Vorkosigan

I have completed the chiastic structure of the Gospel of Mark. The rules I have laid out in the excursus in my commentary that displays the entire gospel, here.

However, I have created another version, an annotated version that shows some of my thinking on how this is put together, discusses problems, and generally reflects on the process. It is located here.

I am now going to write my historical interpretation of Mark, sometime next week. A couple of small articles, a few more books to go over, and then sometime in April it should be done.

the_cave

Vork, check the alignment on the commentary. It appears to be way off. I can't make sense of a lot of it.

Toto

the_cave: What browser are you using, and what text size? It looks like Vork has some inconsistent font sizes, so the comments on the left do not line up with the text.

Vorkosigan

Dang. I'll see what I can do. It lines up in Mozilla. Yep, doesnt work with internet explorer. I'll fix it later.

Anway, the whole of Mark is now there.

the_cave

Just your usual XP with IE. I'm not sure it's font sizes: I imported the text into Word, and Word seemed to think it was contained within a form grid or something. The problem seemed twofold:

1) The rows in the commentary grid were either too many in the case of cells with text in them (the column width appears to be too narrow), or too few in the case of cells without text--cells without text had one row; whenever a passage from Mark took up more than two rows, the commentary fell behind. I eventually figured out which comments went with which set of verses, but was unable to produce a "fixed" version, because:
2) The grid for the text of Mark had cell borders that varied in width, depending on the chiasm bracket. But the commentary cells all had uniform width.

I was too lazy to play with it further. I'm going to assume Vork knows how to fix it unless he says otherwise

Peter Kirby

Who is the greater genius, Mark or Vorkosigan? :notworthy

The comments and the text line up fine under Firefox.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

That's what I did'em in. However, I have prepared a .jpg version. I'll put it in another thread. Then it should be clear. Also added some new comments.

Vorkosigan

DramaQ

Vork,

What an incredible job and colossal amount of work! Kudos to you.

And what a great tool to help analyze the text.

Just in going over it fairly quickly I made one observation and I’d be interested in your opinion.

At the arrest, between 14:47 and 48 you presume a missing line to the effect that the servant’s ear is restored. This notion is preserved only in Luke.

Well, it seems to me that if the copy of Mark that AMatt used had included this line, surely he wouldn’t have just omitted it. Therefore, that author must have had a copy that, like the one WE have, did NOT have this line in it.

But the copy of Mark used by the author of Luke DID have it.

Couldn’t this ONLY mean that, instead of Luke using Matthew or Matthew using Luke, that they each used a (somewhat different) copy of Mark?

Would that be a good argument for Q?

DQ

(And yes, I’m aware that it might also be used by some to argue Lucan priority, but… feh!)

Chris Weimer

Not Lukan priority but just that Luke preserves the proto-gospel better, like Yuri's argument.

Vorkosigan

Thanks, that's how I see it.

Actually, it is preserved in all three others (sure hope GPeter turns up soon; I'm dying to see the front end of that gospel). Mt and Jn have Jesus ordering the sword to put up. Luke got it wrong and thought it meant the ear. The original was probably ambiguous and said something like "Put it back in its place!" following the parallel in 2 Sam, which the author of Mark was working off.

It could be a weak argument for Q. If Luke really had Matt in front of him, how did he screw up that, since Matt had correctly interpreted the author's original intent and Luke could have consulted it?

Have to add that to the Commentary.

Vorkosigan