Peter Kirby

Why? Wouldn't we just say the other document has chiasms too?

best,
Peter Kirby

Zeichman

I remember reading before that the Messianic realization is dead center of the story.

I think the young men preaching about the coming of Jesus at both ends of the Gospel certainly point to the direction of a chiastic structure for the book. I look forward to reading your findings!

Amaleq13

Good point. It would have to be a text where we wouldn't expect the author to be deliberately using the structure. Does that suggest a time frame to avoid? When did it go out of fashion in teaching writing? It would be great to also be able to eliminate the possibility of the author being influenced by Hebrew Bible chiasms ("alleged" in deference to Bede ).

Or do you think the notion that Mark's author was deliberately creating chiastic structures is unfalsifiable?

Peter Kirby

I didn't say that. I just don't think that it can be falsified in this way, by attempting to find chiasms in other work.

best,
Peter Kirby

Amaleq13

Then how might it be falsified?

Peter Kirby

I don't know. You're the one who introduced falsification into this discussion.

If it can be, I suppose it is by an analysis of Mark and by an analysis of what properly qualifies as a chiasm.

I don't know if I'd call this "Falsification," however, with its shades of Popper, experiments, and the scientific method.

But I don't think that a disproof of any kind can be found in the fact that other documents can be demonstrated to have similar chiasms. It's not as though Vorkosigan is claiming that his case should be unique. Quite the opposite, if I understand Vorkosigan.

best,
Peter Kirby

CJD

Noting such things certainly does not point to a chiastic structure. As pointed out previously, proposals for such a deliberate pattern are notoriously subjective. We are skipping over any conversation re: the author's intent. It is good and right to do this when engaging in textual criticism. A major problem with enthusiastic searches for chiastic structures such as these is that they do produce any consensus that the author actually intended his work to be read in this manner.

It's really simple. The author is a storyteller, and as such, he obviously is concerned with the effective flow, thought and development of his plot, not some subjective structural analysis that goes on and on for 16 chapters.

Best,

CJD

Vorkosigan

...because, as we know, effective flow, thought, and development of plot have nothing to do with structure.

Vorkosigan

CJD

That's rather smart-assifying of you, Vork. I did not say they having nothing to do with structure. I said that those things are the real import of the structure of the gospel, not "some subjective structural analysis that goes on and on for 16 chapters."

CJD

Peter Kirby

Actually, CJD is right. I don't think that the 25-part chiasmus I submitted actually maps the intent of the text's author. It was submitted so that I can get a grade in the course. At best it might reveal connections between sections that the author would have made. (Well, at best, it might allow someone else to do more convincing work on such a "giant chiasm.")

best,
Peter Kirby