S.C.Carlson

Displaying an inverted parallelism, such as A B B A or A B C B A.

Stephen

Julian

A chiasm can occur in any language as it has to do with the textual structure, not the specific words, although there has to be similar meanings in order to draw the parallels. See my next post.

Julian

Julian

A chiasm is named after the Greek letter CHI ( χ ) because it visually looks a bit like the structure. Here is an example in English:


A He entered the room

B and sitting down

C he lit a cigarette and after a while
C he extinguished the cigarette

B got up out of the chair

A and left the room.

Not great literature, I know, but it will serve as an example. I put letters in front of each line and indented them to make the structure obvious. The As relate to each other in meaning, as do the Bs and the Cs. Chiastic structures frequently occur by accident as a chiastic structure many times represent a reasonably natural flow of actions. Chiasms can get large and complicated and this is a very simple example. Chiasms are frequently used in textual analysis but carry little weight because it is difficult to detect if they were deliberate or not. When deliberate use is obvious they are very helpful, especially in detecting missing/added pieces of text.

Julian

TomboyMom

Well, that cleared that right up.

Awmte

I can't read Koine Greek so I have no idea what the original text even looks like. However, Vorkosigan's extremely in-depth analysis shows a chiastic structure throughout the whole (pretty much) of Mark.
I am tri-lingual (if you count vernacular Hindi...) so I know the difficulty in maintaining structure and narrative coherence between translations. Is it really possible that such could be done throughout a whole book?

Julian

It is certainly possible, whether it was done is debatable. Vork makes a good case, but it would be up to you to evaluate his evidence and decide if it is convincing to you.

As long as each sentence is kept in place you can move the words around within it. A chaism relates to the sentences and their meanings, not the individual words.

However, it should pointed out that the oldest biblical manuscript were written in an uncial style. What that means is that they had no punctuation, spacing, beathing marks or anything else. It sometimes makes it hard to determine where a sentence begins and ends.

THISISWHATANUNCIALMANUSCRIPTLOOKSL
IKEEXCEPTTHISWOULDBEGREEKINSTEADO
FENGLISH

Later manuscripts are written in minuscule, a far more readable form close to how we write English.

Julian

Chunk

This thread is very good. Thanks for your time, to all the people who've tried to make things clear for those of use with little knowledge on the subject.

From what Ive read (in this thread and elsewhere), the following are basically accepted as fact by the majority of people:

(I've turned it into a sort of time line, because its the easiest way to understand it - dates are only approximate).

* 0ad - Jesus is born

Im not sure of the reasoning for why this is accepted.


* 30ad - Crucifiction

Due to the time period where Tiberius and Pilate where "in power" (for want of a better description).


* 30 to 35ad - Apostles are developing a belief in Jesus

Based on Gal 1:18-20 and to a lesser degree 1 Cor: 15:3-7, where Paul seems to tell us that he visited the apostles and recieved some form of information and teaching about Jesus.


* 32ad - Pauls conversion

Im not sure of the reasoning for why this is accepted.


* 35ad - Paul visits the apostles.

Based on Gal 1:18-20


* 49ad - Paul visits the apostles for a second time, to make sure he is teaching the right message about Jesus.

Based on Gal 2:1-2


* 55ad - 1 Corinthians is written

Which shows Pauls basic beliefs about Jesus. (Interpret them as you will). He does however, at least, claim that died for "our sins", was buried and then raised three days later. Paul claims he then appeared to a list of people.

Other epistles also appear to make reference to crucifixtion. (Col 1:20 and 2:14)


* 75ad - Gospel of Mark is written

There seems to be a void between 60and and 75ad, where the only thing written is Colossians.


So it appears to me that the vital question is, are the Gospels a fictional ellaboration on Pauls letters, or are they the full story to Pauls summary. What is it that makes people decided one way or the other?


Also:

Who are these people? I would like to speak to them about what it is that makes them still believe and live as Christians. If someone could post links to their profiles, so I can PM them that would be good.

Thanks.

Julian

For canonical writings, maybe. However, there is a good chance that a number of christian writings not in the bible may have been written around this time, although it would be impossible to prove decisively. Such works could include Didache, Gospel of Thomas, Q, Signs, Gospel of Peter and many others. The fact that we now have a canon shouldn't confer any additional authority onto those writings over many other contemporary writings that are just as christian as those who made it into the canon.
Short and simple explanation (mind you, there is much more to it), Paul shows little to no knowledge of the gospel events. It would be reasonable to assume that he didn't know them, most likely because they weren't written yet.
I don't want to put anyone out so let me just say that you can look at the profiles of knowledgable people who only post in BC&H and check their beliefs. You should be able to locate some within a few minutes. Alternatively, any of you non-inerrantists who read this could of course initiate contact on your own.

Julian

Codec

I thought a more commonly agreed time was 6-4BCE, based on the Quinirius reference in Luke. Quinirius having died in 4BCE?

RUmike

The more commonly agreed time is 6-4 B.C.E., but not because of Quirinius. You are thinking of Herod, who died in the spring of 4 B.C.E. Both Matt and Luke place Jesus' birth in or around the time of Herod, yet Luke also places Jesus' birth during a census under Quirinius. However, the census he is referring to took place in 6 C.E. -- 10 years after Herod died. What could have happened is that Luke remembered riots after the death of Herod and after the census and conflated the two times. Additionally, since the census and circumstances surrounding it are so absolutely ridiculous, it is assumed that Luke (or someone before him) created this scenario to explain the conviction that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Luke also probably liked how this scenario made Jesus' parents look like good Roman subjects. Realistically the account is not taken as historical, and Jesus' birth is place around 4 B.C.E., but even this is uncertain.