Celsus

My view of the situation was that this thread offered some interesting theories on the structure of Mark. Vork posted a potential chiasm, that no one has so far scrutinised in great detail. Neither arguments for or against were proposed though Vork may add some qualifiers yet, though Haran questioned the relevancy and methodology. Now questioning relevancy and methodology is well and good, but require some arguments against what was proposed (with the qualifications andrew made taken into account). So it would be clear that far more scrutiny is yet required of Vork's potential chiasm. So I see this thread still has much to offer, especially if we can compare the structures of other historical texts with Mark.

Well the above is, I hope, what might be seen as a fair historical reconstruction and opinion of the situation. It's also chiastic, like so:

A. My view of the situation was that this thread offered some interesting theories on the structure of Mark.

• B. Vork posted a potential chiasm, that no one has so far scrutinised in great detail.
  • C. Neither arguments for or against were proposed though Vork may add some qualifiers yet, but Haran questioned the relevancy and methodology.
  • C'. Now questioning relevancy and methodology is well and good, but require some arguments against what was proposed (with the qualifications andrew made taken into account).
• B'. So it would be clear that far more scrutiny is yet required of Vork's potential chiasm.

A'. So I see this thread still has much to offer, especially if we can compare the structures of other historical texts with Mark.

See? Chiasms are easy. Mark didn't have to be a genius, he just needed to understand form (just like writing sonnets isn't actually hard, writing good sonnets is). But Amaleq, we've hardly found scribal instructions on anything at all, so we're not likely to be able to answer that question barring an extraordinary stroke of luck. What if didactic materials were oral, the same way all other trades were taught in classical times?

Joel

Amaleq13

So it doesn't suggest formal training?

Crap. Once again, I find myself waiting on a curious goat-herder to blunder into a long-hidden cache of scrolls. The recent discovery of one only makes the wait seem longer.

Stupid ancients and their total lack of consideration for our curiosity. <fist-shaking smilie>

JoeWallack

JW:
I just ordered Decoding Mark,
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ternetinfidels
and I've already learned that Jay Raskin lives in the middle of LFJ Wonderland. Thanks for the reference. I think it's beneficial to The Skeptical Effort to give clear examples here of "Mark's" Contrived Literary Style. In evaluating whether the Impossible is Possible, evidence for Markan Contrivance is not needed for Skeptics like us since we start with the Assumption that "Mark" is primarily Fiction and therefore Impossible. No matter how well, poorly, fictional like or historical like it is written, if it contains a significantly Impossible story than it is significantly Impossible, significantly Fiction and significantly Unhistorical. Therefore, its primary interest to Skeptics is as Literature and not history. Markan contrivance can only be useful as historical evidence to Believers who start with the Assumption that the Impossible is Possible.

Demonstrating as we have here that "Mark" contains Literary Contrivance creates the following problems for Believers who want to accept that "Mark" is primarily history:

1) Doubt is created as to the primary objective of "Mark" as a whole. Was it to present History or a Literally Contrived Story?

2) Doubt is created as to the primary objective of "Mark" for individual stories. Was an individual story presented as History or a Literally Contrived Story? How do you tell the difference?

3) A Literally Contrived as opposed to historical story fits the Skeptical assertions that "Mark" did not know Jesus or anyone who knew Jesus. "Matthew" and "Luke" used "Mark" as a primary source because they didn't know Jesus or anyone who knew Jesus either. This has left us with a Bible not based on witness to the historical Jesus. Exactly what a Skeptic would expect for a Bible based on the Impossible.

4) Literary Contrivance contradicts the normal Christian assertion that "Mark" was written by a simplewonton.

5) Demonstration of Markan Contrivance is a relatively new phenomena which illustrates the One Way filter Christian Bible scholarship has used for 2,000 years, primarily searching for evidence supporting Christian assertions and ignoring, or at least not recognizing evidence not supporting Christian assertions.

Getting back to the amazing Literary Contrivance of "Mark", consider this: (KJV)

Start of Ministry: The Jews

1:
21 "And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.
22 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.
23 And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,
24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.
26 And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him. 27 And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.
28 And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.
29 And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John."


And now the Peace de Resistance:

End Of Ministry: The Women

16:
5 "And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid."

So, "Mark's" Jesus Ministry appears to Start and Finish with Amazing Contrivance. Note that The Women even get Heavenly advice not to be amazed but in the Tragically Ironic Markan world they are of course... Amazed! Amazing. For one who likes Amazing starts and finishes to individual stories seems like the Amazing finish at 16:8 is also a likely finish to the entire original Amazing story.



