neilgodfrey

1. Are Porter and Reed (see my reference in Is Mark Just A Big Chiasm?) overlooking something when they remind us that there is no surviving discussion of rhetoric that hints that any classical author ever devised a whole literary work chiasmically? This is crucial because the theoretical structure of this chiasm is used to justify reshaping the primary evidence (the original endings of 2 gospels) so its theoretical foundation needs pretty strong support to begin with.

2. Are the chiasmic divisions compatible with any published set of criteria for establishing convincing chiasms? If not, what are the criteria used? Again this is critical for the same reason as above. (All but 9 and 10 of my subsequent points could be subsumed beneath this broader question.)

3. Can one offer a justification of this chiasm’s breakdowns of the narrative as being more obvious or reasonable than other breakdowns found in alternative large and small scale chiasms? This would seem particularly problematic with this chiasm relying on an added ending (A1’s sending out of disciples) for which there is no direct evidence. Why not scrap A and A1 altogether and have it begin and end with B, B1 (– some have argued plausibly for a B1 ending)? Neither the currently known ending of Mark nor that of John (presumably the source of A1 here) is at all problematic when viewed in the context of certain endings by authors such as Euripides, Virgil, Homer, Herodotus, et al. (see my #21256 on JM for details) so it would seem extremely bold to justify the chiasm on the basis of tampering with and reconstructing the primary evidence? Isn’t this a classic case of reshaping the evidence to fit the theory?

4. How does one justify J’s stress on the location of Galilee when “Galilee� is not mentioned as a scene change or given special emphasis in the associated verses? It is merely a backdrop that is mentioned ages before the J division.

5. How does one justify the H emphasis on the temple when the temple is not even mentioned in the associated verses? One can assume it is implied of course but then on what basis do we establish the strength of the criteria we are using? I am sure many things could be found to be implied throughout any literature enabling an endless array of alternative chiasmic patterns.

6. How does one justify E1’s stress of succumbing to Satan when Satan is not even mentioned in E1’s verses? Again this points to the chiasm throwing more illumination on the interpretative framework of the scholar than it does on Mark.

7. How does one justify breaking up a set of parables by saying one parable belongs to one division as a distinctive parable and the others belong to another section as just general everyday teaching? What criteria are being used to justify this break? Again this is a crucial question because any “ordinary� reading would never think to make such a break.

8. Within the same I section as above how does one justify grouping a set of verses as “5 conflict stories� that include a lengthy portrayal of a very NON-conflict story of large multitudes following Jesus and Jesus’ calling of his special 12? Surely such scenes carry enough meaningful significance to warrant a place in any legitimate breakdown.


9. What does this chiasm add to our understanding of the purpose or meaning or anything significant about Mark? If not a lot, then is the chiasmic structure here at least consistent with what we do know about Mark’s intentions, rhetoric and themes? For example, is there anything in the chiasmic structure that smacks of irony and reversals or is the structure all very bland, unMarkan, even prosaically ‘Lukan’? If the chiasm points to a Jesus and gospel part whose central theme is largely about the calling then sending out of missionaries then to what extent is this interest reflected in the actual story content itself? In other words does the chiasm appear consistent with or contradictory to what we understand about the primary meaning of the gospel?

10. How did the author actually go about constructing his story this way and how does this fit with known techniques of writing and authorship? For instance, did he have multiple desks or a large floor littered with copies of what he’d written earlier to keep track of the direction his next story item or scene change should take? Or did he construct the topic outlines in order before commencing to write?

11. Finally, there is no doubt that the closing scenes of Mark hark back with various subtle allusions to earlier scenes and Mark loves ironic doublings etc. and the ending is problematic. But Virgil used the same technique of subtle inclusio to bracket his Aeneid and problematic endings were quite deliberate devices of Euripides and other classical authors, yet chiasms are not needed to explain their rhetorical devices.


From someone who used to love finding chiasms, too....
Neil Godfrey

12. Forgot to include: on what criteria does one balance the 2 verses of C with a single story item with 40 verses of C1 with a multiple array of story items?