John A. Broussard

This bothers me. I would agree completely if we had the original document in the author's own hand. In my cursory examination of the material,however, I find that what we are writing about is at least several stages removed from the original (if such ever existed), includes many interpolations, seems to be--at best--a patchwork derived from several sources, and became a polemic endorsing the viewpoint of the final redacter.

Given that, it's difficult for me to regard this as a story with "effective flow, thought and development" or even an attempt to achieve that goal.

CJD

But, John, given the interpolations, etc. (for the sake of argument), why must the final redactor/editor always be an idiot who couldn't compile a story with effective flow, thought and development?

You are right, however, in your surmise that the finished piece itself is rather poorly written (which doesn't preclude, of course, flow, thought, and development), and as such, is hardly the piece of structural engineering that chiastic enthusiasts would have us believe. In other words (and others have tried to say this all along), in the end, a creative endeavor (like Turton's, for example) may reveal to us more about the one 'endeavoring' than the final author/editor.

CJD

John A. Broussard

No, not an idiot, just someone who reads what's in front of him, sees something that doesn't correspond to his beliefs and so corrects it to correspond to what's "true."

Writing a new story which has effective flow, thought and development is difficult enough when starting from scratch. Working with a hodgepodge of documents where reconciliation is of prime concern, makes that flow virtually impossible.

Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that your job is to copy Mark and make footnotes explaining how Mark really foresees the foundation and growth of the Mormon church. Then run that through several other copiers with the same goal and see how quickly the footnotes creep into the body of the document.

Amaleq13

Nope, that started when Bede claimed to have already accomplished it when he "debunked" Michael's efforts.

I agree and, if I understood Celsus correctly, it was something just about anyone learning to write during the 1st century and before so it isn't even that remarkable to suggest Mark's author incorporated it. That's why I don't understand why some folks seem to think it is such a ridiculous notion. We've already established that it really says nothing about the historical reliability but I get the impression, from the vehemence of the opposition, that "they" are still laboring under the misconception that establishing chiasms in Mark is used to argue the text is fiction. :huh:

Amaleq13

Is your opinion about the "real import" any less subjective that Vorkosigan's attempt to show that Mark's author created his story with a chiastic structure?

Peter Kirby

The idea was imported in post 23 when you used the word "unfalsifiable." This is a technical term from the history and philosophy of science.

It is possible to give reason to believe that something is wrong (or right) without using the notion of "falsification."

What do you think that the concept of "unfalsifiable" and "falsification" mean? Do you think that they are proper categories in the discussion of Mark's use of chiasmus? And, if so, do you think that Vork's ideas are falsifiable?

Then would you agree with my point that showing an analogous pattern in another text other than Mark would not disestablish Vork's ideas?

I understood that it was being pursued for its own sake. However, I was 'laboring under the misconception' that Vorkosigan regarded this as evidence for the fictional status of Mark. Perhaps Vorkosigan can clarify his position here.

best,
Peter Kirby

andrewcriddle

Vorkosigan will doubtless answer this himself.

However, IMO really extensive chiastic structure in Mark would not imply that Mark is largely fictional, but would make the use of Mark for historical Jesus research problematic.

This is because such structure would imply a level and type of Markan rewriting of his material that would make distinguishing between Markan redaction and pre-Markan tradition very difficult.

ie if Mark has a really extensive chiastic structure then although it might contain large amounts of information from pre-Markan tradition it might well be impossible to separate and distinguish this from Markan creation.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

Andrew's position is more like mine. The chiastic structures are evidence for careful construction and reconstruction. They may be construed as evidence for fiction in that they show that that Mark has extensively rewritten his sources.

I read your remark as a rather smart-ass criticism of my reconstruction of Mark.

Amaleq13

I agree that it can be used as a technical term but it can also be used in casual conversation as a shorter way of saying "can't actually be debunked". I'm not sure what difference it makes but the context of my use seems pretty obvious(ie the latter).

As I mentioned above, "unfalsifiable" was being used instead of "cannot be debunked" so "falsification" would be, in a noun-to-verb-conversion, a synonym for "debunked". A quick check of the dictionary confirms this to be the case. Both terms mean "establish as untrue".

Given claims that it has been "debunked" or falsified, sure. As far as I'm concerned, it hasn't been so far. As implied by my earlier post, I would have been less inclined to think he had found something that could be genuinely attributed to the author if someone could produce something similar in a text where we would have no reason to suspect the author might apply such a technique but I realize now that it wouldn't necessarily carry that implication. I'm not sure how one would go about actually debunking his claims. All I know is that several otherwise knowledgeable members have posted indicating that they are convinced Vorkosigan's results cannot be attributed to the author of Mark but none have so far offered anything substantive to support their suspicions.

I think I already did when I said "good point".

I think the answers to the questions I asked after doing so, rather than pointing to a way to debunk Vorkosigan's efforts, might be better used as a way of supporting his opponent's contention that such patterns can be found where the author did not deliberately create them.

Peter Kirby

My point is that unfalsifiability can be used as a criterion of science-ness or coherence, according to some people. That is, that an idea that isn't science or, alternatively, isn't even coherent. Also, falsification, when it is taught as part of the scientific method, is normally explained as a counter-example to the general rule that is being tested. However, Vorkosigan hasn't framed a general rule here but, rather, has made a specific claim about the text of Mark. A specific claim might be 'debunked', but one does not go around looking for counter-examples. That is why I regard unfalsifiability as a category error in the discussion of Vork's idea. It's like looking for counter-examples to the fact that a specific monkey is sitting in a specific tree and eating a banana. Counter-examples might be sought for the general claim that a species of monkey likes to eat bananas, however.

Not to be a broken record, but... why? Wouldn't we just assume that the other author also created, intentionally, the chiasms that are found?

best,
Peter Kirby