the_cave

But what sort of "balance" would you have been trying to achieve, and why? Also, why would you have used Joses the second time, then James the third time?

Ben C Smith

I think you are supposing I am trying for something fancy here. This is not fancy.

What I am saying is that the references are balanced as follows:

1. James and Joses.
2. Joses.
3. James.

The first reference is the fullest, and this should not surprise anybody.

The second and third references are abbreviated; this too should be unsurprising.

The balance is between the second and the third mentions. Mary has two sons, and Mark by this time needs only one of them to identify her (and this identification is still apt, since there is another Mary hanging around!), but he has two mentions to work with. The math is simple: One son per mention.

What would have been more surprising to me is if Mark decided either (A) to use the fullest reference all three times or (B) to use the same son twice for the second and third references. (The latter option is what I am saying would feel unbalanced, at least to me.)

Ben.

aa5874

Which readers knew what kids? Where was gMark read? Was gMark read when all the kids were dead? And which Mary had kids?

Again, mind boggling stuff, Ben. You are just floating.

Ben C Smith

The readers of Mark knew (of) the sons of the Mary we are discussing. This is an inference from the otherwise puzzling mention of the sons.

The answer to this question is not required by or for the above inference, but I think Mark was read in Rome.

I have no idea, nor does the inference make it necessary to know this.

Mary the mother of James and Joses, of course.

Ben.

the_cave

Yes, but why Joses, before James? Wouldn't it make more sense to identify her first as the mother of James, then the mother of Joses? (This is where Turton's chiasm-hypothesis could come in handy: perhaps the author was trying to mirror the bracket where Joseph of Arimathea is mentioned. Except, as I have noted previously, this verse is not in the right place to mirror the bracket. So something is wrong; either this is the wrong approach, or someone must have fiddled with the pericope.)

Why not? It's much simpler, and less confusing. Using "Joses" the second time is the more complex choice. So there must have been a reason to do it that way, besides sheer composition. Was Joses someone important, and the author was trying to recognize this fact?

Ben C Smith

I do not think Mark always strives for the structures that Turton finds, though he seems to do so sometimes.

In this case, the chiastic structure covers only the names of the sons:

A1. Mother of James...
B1. ...and of Joses.
B2. Mother of Joses.
A1. Mother of James.

Because it seems to privilege one son over the other. If the readers knew (of) both of them, this might seem (dare I say it?) unbalanced.

Ben.

aa5874

Ben, that cannot be established. How on earth can you claim that readers knew the sons of Mary? Which readers, Ben?

You cannot just make stuff up and call it history. <edit>

Amaleq13

inference:
3. Logic.
a. the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises.
b. the process of arriving at some conclusion that, though it is not logically derivable from the assumed premises, possesses some degree of probability relative to the premises.

the_cave

I don't think the chiasm could possibly work out that way. Could it? Is this specific device often used?

What's wrong with that? Who were James and Joses, such that Mark needed to be careful which one he mentioned first?

spamandham

I'm starting to wonder if 'mother' and 'brother' were generic terms meaning 'followers of' as the Gospels have Jesus telling us.

Are we sure these are familiar relationships? ....just a thought.