Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear friends,

Sometimes I read the discussions at the Synoptic List, to see what the scholars are talking about, and to keep up with any news that might come up.

Well, recently, the question of Markan priority came up. In particular, Bruce Brooks has been commenting upon the "Sick Healed at Evening" pericope (Mt 8:16; Mk 1:32; Lk 4:40).

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Synoptic/message/204

From: "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...>
Date: Sat Sep 17, 2005 1:51am
Subject: Sanders 3 (Mk 1:33 par]

Here are the three parallel texts, that Bruce was commenting upon,

[Mt 8:16 RSV] That evening they brought to him many who were possessed with demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick.

[Mk 1:32 RSV] That evening, at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons.
[33] And the whole city was gathered together about the door.
[34] And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons, and he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.

[Lk 4:40 RSV] Now when the sun was setting, all those who had any that were sick with various diseases brought them to him; and he laid his hands on every one of them and healed them.
[41] And demons also came out of many, crying, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them, and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.

(The Byzantine text/KJV is almost the same for these passages -- there are no substantial differences. Only in Lk there are some differences, but they are not of concern for us at this time.)

There are two important points here, that need to be commented upon, and Bruce does this in his post.

a) Mk 1:33 "And the whole city was gathered together about the door."

This whole verse isn't found in either Mt or Lk. So, superficially, this looks like a later addition in Mk. Actually, this is one of those Anti-Markan Agreements of Mt and Lk (of which more than a 1000 have been itemised by scholars, of course).

b) Another such Anti-Markan Agreement is the fact that, both in Mt and Lk, we see that Jesus heals everyone that was brought to him, while in Mk this doesn't seem to be so. Mk uses the word 'many' (pollous), rather than 'all'.

So what we have here is a bit of a contradiction. In the case of Mk 1:33, it seems like Mk is exaggerating Jesus' appeal to the people of the town. Surely, the "whole city" gathering at Jesus' door might seem as an exaggeration of his popularity... Mt and Lk omit this detail.

But, on the other hand, both Mt and Lk seem to exaggerate Jesus' healing powers! Mk appears to be more restrained in saying that Jesus "healed many who were sick", rather than that he healed them all.

In short, when we consider the editorial strategies of Mk, as opposed to those of Mt and Lk, the above considerations do not allow us to come to a clear conclusion vis-a-vis which gospeller is more guilty of exaggeration.

But in his comments, Bruce seems to miss this point completely! (I.e. he misses completely the fact that both Mk is guilty of exaggeration, as well as Mt/Lk, albeit they tend to exaggerate in different ways.)

First, Bruce admits that Mk often tends to exaggerate, and that Mt and Lk seem to strive for a more plausible account,

"That all this breathless exaggeration is very typical of Mark (as Taylor seems to be saying) ... seems to me obvious. That Matthew and Luke were striving for a more measured pace and a more plausible account of things seems also, on consideration of the whole of those texts, to be a well grounded inference."

"The overstressed Mk 1:33 is simply omitted in the interest of dignity and credibility."

But then, Bruce begins to overstress the fact that it is Mk that seems more realistic -- in implying that not all of the sick were healed! And, from this, Bruce jumps to conclusion that Mk was the earliest gospel!

"Then Mk with his portrayal of Jesus's limited success in healing on this occasion, is evolutionarily earlier than the uniformly successful picture given us, at the same place, by Mt and Lk. The evidence would then suggest Mk > Mt, Lk."

Here's Bruce's general statement on this issue,

"I think we are entitled to ask, not in light of any prior assumptions about Gospel priority but simply as the most likely scenario for beliefs about Jesus over time: Is it more likely that the powers of Jesus will be diminished within his tradition over time, or amplified? I think it overwhelmingly likely that the latter option, what I call the aggrandization scenario, is the true one."

Well, perhaps all this is true, but didn't we just see, in Mk 1:33, the same type of "aggrandization" on the part of the author of Mk?

So here we observe a bit of a double standard for sure...

