JoeWallack

JW:
Good stuff. In addition to the Sophisticated Ironic Literary Contrivance that Vork has Cathologued in the Individual Pharistories there is also the Same Contrivance in The Story as a whole as evidenced above. This is evidence that "Mark" was not a simple fisherman witness. "Mark" as we have it does have very bad grammar which is evidence that "Mark" was a simple fisherman. However, unlike the supposed resurrection there are actually Possible explanations as to How a Sophisticated "Mark" has unsophisticated grammar:

1) An Impossible explanation is not required.

2) Overuse of the historical present may have been deliberate.

3) "Mark" likely has received less editing than "Matthew" and "Luke" and therefore the original grammar has not been improved as much by comparison.

4) Unsophisticated "Mark" could have used Sophisticated "Mark" as a primary source.

Let's take a look at the Galilee references:

START

Mark 1: (KJV)
9" And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan."

END

Mark 16: (KJV)
7 "But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid."

The implication from 16:8, the likely Original ending, is that none of Jesus' supposed disciples ever saw or followed him again. Christian commentators "salve" this problem by saying that 16:7 implies the opposite and is therefore decisive in the context of a Gospel that is all about following Jesus.

My contention is that "Mark", written as Literary Contrivance, was primarily intended to persuade through supposed Prophecy Fulfillment as opposed to supposed historical miracles. 16:8, No Disciple Followers, is supported by Prophecy Fullfillment in "Mark":

14: (KJV)
27 "And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.
28 But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.
29 But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended, yet will not I.
30 And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice."

Note that regarding Prophecy Fulfillment here:

1) The General Prophecy of Scattering of the Disciples is supported by Scripture.

2) The Individual Prophecy of Denying by Peter will be fulfilled by Narrative.

3) The question is, is "But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee." a Prophecy or just a Statement by Jesus that was Ironically ignored by the Disciples. Note the following:

1) "But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee." does not have the Prophetic lead in of the other statements, "And Jesus saith unto them/him".

2) The statement is literally true in an Ironic sense. Jesus did go back to Galilee before the Disciples did. They just didn't realize he was there.

3) 16:7 seems to repeat that the statement that the Disciples would follow Jesus to Galilee was just an Instructional statement they ironically ignored as opposed to a Prophecy statement.



Joseph

Vorkosigan

>Head slap< Nice catch. In Mark 12 Jesus is the cornerstone, "stone" being a pun on son in Hebrew.

mirage

Interesting stuff.

The contrivance analysis is particularly appealing.

Pun on stone! And here was me wishing that sun and son would work in Hebrew or Aramaic (it doesn't - right?).

Haran

Can you elaborate?

Vorkosigan

stone = eben, son = ben

Haran

Thanks.

In Mark 12:10, 'cornerstone' doesn't actually include the Greek word for 'stone' (ie. lithos), but 'stone' is found earlier in the verse.

Do you have examples of eben being a pun on ben?

Ted Hoffman

An uneasy Outsider

You know Vork, I have been mulling over this chiasm thing for a while. I have been unable to decide how to respond: too much ambivalence. I didn't know what to make of it.

Your enthusiasm and excitement at the whole concept brooks no criticism. One feels like a "spoiler" to the whole "discovery". I felt somewhat alienated to the concept: like an outsider. So for a while I have watched. Prowling around, hesitating, seeking an entry point. Uneasy. I would estimate that my position on chiastic structures is similar to Yuri's and Kirby's. Or even Haran's. Celsus seems to adopt a laid-back approach to the whole affair.

Let me see if I can make my concerns clear.

Some Issues

First of all, there is an abject lack of a clear and rigorous conceptual framework with respect to the nature of chiasma, their applicability and their identification. Discovery and extraction of chiastic structures appears to be based on serendipity, ability to bring out certain "hidden" meanings (based on one's own appreciation of literature), personal zeal and contextual interpretation - which is often subjective (look at the "rebels in opposition" thing for example).

In very few cases can one see objectively that the chiasma was intentionally created and not an inadvertent emergent structure from a literary work.

Secondly, from my reading, which is very little, it appears that chiasma were discovered by later scholars. What this means is that we do not find the contemporaries of Mark (or even the author of Genesis, John, Corinthians etc - all of which have chiastic structures) discussing chiastic structures as literary devices.

This is in contrast to MacDonald's mimesis and even intertextuality. For example, we find in Quaestiones Homericae 1.5-6, written by Heraclitus, a contemporary of Mark, a discussion about Mimesis. This give's MacDonald's thesis (that Mark used Homer as a hypotext) a sound basis.

In contrast, from the link Vork provided Brad McCoy's Chiasmus: An Important Structural Device Commonly Found in Biblical Literature, in Histories, Herodotus sentence “My men have behaved like women, and my women like men!� is given as a prime example that chiastic structures were common in antiquity.

Thirdly, it is unclear how important chiasms were to the readers or listeners of the gospels. Were they employed by the authors for their own private amusement, or for appreciation by the educated class, or was the general population sensitive to literary devices?

