved in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, who got them from Mark. Matthew dropped the sequence about being the paralytic being lowered through the roof.

Mark 2:1-12 (NIV)	Matthew 9:1-2 (NIV)	Luke 5:17-19 (NIV)
A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home.So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”	9:1 Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2: Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”	5:17: One day as he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law, who had come from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem, were sitting there. And the power of the Lord was present for him to heal the sick. 18: Some men came carrying a paralytic on a mat and tried to take him into the house to lay him before Jesus. 19: When they could not find a way to do this because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into the middle of the crowd, right in front of Jesus.

According to Fledderman (2001), the writer of Mark derived this from Q, based on the facts that (1) the material shared with Q is in the same order; (2) the Markan version has features derived from Q; and (3), the rhetorical question "How can Satan cast out Satan?" is derived from elements in the Q controversy; and, (4) the author of Mark combined two Q sayings. Fledderman notes three additional facts: that Mark's version is shorter, that the parts are scattered all over Q, and that there are no parts of Mark's text without a Q counterpart. "Everything in Mark comes from Q" he tersely concludes (p27). Fledderman also claims that the charge that Jesus is possessed by Ba'al-Zebub comes from the claim in Q that John was possessed of a demon.

Let's examine these from the point of view of the typical behavior of the author of Mark. As the last shall be first, let's start with the claim that the writer of Mark derived his idea of Jesus' demon possession from Q. The Q-text Matt 11:18 (Luke 7:33) says:

16: “To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others: 17: “ ‘We played the flute for you,
and you did not dance; we sang a dirge
and you did not mourn.’
18: For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19: The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” ’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”

Fledderman is claiming essentially that the writer of Mark saw this in a text that was later used by Matthew and Luke, and copied it over to Jesus. Recall that the Christology of the writer of Mark is Adoptionist. Let's envision two scenarios:

1. The writer of Mark needs a story to explain that the family was upset by their child's sudden imagining that he is the Adopted Son of God (see commentary on Mk 3:20-30 for further comments). He invents a story about people claiming that Ba'al-Zebub is possessing Jesus, selecting that particular demon out of the many in the Jewish literature and tradition of antiquity in the usual Markan style referring back to passages he has already paralleled. Further, the writer enjoys hiding ironic truths in errors of indentification by the characters, especially Jesus' opponents, in his gospel -- Jesus is in fact possessed, but by God, not by a demon. Later on Matthew picks up the story from Mark. Matthew's Christology is "higher" -- he thinks Jesus is God's Son from the beginning, so there can be no hint that Jesus is possessed by a demon. Therefore he transfers the demon to John, who after all is only a human and in any case a rival of Jesus. Not having any particular reason to prefer Ba'al-Zebub over other demons, Matthew does away with the name -- he has also eliminated the parallel to 2 Kings 1 in his story about the paralytic -- and simply refers to an unnamed "demon." Always willing to play Salieri to Mark's Mozart, Matthew thus eliminates the dancing Markan irony in favor of lurching Matthean didacticism.

2. The writer of Q invents or preserves a story about people claiming John is possessed by a demon (why?). Matthew incorporates it into his Gospel. Meanwhile the writer of Mark discovers Q. Ignoring the rich vein of material in Q so much like the other sayings he preserves, he zeroes in on this offhand remark about John and realizes he can use it for his story about Jesus' family. What a coincidence, eh? He can even use the name 'Ba'al-Zebub' which by happy chance can refer back to two earlier episodes in the Gospel. What luck! And even better, Jesus possessed by a demon is richly ironic, given the writer's Adoptionist Christology.

In case 1, the inclusion of Ba'al-Zebub is the result of the writer of Mark's careful craftsmanship. In case 2, it is the result of a lucky discovery in Q.

The remaining items do not constitute an argument either for or against Markan dependence on Q. The fact that Markan elements are scattered all over Q, and that there are no parts that do not have a Q counterpart, is explainable in a more parsimonious fashion through Matthew's dependence on Mark. One need only glance at the passage above to note that Matthew has yoked a charge of being a glutton, derived ultimately from Mk 2:13-17 and before that, perhaps from Galatians, to the charge that John has a demon from Q. No matter which way we opt, for Markan priority and no Q, or Q priority and Markan dependence on Q, we are still stuck with an author taking passages from all over sources and sticking them together to make new passages. "Scattered material" cannot be an argument against anything.

The remaining arguments of Fledderman are explainable under either interpretive framework. If the material shared with Q is in the same order, surely that reflects Matthean dependence on Mark, which we already know is a fact. If the Markan version has features derived from Q that can hardly be surprising, since Matthew copied Mark. This same fact also explains how the rhetorical question "How can Satan cast out Satan?" is derived from elements in the Q controversy. One might note that on p25 Fledderman states: "If we examine Mark's version of the Beelzebub controversy, we note a conscious design that bears Mark's imprint." I couldn't agree more.

A further problem with Fledderman's thesis is that "Beelzebub" pops up in all three versions of the controversy. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have it:

Mark 3:20-23
(NIV)

Matthew 12:22-26
(NIV)

Luke 11:14-18
(NIV)

20: Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat.21: When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” 22: And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.” 23: So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan?

22: Then they brought him a demonpossessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23: All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?” 24: But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.” 25: Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26: If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?

14: Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon left, the man who had been mute spoke, and the crowd was amazed. 15: But some of them said, “By Beelzebub, the prince of demons, he is driving out demons.” 16: Others tested him by asking for a sign from heaven. 17: Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: “Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall. 18: If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand?

The problem is plain. On Fledderman's thesis, Matthew and Luke derived these sequences from Q rather than from Mark. But if that is the case, what is Q doing with "Beelzebub" in it? In the Gospel of Mark "Beelzebub" fits into a rich system of allusions to the OT arranged by the writer of Mark, and is a Markan stylistic feature (interreference) like approximately a dozen similar features elsewhere in the Gospel. These allusions were not incorporated into Matthew (Matthew drops the story of the paralytic being lowered through the roof), so what is the name "Beelzebub" doing in Matthew? Any of several demons or an unnamed demon will do just as well. Unless it came to Matthew through Mark, there is no reason for it to be there at all. The word "Beelzebub" is a finger that points directly to the writer of Mark, and to Markan creativity in the heart of Q.

Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark
Chapter 1	Chapter 9	Home
Chapter 2	Chapter 10	Home
Chapter 3	Chapter 11	Topical Index
Chapter 4	Chapter 12	Topical Index
Chapter 5	Chapter 13	References
Chapter 6	Chapter 14	References
Chapter 7	Chapter 15
Chapter 8	Chapter 16