Finally, the question may be asked, Why would have Mk implied that not all of the sick were healed, in any case? Is there any plausible reason why Mk would have done this, assuming that Mk is later than Lk here?

Well, sure there is! It is one of the persistent themes in Mk that Jesus was relatively isolated from his Jewish environment. In Mk, Jesus often appears as somewhat other-worldly -- nobody around him really understands him all that well... Clearly, Mk wishes to introduce a bit of a distance between Jesus and his own Jewish milieu. So this may well be one of these cases.

After all, according to the traditional Christian doctrine, one really needs to _believe_ to be saved. And since, from Mk's general perspective, those folks around Jesus didn't really believe in him, it stands to reason that not all of them were healed.


AN ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION FOR LUKAN PRIORITY

And now, let me introduce one very good reason why Luke's narrative in this case clearly appears to be earlier than either Mk or Mt -- the reason that Bruce, and everybody else up to now, as far as I know, have missed...

Indeed, what we see in Luke 4:40-41 is a complete and coherent story of healings. The sick are brought to Jesus, and he heals them all. In some of these cases, we learn that the 'demons' were coming out of the sick folks... These demons were crying, and even identifying Jesus as "the Son of God". (Of course, more realistically, it is probably the sick, themselves, that were so crying, while undergoing their faith-healings.) We further learn that Jesus was rebuking the 'demons' to keep silent, presumably because he didn't want to be praised as "the Son of God" -- an indication of modesty.

But, on the other hand, what we see in Mk seems rather problematic.

[Mk 1:34] "And he healed ... and cast out many demons, and he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him."

This IMHO really appears to be an abbreviated account, based on Lk. Indeed, for this narrative to be coherent and self-contained, we need to see it stated clearly that,

1. the demons were wailing while they were being expelled,

2. what exactly were the demons saying, and

3. that Jesus was displeased with what they were saying.

All this info is provided in Lk, while in Mk none of this is provided. Only the item #3 is addressed in Mk, in a manner of speaking (it is not quite clear what Mk means by "because they knew him"; this phrase is rather too opaque to make a clear sense of, all by itself).

As to Matthew, his account is really too abbreviated to play a big role in what is happening either in Mk or in Lk. I suppose that one could possibly make a case for Matthean priority here, if one so desires (after all, the shortness of Matthean account can be an argument for its priority, considering the maxim _lectio brevior potior_). And yet, still and all, our Matthean account is just a bit too distant from what is happening in Mk and in Lk, to give us much material to work with... I'd say it's a rather late abbreviated account.

Thus, I conclude that, on the surface of things, Luke's version is the earliest here. Then comes Mk, and then perhaps Mt.

So here's a perfect example of scholars being so conditioned to Markan priority, that they are simply unable to see the real situation with these Synoptic parallels, and to analyse the evidence on the ground objectively.

Their preconceptions rule!

(At some later point, it might also be useful to consider the text-critical aspects of this passage in Mk, and especially the Bezae version of it, because this provides an additional argument for Lukan priority here.)

I'll email my analysis directly to Bruce, since I cannot post to Synoptic list. I hope he replies to my analysis, so we can continue this discussion.

All the best,

Yuri.

Ben C Smith

Good points, Yuri.

Let me take a stab at a couple of items.

I myself am not as inclined to place this into the category of exaggeration as into the category of picturesque detail. The notion of the whole city gathering round is simply a word picture of what Mark has already set about expressing in his text. The news has spread everywhere in 1.28, and people are bringing all the sick in 1.32.

I can easily see Mark adding this detail to what he found in Matthew or Luke, and I can easily see Matthew and Luke subtracting it as overkill from what they found in Mark.

An excellent point, and a good reason to rethink what it takes to get a gospel tagged as primitive. I might bring Mark 6.5 into the picture, and Mark 5.34; 10.52, the combined force of which is to make it plain that one needs faith, not just a faith-healer, in order to be healed.

If one scholar can argue that Matthew and Luke consistently tend to augment the miraculous, then surely another can argue that Mark consistently tends to curtail it in favor of faith. This kind of argument is, or at least can be seen as, reversible.

