The covenant self-revelation of YHWH as the God "forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin" is the foundational text behind the scribes' assumption that forgiveness belongs to God alone. Thematic coherence is high: Jesus' pronouncement of forgiveness enacts a divine attribute scripturally reserved to the LORD. The verbal contact is via the shared lexeme of forgiving sin rather than direct quotation.

Yahweh passed by before him, and proclaimed, “Yahweh! Yahweh, a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger, and abundant in loving kindness and truth, keeping loving kindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and disobedience and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the children’s children, on the third and on the fourth generation.”


"The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (v.10) draws on Dan 7:13-14, where "one like a son of man" is given dominion and authority before the Ancient of Days. High distinctiveness in the title plus the keyword "authority" (exousia), which Mark recurs at 2:28 and the eschatological discourse (13:26). Mark transposes the heavenly investiture into earthly authority.

I saw in the night visions, and behold, there came with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.


"Who forgives all your iniquities, who heals all your diseases" pairs forgiveness and healing exactly as Mark 2:1-12 does, where pardon is demonstrated by the cure of the paralytic. Thematic coherence is strong: the psalm makes the two divine acts a single benefaction, which is the logic of Jesus' "which is easier" challenge (v.9). Verbal volume is modest, carried by the forgiveness/healing pairing.

who forgives all your sins; who heals all your diseases;


"Then shall the lame man leap like a deer" anchors the healing of the paralytic in Isaiah's eschatological restoration, where bodily wholeness signals the inbreaking reign of God. Thematic coherence with Mark's miracle is high; the crowd's astonishment ("We never saw anything like this!", v.12) fits the new-thing motif of Isaiah 35 and 43. Verbal repetition is limited, so this is an echo rather than allusion.

Then the lame man will leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute will sing; for waters will break out in the wilderness, and streams in the desert.


The psalm links the blessedness of the one "whose transgression is forgiven" with the bodily wasting that lifts when sin is confessed and pardoned. This is the closest OT paradigm for Mark's premise that the paralytic's deeper need is forgiveness, healed alongside the body. Coherence is strong though the verbal contact is thematic.

Blessed is he whose disobedience is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom Yahweh doesn’t impute iniquity, in whose spirit there is no deceit. When I kept silence, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy on me. My strength was sapped in the heat of summer. Selah. I acknowledged my sin to you. I didn’t hide my iniquity. I said, I will confess my transgressions to Yahweh, and you […]


"But there is forgiveness with you, that you may be feared" reinforces the scribal premise that pardon is a divine possession evoking reverence; the crowd's reaction is awe and glorifying God (v.12). Low volume and no verbal borrowing, but thematically coherent with the chapter's contest over who may forgive.

But there is forgiveness with you, therefore you are feared.


The scribes charge "blasphemies" (v.7); Lev 24:16 makes blasphemy of the Name a capital offense, supplying the legal background to their unspoken accusation. Coherence is high: Mark frames Jesus' forgiveness as an apparent usurpation of the divine Name that the Law guards. The link is conceptual rather than quoted.

He who blasphemes Yahweh’s name, he shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him. The foreigner as well as the native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.


"No inhabitant will say, 'I am sick'; the people who dwell there will be forgiven their iniquity" joins healing and forgiveness as twin marks of Zion's restoration, exactly the combination Mark dramatizes. The echo is faint and verbally thin, but thematically apt to the pericope's fusion of the two.

The inhabitant won’t say, “I am sick.” The people who dwell therein will be forgiven their iniquity.


"I desire mercy and not sacrifice" underlies Jesus' defense of eating with tax collectors and sinners and his mission "to call sinners." Mark does not quote it (unlike Matt 9:13), but the mercy-over-cult logic governs the table-fellowship dispute, making this a genuine thematic echo. Recurrence within the Synoptic tradition strengthens the case even where Mark leaves it implicit.

For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.


"I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed... but the fat and the strong I will destroy" matches Jesus' physician saying: he comes for the sick, not the healthy, for sinners, not the self-righteous. The shepherd-God who seeks the weak is reworked into Jesus' calling of Levi and the sinners. Coherence and the recurrence of the shepherd motif in Mark (6:34) support an allusion.

I will seek that which was lost, and will bring back that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick: but the fat and the strong I will destroy; I will feed them in justice.


The indictment of shepherds who did not heal the sick or seek the lost frames Jesus' physician aphorism (v.17) as a contrast to negligent leaders. The verbal contact is the sick/strayed sheep imagery rather than quotation, so an echo. It coheres with Mark's critique of the scribes and Pharisees.

You haven’t strengthened the diseased, neither have you healed that which was sick, neither have you bound up that which was broken, neither have you brought back that which was driven away, neither have you sought that which was lost; but with force and with rigor you have ruled over them.


"The LORD looks on the heart" while man judges by outward appearance illuminates Jesus' choice of the tax collector Levi and his welcome of those the religious dismiss. Faint and verbally remote, but thematically coherent with the chapter's reversal of who is fit for God. Marked low and contested.

But Yahweh said to Samuel, “Don’t look on his face, or on the height of his stature; because I have rejected him: for I see not as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but Yahweh looks at the heart.”


Wisdom's banquet invitation to the simple and those who lack sense offers a sapiential pattern for Jesus reclining at table with sinners and summoning them. The link rests on the meal-as-invitation-to-the-unworthy motif, with no verbal borrowing. Contested and low.

Wisdom has built her house. She has carved out her seven pillars. She has prepared her meat. She has mixed her wine. She has also set her table. She has sent out her maidens. She cries from the highest places of the city: “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!” As for him who is void of understanding, she says to him, “Come, eat some of my bread, Drink some of the wine which I have mixed! Leave your simple ways, and live. Walk in the way of […]


"Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there?" supplies the OT physician-for-the-sick imagery behind Jesus' aphorism in v.17. The shared healer/sickness vocabulary is suggestive though faint, and the prophetic question concerns the unhealed wound of God's people, coherent with Jesus' mission to sinners.

Is there no balm in Gilead? is there no physician there? why then isn’t the health of the daughter of my people recovered?


"As the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you" supplies the OT bridegroom-as-God imagery Jesus claims for himself in the fasting dispute (v.19). The metaphor of the wedding feast as the time of joy when fasting is impossible is distinctively prophetic, and Mark's recurrence of the eschatological-banquet theme supports the allusion.

For as a young man marries a virgin, so your sons shall marry you; and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so your God will rejoice over you.


Hosea's betrothal oracle, "I will betroth you to me forever," establishes the covenant marriage between God and his people behind the bridegroom saying. Jesus casting himself as bridegroom appropriates this YHWH-as-husband tradition; the wedding joy that suspends fasting coheres with Hosea's restored marriage. The link is thematic rather than verbal.

I will betroth you to me forever. Yes, I will betroth you to me in righteousness, in justice, in loving kindness, and in compassion. I will even betroth you to me in faithfulness; and you shall know Yahweh.


"Let the bridegroom leave his room" amid a summons to fasting and assembly provides a Second-Temple resonance for the juxtaposition of bridegroom and fasting that Mark inverts. The verbal contact is the rare "bridegroom" lexeme in a fasting context, but the sense is opposite, so a faint contested echo.

Gather the people. Sanctify the assembly. Assemble the elders. Gather the children, and those who nurse from breasts. Let the bridegroom go out of his room, and the bride out of her room.


"Your Maker is your husband" continues the prophetic marriage metaphor that legitimates Jesus' bridegroom self-identification. No verbal borrowing, but it reinforces the availability of the God-as-husband tradition Jesus draws on. Contested and low.

For your Maker is your husband; Yahweh of Armies is his name: and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; the God of the whole earth shall he be called. For Yahweh has called you as a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, even a wife of youth, when she is cast off,” says your God.


"I will turn your feasts into mourning" anticipates the day when the bridegroom is "taken away" and the guests will fast (v.20). The reversal of feast to mourning matches Mark's prediction of grief, an echo carried by theme rather than wording. Low and contested.

I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will make you wear sackcloth on all your bodies, and baldness on every head. I will make it like the mourning for an only son, and its end like a bitter day.


The bridegroom "taken away" (v.20) may glance at the servant who "was taken away" (cut off from the land of the living), hinting at the passion. Verbal overlap on the being-taken-away language is suggestive but slight, so a faint contested echo with possible passion typology.

He was taken away by oppression and judgment; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living and stricken for the disobedience of my people?


"My belly is like wine that has no vent; like new wineskins ready to burst" is the closest OT image to Jesus' new-wine/old-skins parable (v.22). The shared bursting-new-wineskins picture gives a sapiential source for the figure, though Jesus applies it to the incompatibility of the new order with the old. Marked low.

Behold, my breast is as wine which has no vent; like new wineskins it is ready to burst.


The new-cloth and new-wine sayings figure the incompatibility of the inbreaking kingdom with the old order, typologically resonant with Jeremiah's new covenant that supersedes the broken one. There is no verbal borrowing, only a structural correspondence between new wine and new covenant. Listed as figural and contested.

Behold, the days come, says Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Yahweh. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh: I will put my law in […]


Jesus' question "Did you never read what David did, when he had need... how he entered the house of God... and ate the show bread" (vv.25-26) directly retells 1 Sam 21:1-6. High volume: the showbread, David's hunger, and the unlawfulness for non-priests are all reproduced. Mark's reference to Abiathar (vs. Ahimelech in the source) is the well-known crux but confirms the deliberate citation.

Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech came to meet David trembling, and said to him, “Why are you alone, and no man with you?” David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has commanded me a business, and has said to me, ‘Let no man know anything of the business about which I send you, and what I have commanded you; and I have appointed the young men to such and such a place.’ Now therefore what is under your hand? Give me five loaves […]


The show bread (Bread of the Presence) and its rule that only the priests may eat it (v.26) come from Lev 24:5-9. Mark presupposes this legislation to make the David precedent meaningful: human need overrides cultic restriction. High coherence and verbal contact on "show bread" and "lawful... except for the priests."

“You shall take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes of it: two tenth parts of an ephah shall be in one cake. You shall set them in two rows, six on a row, on the pure gold table before Yahweh. You shall put pure frankincense on each row, that it may be to the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire to Yahweh. Every Sabbath day he shall set it in order before Yahweh continually. It is on the behalf of the children of Israel an everlasting […]


"The Sabbath was made for man" (v.27) appeals to the creation ordinance where God rests and hallows the seventh day for humanity's sake. Distinctive theology: Sabbath is grounded in creation, not merely Sinai, which supports Jesus' claim that it serves man. Strong thematic coherence with the original institution of rest.

On the seventh day God finished his work which he had done; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. God blessed the seventh day, and made it holy, because he rested in it from all his work of creation which he had done.


The Decalogue Sabbath command, with its creation rationale, is the law the Pharisees invoke against the disciples' grain-plucking (v.24). Jesus does not abolish but reinterprets it: "the Sabbath was made for man." High coherence; the dispute over what is "lawful on the Sabbath" presupposes this command.

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. You shall labor six days, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to Yahweh your God. You shall not do any work in it, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your livestock, nor your stranger who is within your gates; for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore Yahweh blessed […]


The Deuteronomic Sabbath command, with its humanitarian rationale (so servants may rest), reinforces Jesus' principle that the Sabbath exists for human benefit. The man-centered framing in v.27 coheres especially with Deuteronomy's emphasis on rest for people. Allusion via the Sabbath legislation cited in the dispute.

“Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as Yahweh your God commanded you. You shall labor six days, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath to Yahweh your God, in which you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your livestock, nor your stranger who is within your gates; that your male servant and your female servant may rest as […]


"When you come into your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck the ears with your hand" legitimates the disciples' action itself (v.23); the Pharisees object only to the Sabbath timing, not the plucking. This law shows the disciples were not stealing, sharpening the dispute as purely about Sabbath observance. Verbal contact on plucking ears of standing grain.

When you come into your neighbor’s standing grain, then you may pluck the ears with your hand; but you shall not move a sickle to your neighbor’s standing grain.


"The Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath" (v.28) again invokes the Danielic figure given universal dominion, here extended to lordship over the sacred day. The keyword authority/lordship recurs from v.10, binding the chapter's two Son of Man sayings to Dan 7:13-14. High distinctiveness in the title and the claim of comprehensive authority.

I saw in the night visions, and behold, there came with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.


"You shall keep the Sabbath... whoever profanes it shall be put to death" supplies the gravity behind the Pharisees' charge that the disciples do "what is not lawful" (v.24). The capital seriousness of Sabbath violation explains the intensity of the objection. Echo by legal background rather than quotation.

You shall keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.


The narrative of the man executed for gathering sticks on the Sabbath illustrates the rigorist reading of Sabbath labor the Pharisees apply to grain-plucking. It supplies a precedent for treating such acts as forbidden work, against which Jesus' humane principle is set. Faint, contested echo via the work-on-Sabbath theme.

While the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been declared what should be done to him. Yahweh said to Moses, “The man shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him with stones outside of the camp.” All the congregation brought him […]


The Maccabean decision that preserving life overrides strict Sabbath rest establishes a Second-Temple precedent that human need can qualify Sabbath law, the very logic of Jesus' argument. As an available pre-Markan deuterocanonical source it strengthens the plausibility of "the Sabbath was made for man." The contact is conceptual, not verbal, so an echo.

And Mattathias and his friends knew it, and they mourned over them exceedingly. And one said to another, If we all do as our kindred have done, and fight not against the Gentiles for our lives and our ordinances, they will now quickly destroy us from off the earth. And they took counsel on that day, saying, whoever shall come against us to battle on the Sabbath day, let us fight against him, and we shall in no wise all die, as our kindred died in the […]


The mercy-not-sacrifice principle that frames the table dispute (2.2) also undergirds the Sabbath argument: human need (hunger) outweighs ritual strictness. The recurrence of the same theme across both controversy stories supports a faint thematic echo here. Low and contested.

For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.


The Sabbath conflict presupposes the Decalogue Sabbath command, which in Deuteronomy's form roots the day in liberation and mercy ('that your servant may rest'). Jesus' 'is it lawful to do good?' reframes the commandment toward the merciful, life-giving intent the text already carries. High thematic coherence with the Deuteronomic humanitarian rationale.


The other Decalogue form of the Sabbath law stands directly behind the legal dispute over Sabbath healing. Availability and recurrence are strong; the verbal echo is to the command itself rather than to specific words of the verse.


Jesus' antithesis 'to do good or to do harm, to save a life or to kill' mirrors the Deuteronomic covenant choice 'I have set before you life and death, good and evil.' The paired good/evil, life/death structure suggests a deliberate framing of Sabbath observance as a covenant life-or-death decision. Thematic coherence is high though no verbatim quotation.

Behold, I have set before you this day life and prosperity, and death and evil.


'Grieved at the hardening of their hearts' echoes Isaiah's prophecy of a people whose heart is made fat and unresponsive, a motif Mark deploys elsewhere for the obtuse. The vocabulary of hardened heart (porosis) recurs in Mark for opponents and disciples, raising recurrence and coherence.

Make the heart of this people fat. Make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn again, and be healed.”


The hardening-of-heart language evokes the Exodus Pharaoh tradition, where God hardens, or Pharaoh hardens, the heart against the works of God. Mark's opponents resist a manifest sign as Pharaoh resisted the plagues. Faint and thematic, marked contested.

I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.


'Is it lawful to do good?' aligns with the prophetic priority of mercy over cultic/ritual scruple ('I desire mercy, not sacrifice'). The healing-over-Sabbath logic coheres with Hosea's critique, though Mark does not cite it. Low volume, contested.


Jeroboam's hand withered and then restored offers an OT precedent of a withered/restored hand in a charged cultic confrontation. The verbal link (withered hand, restoration) is suggestive but the contexts differ sharply; possible figural resonance only.

When the king heard the saying of the man of God, which he cried against the altar in Bethel, Jeroboam put out his hand from the altar, saying, “Seize him!” His hand, which he put out against him, dried up, so that he could not draw it back again to himself. The altar also was split apart, and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by Yahweh’s word. The king answered the man of God, “Now entreat the favor […]


The gathering of crowds from Idumaea, Tyre, Sidon and beyond the Jordan hints at the eschatological ingathering of the nations to the Servant who is a light to them. The named Gentile-adjacent regions raise coherence with Isaiah's universal scope, though the link is thematic, not verbal.

yes, he says, “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give you for a light to the nations, that you may be my salvation to the end of the earth.”


The mass healing of the afflicted who press to touch him echoes the psalm's 'he sent his word and healed them.' Recurrence of the healing-deliverance motif in the Psalms supports coherence; volume is low.

He sends his word, and heals them, and delivers them from their graves.


The unclean spirits' cry 'You are the Son of God' draws on the royal/messianic 'Son' tradition rooted in the enthronement psalm, already echoed at Jesus' baptism in Mark. Recurrence within Mark and availability of the title in Second Temple messianism strengthen the connection.

I will tell of the decree. Yahweh said to me, “You are my son. Today I have become your father.


Jesus goes up the mountain and constitutes twelve, evoking Moses building twelve pillars for the twelve tribes at Sinai. The mountain ascent plus the number twelve makes the covenant-foundation typology strong; the appointment of twelve is widely read as Israel's eschatological reconstitution. High coherence and availability.

Moses wrote all Yahweh’s words, and rose up early in the morning, and built an altar under the mountain, and twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel.


The deliberate count of twelve maps onto the twelve sons/tribes of Jacob, signaling the renewal of the twelve-tribe people around Jesus. Availability is total and the symbolism of twelve is unmistakable in a Jewish frame.

All these are the twelve tribes of Israel, and this is what their father spoke to them and blessed them. He blessed everyone according to his blessing.


The twelve stones engraved with the names of the twelve tribes on the high priest's breastpiece reinforce the tribal symbolism of the named Twelve listed individually here. The naming of each disciple parallels the named tribal stones. Coherence is good though the echo is to the institution of twelve, not specific words.

The stones shall be according to the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names; like the engravings of a signet, everyone according to his name, they shall be for the twelve tribes.


The selection of named tribal representatives, one set apart from each tribe to lead, parallels Jesus naming twelve leaders for the renewed Israel. The list-of-names form and representative function support coherence.

With you there shall be a man of every tribe; everyone head of his fathers’ house. These are the names of the men who shall stand with you: Of Reuben: Elizur the son of Shedeur. Of Simeon: Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai. Of Judah: Nahshon the son of Amminadab. Of Issachar: Nethanel the son of Zuar. Of Zebulun: Eliab the son of Helon. Of the children of Joseph: Of Ephraim: Elishama the son of Ammihud. Of Manasseh: Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur. Of […]


Moses appointing leaders to share his authority/spirit prefigures Jesus appointing the Twelve to share his authority to preach and cast out demons. The delegation-of-authority motif coheres; verbal contact is faint.

Yahweh said to Moses, “Gather to me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them to the Tent of Meeting, that they may stand there with you. I will come down and talk with you there. I will take of the Spirit which is on you, and will put it on them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, that you not bear it yourself alone.


