Have you been to the Carnival?

http://www.eblaforum.org/blog/


Joel,

I am impressed with the extent of your scholarship; I think it is very hard for someone to be knowledgeable enough about one entry to write a thoughtful review let alone about numerous entries.

Just to illustrate, I actually wrote 13 pages on Reading Luke Chiastically wherein I discussed over several pages whether or not a gospel could be a large chiasmus. See below:

In the past twenty years, a number of scholars have shown that chiasmus is a structural tool of biblical rhetoric. Scholars readily acknowledge their prevalence even though they often find it hard to determine the shape of particular chiasmus. The documentation has not been persuasive because neither a good definition has been established nor a set of rules developed that can be uniformly applied. Consequently, chiastic structures that were apparent to ancient listeners are difficult for modern interpreters to define exactly even in the same pericopes. Furthermore, Ian Thomson has questioned whether chiastic structures can be shown to exist in macro settings which he defines as more than 15 verses. Thomson, Porter and Reed have asserted to date a convincing set of criteria for how to identify chiasm has not been developed. [footnotes omitted] [copyrighted 2005]

Consequently the achievement of Michael Turton is quite impressive and I am especially happy you discussed his masterpiece.

I do not know, because after all, I am only blogging, whether or not, my idea [Rewriting Sacred History] is truly original. I think it is. Thank you again for your comments.

thanks again.

Richard H. Anderson