Joseph

mirage

But you only need to show an absence in most cases to have good support for deliberate construction.

You would have a very strong case if no convincing chiastic structure was present in the other gospels, despite them dealing with the same subject and with presumed borrowings.

mirage

And I suppose there are elements here mirrored in the beginning.

1. The notion of prophesy in Isaiah and John the B and here from the young man.

2. The rough camel hair cloak of John vs. the white robe of the young man.

3. The people flocking to John from all around to get baptised and the women fleeing from the tomb (having come with the intention of anointing).

4. Sweet spices from the women and honey (and locusts) for John (tenuous I admit).

5. The idea of ways or preparing a path. Isaiah tells of a herald to prepare the way, and the young man tells of Jesus going on ahead of the disciples and for the women to go their way.

6. Jesus coming from Galilee to John vs. leaving the young man to go to Galilee.

7. John making a lot of noise about a future Messiah. The women telling no one at all about a recently risen one.

8. One whom John isn't worthy to fasten his shoes "comes after" John. Jesus "goes before" the disciples. (and apparently Mark didn't think the disciples are particularly worthy. Peter is specifically mentioned here.)

And then there are the internal pairs at the end of Mark:

1. Expecting the stone to be there but amazingly it isn't vs expecting Jebus to be there and amazingly it isn't. Both are expectation and confoundation are explicit paired.

2. Coming just after the sun has risen vs. coming just after Jesus has risen.

3. Two goings into the sepulchre. Two leavings (the man saying "go your way" and them fleeing.

4. They were affrighted followed immediately by the man telling them not to be affrighted.

Sorry if this is all old hat or simply bollocks.

Haran

Although I see what you are saying, I would say that they do seem quite similar from the perspective that the 'discoverer' is, in essense, the 'creator' of the 'code' or 'chiasm'. The truly sincere 'discoverer's' own creativity and intelligence wind up accidentally creating something that did not originally exist.

It is the same problem we see with Jesus scholars creating a Jesus in their own image, so to speak. Celsus is correct when he mentioned that I have a problem with the methodology, especially when the chiasms seem overly complex (again, as an example are some of the impossilby complex source theories where books are divided into layers ad infinitum).

I can agree with a chiasm like the following already mentioned by Vork and perhaps some longer ones:

A let the children be fed!
B It's not right to give good food to dogs
B' but even dogs under the table
A' eat the children 's crumbs

How can we know whether a complex chiasm (ie. difficult to see, since few to none in history have spotted it before Vork and, perhaps the author previously mentioned) is truly something intentionally created by Mark, or whether it is a 'work of art' intelligently but accidentally created by the discoverer?

Vorkosigan

The parallel text for Luke is Luke 23:

1 Then the whole assembly of them arose and brought him before Pilate.
2 They brought charges against him, saying, "We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah, a king."
3 Pilate asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" He said to him in reply, "You say so."
4 Pilate then addressed the chief priests and the crowds, "I find this man not guilty."
5 But they were adamant and said, "He is inciting the people with his teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to here."
6 2 On hearing this Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean;
7 and upon learning that he was under Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod who was in Jerusalem at that time.
8 Herod was very glad to see Jesus; he had been wanting to see him for a long time, for he had heard about him and had been hoping to see him perform some sign.
9 He questioned him at length, but he gave him no answer.
10 The chief priests and scribes, meanwhile, stood by accusing him harshly.
11 (Even) Herod and his soldiers treated him contemptuously and mocked him, and after clothing him in resplendent garb, he sent him back to Pilate.
12 Herod and Pilate became friends that very day, even though they had been enemies formerly.
13 Pilate then summoned the chief priests, the rulers, and the people
14 and said to them, "You brought this man to me and accused him of inciting the people to revolt. I have conducted my investigation in your presence and have not found this man guilty of the charges you have brought against him,
15 nor did Herod, for he sent him back to us. So no capital crime has been committed by him.
16 Therefore I shall have him flogged and then release him."
17 (spurious, apparently imported from Mark)
18 But all together they shouted out, "Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us."
19 (Now Barabbas had been imprisoned for a rebellion that had taken place in the city and for murder.)
20 Again Pilate addressed them, still wishing to release Jesus,
21 but they continued their shouting, "Crucify him! Crucify him!"
22 Pilate addressed them a third time, "What evil has this man done? I found him guilty of no capital crime. Therefore I shall have him flogged and then release him."
23 With loud shouts, however, they persisted in calling for his crucifixion, and their voices prevailed.
24 The verdict of Pilate was that their demand should be granted.
25 So he released the man who had been imprisoned for rebellion and murder, for whom they asked, and he handed Jesus over to them to deal with as they wished.
26 As they led him away they took hold of a certain Simon, a Cyrenian, who was coming in from the country; and after laying the cross on him, they made him carry it behind Jesus.