'Sons of Thunder' (Boanerges) may resonate with the storm/thunder theophany imagery applied to God's voice and zeal; thunder is a recurrent divine-presence symbol (Sinai, Psalm 29). The naming is suggestive but the OT anchor is diffuse, so marked contested and low.

When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they will not overflow you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned, and flame will not scorch you.


The mountain setting where the people are gathered and authority is conferred recalls the Sinai theophany with its thunder; the 'Sons of Thunder' epithet may draw on this. Faint, thematic, contested.

On the third day, when it was morning, there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud on the mountain, and the sound of an exceedingly loud trumpet; and all the people who were in the camp trembled. Moses led the people out of the camp to meet God; and they stood at the lower part of the mountain. Mount Sinai, all it, smoked, because Yahweh descended on it in fire; and its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked […]


The strong-man parable, binding the strong man to plunder his house, closely tracks Isaiah's 'shall the prey be taken from the mighty?... I will contend... and save your children.' The vocabulary of the strong/mighty one and plunder/spoil maps onto the saying, and the theme of God liberating captives from a powerful captor gives high coherence. Strong volume for an OT background to the exorcism logic.

Shall the plunder be taken from the mighty, or the lawful captives be delivered? But thus says Yahweh, “Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the plunder of the terrible shall be delivered; for I will contend with him who contends with you, and I will save your children.


'He shall divide the spoil with the strong' supplies the plunder-of-the-strong imagery underlying v.27. The Servant's victory and dividing of spoil coheres with Jesus despoiling Satan's house; an alternative or supplement to Isaiah 49.

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the plunder with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.


Deliverance 'from my strong enemy' parallels the binding of the strong man; the psalmist is rescued from a mightier foe by God's power. Thematic coherence with the rescue-from-the-strong motif; low volume.

He delivered me from my strong enemy, from those who hated me; for they were too mighty for me.


The Beelzebul charge and the question 'how can Satan cast out Satan?' play against OT traditions where an evil spirit from the Lord can be soothed, distinguishing genuine deliverance from collusion. Faint background to the exorcism dispute.

Now the Spirit of Yahweh departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from Yahweh troubled him. Saul’s servants said to him, “See now, an evil spirit from God troubles you. Let our lord now command your servants who are before you, to seek out a man who is a skillful player on the harp. It shall happen, when the evil spirit from God is on you, that he shall play with his hand, and you shall be well.” Saul said to his servants, “Provide me now a man who can play […]


Baal/Beelzebul nomenclature derives from the lord-of-the-house/lord-of-flies deity polemicized in Kings; the scribes' charge weaponizes a pagan-deity name with deep OT polemical history (Ahaziah's inquiry of Baal-zebub in 2 Kings 1). Provides the name's availability and connotation.

Elijah came near to all the people, and said, “How long will you waver between the two sides? If Yahweh is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.” The people answered him not a word.


The unforgivable, eternally-condemning blasphemy against the Spirit echoes the Torah's 'high-handed' sin that cuts a person off with no atonement, the one defiant offense excluded from forgiveness. Coherence with the deliberate-sin-without-pardon category is strong.

“‘But the soul who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native-born or a foreigner, the same blasphemes Yahweh. That soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised Yahweh’s word, and has broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off. His iniquity shall be on him.’”


'The iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice forever' offers an OT precedent for a sin barred from forgiveness, paralleling the never-forgiven blasphemy. Thematic, low volume.

Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be removed with sacrifice nor offering forever.”


'They rebelled and grieved his holy Spirit, so he turned to be their enemy' is one of the rare OT texts naming the Holy Spirit and a rebellion against it. Attributing the Spirit's work to an unclean spirit (v.30) is precisely grieving/blaspheming the holy Spirit; availability of the exact phrase is notable.

But they rebelled, and grieved his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he himself fought against them.


The Spirit's striving with humanity that does not abide forever offers a faint backdrop to a limit on forgiveness when the Spirit is rejected. Low volume and contested.

Yahweh said, “My Spirit will not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; so his days will be one hundred twenty years.”


Levi's blessing praises those who say of father, mother and brothers 'I do not know them,' keeping covenant over kin, exactly the relativizing of natural family for the sake of God's word that Jesus enacts. Strong thematic coherence with redefining kinship around obedience to God.

He said of his father, and of his mother, ‘I have not seen him.’ He didn’t acknowledge his brothers, nor did he know his own children; for they have observed your word, and keep your covenant.


The Levites' willingness to act against brother and son to do the Lord's will is invoked as covenant fidelity over blood ties, paralleling 'whoever does the will of God is my brother.' Thematic, low volume.

He said to them, “Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, ‘Every man put his sword on his thigh, and go back and forth from gate to gate throughout the camp, and every man kill his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.’” The sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. Moses said, “Consecrate yourselves today to Yahweh, yes, every man against his son, and against […]


'I delight to do your will, O my God' anchors the climactic criterion of kinship: doing the will of God. The will-of-God obedience theme has strong recurrence in the Psalter and high coherence with Jesus' redefinition of family.

I delight to do your will, my God. Yes, your law is within my heart.”


'I will declare your name to my brothers' supplies a Davidic-righteous-sufferer model of a community of brothers gathered around the one who does God's will. Faint, but Psalm 22 is heavily mined by Mark's passion, raising recurrence.

I will declare your name to my brothers. In the midst of the assembly, I will praise you.


Isaiah's image of rain and seed that gives bread and accomplishes God's purpose underwrites the sower parable's logic that the sown word inevitably bears fruit. Thematic coherence is strong (word = seed that does not return empty), and the harvest-yield climax in 4:8 mirrors Isaiah's effective word. Volume is moderate since Mark does not cite, but the recurrence of the word-as-seed motif across early Christian tradition supports availability.

For as the rain comes down and the snow from the sky, and doesn’t return there, but waters the earth, and makes it grow and bud, and gives seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall my word be that goes out of my mouth: it shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing I sent it to do.


Jeremiah's 'Break up your fallow ground, and don't sow among thorns' supplies the precise agricultural antithesis of good soil versus thorn-choked ground seen in 4:7-8. The shared sowing-among-thorns image gives thematic coherence, though volume is faint and the wording is conventional farming language widely available in the prophets.

For thus says Yahweh to the men of Judah and to Jerusalem, “Break up your fallow ground, and don’t sow among thorns.


Hosea's 'Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap according to kindness; break up your fallow ground' joins sowing and reaping as a covenant-fruit metaphor coherent with the parable's yield. The connection is thematic rather than verbal, and the sowing/harvest pairing is a stock prophetic idiom, so it remains faint.

Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap according to kindness. Break up your fallow ground; for it is time to seek Yahweh, until he comes and rains righteousness on you.


Qoheleth's counsel to sow seed without knowing which will prosper resonates with the indiscriminate scattering across four soils in 4:4-8. The thematic coherence (uncertain outcome of sowing) is real but the image is proverbial, lowering volume and distinctiveness.

In the morning sow your seed, and in the evening don’t withhold your hand; for you don’t know which will prosper, whether this or that, or whether they both will be equally good.


Isaac's hundredfold harvest as a sign of divine blessing offers a scriptural precedent for the climactic 'one hundred times' yield in 4:8. The hundredfold motif is distinctive enough to register, though Mark gives no other Isaac signals, keeping recurrence and volume low.

Isaac sowed in that land, and reaped in the same year one hundred times what he planted. Yahweh blessed him.


The summons 'Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear' inverts Deuteronomy's complaint that the LORD has not given Israel 'ears to hear,' setting up the hardening theme made explicit at 4:12. Thematic coherence with the eyes/ears-of-perception tradition is strong and recurs across Isaiah and Jeremiah, supporting the link even without verbatim citation.

But Yahweh has not given you a heart to know, eyes to see, and ears to hear, to this day.


Ezekiel's rebellious house 'which have ears to hear, and don't hear' supplies nearly the exact idiom of the call to hearing in 4:9 and 4:23. The verbal overlap (ears to hear) and shared context of obstinate non-perception give good volume and coherence with Mark's hardening motif.

Son of man, you dwell in the midst of the rebellious house, who have eyes to see, and don’t see, who have ears to hear, and don’t hear; for they are a rebellious house.


Jeremiah's 'who have eyes, and don't see; who have ears, and don't hear' belongs to the same prophetic cluster Mark draws on for the ears-to-hear refrain. It reinforces recurrence within the Isaiah 6 family of hardening texts that frames the whole parables discourse.

‘Hear now this, foolish people, and without understanding; who have eyes, and don’t see; who have ears, and don’t hear:


Mark 4:12 directly quotes Isaiah's commission ('seeing they may see, and not perceive; hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest they should turn and be forgiven'), with the wording closer to the Targum's 'be forgiven' than the MT/LXX 'be healed.' This is the chapter's central formal citation: high volume, explicit, and thematically governing the entire purpose-of-parables saying.

He said, “Go, and tell this people, ‘You hear indeed, but don’t understand; and you see indeed, but don’t perceive.’ Make the heart of this people fat. Make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn again, and be healed.”


The disclosure of 'the mystery of the Kingdom of God' in 4:11 echoes Daniel's revealed 'mystery' (raz) of the coming kingdom that God makes known to the elect while it stays hidden from outsiders. The apocalyptic mystery-revelation vocabulary is distinctive and coherent with Mark's insider/outsider divide, giving solid thematic and verbal warrant.

but there is a God in heaven who reveals secrets, and he has made known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Your dream, and the visions of your head on your bed, are these:


Daniel's vision of the God of heaven setting up an indestructible kingdom underlies Mark's 'Kingdom of God' language as a revealed eschatological secret. Recurrence of the Danielic kingdom motif throughout Mark strengthens the coherence even though 4:11 cites no text.

