Vorkosigan

Here is Mark 10:1-11:1 pericoped in all its glory. I have relied on the following insights in constructing this. A new insight about speeches has been added.

* Markan A brackets are almost always people shifting location The A' of the previous pericope is always the A of the next one -- that is the only rule the writer never violates.

*actions may constitute separate brackets.

• And they laid hands on him and seized him.

*Speeches, regardless of length, may constitute separate brackets, so long as they are one speech directed at one audience.

• And Jesus said to them, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled."

*speeches may be broken up if there there appears to be a natural demarcation between two parts, when the audience has shifted. This typically takes place when there is a shift from an address to persons present in the narrative, to a general saying, often signaled by a formula like "Truly I say" or "But I tell you.." For example, In Mark 10, Jesus says:

• 14: But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 15: Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."

This saying is two brackets, one directed at the apostles, and one the general saying.

• But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.
  
  Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."

*actions plus speeches may be a bracket

• Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, "The one I shall kiss is the man; seize him and lead him away under guard."

*actions plus speech followed by actions/descriptions are never a separate bracket. This is an incorrect bracket:

• And when he came, he went up to him at once, and said, "Master!" And he kissed him.

Wherever "And" signals a new action, seemingly tacked on to the end of the verse; even where it is placed in the same verse, it is wrong (Mark is wrongly pericoped and versified). The correct bracketing here is.

• C: And when he came, he went up to him at once, and said, "Master!"
  D: And he kissed him.

Similarly, Mark 14:4-5 is wrongly versified.

• 4: But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment thus wasted?
  5: For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor." And they reproached her.

The actual verses, in line with the writer's original thinking, should read:

• 4: But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment thus wasted? For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor."
  5: And they reproached her.

Here is the chiasm for Mark 10:1-11:1. Note that the chiastic structure gives a doubled geographic reference in the famous suspected Jericho deletion. Given the rules Mark uses, this doubled reference is now powerful evidence that a pericope has been removed.

The first pericopes are a bit funky and I may have to adjust them; though I have since found this situation of tiny structures elsewhere in Mark. But after that they get pretty real fast. Mark 12 is following later today or tomorrow, I think, as is Mark 9. Mark 11 continues to frustrate; it makes real nice chiasms that make absolutely no thematic or keyword sense at all.

ichabod crane

Well done Vork. Chiasms were incredibly popular literary devices at the time; virtually all the New Testament and extracanonical writings illustrate them.

I suppose that demonstrates that Mark is a literary construction. I don't see how that has much to say about its historicity or lack thereof though. Many of Shakespeare's plays were semi-historical and contain valid historical information (derived from other sources of course), but were nonetheless original literary constructions of the highest calibre.

rlogan

This sort of observation is invaluable in bringing rigor to a potentially spurrious chiastic approach, and I had been witholding a post for some time now, seeing if you were going to deduce such things.

Without a set of rules on the chiastic form, we will find them almost anywhere we seek them. I didn't think that the case here, but nevertheless the discovery of the above rule and other consistent practices defeats the argument that chiasms are in the eye of the beholder.

the_cave

Vork--I think you should start considering the possibility that sections which seem resistant to chiasm-ing are part of an earlier strata of Mark. I know this simply betrays my bias, but I wonder if your method actually gives us the evidence of this earlier layer.

For example, you seem to be able to chiasm Mark 9 and 10 rather easily--isn't it intersting that this is a kind of bridge between the Galilean ministry and the Jerusalem events? Combine that with your thesis that Mark is deliberately moving the action from North to South throughout the gospel, and maybe I can start to convince you! Also look at the structure for Bartimaeus' healing--one line per level of chiasm, and the levels are very deep Looks somewhat more artificial than the others, no? Now think about the fact that many scholars claim that this healing is an echo of the earlier healing in Bethsaida...

Also I would like to note that for the most part, you have not yet chiasm-ed either of the miracle cycles, except for two brief passages about Jesus' relatives in the first cycle, and the Syro-Phoenician woman in the second. Also your chiasms there are a little fragmentary--you have to divide your lines up to get it, so it looks either a little suspect, or else, I might argue, betrays the existence of an earlier, tight anecdote that couldn't be broken up very easily. (Or else your chaism-author had nothing to do with it, and we're just looking at basic rhythms of English composition, which sometimes I wonder...) The Syro-Phoenician woman works a little better, I guess, but if you'd ever like to chat about that particular miracle, I have an interesting idea about it

So, perhaps your difficulties with 11 stem from the fact that this was an older, and more developed, part of the gospel that your chiasm-author got a hold of.

Vorkosigan

I am open to that suggestion, but I kinda doubt it. Mk 11 is divided neatly by geographic movement, but when you use my rules to make chiasms, you get nonsense -- brackets that have no perceivable relationship to each other. Even worse is that the open sequence is a doublet of the similar passage in Mark 14, which makes a nice chiasm. Perhaps something has been removed, perhaps Mark suspended his rules. I don't know.

Another problem is the strange sequence of Mark 11:11-12, which contains three different geographic references. Where do I start the chiasm? Baffling, because I can't deduce the rules like I did from elsewhere in Mark. And the Temple Cleansing is intercalated between the Fig Tree A and A', but there are three geographic references there that should break it into separate chiasms. Yet elsewhere in Mark intercalations are invariably ends of one long chiasm (Mark 3:21-32, Mark 2:1-13). So am stumped at the structure there.

Yes, although there are some chiasms that don't work, the very small ones. I don't like them. I suspect material has been deleted in any chiasm that doesn't go past the B bracket. Note that they are private discussions to disciples in these cases, and thus, explanations. Somebody didn't want it implied that J explained things to the disciples but not the hoi polloi.

Yes, I noticed that too. It makes a chiasm that was really easy to make and very beautiful, without any of the usual ironic hidden meanings Mark is so fond of. It's almost suspiciously beautiful.

Actually, it's probably not a problem with the text, but because those chiasms were the first ones I developed. I have to go back next month and redo them. But I suspect they are correct, the centers are so unlike anyone else's chiasms. It's the exterior brackets that will need tinkering.

Give, man!

No, because the Temple Cleansing is vintage Mark, and fits his use of Elijah-Elisha. So I just think I haven't had the right insight yet.

I think I'll have 12 done tomorrow. Work, alas, keeps intefering with my hobby.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Thanks, man. That's my goal. to make rules anyone can use. As I pile up more insights each new section will have them included.

Vorkosigan