Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Chiastic Structures in Mark
#1
Please see: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html">http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html</a><!-- m -->
For the listing of the Chiastic Structures: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark01.html#1X">http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark01.html#1X</a><!-- m -->
You may have to scroll down some ways to get to the Chiastic Structuring.

I have no doubt that much of what is contained here is not convincing to most who follow this site. It'll probably raise your blood pressure a little.
However, a great amount of work (Unfinished, BTW) has been expended on this and this should be asked:

Does the Chiastic Structure Thesis itself carry ANY weight in the Aramaic Community?
Is there a corresponding Aramaic Chiastic Classification?

Or, do you consider this the equivalent of a Snipe Hunt?

Thanx,

CW
#2
Can you give an example of a specific chiasm in Mark that we can look at. Otherwise your question becomes hard to answer.
Michael Turton sees many chiastic structures in Mark, in fact IIRC he sees the entire book as written in chiasms of some sort. To the point that where there is no chiasm, he hypothesises that the text must have been altered to remove the chiasm
#3
Michael Turton states:
"It is important to realize as you read the Gospel of Mark that the text you read is a translation of a Greek text into English. The Gospel of Mark, like all the New Testament writings, was originally composed in Koine Greek, the lingua franca of the eastern portion of the Roman Empire in the first and second centuries. Scholars are fond of saying that until you read Mark in Greek, you haven't read Mark."

Michael Turton is making a multi-point argument:

1. Mark was written in Greek.
2. The Chiastic Structure in Mark is a Greek Construct.

There are many subtle points as well, among them that The Book of Mark, is manifestly Non-Historical.
Here then, by request, is a Chiasm chosen from his Outline of Chiastic Structures:

A Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand.
B And they watched him, to see whether he would heal him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him.
C And he said to the man who had the withered hand, "Come here."
D And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?"
E But they were silent.
E And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart,
D and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand."
C He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.
B The Pharisees went out, and immediately held counsel with the Hero'di-ans against him, how to destroy him.
A Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the sea, and a great multitude from Galilee followed;

Therefore, the question(s): "Are Chiastic Structures in Mark of strictly Greek origin?" There is a "Structure" to Mark, obviously. Are those "Structures" Chiastic?

[Edit note: I indented by using the Spacebar (To make the Structure easier to see.). The indents did not transfer to the Post. They ARE visible again as I edit...]
#4
PS: I want to be fair to Michael Turton. He states:

"Scholars have long recognized that Markan structure is chiastic, that is, composed of structures that are parallel and inverted. Such structures were commonly used in antiquity."
Also, I can't say that he believes that Mark is a complete fabrication. He often states that some or such event is "non-historical", as he does here:

"Due to the presence of the supernatural, the rich array of motifs common to the writer of Mark, such as the disciples' inability to understand Jesus, boats, the sea, and crowds, and the presence of numerous allusions and links to the OT, there is no support for historicity in this pericope."
#5
Charles Wilson Wrote:Michael Turton states:

Michael Turton is making a multi-point argument:

1. Mark was written in Greek.
2. The Chiastic Structure in Mark is a Greek Construct.
...]

I have a question for you; why would the Chiasm -not- exist in the Peshitta?

(I can easy research on Dukhrana.com whether or not the chiasm exists there too, you can too <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> )
#6
distazo Wrote:
Charles Wilson Wrote:Michael Turton states:

Michael Turton is making a multi-point argument:

1. Mark was written in Greek.
2. The Chiastic Structure in Mark is a Greek Construct.
...]

I have a question for you; why would the Chiasm -not- exist in the Peshitta?

(I can easy research on Dukhrana.com whether or not the chiasm exists there too, you can too <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> )


I fail to see how the presence of a chiastic prose identifies the language of a text? Chiastic prose is readily identifiable in translations. They are structures of thought, a flow of narrative. They are not indicative of grammar or other linguistic nuances.

And they are certainly not a Greek invention. The Torah and Quran are loaded with them (as is the New Testament)...even Beowulf makes use of that style of prose.

+Shamasha
#7
PY and others-

I'm NOT saying that there are no Chiastic Structures outside of Greek authorship and I thank you PY for stating exactly that.
This is precisely the type of puzzle I am looking for. It's a simple question and I'm just not looking for a fight here.