In the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.


Isaiah's theme of God sealing prophetic vision and giving a spirit of stupor so the people cannot understand parallels the deliberate withholding of perception in 4:11-12. It belongs to the same hardening tradition as Isaiah 6 and reinforces its recurrence, though Mark does not draw on its specific wording.

For Yahweh has poured out on you a spirit of deep sleep, and has closed your eyes, the prophets; and he has covered your heads, the seers. All vision has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one who is educated, saying, “Read this, please”; and he says, “I can’t, for it is sealed:” and the book is delivered to one who is not educated, saying, “Read this, please”; and he says, “I can’t read.” The Lord said, “Because […]


The psalmist's 'I will open my mouth in a parable' connects parabolic speech with hidden things 'from of old' (so used in Matthew's redaction of this material). For Mark the link is faint and indirect, registering only as thematic coherence between parable-speech and concealed mysteries.

I will open my mouth in a parable. I will utter dark sayings of old,


The interpretation that 'the farmer sows the word' (4:14) makes explicit the Isaianic identification of God's effective word with seed that produces fruit. The allegory's insistence that the word bears thirty/sixty/hundredfold (4:20) coheres tightly with Isaiah's word that accomplishes its purpose and does not return empty.


The thorn-choked seed that 'becomes unfruitful' (4:18-19) recalls Jeremiah's warning not to sow among thorns, here moralized into the cares and riches that choke the word. The agricultural antithesis is coherent but the language is conventional, keeping it faint.


Ben Sira's warning that the lover of gold will not be justified and that riches are a stumbling block coheres with 'the deceitfulness of riches' that chokes the word in 4:19. The wisdom-tradition critique of wealth supplies a Second-Temple backdrop, though the connection is thematic rather than cited.

He that loves gold shall not be justified; And he that follows destruction shall himself have his fill of it. Many have been given over to ruin for the sake of gold; And their perdition meets them face to face. It is a stumbling block to those who sacrifice to it; And every fool shall be taken therewith.


Proverbs' 'The spirit of man is the LORD's lamp, searching all his innermost parts' supplies a lamp-as-revelation image coherent with the saying that what is hidden must come to light (4:22). The lamp metaphor for disclosure of inner things gives thematic coherence, though Mark cites nothing and lamp imagery is widespread.

The spirit of man is Yahweh’s lamp, searching all his innermost parts.


Qoheleth's conviction that God will bring every hidden work into judgment matches the principle 'there is nothing hidden, except that it should be made known' (4:22). The eschatological disclosure of the concealed is thematically coherent, though the wording is independent.

For God will bring every work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it is good, or whether it is evil.


Daniel's praise that God 'reveals the deep and secret things' and that 'light dwells with him' resonates with the hidden-to-be-revealed/come-to-light pairing in 4:22, continuing the chapter's Danielic mystery-revelation vocabulary. The link is thematic and reinforces recurrence within the discourse.

he reveals the deep and secret things; he knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with him.


The measure-for-measure principle that 'with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you' (4:24) draws on the wisdom logic of reciprocal recompense found in Proverbs' teaching that what one gives the LORD repays. The retributive-measure motif is coherent though proverbial and not specifically cited.

He who has pity on the poor lends to Yahweh; he will reward him.


The saying 'to him who has, more will be given' (4:25) parallels Proverbs' wisdom-multiplication theme ('Give to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser'). The principle that receptivity yields increase is thematically coherent with the surrounding hearing-discourse, though faint.

Instruct a wise man, and he will be still wiser. Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning.


Daniel's God who 'gives wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to those who have understanding' offers a Second-Temple precedent for the have/have-not multiplication of 4:25. The connection is thematic and reinforces the chapter's Danielic coloring, but remains faint.

He changes the times and the seasons; he removes kings, and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to those who have understanding;


The harvest climax 'he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come' (4:29) closely echoes Joel's 'Put in the sickle; for the harvest is ripe.' The verbal overlap of sickle-and-ripe-harvest is distinctive (high volume) and coheres with Mark's eschatological framing of the kingdom's arrival as a reaping, making this the pericope's strongest link.

Put in the sickle; for the harvest is ripe. Come, tread, for the wine press is full, the vats overflow, for their wickedness is great.”


The earth bearing fruit 'of itself' (automate)—blade, ear, full grain (4:28)—recalls the creation account of the earth bringing forth vegetation yielding seed after its kind. The motif of the earth's God-given autonomous fertility is thematically coherent, though Mark gives no verbal citation.

God said, “Let the earth yield grass, herbs yielding seeds, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with their seeds in it, on the earth”; and it was so. The earth yielded grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with their seeds in it, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.


The image of grain ripening to harvest draws on the broader Torah harvest framework, but the link is generic. Included for maximality; volume and distinctiveness are low and the coherence is only with the agricultural setting.

“‘When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest.


The mustard plant that puts out 'great branches, so that the birds of the sky can lodge under its shadow' (4:32) reworks Ezekiel's noble cedar planted on the mountain under which 'all birds of every wing' dwell in the shadow of its branches. The branches-shadow-birds-nesting cluster is verbally and thematically tight (high volume), and the imperial-tree-as-kingdom motif coheres with Mark's kingdom parable.

in the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it; and it shall produce boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all birds of every wing; in the shade of its branches shall they dwell.


Nebuchadnezzar's tree whose branches shelter the beasts and in which 'the birds of the sky lived' supplies the proverbial great-tree-with-nesting-birds image behind 4:32. The recurrence of this kingdom-tree topos (Daniel 4:21 repeats it) gives strong availability and coherence with the contrast between the tiny seed and the sheltering kingdom.

The leaves of it were beautiful, and its fruit much, and in it was food for all: the animals of the field had shadow under it, and the birds of the sky lived in its branches, and all flesh was fed from it.


Ezekiel's Assyrian cedar in whose boughs 'all the birds of the sky made their nests' and under whose shadow great nations lived belongs to the same world-tree tradition Mark evokes. The shared birds-nest-in-the-shadow image reinforces recurrence across the prophetic kingdom-tree corpus.

All the birds of the sky made their nests in its boughs; and under its branches all the animals of the field gave birth to their young; and all great nations lived under its shadow.


The reprise of the tree 'in whose branches the birds of the sky lived' restates the Danielic kingdom-tree, strengthening the topos behind 4:32 by recurrence within a single source. Its function is to confirm the availability of the great-tree-as-dominion symbol rather than to add new wording.

whose leaves were beautiful, and its fruit much, and in it was food for all; under which the animals of the field lived, and on whose branches the birds of the sky had their habitation:


The psalm's 'birds of the sky' that nest by the branches and sing reflects the same creation-poetic image of birds lodging in foliage. It is a faint, generic parallel that adds coherence to the nesting-birds detail but lacks the kingdom-tree distinctiveness of Ezekiel and Daniel.

The birds of the sky nest by them. They sing among the branches.


The summary that Jesus spoke 'without a parable he didn't speak to them' resonates with the psalmist's 'I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old.' The link between exclusive parabolic teaching and revealed/concealed wisdom is thematically coherent, though for Mark it is faint and uncited.


The storm-stilling sequence—seafarers in distress, a stormy wind lifting the waves, a cry to the LORD, and his making 'the storm a calm, so that its waves are still'—maps closely onto 4:37-39. The verbal echo of the LORD stilling waves into calm is distinctive (high volume) and thematically frames Jesus exercising divine prerogative over the sea.

Those who go down to the sea in ships, who do business in great waters; These see Yahweh’s works, and his wonders in the deep. For he commands, and raises the stormy wind, which lifts up its waves. They mount up to the sky; they go down again to the depths. Their soul melts away because of trouble. They reel back and forth, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wits’ end. Then they cry to Yahweh in their trouble, and he brings them out of their […]


The scene of a prophet asleep in the boat during a great storm, woken by terrified sailors fearing death, with the sea growing calm once he acts, closely parallels 4:37-41. The shared narrative structure (sleeping figure, fear of perishing, calmed sea, awe-struck question) gives strong volume and coherence, with Jesus surpassing Jonah by commanding rather than being thrown overboard.

But Yahweh sent out a great wind on the sea, and there was a mighty storm on the sea, so that the ship was likely to break up. Then the mariners were afraid, and every man cried to his god. They threw the cargo that was in the ship into the sea to lighten the ship. But Jonah had gone down into the innermost parts of the ship, and he was laying down, and was fast asleep. So the ship master came to him, and said to him, “What do you mean, sleeper? Arise, […]


'You rule the pride of the sea. When its waves rise up, you still them' attributes to YHWH precisely the sea-rebuking power Jesus wields in 4:39. The distinctive divine-warrior motif of mastering the chaotic sea makes this a strong echo undergirding the disciples' question 'Who then is this?'

You rule the pride of the sea. When its waves rise up, you calm them.


God's stilling of 'the roaring of the seas, the roaring of their waves' supplies the same sea-mastery vocabulary applied to Jesus in 4:39. It reinforces the recurrence of the YHWH-stills-the-sea topos across the Psalter that frames the miracle's Christological force.

who stills the roaring of the seas, the roaring of their waves, and the turmoil of the nations.


God's 'rebuke' of the Red Sea so that it dried up supplies the rebuke-of-the-sea verb (epitimao) used in 4:39, framing the calming as a divine-warrior subjugation of chaotic waters. The shared rebuking-the-sea motif gives good coherence with Mark's exodus-tinged sea command.