I agree with you that Mark 1.34 is abbreviated, but I disagree with you on what exactly Mark 1.34 is abbreviating. You argue that Mark is abbreviating Luke 4.41; I think rather that Mark is abbreviating his own account in Mark 1.23-26:

23 And straightway there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, and he shouted out, 24 saying: What are you to us, Jesus the Nazarene? Did you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the holy one of God. 25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying: Be quiet and come out of him. 26 And the unclean spirit convulsed him and cried out with a great voice and came out of him.

In this passage we find all three of your missing pieces. (A) We know that the demons are crying out while being expelled. (B) We know exactly what the demons are saying. (C) We know why Jesus wants them to keep quiet (and we get even more information by looking not far back in the account, to the baptism, where heaven affirms that Jesus is the son of God).

I propose that all of this information is simply presupposed only 8 verses later in 1.34, when Mark knows he can get away with abbreviating the account a bit. The attentive reader has already seen one up-close-and-personal example of an exorcism, and is now expected to fill in the missing information.

I tend to eschew that principle. Ancient history did not lack epitomizers.

Personally, I cannot tell from this pericope alone which gospel came first. In fact, I cannot tell from most pericopes which was first. Only occasionally does the author tip his hand....

I agree that reversible arguments have been a genuine problem in synoptic scholarship.

Good stuff. Thanks.

Ben.

Vorkosigan

Yuri, here is the structure of the Markan passage from the RSV:

A And immediately he left the synagogue, and entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.
B Now Simon's mother-in-law lay sick with a fever, and immediately they told him of her.
C And he came and took her by the hand and lifted her up, and the fever left her; and she served them.
D That evening, at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons.
D And the whole city was gathered together about the door.
C And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons;
B and he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.
A And in the morning, a great while before day, he rose and went out to a lonely place, and there he prayed.

The verse you refer to is a very typical Markan doublet, with "all" in D and "the whole city" in D'. Luke and Matt were not as bright as Mark and typically excised what they considered inexplicable redundancies, but this center is totally and indelibly Markan. That verse was never added by a redactor, but instead was excised by Luke and Matt who, like everyone else, never spotted how the fine structure of Mark works. The theme of crowds following the hero is typically Markan and more generally, yet another staple of Hellenistic fiction the writer incorporated into his fictional narrative about the life of Jesus.

Here's Luke from the NAB:

38After he left the synagogue, he entered the house of Simon. Simon's mother-in-law was afflicted with a severe fever, and they interceded with him about her.
39 He stood over her, rebuked the fever, and it left her. She got up immediately and waited on them.
40 At sunset, all who had people sick with various diseases brought them to him. He laid his hands on each of them and cured them.
41 And demons also came out from many, shouting, "You are the Son of God." But he rebuked them and did not allow them to speak because they knew that he was the Messiah.

Pretty simple. Do you think that this is a nicely balanced Markan chiasm that Luke chopped out a verse from ("the whole city"), or do you think that the writer of Mark looked at Luke and said "Hey! If I rewrite this a little and slip in a doubled idea, it already forms a perfect chiasm just like all my others, except for that one verse?" I know what the answer to that question is....

Mark is the first gospel. You can post this to Synoptic-L, btw, just for kicks.

Vorkosigan

Ben C Smith

Vork, what is the relationship between your two B brackets?

B1 Now Simon's mother-in-law lay sick with a fever, and immediately they told him of her.
B2 ...and he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.

Thanks.

Ben.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Thanks for your replies, Ben and Vork!

And here's a reply from Bruce; he gave his permission to repost it here. I'll comment upon it later.

=============

FROM: E Bruce Brooks

The three passages in question are:

[Mt 8:16 RSV] That evening they brought to him many who
were possessed with demons; and he cast out the spirits
with a word, and healed all who were sick.

[Mk 1:32 RSV] That evening, at sundown, they brought to him
all who were sick or possessed with demons.
[33] And the whole city was gathered together about the
door.
[34] And he healed many who were sick with various
diseases, and cast out many demons, and he would not permit
the demons to speak, because they knew him.

