I'm unsure that "sophistication" in the estimation of modern New Testament scholars is the be-all and end-all of good writing. I suspect that some part of their disappointment is in the area of theology. As it happens, I don't look to Mark for advice on that subject, which could help explain why I am less disappointed than they are.
Secret Alias
I don't reckon either source ever met the guy. If not, then 'mystical' is their take on the piece. That's nice to know, but it doesn't make it so.But we have two sources that say his purpose was 'mystical.'
I'm an Irish agnostic myself, and I love the thing.The irony of specifically Jewish commentators (myself and Joe) who despite not 'believing' per se in the message of Mark, necessarily being 'drawn in' because of its literary structure.
A dramatist. Anybody with an interest in and aptitude for writing who's seen a stage play and wishes to achieve similar effects.Again who would begin a story of a man without at least providing some background on the man.
Open with something happening. Works on stage and works on the page.
Probably not, chiasm is a bluntly visual figure of speech. The listening audience would more likely experience the structure as a frequent sense that what they're hearing now is related to something they heard a while ago.Could someone 'hearing' the gospel take note of the chiasms?
Which at the time would mean read aloud. Possibly by an employee if privately read; if publicly read, then it'd mostly be heard.It was meant to be read.
The experiment is easy enough to do. Alec McCowen's solo performance of the KJV Mark is on YouTube (it's a playlist; it runs about 100 minutes, including the brief audience orienation and warm-up)Most note Mark's chiastic structure wouldn't have been noticed by hearers:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... _391EcZicM
Now, nobody is likely to report "I think I hear something that reminds me of the letter X." Lol. What you might experience is the coherence of the structure, the balance about the pivot of the transfiguration (even though McCowen takes his intermission right before then - the performer's choices matter a great deal to what precisely the audience experiences).
Just because hearing doesn't somehow summon up a mental picture of a right-angle-bracket doesn't mean that there is no aesthetic effect on the listener, such as an impression of chosen orderliness. It isn't surprising that many people would be hard pressed to articulate the finer particulars of that orderliness, regardless of whether they read the work or listen to it read or performed.
If they watch it performed, there is ample opportunity for visual aspects of performance to reinforce structure. Not just chiastic stuff, but also variable-interval threading, like coin business and cup business, for instance.