He rebuked the Red Sea also, and it was dried up; so he led them through the depths, as through a desert.


Nahum's God who 'rebukes the sea, and makes it dry' provides another instance of the divine rebuke of the waters behind Jesus' command 'Peace! Be still!' (4:39). It strengthens the recurrence of the sea-rebuke tradition, though it is not specifically cited.

He rebukes the sea, and makes it dry, and dries up all the rivers. Bashan languishes, and Carmel; and the flower of Lebanon languishes.


The LORD's setting bounds for the sea—'thus far shall you come, but no further; and here shall your proud waves be stayed'—portrays the creator's unique authority over the deep that Jesus assumes in 4:39-41. The coherence with the disciples' awe at one who commands wind and sea is strong, supporting the figural Christology.

“Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke out of the womb, when I made clouds its garment, and wrapped it in thick darkness, marked out for it my bound, set bars and doors, and said, ‘Here you may come, but no further. Here your proud waves shall be stayed?’


The waters fleeing at God's rebuke in the creation-psalm adds to the cluster of texts where the deity's voice masters the sea, coherent with Jesus' verbal command. It is a faint reinforcement of the sea-rebuke topos rather than a distinct source.

At your rebuke they fled. At the voice of your thunder they hurried away.


The psalmist's peaceful sleep in trust—'I will both lay down and sleep in peace'—offers a faint counterpoint to Jesus asleep amid the storm (4:38), portraying serene confidence in God. The link is thematic and weak, included for maximality.

In peace I will both lay myself down and sleep, for you, Yahweh alone, make me live in safety.


Wisdom's portrait of God's providence guiding the sea-voyager safely through the waves provides a Second-Temple backdrop to deliverance from a storm at sea (4:37-39). It contributes thematic coherence and availability, but the connection is general rather than verbal.

Again, one preparing to sail, and about to journey over raging waves, Calleth upon a piece of wood more rotten than the vessel that carries him; For that vessel the hunger for gains devised, And a craftsman, even wisdom, built it; And your providence, O Father, guideth it along, Because even in the sea you gave a way, And in the waves a sure path, Shewing that you can save out of every danger, That so even without are a man may put to sea;


Isaiah indicts the rebellious people who 'sit among the graves and lodge in the secret places, who eat swine's flesh.' Mark's demoniac dwelling among the tombs (vv.2-3,5) coupled with the herd of swine (vv.11-13) gives a remarkably dense convergence of both motifs — graves and pigs — that no other OT text combines. High Volume and Thematic Coherence: both passages concern unclean, rebellious figures marked off from covenant life, met by a God who reveals himself to those not seeking him (Isa 65:1).

who sit among the graves, and lodge in the secret places; who eat pig’s flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels;


Continues the Isaiah 65 oracle: a people 'who provoke me to my face continually, sacrificing in gardens.' The demoniac's defiant, self-destructive crying out night and day (v.5) coheres with Isaiah's portrait of provocation and cultic impurity. Strengthens the recurrence of the Isaiah 65 background already secured by v.4.

a people who provoke me to my face continually, sacrificing in gardens, and burning incense on bricks;


The unclean of Isaiah say 'Keep to yourself, do not come near me, for I am too holy for you' — a perverse holiness that defiles. The demoniac's cry 'What have I to do with you... do not torment me' (v.7) and the swine's contagion echo the ironic uncleanness-as-holiness of Isa 65:5, where God calls such people 'a smoke in my nostrils.' Thematic coherence within the same oracle reinforces the allusion.

who say, Stand by yourself, don’t come near to me, for I am holier than you. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burns all the day.


The drowning of the unclean spirits in the sea (v.13) and the larger Markan motif of mastering the deep (preceding stilling of the storm) draws on the chaos-waters over which God's spirit broods at creation. The sea as the locus into which disorder is cast is faintly evocative of the primeval deep, but the connection is thematic rather than verbal.

The earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep and God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.


'Legion' — a Roman military term — and the herd's headlong rush into the sea where they are drowned (v.13) figurally re-enacts the destruction of Pharaoh's host swallowed by the sea. The numbering ('about two thousand'), the military diction, and the drowning of an enemy army in water echo the Exodus deliverance. Mark casts Jesus' exorcism as a new-Exodus liberation from an occupying force, a coherence many read in the Gerasene narrative.

Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to its strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it. Yahweh overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. The waters returned, and covered the chariots and the horsemen, even all Pharaoh’s army that went in after them into the sea. There remained not so much as one of them.


The Song of the Sea celebrates that horse and rider were thrown into the sea. The drowning of Legion's host (v.13) resonates with this triumph-song over a defeated army cast into the waters, supporting the new-Exodus reading; faint and thematic, dependent on the Exodus 14 figural link.

Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to Yahweh, and said, “I will sing to Yahweh, for he has triumphed gloriously. The horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea.


The demoniac addresses Jesus as 'Son of the Most High God' (v.7), using El Elyon, the divine title first given by Melchizedek (Gen 14:18-20). The Septuagintal 'God Most High' is a recurrent OT designation (Ps 78:35; Dan 3:26) and here, on Gentile lips, signals recognition of Israel's God by an outsider/unclean source. Strong Availability and Volume for the title.

Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine: and he was priest of God Most High.


Nebuchadnezzar calls the three 'servants of the Most High God' — the same Greek title used by the demoniac (v.7) and characteristic of Gentile recognition of Israel's God in the LXX. The pattern of a pagan figure confessing 'the Most High God' coheres with Mark's setting in Gentile Decapolis. Recurrence of the title in Daniel strengthens the figural background.

Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace: he spoke and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, you servants of the Most High God, come out, and come here. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came out of the midst of the fire.


Psalm 107 describes those who 'sat in darkness and the shadow of death, bound in affliction and irons,' whom God delivers. The demoniac bound with chains and fetters, dwelling in deathly tombs and broken loose (vv.3-4), evokes this portrait of the captive freed by divine mercy. The same Psalm's later stilling of the storm (107:29) parallels Mark's preceding pericope, supporting recurrence; nonetheless verbal contact is faint.

Some sat in darkness and in the shadow of death, being bound in affliction and iron,


The Torah's gravest corpse-uncleanness law marks anyone touching a grave or the dead as defiled seven days. The demoniac's permanent residence among the tombs (vv.2-3,5) renders him maximally unclean by this standard, which Mark heightens by adjoining the swine. Thematic coherence with the wider Markan concern for purity boundaries crossed by Jesus.

“Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain with a sword, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.


Swine are the paradigmatic unclean animal: 'of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch.' The great herd of pigs (vv.11-13) signals the Gentile, unclean territory and supplies the fitting receptacle for unclean spirits. The legal designation of swine grounds the narrative's purity logic and reinforces the Isaiah 65:4 swine motif.

The pig, because he has a split hoof, and is cloven-footed, but doesn’t chew the cud, he is unclean to you. Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean to you.


The woman 'with an issue of blood' (v.25) embodies the Levitical zavah: a woman with a discharge beyond her period is unclean all the days of the flow, and whatever and whoever she touches becomes unclean. Her touching Jesus' garment (v.27) inverts the expected contagion — purity flows outward rather than impurity inward. Very high Volume and Thematic Coherence; the legal background is essential to the scene's meaning.

“‘If a woman has a discharge of her blood many days not in the time of her period, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her period; all the days of the discharge of her uncleanness shall be as in the days of her period: she is unclean. Every bed whereon she lies all the days of her discharge shall be to her as the bed of her period: and everything whereon she sits shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her period. Whoever touches these things […]


The baseline menstrual-impurity law ('seven days she shall be in her impurity, and whoever touches her shall be unclean') frames the chronic twelve-year condition (v.25). Establishes that the woman is perpetually outside normal social and cultic contact, deepening the audacity of her approach in the crowd.

“‘If a woman has a discharge, and her discharge in her flesh is blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days: and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening.


The law's resolution requires the priest to make atonement 'for her unclean discharge,' after which she is clean. Jesus' word 'be cured of your disease' (v.34) functions as the priestly declaration of restored cleanness, the discharge being 'dried up' (v.29). Thematic coherence: Jesus enacts the role the Levitical system assigns to atonement and priestly verdict.

The priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her before Yahweh for the uncleanness of her discharge.


'The sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings (kanaph)' — the same term denotes the hem/corner of a garment. The woman seeks healing by touching the edge of Jesus' clothes (vv.27-28), and Matthew/Luke specify the kraspedon (tassel). Faint but evocative: healing located in the garment's edge resonates with Malachi's healing 'in the wings.'

But to you who fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. You will go out, and leap like calves of the stall.


The command to wear tassels on the corners of garments as reminders of the commandments stands behind the Synoptic detail of touching the hem (here generalized as 'his clothes,' v.27). The healing power located in the garment's fringe gains resonance from the sanctity Torah attaches to the tassel; faint in Mark, who omits the tassel itself.

“Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them that they should make themselves fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put on the fringe of each border a cord of blue: and it shall be to you for a fringe, that you may look on it, and remember all the commandments of Yahweh, and do them; and that you not follow after your own heart and your own eyes, after which you use to play the prostitute;


Contact with Elisha's bones revives a corpse — power transmitted by touch from a holy person even involuntarily. The woman's cure by touching Jesus' garment, with power 'gone out from him' (v.30), echoes the prophetic motif of healing virtue conveyed through physical contact. Thematic, supporting the Elijah-Elisha typology that pervades the chapter.

As they were burying a man, behold, they saw a band of raiders; and they threw the man into Elisha’s tomb. As soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.