The problems are manifest in making a similar chiasm here. Let's assume the brackets are

• A: 1 Then the whole assembly of them arose and brought him before Pilate.
  A': 25 So he released the man who had been imprisoned for rebellion and murder, for whom they asked, and he handed Jesus over to them to deal with as they wished.

Where is the B'B' for this B

• B: 2 They brought charges against him, saying, "We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah, a king."

So let's tinker with it again, and make 23:26 the A' bracket:

• A: 1 Then the whole assembly of them arose and brought him before Pilate.
  A': 26 As they led him away they took hold of a certain Simon, a Cyrenian, who was coming in from the country; and after laying the cross on him, they made him carry it behind Jesus.

This gives us this B/B':

• B: They brought charges against him, saying, "We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah, a king."
  B': So he released the man who had been imprisoned for rebellion and murder, for whom they asked, and he handed Jesus over to them to deal with as they wished.

Does that work? It certainly doesn't look like anything Mark wrote....and it doesn't go anywhere: what are the C/C' brackets?

• C: 3 Pilate asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" He said to him in reply, "You say so."
  4 Pilate then addressed the chief priests and the crowds, "I find this man not guilty."
  C': 23 With loud shouts, however, they persisted in calling for his crucifixion, and their voices prevailed.
  24 The verdict of Pilate was that their demand should be granted.

You could say that v24 opposes v4, but it doesn't have the clean ask-and-answer, miniature chiasms, or parallel structures that give flesh to the Markan chiasms. For example, in the similar brackets in my chiasm, we have

• C: And the chief priests accused him of many things.
  C': And they cried out again, "Crucify him."

...which is a very nice parallel. Further, the C brackets are themselves bracketed by a question from Pilate in the B and D brackets. My chiasm here is nicely balanced and totally parallel.

The further in you get in Luke, the worse it gets. The interior brackets have to be constructed out of:

• 5 But they were adamant and said, "He is inciting the people with his teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to here."
  6 On hearing this Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean;
  7 and upon learning that he was under Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod who was in Jerusalem at that time.
  8 Herod was very glad to see Jesus; he had been wanting to see him for a long time, for he had heard about him and had been hoping to see him perform some sign.
  9 He questioned him at length, but he gave him no answer.
  10 The chief priests and scribes, meanwhile, stood by accusing him harshly.
  11 (Even) Herod and his soldiers treated him contemptuously and mocked him, and after clothing him in resplendent garb, he sent him back to Pilate.
  12 Herod and Pilate became friends that very day, even though they had been enemies formerly.
  13 Pilate then summoned the chief priests, the rulers, and the people
  14 and said to them, "You brought this man to me and accused him of inciting the people to revolt. I have conducted my investigation in your presence and have not found this man guilty of the charges you have brought against him,
  15 nor did Herod, for he sent him back to us. So no capital crime has been committed by him.
  16 Therefore I shall have him flogged and then release him."

I can't see the parallels at the moment. But everyone is welcome to try and convince me. Hehehehe.

Michael

Vorkosigan

The problem might be, Celsus, that you're a genius....

Vorkosigan

Markan contrivance is only useful for getting rid of the idea that Mark was a poor stupid stenographer of Peter, or a clod, etc. It establishes a case for Markan creativity by being prima facie evidence of Mark's powerful talents. Tactics go after specific understandings, strategies after methodologies. This is a tactical solution, not a strategic one.

You can't make the HJ disappear with a wave of the chiasm. Mark is obviously literary construction, but that won't get rid of the potential of historical data. This, after all....

We know their dream; enough
To know they dreamed and are dead;
And what if excess of love
Bewildered them till they died?
I write it out in a verse -
MacDonagh and MacBride
And Connolly and pearse
Now and in time to be,
Wherever green is worn,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

...is poetry, but the names are real.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

Hello again Michael,

This statement makes it seem as though there are some comments in antiquity on the literary effect of chiasm. Can you share all the data you have on how ancients viewed and used chiastic structures?

best,
Peter Kirby