1. Does the Peshitta Mark illustrate Chiastic Structure? (In one sense, it would be obviously true. I'm looking for more.)
2. Are there Structures within such a Framework that would illustrate Aramaic Primacy?

3. Consider this: "Son, here's a $10 dollar bill. Would you go to the store and, as we say in the English Language, buy a loaf of bread and some milk?" What's wrong with this?
Then, consider this: "...And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea..." What's wrong with this?
The Jewish Fighters had 3 watches: See Lamentations 2: 19, Judges 7: 19 and Exodus 14:24. What's "Fourth Watch" doing here?

Turton has made an interesting Study. The comment above about finding an "Interpolation" in Mark because there are passages that do NOT perform to a particular Chiastic Structure is on target - It does not , however, invalidate his claim. Such evidence does not always rise to the level of a Proof Statement. It is suggestive. I'm looking at one of the "Long Speeches" that Turton states should be considered a single entry in a Chiasm. It appears, to me, to have a Structure within itself. Again, it does not invalidate the Chiastic idea. It opens up a new area of research.
If these Structures are there, then there must be an Aramaic Component to them. The alternative is to state that Mark was written in Aramaic without these Structures and Greek translation not only translated the Aramaic but did so as an artistic exercise when the Chiastic Structures were added. This does not seen plausible.

CW

PS: Congratulations, PY, on your find.
#8
Shlama CW,

Thank you. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

As Turton stated, chiastic structures were commonly used in antiquity. Note, he did not say Greek antiquity. The Greeks were the among the last of the ancient civilizations to become literate, even. But I digress. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Of course the chiastic structure he points out is present in the Aramaic, as it is in the English you posted, and even in Chinese. It gives us absolutely no clue about the nature of the original language of the text. That's because it's a question of narrative structure. It is a device employed as style, regardless of what language you choose to write in. Not a linguistic feature, only a literary device.

For instance, I can give you an Acrostic poem (a very popular literary device in Aramaic), but in English. However, this literary device will only work in English, because an acrostic poem (by definition) has each stanza starting with the order of your alphabet, which obviously wouldn't work in a translation into a language with a different order of alphabet. Here's an example:

(A)ll people give praise unto His Name
(B)ecause the LORD has purchased our salvation
©ontemplate the price at which you were purchased
(D)eem yourselves worthy because of His sacrifice
(E)verlasting life is your inheritance
....and so on, and so forth

I've used above a very common literary device in ancient Semitic (especially, Aramaic), but in English. Unlike a chiastic structure, this would not work in a translation into any other language.

But a chiastic structure does not depend on anything related to linguistics. It carries itself forward into any language that the text is translated into. I don't think the original author is claiming that the chiastic structures found in Mark are indicative of it being composed in any specific language. He mentions Greek only in reference to things unrelated to the chiastic examples he gives (real, or imagined).

+Shamasha
#9
Just out of curiosity: are there any acrostics in the Peshitta? I know the Tanakh has them at least. You hardly ever see anyone bring up poetry in the Greek New Testament, but there is plenty to show in the Peshitta.
#10
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Just out of curiosity: are there any acrostics in the Peshitta? I know the Tanakh has them at least. You hardly ever see anyone bring up poetry in the Greek New Testament, but there is plenty to show in the Peshitta.

Hi Akhi,

Acrostics are usually found in books of poetry (like the Psalms, Song of Songs, hymnals, etc.) and not historical books.

In the Peshitta, the examples of poetry/prose that are present are usually reenactments of dialogue (like the Lords Prayer, Zechariah's Canticle, etc), within a historical book. These examples reflect other Semitic styles of poetry, like alliteration/assonance.

In other words, being a collection of historical books and epistles, I would not expect to find any acrostic poems in the Aramaic NT. any more than in 2Kings or Josephus.

+Shamasha
#11
Hi All
What is 1 Timothy 3:16? Isn't that a poem?

And revelation 7:17?

Mettttull d??amra d??vemesatth kursya
Nera ennown oo??nashwall ennown seed hayay
Oo??seed aynttha d??mayya
Oo??nallha kollll damaa miin ayneehown
#12
Paul Younan stated:

[Chiastic Structure] "gives us absolutely no clue about the nature of the original language of the text."