Elijah raises the widow of Zarephath's son: he goes in to where the child lies, acts privately, and 'the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived,' then Elijah presents the living child. Mark's raising of Jairus' daughter — entering where the child lay (v.40), the restoring word, the return to life (v.42) — is patterned on this paradigmatic prophetic resurrection. Strong Volume and recurrence within the chapter's Elijah-Elisha typology.

After these things, the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so severe, that there was no breath left in him. She said to Elijah, “What have I to do with you, you man of God? You have come to me to bring my sin to memory, and to kill my son!” He said to her, “Give me your son.” He took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into the room where he stayed, and laid him on his own bed. He cried to Yahweh, and said, […]


Elisha raises the Shunammite's son: he enters alone with the dead child, shuts the door (cf. Jesus putting out the mourners, v.40), and the child revives; the mother falls at his feet (cf. Jairus, v.22). The closest single template for Jairus' daughter — privacy, exclusion of others, parental supplication, and bodily resurrection of a child — making the Elisha narrative a primary subtext.

When Elisha had come into the house, behold, the child was dead, and laid on his bed. He went in therefore, and shut the door on them both, and prayed to Yahweh. He went up, and lay on the child, and put his mouth on his mouth, and his eyes on his eyes, and his hands on his hands. He stretched himself on him; and the flesh of the child grew warm. Then he returned, and walked in the house once back and forth; and went up, and stretched himself on him. Then […]


Elisha's bodily, hands-on revival ('he put his mouth on his mouth... the flesh of the child grew warm') resonates with Jesus 'taking the child by the hand' (v.41). The motif of resurrection effected by the prophet's physical contact strengthens the Elisha typology beyond the structural parallels already noted in 4:32-37.

He went up, and lay on the child, and put his mouth on his mouth, and his eyes on his eyes, and his hands on his hands. He stretched himself on him; and the flesh of the child grew warm. Then he returned, and walked in the house once back and forth; and went up, and stretched himself on him. Then the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes.


Elijah 'gave him to his mother' after the raising; Jesus likewise restores the child to her parents and orders that she be given food (v.43), confirming bodily life. The return-to-the-parent motif and the demonstration of real restored life cohere closely with the Elijah pattern.

Elijah took the child, and brought him down out of the room into the house, and delivered him to his mother; and Elijah said, “Behold, your son lives.”


Jesus' euphemism 'the child is not dead, but is asleep' (v.39) trades on the OT/Second-Temple metaphor of death as sleep from which the dead awake, classically formulated in Daniel's 'many who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake.' The raising functions as a proleptic sign of resurrection hope; thematic and verbal contact through the sleep-of-death idiom.

Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.


Death-as-sleep language (e.g., the patriarchs 'sleeping with their fathers,' a recurrent OT idiom) underlies Jesus' 'she is asleep' (v.39), prompting the mourners' ridicule because they hear only literal sleep. Faint, depending on the broader idiom rather than a single text; cited to register the OT availability of the metaphor.

He said, “Swear to me,” and he swore to him. Israel bowed himself on the bed’s head.


'Weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning' — the turning of mourning into rejoicing at a child's restoration loosely echoes the psalm's reversal from lament to deliverance, set against the 'weeping and great wailing' (v.38) Jesus overturns. Thematic only; included as a faint coherence with the chapter's reversal of death into life.

For his anger is but for a moment. His favor is for a lifetime. Weeping may stay for the night, but joy comes in the morning.


Jeremiah's own townsmen of Anathoth seek his life, the classic instance of a prophet rejected by his native place. Jesus' aphorism that a prophet lacks honor 'in his own country' and 'among his own relatives' coheres thematically with Jeremiah's hometown opposition. Recurrence of the rejected-prophet pattern across the OT strengthens the figural reading.

Therefore thus says Yahweh concerning the men of Anathoth, who seek your life, saying, You shall not prophesy in Yahweh’s name, that you not die by our hand;


Jeremiah is warned that even his brothers and his father's house deal treacherously with him. Mark's specification 'among his own relatives, and in his own house' closely tracks this kin-and-household betrayal motif. The verbal overlap of 'house' and 'kindred' makes the echo more than generic.

For even your brothers, and the house of your father, even they have dealt treacherously with you; even they have cried aloud after you: don’t believe them, though they speak beautiful words to you.


Elijah laments rejection by his own people Israel despite his prophetic word, part of the OT type of the lone unhonored prophet. The thematic coherence with Jesus' rejection at Nazareth supports a faint echo, though no verbal link exists. Marked contested as a pattern-level resonance only.

He said, “I have been very jealous for Yahweh, the God of Armies; for the children of Israel have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and slain your prophets with the sword. I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.”


Ezekiel is sent to a rebellious house that will not listen, and is told to speak 'whether they hear or refuse to hear.' Jesus' marveling at their unbelief and inability to do mighty works mirrors the prophet sent to obstinate kin. The commissioning-to-the-resistant pattern coheres with Mark's portrait.

He said to me, Son of man, I send you to the children of Israel, to a nation of rebels who have rebelled against me. They and their fathers have transgressed against me even to this very day. The children are impudent and stiff-hearted: I am sending you to them; and you shall tell them, Thus says the Lord Yahweh. They, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear, (for they are a rebellious house), yet shall know that there has been a prophet […]


The Servant is 'despised and rejected' and not esteemed. Nazareth's being 'offended' at Jesus faintly anticipates the despised-Servant motif Mark develops toward the passion. Low confidence and contested: thematic only, no verbal contact here.

He was despised, and rejected by men; a man of suffering, and acquainted with disease. He was despised as one from whom men hide their face; and we didn’t respect him.


Israel eats the Passover with staff in hand, sandals on feet, dressed for urgent departure. The Twelve are likewise equipped with a staff and sandals only, traveling light and ready, evoking the Exodus-haste posture. The shared cluster of staff + sandals supports the allusion despite the differing inventory of permitted items.

This is how you shall eat it: with your belt on your waist, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste: it is Yahweh’s Passover.


Elisha sends Gehazi with staff in hand on an urgent prophetic errand, not to greet anyone on the way. The sending of agents bearing a staff, with authority over life and sickness, coheres with the Elijah/Elisha framing of the mission of the Twelve who heal and anoint. Recurrence of the prophet-sends-disciple type strengthens this.

Then he said to Gehazi, “Tuck your cloak into your belt, take my staff in your hand, and go your way. If you meet any man, don’t greet him; and if anyone greets you, don’t answer him again. Then lay my staff on the face of the child.”


Elijah lodges in a single household (the widow of Zarephath) and is sustained there, a model of the prophet received into one house. Jesus' instruction to stay in one house until departure resonates faintly with this prophetic hospitality pattern. Contested, thematic coherence only.

Yahweh’s word came to him, saying, “Arise, go to Zarephath, which belongs to Sidon, and stay there. Behold, I have commanded a widow there to sustain you.” So he arose and went to Zarephath; and when he came to the gate of the city, behold, a widow was there gathering sticks: and he called to her, and said, “Please get me a little water in a vessel, that I may drink.” As she was going to get it, he called to her, and said, “Please bring me a morsel of […]


Nehemiah shakes out the fold of his garment as a prophetic sign-act of curse against those who break covenant. The disciples' shaking off the dust 'for a testimony against them' enacts the same symbolic withdrawal-and-witness gesture. The shared performative testimony-against-the-faithless motif supports the allusion.

Also I shook out my lap, and said, “So may God shake out every man from his house, and from his labor, that doesn’t perform this promise; even thus be he shaken out, and emptied.” All the assembly said, “Amen,” and praised Yahweh. The people did according to this promise.


The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is explicitly named by Jesus as the benchmark of judgment for towns that reject the messengers. This is a direct invocation of the OT narrative as the measure of eschatological accountability. High confidence given the named cities.

Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and on Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of the sky. He overthrew those cities, all the plain, all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew on the ground.


Elisha dispatches a member of the prophetic guild with anointing oil to act in Yahweh's name. The Twelve who 'anointed many with oil' for healing faintly echo prophetic anointing as a delegated sign-act. Contested and thematic; the OT oil here anoints a king, not the sick.

Elisha the prophet called one of the sons of the prophets, and said to him, “Put your belt on your waist, take this vial of oil in your hand, and go to Ramoth Gilead. When you come there, find Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi, and go in, and make him arise up from among his brothers, and carry him to an inner room. Then take the vial of oil, and pour it on his head, and say, ‘Thus says Yahweh, “I have anointed you king over Israel.”’ Then […]


Amos is a layman taken from his ordinary work and sent to prophesy, paralleling the commissioning of ordinary disciples to preach repentance. The send-the-unlikely-prophet motif coheres but lacks verbal contact. Marked contested.

Then Amos answered Amaziah, “I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was a herdsman, and a farmer of sycamore figs; and Yahweh took me from following the flock, and Yahweh said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people Israel.’


Jezebel, the powerful queen, vows to kill the prophet Elijah, who is identified in this very passage (v. 15) with the figure expected to return. Herodias' relentless desire to kill John, the Elijah-figure, replays the Jezebel-versus-prophet conflict. Strong thematic coherence and recurrence, reinforced by Mark's explicit Elijah identification.

Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done, and how he had killed all the prophets with the sword. Then Jezebel sent a messenger to Elijah, saying, “So let the gods do to me, and more also, if I don’t make your life as the life of one of them by tomorrow about this time!”


Jezebel manipulates a royal feast and oath/legal machinery to bring about Naboth's death while the weak king Ahab acquiesces. Herodias engineers John's execution through her daughter at a banquet while a reluctant Herod yields, a deliberate Ahab-Jezebel-Naboth typology. The wicked-queen-orchestrates-judicial-murder pattern is tightly coherent.