In my own tribe (Luo) we have what we call "tonguetwisters" (for lack of a better term) which are similar to chiastic structures. They are plays with words, twists in meanings and peculiar phraseology. They are used sometimes as meaning puzzles and were employed by elders in council meetings to make witty punchlines, engage in sophistry and so on. They were a mark of oratory skill. Even irony had certain means of expression and found its way in conversations and jokes. We have plays of words we find in Newspaper headlines and in banners being held by marching protestors. What is their importance?

My point being that the importance and extent of application of chiastic structures in antiquity is unclear. In my estimation, they were not a preserve of "sophisticated" authors. I would think that they were a tool of discourse (like Vernon Robbin's "sea Voyages" imagery) that were employed widely in the Hellenistic empire and whose importance was limited. Limited because, oftentimes, people need a certain background and exposure to be able to appreciate the asthetic values of literary structures in written text. And this idea would be supported by the fact that the NT authors are not all keen on employing chiastic structures. If this was material for the liturgy, I would think that Mark would realize that the chiastic structures would be lost on the readers / audience.

Fourthly, I think that stating that Mark employed chiastic structures as a literary device is one thing. And that stating that Mark was a literary genius because he used chiastic structures is another thing. It is tantamount to stating that only literary geniuses used chiastic structures. Which I am sure Vork is not arguing. In my opinion, it is not enough to employ our own personal insight, effort and creativity to bring out multiple meanings and items (irony, puns, semantic oppositions, intercalations, chreia etc) from a passage then declare the author a 'literary genius'.
Is Matthew not a literary genius - what about Luke? Doesn't the ability to take Moses' infancy narrative as a motif and employ it to create a birth narrative for Jesus take some 'creativity' and 'genius'?

IMO, it would take more than a few examples of chiastic structures in Mark to declare Mark a literary genius. We have chiastic structures in Genesis 17:1–17:25, John 1:1–18, 1 Corinthians 13:8–13. And if one takes time, I am sure that they can get more from those books, get metaphors, irony etc etc.

What this means is that, IMO, we have used inadequate reasons to elevate Mark's literary prowess. This of course is my own subjective opinion. In other words, I am not impressed by Mark as a writer so far. The passages Vork has presented as "towering crescendo of Markan irony" speak more about Vork as a literary critic with a keen eye for irony and other literary devices, and speaks of Vork's rich taste for "good literarure" (per V. Robbins) than it speaks of Mark.

Why Identify Chiastic Structures? Three Reasons

In my opinion, we should *not* use chiastic structures to judge the literary sophistication of an author. What then should we use them for?

I extracted the following from Brad McCoy's paper.

As Bailey and Vander Broek write in Literary Forms in the New Testament, “chiasms help the exegete delineate units of thought.�

Brad McCoy adds that "since chiasm involves the parallel inversion of corresponding components in a particular discourse, resulting in an overall structural balance revolving around the distinct central component of the overall unit, a recognition of chiastic structure leads the interpreter properly to appreciate the pivotal function and the emphatic importance of that central thought unit."

Finally, he writes: "Third, since the corresponding subunits (A and A’; B and B’ and so on) of a chiastic structure are parallel “either in a synonymous or an antithetical way,� a recognition of the chiastic ordering of a passage leads the interpreter actively to compare and/or contrast the interplay between these textually separated but thematically paired units of thought."

He quotes Breck as stating that "“Failure to [recognize the existence of chiastic structuring in specific passages] has led interpreters to weave some rather fantastic theories to explain apparent irregularities in the composition and style of individual biblical writings.�

I think we should stick to the above. I am not even sure that we can use chiastic structures as a literary DNA to identify the hand of Mark.

My 2$

Vorkosigan

Nobody does. No problem. Your very doubt pleases me -- it is the basis of a profound and significant faith.

Clever of me, eh?

I didn't actually expect anyone to agree, so it is OK. Please spoil. I think people are very conditioned to think of these as somehow having history in there, and it is a bit of a shock to see that right down to their bones they are literary constructions. And so they reject it. It looks too easy, too facile.

Yep. It's like any other literary structure: it requires some immersion in the text, some ability to project oneself into the mind of the author, and so on. But the thing is, I have settled on a skeleton that is suprisingly perceptive -- the middle is complex, and the A brackets almost always involve movement. The only exception is in the Pauline chiasm in Mark 12. With just those two observations, I have been able to extract quite a number of chiasms. Also, every verse must be used fully (no condensations allowed).

My most recent constructions have been constructed from the inside out: I found the complex middle, usually either ABAB or ABBA, and then worked out, pair by pair. Sanhedrin Trial, Pilate Trial, and the Crucifixion, I worked out by starting at the center and then pairing off. In most cases it went really fast.

Finally, the relationships I have found are often noted by others. For example, the ABA patterns are often recognized -- everyone knows that 2:1-12 is a classic ABA pattern. I just took that one step further and worked out the internal structure. Joe Wallack and Gerd Ludemann helped me put together the Sanhedrin Trial properly.