I agree. I'm afraid I'm making a hash of my own question but your statement gives me an opening to try again. I'm looking at Chiastic Structures as another tool to use to examine content and Michael Turton's site contains quite a bit of good material ("real and imagined..." /S) on Mark as a written document. Maybe I'm making the process too difficult.
I'm also looking at it as something Michael Turton sees and he sees it through a Greek Origin lens. MT himself advises caution on this idea when he states that looking into text as a measure of reading someone's mind is problematic ("She said to herself,"If I can but touch the tassels of his robe..."). This site, however, has Post after Post of commentary on the dangers of seeing the NT through a Greek Only lens. What to do?

I brought up "The Fourth Watch" problem and it might not even be a problem. Jewish fighters had 3 Watches. The Romans had 4. "And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea." By the time Mark was written, perhaps it would "only" have made sense to use 4 Watches. This, however, may be a "marker" for something else and it is packaged into a "Chiasm" that makes sense as a whole. Why? What's the point?

Mark 13 occupies a lot of my thought lately. My usual "Flag Alert" occurs when I see something like,"...this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs..." or "...these things are the beginnings of sorrows..." (Younan). MT states: "Speeches, regardless of length must be single brackets..." although he gives a possible rule for breaking a speech into multiple brackets "when the audience has shifted..."

Here's the problem: If Mark 13 illustrates a Chiastic Structure itself, beyond a speech - and I believe it does - what does this say about the document that is Mark 13? I believe that it points to something earlier than any Greek version and it may be reflected in the Structure. We could argue about whether or not it is Chiastic or whether a long speech *should* be its own bracket but it appears *to me* to be something more than a long speech.

I tend to agree that the Chiastic Structure in Mark may be used as a Tool. Whether it has been analyzed in the Aramaic Community is something about which I just have no knowledge.
"When I have a question, I'm supposed to ask". I'm asking.

Thank you all,

Charles
#13
Shlama Akhi Charles,

Ask away, that's what we're here for. Sometimes the answer will be in the negative, but that's ok. I had a similar experience this past Sunday with a visiting Qasha (elder/priest) who was filling in for our normal Qasha, who's in Iraq for the holidays visiting his family (please pray for him and them all, the bombs that recently went off in the Assyrian quarter in Baghdad are close to his location.)

Anyway, the Gospel reading for Christmas "Mass" included Zechariah's Canticle. The visiting Qasha read it, and after service I pointed out to him that the name of the three protagonists (Zechariah, Elizabeth and John) were alluded to in the Canticle. He was amazed.

Are they alluded to only in the Aramaic, or Greek, or English? Of course not. The names are all Hebrew/Aramaic, but the result is the same. It doesn't necessarily mean that Zechariah recited his poem in Aramaic (although he most likely did).

Like the Canticle, the presence of Chiastic Structures are a curiosity, indeed a very cool thing. Do they mean anything more to the Aramaic community than the Greek, or prove anything? Not really. But powerful, nonetheless.

+Shamasha
#14
Paul,

Can you please look at my sample at Revelation? Is that a poem?

Thanks!
#15
distazo-

The Moffatt Translation certainly sees it that way:

"Moffatt sought not only to render the text of Scripture into a common idiom but also to incorporate into his work the findings of archaeology, philology and the related sciences. Portions of the Scripture that are poetry were set as such in the body of the text, and the prose sections were rendered in paragraphs on order to retain the flow of the original writing." - The Bible, James Moffatt Translation, Publisher's Preface, p. 13

The poetic section begins with verse 15:

15. Therefore they are now before the throne of God,
serving him day and night within his temple,
and he who is seated on the throne shall overshadow them with his care.
16. Never again will they be hungry, never again athirst,
never shall the sun strike them, nor any scorching heat;
17. for the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd,
guiding them to fountains of living water;
and God shall wipe ever tear from their eyes
."

Moffatt was a big Greek fan. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to see - again - what the Aramaic organization would produce. I would tend to agree with the idea of poetry here. Compare with Eisenman and Wise (Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, p. 280) with the DSS and Jannaeus:

"A sacred[po]em
for King Jonathan
and all the Congregation of your people,
Israel,
who are (spread) in every
direction under heaven
may they all be well
Perfect before you,
and a Commonwealth in your name

"In your love do I exalt...
in the day and in the evening from wine (also possibly 'Greece'...
to draw near as to be...
Visit them for a blessing, to...
upon your Name which is proclaimed...
a Kingdom for Your Commonwealth...
the Joiners in the war/joining the war of...
Your Name for a memorial...


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)