After these things, Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard, which was in Jezreel, hard by the palace of Ahab king of Samaria. Ahab spoke to Naboth, saying, “Give me your vineyard, that I may have it for a garden of herbs, because it is near to my house; and I will give you for it a better vineyard than it. Or, if it seems good to you, I will give you its worth in money.” Naboth said to Ahab, “May Yahweh forbid me, that I should give the inheritance of my […]


Ahasuerus, at a banquet, offers Esther her request 'up to half of my kingdom,' the exact royal-oath formula Herod swears to the dancing girl (also Esther 5:6; 7:2). The verbal correspondence is precise and distinctive, making this a near-quotation of the Persian-court motif. High volume and recurrence within Esther.

Then the king asked her, “What would you like, queen Esther? What is your request? It shall be given you even to the half of the kingdom.”


Jezebel cuts off (kills) the prophets of Yahweh while Obadiah hides them, establishing the queen-as-prophet-killer. John's beheading at the queen's instigation reprises this. The Elijah-cycle background that Mark foregrounds strengthens the echo.

for it was so, when Jezebel cut off the prophets of Yahweh, that Obadiah took one hundred prophets, and hid them by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water.)


John's charge, 'It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife,' directly invokes the Levitical prohibition against uncovering the nakedness of a brother's wife. The legal ground of John's rebuke is this statute (cf. Lev 20:21). The verbal and legal correspondence is explicit.

“‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife. It is your brother’s nakedness.


This statute declares it 'impurity' for a man to take his brother's wife, the precise offense John names against Herod for marrying Herodias. Together with Lev 18:16 it furnishes the explicit legal basis of the prophet's condemnation. Direct invocation of Torah.

“‘If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is an impurity. He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless.


King Ahab imprisons the prophet Micaiah for speaking an unwelcome word. Herod's binding John in prison for his unwelcome rebuke replays the king-imprisons-truthful-prophet motif. Contested, thematic coherence within the Kings prophetic cycle.

The king of Israel said, “Take Micaiah, and carry him back to Amon the governor of the city, and to Joash the king’s son. Say, ‘Thus says the king, “Put this fellow in the prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and with water of affliction, until I come in peace.”’”


Jeremiah is imprisoned by officials while a vacillating king Zedekiah privately respects yet fails to protect him. Herod's fearing and gladly hearing John yet failing to save him mirrors the weak-king-and-imprisoned-prophet dynamic. Faint and contested.

Then took they Jeremiah, and cast him into the dungeon of Malchijah the king’s son, that was in the court of the guard: and they let down Jeremiah with cords. In the dungeon there was no water, but mire; and Jeremiah sank in the mire. Now when Ebedmelech the Ethiopian, a eunuch, who was in the king’s house, heard that they had put Jeremiah in the dungeon (the king then sitting in the gate of Benjamin), Ebedmelech went out of the king’s house, and spoke to […]


The fear of human opinion becomes a snare. Herod's capitulation 'for the sake of his oaths and of his dinner guests' illustrates this proverbial snare of social fear. Wisdom-thematic resonance only; contested.

The fear of man proves to be a snare, but whoever puts his trust in Yahweh is kept safe.


Jephthah's rash vow forces him to a deadly act he regrets, the king-bound-by-his-oath tragedy. Herod, 'exceedingly sorry' yet bound 'for the sake of his oaths,' replays this rash-vow type. Contested, thematic and structural parallel without verbal link.

Jephthah vowed a vow to Yahweh, and said, “If you will indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be, that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be Yahweh’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.” So Jephthah passed over to the children of Ammon to fight against them; and Yahweh delivered them into his hand. He struck them from Aroer until you come […]


Pharaoh's birthday feast becomes the occasion of an execution, the only other clear OT royal birthday banquet ending in death. Herod's birthday supper culminating in beheading faintly recalls this. Low confidence, contested resonance.

On the third day, which was Pharaoh’s birthday, he made a feast for all his servants, and he lifted up the head of the chief cup bearer and the head of the chief baker among his servants. He restored the chief cup bearer to his position again, and he gave the cup into Pharaoh’s hand; but he hanged the chief baker, as Joseph had interpreted to them.


Moses prays for a successor so Israel will not be 'as sheep which have no shepherd,' the precise phrase Mark applies to the crowd. Jesus stepping in to teach is cast as the Moses-appointed shepherd over a leaderless people. Verbal correspondence and thematic coherence make this a strong allusion.

who may go out before them, and who may come in before them, and who may lead them out, and who may bring them in; that the congregation of Yahweh not be as sheep which have no shepherd.”


Micaiah sees Israel 'scattered on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd' because their king-shepherd has failed. With Herod's failure as shepherd-king just narrated, Mark's shepherdless-sheep description points pointedly to this text. Strong verbal and thematic fit.

He said, “I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd. Yahweh said, ‘These have no master. Let them each return to his house in peace.’”


Ezekiel indicts Israel's shepherds and says the flock was 'scattered, because there was no shepherd,' promising that God himself will shepherd them. Jesus' compassion and teaching enact Yahweh's promised shepherding of the abandoned flock. High thematic coherence with the immediately preceding failure of Herod.

They were scattered, because there was no shepherd; and they became food to all the animals of the field, and were scattered.


The people 'wander like sheep; they are afflicted for lack of a shepherd' because false guidance has failed them. Mark's shepherdless crowd resonates with Zechariah's diagnosis. Verbal overlap on the shepherdless-sheep image supports a solid allusion, though Numbers/Ezekiel are nearer.

For the teraphim have spoken vanity, and the diviners have seen a lie; and they have told false dreams. They comfort in vain. Therefore they go their way like sheep. They are oppressed, because there is no shepherd.


The leader is to 'go out before them and come in before them,' guiding their movements, language Mark's narrative of the crowd's pursuit and Jesus' going-out-to-teach faintly mirrors. Reinforces the Moses-successor framing of v.34. Contested as a secondary layer of the same Numbers context.

“Let Yahweh, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation, who may go out before them, and who may come in before them, and who may lead them out, and who may bring them in; that the congregation of Yahweh not be as sheep which have no shepherd.”


Moses is so pressed by the people seeking him that he has no respite, prompting Jethro's counsel to share the load. The crowds giving Jesus and the Twelve 'no leisure so much as to eat' faintly recalls the overburdened-mediator scene. Contested, thematic only.

On the next day, Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood around Moses from the morning to the evening. When Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he did to the people, he said, “What is this thing that you do for the people? Why do you sit alone, and all the people stand around you from morning to evening?” Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God. When they have a matter, they come to me, and I judge […]


Woe to shepherds who scatter the flock; God will gather his scattered sheep and raise true shepherds. The shepherdless crowd that Jesus gathers and teaches coheres with this oracle of regathering. Recurrence of the false-shepherd/true-shepherd theme strengthens the echo.

Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! says Yahweh. Therefore thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, against the shepherds who feed my people: You have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them; behold, I will visit on you the evil of your doings, says Yahweh. I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they […]


Elisha feeds a hundred men with twenty barley loaves, his servant objects at the inadequacy, all eat and there is food left over, with a word of the LORD that they shall eat and have some left. The structure of Mark's feeding (objection, insufficient bread, all filled, surplus gathered) closely follows this Elisha miracle. The strongest single source-text by structural correspondence.

A man from Baal Shalishah came, and brought the man of God bread of the first fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of grain in his sack. He said, “Give to the people, that they may eat.” His servant said, “What, should I set this before a hundred men?” But he said, “Give the people, that they may eat; for thus says Yahweh, ‘They will eat, and will have some left over.’” So he set it before them, and they ate, and left some of it, according to […]


God feeds Israel with manna in the wilderness so that 'they gathered, some more, some less... and they had no lack,' all eating to sufficiency. The desert-feeding of the multitude evokes the manna provision, with the 'deserted place' setting reinforcing the wilderness typology. High thematic coherence and recurrence in Israel's memory.

Then Yahweh said to Moses, “Behold, I will rain bread from the sky for you, and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in my law, or not. It shall come to pass on the sixth day, that they shall prepare that which they bring in, and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.” Moses and Aaron said to all the children of Israel, “At evening, then you shall know that Yahweh has brought […]


Israel asks 'Can God spread a table in the wilderness?' and God rains food so 'they ate and were well filled.' Mark's 'they all ate, and were filled' in a deserted place answers the psalm's challenge. The verbal echo of eating-and-being-filled in the desert supports a solid allusion.

Yes, they spoke against God. They said, “Can God prepare a table in the wilderness? Behold, he struck the rock, so that waters gushed out, and streams overflowed. Can he give bread also? Will he provide flesh for his people?” Therefore Yahweh heard, and was angry. A fire was kindled against Jacob, anger also went up against Israel, because they didn’t believe in God, and didn’t trust in his salvation. Yet he commanded the skies above, and opened the doors […]


The shepherd LORD makes his flock 'lie down in green pastures.' Mark's striking detail that the people sit on the 'green grass' immediately after the shepherdless-sheep statement links the feeding to the shepherd-feeds-his-flock psalm. The unusual 'green' notation strengthens the allusion.

Yahweh is my shepherd: I shall lack nothing. He makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters.


'You prepare a table before me'; the shepherd-host who provides a meal coheres with Jesus feeding the crowd after the shepherd motif. Contested, secondary to the green-pastures echo of v.2. Thematic resonance only.

You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil. My cup runs over.


