Literary structure/ chiasms

Being very new to this type of inquiry I'd appreciate any inpute to refute or confirm the idea of Mark's literary style including chiasms.  The word simply means 'intersection'.  In this case it is argued that Mark like other literature of the day used a unique pattern of thought and structure that grouped sections into rounded out  blocks where the end half mirrors or opposes the beginning half .  Here is an example of one of many such chiasms found in Mark:

Mark 6:1-6:



A 1: He went away from there and came to his own country; and his disciples followed him. 2: And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him?

.....B What mighty works are wrought by his hands!

.........C 3: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?"

.............D And they took offense at him.

.........C' 4: And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."

.....B 5: And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them.

A 6: And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went about among the villages teaching.

   How widely accepted is this idea, and how much has it been considered in the textual reconstructions of Mark?

I think it is just considered a writing style of the ancients.  I do not know of any other significance attributed to it.  Like ....

Yes Wild thing.  But how extensive was this method within the narrative of MarK?  How much has this been considered in attempts to reconstruct the original text?

I'm not so familiar with chiasmatic analyses of Mark....tho I have encountered them.  I must confess a degree of skepticism however.  One chiasmatic analysis I saw of the Passion narrative in Mark seemed to be quite far-fetched; the paralleled items seemed to have only a loose relationship with each other, and it seemed all too easy to select what you want to arrange into a chiasmus.  There are, of course, obvious and indisputable cases, but I have gotten the impression that the analytical approach has at times been pushed way too far, with critics "discovering" chiasmata where none may really exist in the structure.  I have also seen people pursue chiasmatic analysis as an argument against source criticism.  I am thinking, for example, of Cassuto's arguments for the unity of the Flood story in Genesis, in which the doublets and other features which fit well with multi-source theories are explained as structural elements of an overarching chiasmus.  Personally I don't see how a chiasmus in the final redacted work necessarily excludes the possibility of multiple sources contributing to the text, and the methodology of chiasmatic analysis seems rather arbitrary to me -- tho, for that matter, it is another question of whether it is more or less arbitrary than source and form criticism which has its own arbitrariness.  I chafe a little at the freedom with which some treat difficult passages as interpolations without supporting evidence, but that is only a small quibble...

 

Perhaps you have noted this short undergraduate essay:

http://www2.andrews.edu/~rickyr/ntc00.html

As far as chiastic structure goes, I'm not sure how illuminating it is overall. Obviously it's a common stylistic device pervasive in both Hebrew and Greek. Much has been made of Mark's overall encompassing structure, and I think there is merit in such analyses (ch. 8 as a pivotal turning point, the three separate reminders of the Son of Man's imminent death in chapters 8, 9 and 10, etc.). I agree that, for example, the "superchiasm" analysis of the Flood Story is forced to fit parallels where they may or may not be.  There is no doubt the final redactor of Mark has structure in mind more than once throughout the text, but the incidence of this particular device carries minimal implication, in my view.

 

Euripides  

Thanks for the thoughts guys and gals.  I felt that this is significant.  Even if it may help only in understanding the final redactor's mind rather than the earlier layers.  I must admit that I'm also skeptical about most grandiose or miniscule patterns perceivd by over zealous analysts which is why I posted this thread.  I was left quite incredulous after wading thru that book "The Logic of Incest" with it's structural analysist of Genesis that seemed to explain too much.   At least I think these more subjective methods can be seen as corroboration if the linguistic or external evidence suggests a problem. 

Structural analysis and especially chiasmata are quite helpful: they take a lot of space in the dissertations/essays of students/scholars of the "dull and laborious" class.

Now true chiasmata are a puzzling phenomenon, probably pointing to an unconscious aesthetical pattern in (especially ancient Jewish) traditions and writings; sometimes they help to confirm an emendation where there is also semantic evidence for it. But in the absence of independent evidence they are hardly a trustworthy tool for literary reconstruction imo.

If I recall correctly, can't chiasms also be used as a supplementary line of evidence for the priority of Mark over the other two synoptics? I may be muddling up the device with something else, but since Mark has more numerous instances of chiasms, and Matthew only has a few, its more likely that Matthew borrowed them, rather than Mark taking a few and from the synoptics then constructing the rest.

If I can see some of the sandwiching, (a few short ones) , it must be a pretty obvious and real pattern .  Some of the more lengthy ones that are claimed, like the passion narrative, I don't really see. 

Some of the most convincing chiastic patterns actually seem to be better conserved in Matthew and Luke than in (the extant) Mark.

Here is a short example.



Matthew 10:33:

Matthew 16:25:

Mark 8:35:

Luke 9:24:

Luke 17:33:

Yes, those simple, tight chiasms in the sayings material are quite nice.  Interesting, if it is the case, that they are better represented in the daughter gospels than in the current text of Mark.  The stuff that gets a little more questionable are some of the putative chiasms in the narrative structure which embrace rather large sections of text and for which the analysts appear to pick and choose what they want to fill the slots of the chiasmus.

 

I should have added the saying also exists in a non-chiastic antithetic parallel in John 12:25:

Those were very nice examples from Luke and Matthew Narkissos. Merci beaucoup. I can't remember where I read that bit from now. Just as well, it looks like they were off (or I was if I just remembered it backwards).

 

Yeah, that's what it seems. I'm reminded of a Hebrew chiastic structure which is quoted in the Gospels.

Isaiah 6: 9,10  He said, "Go and tell this people: " 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding;

be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'

(A) 1 Make the heart of this people calloused;

      (B) 2 make their ears dull

            (C) 3 and close their eyes. 

            (C) 4 Otherwise they might see with their eyes,

      (B) 5 hear with their ears,

(A) 6 understand with their hearts,

and turn and be healed."

The chiasm is destroyed in Mark 4:12 and in Luke's parallel verse. But Matthew preserves it. Does LXX's influence have anything to do with it?  Or are there other reasons, like the simple fact that Matthew has an obvious predilection for OT quotes?

Neo

Or................is the primacy of Mark to be questioned????   So many times we find this strange hint that matt may be more original than Mark. 

 

One fact: the Isaiah 6 passage happens to be quoted in all four gospels plus Acts. It's very interesting that the canonical sequence of these books establish a chiastic structure based on the Isaiah 6 quote:

(A)  Matthew 13:14-15  In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: ? ?You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.?

(B)  Mark 4:12  so that, ? ?they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!? ?

(C)  Luke 8:10  He said, ?The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, ? ?though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.?

(B) John 12:40  ?He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn?and I would heal them.?

(A)  Acts 28:26-27  ? ?Go to this people and say, ?You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.?  For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.?

There is a gradual loss of information when we move from A to B to C. In A, the chiastic structure of Isaiah 6 is preserved. In B, the chiasm is lost, but much information is still retained. And C is but a shadow of the original Isaiah quote; only the "though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand" part is alluded to, with no reference even to the 'turning and healing' ending.

What makes the chiastic structure surprising is its self-reflectivity. This chiasm - based on the book sequence - is itself built around a chiastic OT passage!

Neo