Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 02-27-2005, 12:31 AM

Quote:

More contrivance having Pilate Marvel at why scourging and crucifixion could cause death after only 6 hours. Also note the spacing of these stories, about every 5 chapters. The chapter designations are not original of course but the fairly even group of Fours could suggest a Play.
Joseph

These are the same connections that Dart makes. I can't lay out his ideas here -- it is too complex, but one reason Mark is so repetitive and confusing is that the parts are linked together by keywords from one end of the gospel to another. You really gotta read Decoding Mark, man.

Vorkosigan · 02-27-2005, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

Chiasms are very established and accepted in the study of the Pentateuch (Peter's example in the other thread is a good one). Interestingly enough, apologists have attempted to use chiasms as proof of single (presumably Mosaic) authorship of the Pentateuch.

Mormons do the same thing to prove that God wrote the book of Mormon. LOL.

Clivedurdle · 02-27-2005, 01:53 AM

What is the relationship between this chiasmic (chiastic?) structure and the poor Greek of Mark? What can be deduced from this, that Mark is a translation from Latin? Do we have examples of other writers at the time who used these techniques? Who was the expert?

Clivedurdle · 02-27-2005, 02:07 AM

Calvin and Seneca

.

Quote:

Remarks about the Found Poetry of John Calvin

As a thoughtful theologian, Calvin was also a poet at times. He was so entrenched with the poetic structures of the biblical record (especially in the books such as Psalms and the Song of Solomon) that he had a tendency to express himself in his writings by poetic structures. For instance, in times where he was most passionate and vehemently contending for the doctrines of Christ, he would enter into poetic composition. Oftentimes this theological burst of meditation and feeling expressed itself in three forms of thought christological, doxological and soteriological (in other words, as one is in the thrall of praising Christ for salvation, arranged poetry emerges.) Such structure took upon itself four general characteristics in Calvins writings: 1) natural division of the text into lines of similar length; 2) parallelism; 3) a division into stanzas; and 4) inclusio or chiastic constructions.

Calvin had dismissed himself as a poet early on, but in his writings he practiced it under the guise of doxological theology. In this way, for the theologian, poetry is necessary. Calvin has many specifically lined structures through all his works, even his Psychopannychia, and his commentary on Seneca, both of which were written before the Institutes (which in itself holds many of these structured poetic sections). One can trace the depth of Calvin by his style and thought in such passages, and the reader, who outlines these thoughts, will see more clearly the manner of Calvins patterns. This is where his intellectual theology becomes intensely practical, exemplifying both matters of the heart as well as the head.

Haran · 02-27-2005, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

Chiasms are very established and accepted in the study of the Pentateuch (Peter's example in the other thread is a good one).

Of course I realize this. I believe it is mostly employed with respect to Hebrew poetry. As Peter noted in the other thread, and as I feel, much of it just seems like word play, especially when you start paraphrazing to make the chiasm work.

The chiasms usually pointed out in the Hebrew Bible seem to me much more obviously structured and clear.

One of the reasons I have not delved too deeply into Form Criticism is because it seems flawed to me. The more complex the theories (thinking of the myriad multiple source theories, etc.), the more unlikely IMHO (perhaps Ockham's Razor should be applied).

Haran · 02-27-2005, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

It is disappointing that no one is willing to attempt to substantiate this "suspicion". A ridiculous comparison of Vork's efforts with the claims of psychics, however, does not make it seem less like wishful thinking.

I expect more from a moderator....

I asked Vorkosigan a question. He answered. I did not compare Vork's efforts to the claims of psychics in the way you seem to imply. Rather, I was pointing out that when one does not see much merit in a particular claim, there is not necessarily a great desire to debunk it. I did not believe in 'The Bible Code', but I would not have spent the time to debunk it.

In my experience, those who believe in something are usually the ones accused of 'wishful thinking'. If you wish to believe, that is fine by me. Vork has obviously spent a lot of time on this theory. I'm just not convinced of these chiasms. They appear too complex to me, but then Vork's theory is that Mark, in spite of being accused at times of bad grammar, was none-the-less a literary genious.

andrewcriddle · 02-27-2005, 09:02 AM

One problem with testing claims about chiasms in Mark by trying to find examples in other works, is that if after great effort I managed to find a plausible chiasm in say 'The Lord of the Rings' it would seem quite legitimate to claim that my discovery was real and had disclosed something about Tolkien's artistry.

(In all seriousness it might even be true that Tolkien used chiasms more or less intentionally.)

This differs from the situation with Bible Codes where their genuine presence in secular works was prima facie highly implausible.

Unless one has texts where the presence of genuine chiasms is agreed to be most unlikely such tests really won't establish anything.

(FWIW some of Vorkosigan's chiasms seem more plausible to me than others but I'm not sure how if right I could convince others about this, or if wrong how I could be persuaded to change my mind.)

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13 · 02-27-2005, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

Er, which part of the Hebrew Bible do you consider historical?

Since I don't presume the ancients understood "historical" in any sort of way that we might, pretty much any of their "historical" writings using the chiastic form qualified.

I should have been more specific and asked about non-religious texts describing historical events.

Amaleq13 · 02-27-2005, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

I expect more from a moderator....

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean but I certainly expect more than an empty suspicion from a veteran user who has, in the past, offered substantive comments on a consistent basis. It just seems like a cheap shot to me. My apologies if that was not your intent.

Quote:

I did not compare Vork's efforts to the claims of psychics in the way you seem to imply.

Then it was a poorly chosen analogy because that is the apparent implication.

Quote:

In my experience, those who believe in something are usually the ones accused of 'wishful thinking'. If you wish to believe, that is fine by me.

Wishful thinking applies equally to those who wish for something not to be true. As far as my 'belief' is concerned, I think you assume too much. Many, if not most, of the patterns Vorkosigan has presented seem to me to be pretty obviously intentional constructs. My only question is whether that sort of intentional construction is likely given an author attempting to describe history.

Amaleq13 · 02-27-2005, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Unless one has texts where the presence of genuine chiasms is agreed to be most unlikely such tests really won't establish anything.

That was the intent of my question to Celsus. Who tended to create these patterns and why? Do we have any ancient instructional texts showing how and why these sorts of constructions should be used by would-be authors?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-27-2005, 01:53 AM	#23
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	What is the relationship between this chiasmic (chiastic?) structure and the poor Greek of Mark? What can be deduced from this, that Mark is a translation from Latin? Do we have examples of other writers at the time who used these techniques? Who was the expert?

02-27-2005, 09:02 AM	#27
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	One problem with testing claims about chiasms in Mark by trying to find examples in other works, is that if after great effort I managed to find a plausible chiasm in say 'The Lord of the Rings' it would seem quite legitimate to claim that my discovery was real and had disclosed something about Tolkien's artistry. (In all seriousness it might even be true that Tolkien used chiasms more or less intentionally.) This differs from the situation with Bible Codes where their genuine presence in secular works was prima facie highly implausible. Unless one has texts where the presence of genuine chiasms is agreed to be most unlikely such tests really won't establish anything. (FWIW some of Vorkosigan's chiasms seem more plausible to me than others but I'm not sure how if right I could convince others about this, or if wrong how I could be persuaded to change my mind.) Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.