CJD

Vork, I'm not all emotionally wrapped up in this thing. If Mark is a giant chiasm, then so be it. And of course it's not delusional to imagine we can uncover the author's original structure, if we are philologists and lingustists capable of surmising such things. I just don't think your methodology is quite up to snuff here. All those thing we've discussed in the past about the reliability of one's methodology are not reflected in this project of yours. I am not being defensive of some article of faith, etc.; I am trying to protect and rescue some kind of sane hermeneutic.

My idea of a meaningful exchange with you on this is not "Why is my chiasmus not a viable reading of Mark?" (it doesn't even deserve that question yet) but "Are you a Greek linguist? Does the chiasm jump out at you lexically when you are reading the Greek text?," etc.

Best,

CJD

Vorkosigan

It's not necessary to be a linguist of any kind. A good literary feel and some knowledge of the author's writing habits and sources is useful. For example, no matter how good a linguist you are, you would never learn that the Gethsemane scene and the Temptation are linked because both are based on the same scene in the Elijah-Elisha cycle. You need some other knowledge for that. Greek is one component of the package, but it is not even the most important.

You will note that I have NEVER made any statement like "Why is my chiasmus not a viable reading of Mark?" Rather, like Amaleq, I constantly wonder why the response is so overwhelmingly negative, and why the people who post such powerfully negative posts have not even bothered to read what I am doing. Carlson has suggested several times that I not use the word "chiasm" precisely to avoid this reaction. His suggestion has much merit.

This avalanche of negativity is the major reason I haven't talked much on the topic. I just don't want to struggle uphill against it.

No, I don't speak a work of Greek. This is a problem, but it is not insurmountable. In any case, no amount of Greek will help if you don't get familiar with the writing in its totality. Nor will it make up for a lack of literary understanding and sensitivity, both of which I have in spades.

Nor do I understand why the chiasm should jump out at you when reading the Greek text.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

The real problem, as your comment on "the real problem" shows, is that you have not paid the slightest attention to what I have been doing. My chiasms are not arranged thematically.

Vorkosigan

CJD

Vork, first post noted. Thanks for your response. I can only say the other literary criticisms we carry in our pouches do not expose or produce chiasms as readily as a close lexical reading would.

Second post: I have paid the slightest attention (but not more I assure you). And since you admittedly know not a word of Greek you are forced to arrange it according to the translated language, influenced by verses, chapter-breaks and all, which will in the end be largely a thematic arrangement (even if the theme is just five words long). I am not saying you came to this with a preconceived thematic pattern. I am just saying the process lends itself to this. I don't think you can escape it.

CJD

DramaQ

This brings to the front of my mind something that's been nagging at the back of it for some time:

If the author of Mark was such an accomplished literary genius to construct the beautifully structured narrative as Vork has presented it, why did his work almost vanish into obscurity?

And why didn't this accomplished author produce more works, like other writers of longevity?

Could someone that good have really only had one good book in him? With that one book almost going unnoticed?

For the record, I believe Vork is closer to the truth than not about the origin(s) of the gospel stories. But this one-hit-wonder stuff is bugging me.

dq

Amaleq13

I don't know about "literary genius" but I think "highly creative" would certainly be appropriate. I also think the near-loss of Mark is more evidence against the notion that it was used to obtain converts and favors a more in-house usage. I don't think we have enough information to speculate more.

The only factor that seems to me to suggest the narrative was used to obtain converts is the apparent lack of familiarity with Greek but I don't think that is enough for the conclusion.

That one seems easier to speculatively answer, IMO. The author was inspired by his faith in the risen Christ and the narrative was the result. What else would he feel compelled to write about beyond this?

Vorkosigan

There's not much I can say to a broad declaration that you have no idea what you are talking about, but are certain you are right.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Peter, did you ever scan your chiastic structure of Mark for us?

DramaQ

Well you have a point there. The author’s compulsion was a result of his faith and not his desire to be a writer. I suppose if anything he might have been compelled to write more on the same subject if he thought any more needed to be said.

I pretty well buy that. But of course that doesn’t really explain it’s near loss. Seems to me more fiction survives the ages better than dull history.

Now this one I like the best. In fact, now it makes me wonder how Mark survived at all. I sure can be fickle. Sorry about that.

So bottom line is GMark, unlike something like the Odyssey, was not a main stream literary work. Regardless of how well it was written it was not for general public consumption.

It makes better sense now. Thanks guys.

dq

Amaleq13

I have split off the discussion about Mark's community and pre-Markan traditions here because it seems to warrant it and I had intended to start a thread on the subject anyway.