Moses organizes Israel into groups over 'thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens' at Jethro's counsel. The crowd seated 'in groups... by hundreds and by fifties' deliberately arranges the people in the Mosaic wilderness-camp formation. The hundreds-and-fifties ordering is a distinctive verbal echo.

Moreover you shall provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God: men of truth, hating unjust gain; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. Let them judge the people at all times. It shall be that every great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they shall judge themselves. So shall it be easier for you, and they shall share the load with you. If you will […]


Israel's host is officered by 'commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds,' the wilderness military ordering. The ranked seating by hundreds and fifties faintly evokes the ordered camp/army of Israel. Contested, reinforces the Exodus 18 echo.

Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who came from the service of the war.


Elisha multiplies a widow's small jar of oil to overflowing abundance. The Elisha-cycle motif of a prophet multiplying scarce food/provision reinforces the dominant 2 Kings 4:42-44 allusion. Contested, recurrence within the same prophetic cycle.

Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets to Elisha, saying, “Your servant my husband is dead. You know that your servant feared Yahweh. Now the creditor has come to take for himself my two children to be slaves.” Elisha said to her, “What shall I do for you? Tell me: what do you have in the house?” She said, “Your handmaid has nothing in the house, except a pot of oil.” Then he said, “Go, borrow containers from of all your […]


Elijah's word causes a widow's flour and oil not to fail through a famine. The prophet-makes-meager-food-suffice pattern coheres with the feeding miracle. Contested, faint Elijah/Elisha background to the loaves.

Yahweh’s word came to him, saying, “Arise, go to Zarephath, which belongs to Sidon, and stay there. Behold, I have commanded a widow there to sustain you.” So he arose and went to Zarephath; and when he came to the gate of the city, behold, a widow was there gathering sticks: and he called to her, and said, “Please get me a little water in a vessel, that I may drink.” As she was going to get it, he called to her, and said, “Please bring me a morsel of […]


God alone 'treads upon the waves of the sea,' an act reserved to the Creator. Jesus walking on the sea enacts this exclusively divine prerogative, presenting him in the role Job ascribes to God alone. The verbal correspondence (walking/treading on the sea) is precise and theologically loaded.

He alone stretches out the heavens, and treads on the waves of the sea.


'Your way was in the sea, your paths in the great waters,' celebrating God's saving passage through the sea at the Exodus. Jesus' path across the water reprises Yahweh's mastery of the deep in deliverance. Strong thematic coherence with the divine sea-crossing motif.

Your way was through the sea; your paths through the great waters. Your footsteps were not known.


Yahweh makes his glory 'pass by' Moses, the technical theophanic 'passing by.' Mark's odd note that Jesus 'would have passed by them' uses this theophany verb, signaling a divine self-disclosure on the water. The distinctive 'pass by' language anchors the allusion.

He said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim Yahweh’s name before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.” He said, “You cannot see my face, for man may not see me and live.” Yahweh also said, “Behold, there is a place by me, and you shall stand on the rock. It will happen, while my glory passes by, that I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and will cover you with my […]


Yahweh 'passed by' Elijah at Horeb in a theophany of wind and stillness. The same passing-by-of-God motif, paired with wind that ceases, undergirds Jesus' sea epiphany. Reinforces the Exodus 33-34 theophany reading; medium because Exodus is the primary lexical source.

He said, “Go out, and stand on the mountain before Yahweh.” Behold, Yahweh passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before Yahweh; but Yahweh was not in the wind. After the wind an earthquake; but Yahweh was not in the earthquake.


God reveals his name 'I AM' (egō eimi) to Moses. Jesus' self-identification 'It is I' (egō eimi) on the water, joined to the theophanic passing-by, evokes the divine Name as reassurance. The phrase plus the do-not-be-afraid formula marks a deliberate I-AM theophany.

God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM,” and he said, “You shall tell the children of Israel this: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”


Those at sea in distress cry out, and God stills the storm so the waves are hushed and he brings them to harbor. Mark's distressed rowers, contrary wind, and the wind ceasing when Jesus enters the boat closely follow this psalm's sea-rescue script. Strong structural and thematic correspondence.

Those who go down to the sea in ships, who do business in great waters; These see Yahweh’s works, and his wonders in the deep. For he commands, and raises the stormy wind, which lifts up its waves. They mount up to the sky; they go down again to the depths. Their soul melts away because of trouble. They reel back and forth, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wits’ end. Then they cry to Yahweh in their trouble, and he brings them out of their […]


God 'stills the roaring of the seas, the roaring of their waves.' The wind ceasing at Jesus' presence enacts this divine sea-calming prerogative. Reinforces the Job 9 and Psalm 107 cluster; contested as a secondary witness.

who stills the roaring of the seas, the roaring of their waves, and the turmoil of the nations.


'You rule the raging of the sea; when its waves rise, you still them.' Jesus' calming of the wind and waves manifests this sovereign rule over the sea. Recurrence of the God-rules-the-sea theme across the Psalter strengthens the echo.

You rule the pride of the sea. When its waves rise up, you calm them.


Yahweh says 'Fear not... when you pass through the waters I will be with you,' joining the do-not-fear oracle to passage through the waters. Jesus' 'Don't be afraid' amid the sea echoes this salvation-oracle pattern. Contested but thematically apt to the I-AM theophany.

But now thus says Yahweh who created you, Jacob, and he who formed you, Israel: “Don’t be afraid, for I have redeemed you. I have called you by your name. You are mine. When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they will not overflow you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned, and flame will not scorch you.


God's arm dries the sea and makes a way for the redeemed to pass over, recalling the Exodus mastery of the deep. Jesus' walking on and crossing the sea faintly reprises this redemption-through-the-deep imagery. Contested, low verbal contact.

Awake, awake, put on strength, arm of Yahweh; awake, as in the days of old, the generations of ancient times. Isn’t it you who cut Rahab in pieces, who pierced the monster? Isn’t it you who dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep; who made the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to pass over?


'You trampled the sea with your horses, the surging of mighty waters,' a theophany of God treading the sea in deliverance. Jesus treading the sea faintly echoes this divine-warrior imagery. Low confidence, contested.

You trampled the sea with your horses, churning mighty waters.


Israelites are commanded to wear tassels (the 'fringe') on the corners of their garments as a mark of holiness and remembrance of the commandments. The sick seeking to touch the 'fringe' of Jesus' garment invokes this distinctively Israelite tasseled hem. The specific 'fringe' term grounds the allusion.

“Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them that they should make themselves fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put on the fringe of each border a cord of blue: and it shall be to you for a fringe, that you may look on it, and remember all the commandments of Yahweh, and do them; and that you not follow after your own heart and your own eyes, after which you use to play the prostitute;


'The sun of righteousness shall arise with healing in its wings (hem/corners),' a promise of eschatological healing associated with the garment's corners/wings. The crowds healed by touching Jesus' garment-fringe evoke this healing-in-the-hem promise. Medium confidence given the wordplay on 'wings/corners' (kanaph) shared with the tassel.

But to you who fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. You will go out, and leap like calves of the stall.


Mere contact with Elisha's bones restores life, the OT motif of healing power conveyed by touching the prophet or his remains. The healing transmitted by touching Jesus' garment coheres with this contact-with-the-holy-one healing pattern. Contested, thematic resonance only.

As they were burying a man, behold, they saw a band of raiders; and they threw the man into Elisha’s tomb. As soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.


Healing flows out from the temple/sanctuary to wherever the water reaches, an outward-radiating healing presence. Jesus moving through villages and country with healing extending to all who touch him faintly mirrors this radiating-healing motif. Low confidence, contested.

He brought me back to the door of the house; and behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house eastward; (for the forefront of the house was toward the east;) and the waters came down from under, from the right side of the house, on the south of the altar. Then he brought me out by the way of the gate northward, and led me round by the way outside to the outer gate, by the way of the gate that looks toward the east; and behold, there ran […]


The Pharisaic 'tradition of the elders' on washing hands before eating develops from priestly ablution law, where Aaron and his sons must wash hands and feet before approaching the altar. Mark frames the dispute against this Torah backdrop of ritual purity, though the hand-washing of laypeople before ordinary meals is an extension beyond the written commandment, which is precisely Jesus' point. Availability and thematic coherence are strong; verbal volume is faint.

“You shall also make a basin of brass, and its base of brass, in which to wash. You shall put it between the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and you shall put water in it. Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet in it. When they go into the Tent of Meeting, they shall wash with water, that they not die; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn an offering made by fire to Yahweh. So they shall wash their hands and their […]


The catalogue of washings of cups, pitchers, bronze vessels, and couches echoes Leviticus' rules on vessels rendered unclean by contact and requiring rinsing or breaking. Mark's parenthetical ethnography (7:3-4) presupposes this purity system as the matrix for the elders' tradition. The coherence is high though no single verse is quoted.

On whatever any of them falls when they are dead, it shall be unclean; whether it is any vessel of wood, or clothing, or skin, or sack, whatever vessel it is, with which any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the evening; then it will be clean. Every earthen vessel, into which any of them falls, all that is in it shall be unclean, and you shall break it. All food which may be eaten, that on which water comes, shall be […]


Leviticus 15 makes hands a vector of impurity (one with a discharge who has not rinsed his hands conveys uncleanness) and prescribes rinsing vessels of wood and breaking those of clay. This is among the few Torah texts tying hand-rinsing to purity, plausibly seeding the elders' extension to all meals. Faint and contested but availability is genuine.

“‘Whoever he who has the discharge touches, without having rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening. “‘The earthen vessel, which he who has the discharge touches, shall be broken; and every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water.