There's no way to "objectively" do it. An "objective" chiasm is one that the viewer finds absolutely convincing. But it is no more objective than a "weak" or subjective one. But the "objective" ones are prima facie cases for all of them.

Of all the criticisms, this is the most devastating, I think. And it doesn't help that each "discoverer" finds a slightly different chiasm.

Actually, they seem to be common in human thought, because there are really only two ways to parallel two sets of items, either ABBA or ABAB. What count's is not whether it is ABAB or ABBA, but the existence of the parallels. They speak to deliberate structuring.

Look at the A/A' and C/C' brackets in my proposed Crucifixion. The parallels are extremely clear and very hard to deny. Even if you deny my reading of 15:39 and its relationship to the rest of the structure,

A: And they offered him wine mingled with myrrh; but he did not take it.
B: And they crucified him,
C: and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take

A: And some of the bystanders hearing it said, "Behold, he is calling Eli'jah."And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink, saying, "Wait, let us see whether Eli'jah will come to take him down."
B: and Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed his last.
C:And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.

A: drink
B: death
C: cloth torn

I personally find that very compelling.

This point is irrelevant. I will return to it in a moment.

Don't assume a single monolithic "audience." This is a very common assertion -- I've met it several times here -- that utterly fails to reflect the reality of literature throughout the world. I just watched the Charlie Brown Christmas Special with my kids the other day. There is a scene in there where Marcy is crossing the street with a kid dressed as a sheep for the Xmas performance. The sheep trips and falls and Marcy leans over and says "Slouching toward Bethlehem?" Now, I doubt any children in the audience are aware of what is going on. In fact, I am sure there are plenty of adults who are clueless as to the origin of that comment. Similarly, I bet people here have seen A Fistful of Dollars many times without ever making the connection between the "John of God" who greets the Man with No Name as he enters the town, and John the Baptist. Or noticed that when the Man with No Name enters the Inn, he picks up a wreath/crown and looks through it, then sets it down quickly (crown of thorns, anyone?). Or noticed that he walks under a hangman's noose as he enters town. Or the recurring motif of crosses in the movie. He's a fusion of Jesus and Death, of course.

Children's books are replete with such examples. Roald Dahl is a gold mine of this stuff. None of my kids have ever noticed that WILLY WONKA is a play on masturbation, "Willy" being British for "penis" and "Wonka," of course, an dialect form of "wanker." Few adults have made the connection either, I suspect. Dahl has another book with a giant called BFG, Big Friendly Giant, but anyone familiar with initial slang knows what that F really stands for.

I could go on and on and on. Point is, writers don't write for single audiences.

I have never made that claim. Chiasms -- well controlled, complex, and long, speak to something about the author's ability to control his text.

This deserves some discussion. Is Mark a genius?

If you go back and read SF of the 20s and 30s it seems stupid. Dated. Unimaginative. Primitive. That's because it was the first, establishing the cliches that later writers elaborated and eventually eclipsed and exploded. Yet those early writers were pioneers and in their own way, geniuses. Was Robert E. Howard, the developer of a whole genre of Barbarian Hero fantasy, a genius? What about the first person who wrote a "Future History?" (Piper? Heinlein?).

The one that everyone copies, who marks out a whole new territory, is a bona fide genius. Mark only looks primitive because our whole lives, and for the last 2,000 years, we've been living his story again and again. In Slaughterhouse Five. In Billy Budd. In The Truman Show. In art, music, poetry, and prose. Mark created and developed a set of images so iconic that they are now built into Westerners. That's genius. It's only because we measure him by what we know today that he is dismissed. You have to put him back in his own time, and imagine how he might have concieved, and been recieved -- so powerful he was instantly copied by other writers, many of them.

If Mark appears clumsy and primitive, it is because by the standards of our day, he is. He was trained with certain literary conventions -- wooden central characters, minor figures simply there to advance the story, little internal life for his characters -- and those were what he worked with. And yet he created something everlasting -- think anything we write will be read 2,000 years from now?

No. Because Matthew and Luke were later imitators. And Matt uses the OT as a bludgeon, whereas Mark only hints at it. Mark is always deft in his use of sources. Matthew is an anal fussbudget, anxious for everyone to get what he means.

But I've already laid down a challenge. See if you can assemble a chiasm from Luke or Matt that is as compelling as any of the ones from the Sanhedrin Trial on. You might accidently discover something on the way, or prove me wrong.

BTW, one other use of chiasms, as Stock pointed out in his 1984 article, was organizing text into sections. In a culture without paragraphs or capitals, that was important.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Hell no, I got that out of Ched Myers Binding the Strong Man which is full of interesting tidbits like that.

Haran

Sorry if my terse questions are coming across harsh, Vork. I truly don't mean them that way. You've presented some thought-provoking stuff, or I wouldn't have even responded. Contrary to Amaleq's early perception, I am not trying to be negative for negativity's sake. Even if I do have a problem with the methodology, thanks for your obvious effort in presenting your theories.