[Lk 4:40 RSV] Now when the sun was setting, all those who
had any that were sick with various diseases brought them
to him; and he laid his hands on every one of them and
healed them.
[41] And demons also came out of many, crying, "You are the
Son of God!" But he rebuked them, and would not allow them
to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.

In which there is a greater Markan emphasis on the crowds [Mk 1:33, the whole city at the door, a palpable exaggeration not present in Mt/Lk], and a greater Mt/Lk emphasis on the healing powers of Jesus [successful with "many" rather than "all" the sick].

YURI [remarks as follows]: So what we have here is a bit of a contradiction. In the case of Mk 1:33, it seems like Mk is exaggerating Jesus' appeal to the people of the town. Surely, the "whole city" gathering at Jesus' door might seem as an exaggeration of his popularity... Mt and Lk omit this detail.

But, on the other hand, both Mt and Lk seem to exaggerate Jesus' healing powers! Mk appears to be more restrained in saying that Jesus "healed many who were sick", rather than that he healed them all.

In short, when we consider the editorial strategies of Mk, as opposed to those of Mt and Lk, the above considerations do not allow us to come to a clear conclusion vis-a-vis which gospeller is more guilty of exaggeration.

BRUCE: I think this wrongly bundles together two types of exaggeration, and that they are better kept apart for Synoptic purposes. Mark exaggerates the circumstantial detail. Matthew and Luke exaggerate the powers of Jesus. This is consistent with a set of other details in Mark not present in Matthew or Luke, in which Jesus heals effortfully (the spit miracles) or not in all cases (the above), or confesses emotions, including sometimes despair. Is there a likely course of evolution in these matters, and does in run in the same direction? If so, we have a good Synoptic indicator, since the details in these categories are numerous across the three Synoptics, so we are not likely to be dealing with one precarious or misinterpreted passage.

I find that there *are* consistent lines of evolution, historically plausible and directionally suggestive.

1. Luke, to take only him, strives for human verisimilitude where it can be gotten. Consider the Calling of Simon. In place of Mark's few sentences, an invitation from Jesus to which Simon simply responds, we have in Luke a long story which introduces Jesus to Simon for other reasons (using his boat to escape a crowd), impresses Simon with a miracle wrought for his sake alone (the great catch of fish), and only then, when the acquaintanceship is explained the motivation for Simon's following of Jesus has been carefully provided, does the Call follow. Simon's acceptance of the Call is overwhelmingly well motivated, and humanly intelligible.

Mark, as noted, gives us none of this just a few sentences (which cannot be construed as a shortened version of Luke here, since the few details they do include are not compatible with the corresponding details in Luke). This huge increase in literary skill and human motivation is notable in Luke, here and elsewhere. For such a writer, Mark's crude exaggerations ("the whole town was out there, jammed into the doorway") can easily be seen as gauche and counterproductive. Luke is concerned not with statements which on reflection have to be qualified ("well, not EXACTLY the whole town"), but with humanly intelligible scenes (who would not follow Jesus, after pulling in a miraculous catch like that?).

From the breathless, and in consequence sometimes overstated, enthusiasm of Mark, we go to the careful portrait painting of Luke. Could you paint a picture of any scene in Mark? Not very consistently. Whereas Luke cries out for pictures in realistic mode. It is surely a more advanced, and a better calculated, literary strategy.

2. Whereas the exaggerations of Luke, if one is to call them that, occur in the opposite category, the power of Jesus. Notice how offhandedly Luke has Jesus "pass a miracle" and a nature miracle at that, just to impress Simon. And how consistently he cancels the parts of Mark implying effort, or doubt, or incompleteness, of Jesus's healings and other actions. The idea that Jesus was partial, incomplete, or sometimes unsuccessful is generally ungrateful to both Mt and Lk. At the end of that process, Jesus is practically a god. Mark taps into the evolving perception of Jesus at a time when some human limitations were still, sometimes, visible in the picture.

