12-29-2013, 01:41 AM
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
[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