We then have these two parallel tendencies, both perfectly intelligible, but necessary to distinguish:

1. Crude exaggerations of fact > Smooth verisimilitude in narration
2. Limitations of Jesus > Fewer limitations of Jesus

Allowing for respectful retention of detail in some previous narratives, and looking only at what is new in the later narratives (I have to add this because the tendencies are not completely realized in every passage, eg, some Markan limitation passages survive in Mt/Lk), I find that where there ARE differences, and thus when analysis has something to work with, Luke is consistently at the righthand or more advanced end of the exaggeration scenarios, and Mark is consistently at the lefthand or less advanced end. This implies that Luke is generally later, not earlier, than Mark.

As noted, there are cases where all three have similar passages, a fact which can be attributed to imperfect implementation of the general tendency, or a detail too enshrined in the later public mind to be tampered with. These are intelligible as textual conservatism. What would upset this picture is a clear indication where the tendencies I distinguish above can be shown to run in the opposite direction, as between, say, Mark and Luke. Are there any?

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

=============

Best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Thank you, Ben!

Maybe so, but why would both Mt and Lk be averse to "picturesque detail", necessarily?

Well, just on the surface of things, it's a lot more likely that one guy added something, than that two guys both -- independently of each other! -- decided to omit something.

You see, this is where the mainstream 2ST just breaks down... 2ST is really quite an unlikely theory, so how come all those mainstreamers bought into it so wholeheartedly? I guess it's just lazy thinking...

Yes, thank you for pointing out these relevant passages in Mk.

Sure. Just about everything in the Synoptic studies may turn out to be reversible...

Well, it's certainly possible...

Yes, Ben, this is possible, Mk just might be abbreviating himself here.

Nevertheless, we still have a bit of a problem, because, to follow up on your suggestion, we'll then need to assume that Lk is _expanding_ Mark's account. But why would he want to do this?

After all, Mk 1:23-26 is also paralleled very closely in Lk 4:33-35, including all these details that you point out. This is all one long sequence where Mk and Lk agree quite closely.

Thus, it doesn't seem so self-evident to me that Lk, assuming it's following Mk here, would want to expand where Mk already abbreviated. There just doesn't seem to be any obvious reason for it...

Good point. _Lectio brevior potior_ maxim is so often abused.

Well, that's the reality, I'm afraid... So much of what passes for Synoptic scholarship nowadays is really just so much wishful thinking.

They want so much for there to be a simple solution to the Synoptic problem... But how can there be such a thing when our real evidence on the ground is clearly so extremely complex.

The simple solution to the Synoptic problem is that NONE of these gospels is really the earliest!

And thank you for your insightful comments.

All the best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, this is just one problem with Vork's theory, it seems...

But there's also a more general criticism that I can make. The problem, it seems to me, is that how do we know where to begin to cut and dice these Markan passages, in order to find "chiasms" there?

In this particular case, how do we know that the purported "chiasm" begins at Mk 1:29, and ends at 1:35?

Why not beginning somewhere else, and ending somewhere else? So there's clearly a significant element of arbitrariness there in such a process.

One can find a chiasm of such a type just about anywhere, if one so wishes, or so it seems... There's a signal lack of scientific rigour and verifiability ISTM.

Regards,

Yuri.

Ben C Smith

They are not opposed to it per se, but have a lot more to stuff into a single work than Mark does, and so do not mind dropping the details less consequential for Christian instruction.

This is not, BTW, an argument for direction of dependence, as I can easily imagine a later author adding such details.

Rather, it is an explanation for the omission once we have determined the direction of dependence from other factors. What I am saying is that, if Mark was first, then we probably know why Matthew and Luke (based on how they treat other details of this kind) dropped this detail. If, on the other hand, Matthew or Luke was first, then we probably know why Mark (based on his prediliction for this kind of detail elsewhere) added it.

But, if both directions of dependence can be explained, then what we are analyzing is not in itself a good criterion for direction of dependence.

Again, I for one do not tend to regard Luke and Matthew as mutually independent. Nevertheless, I do not think that agreements in omission are very telling. Presumably the details that are omitted cannot be essential to the storyline, and there are only so many of those kinds of details to go around, so overlap in omission is to be expected.

He is not in my judgment actually expanding Mark 1.34. He is combining it with Mark 3.11b, which matches Luke 4.41b almost verbatim. Moving one part of Mark to expand another part of Mark is not adding any cards to the deck; it is merely reshuffling the cards that are already there.

For convenience, I have both of the relevant synopses up and running on my site:

The evening healings.
A great multitude.

My view is that Mark is the earliest, but not for many of the usual reasons. I am pretty picky with my own list of directional indicators.



Ben.

Vorkosigan

Perhaps you should actually read, Yuri, instead of assuming that know whereof you are completely ignorant. Or at least ask questions before delivering a judgment. Not only have I carefully specified the rules for finding such chiasms, but the rule for defining their extent is simple: the A bracket always involves a change of location, and the A' bracket of the previous chiasm is always the A bracket of the next one. There's nothing arbitrary about it at all. Here is the latest form of the structure of Mark, with rules for forming chiasms clearly spelled out.

Ben, my chiasms are structural, not thematic (a fact that everyone finds confusing, since they've been raised on thematic chiasms), but the B bracket there is pretty clear, I thought...

B1 Now Simon's mother-in-law lay sick with a fever, and immediately they told him of her.
B2 ...and he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.

...where the open speech of the disciples contrasts with the suppressed speech of the demons. The writer of Mark often relates his brackets that way. The chiasm in that passage is standard Markan and thus, Yuri has no case for an interpolated verse. The way Lukan and Markan material is related structurally makes it clear that Luke depends on Mark, not vice versa. I'll post more later.

Vorkosigan

Ben C Smith

I was aware of that, and yes, I still find it confusing at times.

Okay, I missed that link.

OTOH, if that is all it takes to link the brackets, then surely it would be possible to arrange passages in other works (not written by Mark) chiastically, especially since your system allows for so many variations in the center.

Take Josephus, Antiquities 18.4.1 §85-87, for example:

A1 But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased.
B1 So he bid them get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them that, when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there.
C1 So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village which was called Tirathaba they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together.
C2 But Pilate prevented their going up by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and footmen. He fell upon those that had gotten together in the village.
B2 And when it came to an action some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight.
A2 And they took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.

The A brackets are typical Josephus, tying events together with the thread of political intrigues and conflicts (what geographical movement is to Mark, political events are to Josephus). A1 gives us the upstart Samaritan leader, A2 the official Roman leader.

The B brackets contrast an idealistic coming together with the brute reality of being put to flight.

The C brackets are both about what happened in the village, and contrasts the armed advance of the Samaritan side with the armed resistance of Pilate and company.

You may regard such a construction as non-Marcan, as well you should, since this is Josephus, not Mark. But the question is whether you think Josephus wrote in chiasms too. Take a look at Antiquities 20.5.1 §97-99:

A1 Now it came to pass while Fadus was procurator of Judea....
B1 ...that a certain enchanter, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them and follow him to the river Jordan.
C1 —
a For he told them that he was a prophet, and that he would by his own command divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it.
b And many were deluded by his words.
C2 —
a However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them.
b Falling upon them unexpectedly, he slew many of them and took many of them alive.
B2 They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head and carried it to Jerusalem.
A2 This was what befell the Jews in the time of the leadership of Cuspius Fadus.

Similar kind of A brackets here, this time naming Fadus in both cases.

Theudas occupies the B brackets, with prophetic attempt being contrasted with grisly execution (attempt and failure, similar to our other Josephan chiasm).

The C brackets are broken up in one of your favorite forms, with (a) the prophecy of a divided river being renamed a wild attempt and (b) many deluded becoming many slain.

In fact, I rather like this chiasm. It has a certain elegance to it. But ask me whether Josephus meant for somebody to come along two millennia later and discover it, or whether he himself was conscious of having written a complex chiasm, and at the moment I rather tend to doubt it. It seems to me at present that any well written paragraph focused on a topic will have internal links that can be structured somehow, especially if we allow ourselves the luxury of a nonchiastic center such as a-b-a-b.

Thoughts?

Ben.