Douglas, 2007, pp. 43-71.

Apart from Dorsey, Way (2014, p. 248 n. 5) singles out only B.G. Webb, The Book of Judges (JSOTSup 46; Sheffield, 1987), and G.T.K. Wong, Compositional Strategy of the Book of Judges: An Inductive, Rhetorical Study (VTSup 111; Leiden, 2006), as following in Gooding’s footsteps, although one might also add J.P. Tanner, “The Gideon Narrative as the Focal Point of Judges,” BibSac 149 (1992), pp. 146-161; idem, Textual Patterning in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Case Study in Judges 6-8 (Unpublished Ph.D. diss. Austin, 1990) to the list. On the critical side, Mieke Bal commented already in 1988 that even the most basic symmetric division of Judges “into introduction, bulk, and epilogue” is “clearly modeled on a rhetorical prescription alien to biblical culture” (M. Bal, Death and Dissymmetry: The Politics of Coherence in the Book of Judges [Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism; Chicago, 1988], p. 15), and in 2002, Marc Zvi Brettler decried “chiasmania” in general and in particular assessed Gooding’s schema as “coherence imposed” (M.Z. Brettler, The Book of Judges [otr; London, 2002], pp. 11-12, 105-106; quotation on p. 106). For some other critiques of chiastic reconstructions, overall and in specific texts, see J. Kugel, “On the Bible and Literary Criticism,” Prooftexts 1 (1981), pp. 224-227; J.A. Emerton, “An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative in Genesis,” vt 37 (1987), pp. 401-420; 38 (1988), pp. 1-21; M. Butterworth, Structure and the Book of Zechariah (JSOTSup 130; Sheffield, 1992), pp. 18-61; M.J. Boda, “Chiasmus in Ubiquity: Symmetrical Mirages in Nehemiah 9,” jsot 71 (1996), pp. 55-70.

Boda, pp. 56-58, lists as many as thirteen possible “errors in the rhetorical analysis of chiasmus” (p. 56). Seven of them fall under my rubrics of “arbitrary and inconsistent segmentation” (“irregular arrangement” and “questionable demarcation”) and especially “selective use of textual parallels” (“arbitrary omission and inclusion,” “arbitrary labelling,” “methodological isolation,” “frequency fallacy,” and “accidental odds”) while two others are inapplicable to prose (“metrical maneuvering” and “metrical consistency”). “Lopsided design” (with allegedly matching units substantially differing in length) also does not look like a major problem as far as prose is concerned, but if it is one, the schemas of both Douglas and Way grossly fail the test: as will be seen below, the former sees 108-word Num 10:1-10 as a counterpart of 87-verse Numbers 28-30, and the latter draws a similar connection between Othniel’s judgeship (84 words) and that of Samson (96 verses). Boda’s criterion of “atypical patterns” (“chiastic structures which have been discovered in numerous passages are more reliable than one restricted to the particular passage at hand”) is falsified by Gen 9:6a, which is clearly chiastic despite the fact that no similar structures are found in the chapter. Finally, the interrelated errors of “purposeless structure” and “presupposition that center is important” will be briefly addressed in the conclusion of the present article.

Douglas, 2007, pp. 43-53, 61-71; cf. Douglas, 1993, pp. 102-103.

Douglas, 2007, p. 58.

Douglas, 2007, p. 68. In her earlier book on Numbers, Douglas regards chap. 36 as a separate unit (1993, pp. 103, 108). This would resolve both the problem of symmetry and that of generic distribution but completely destroy the “latch” (see 3.1.7 below). Ultimately, Douglas ascribes Numbers 36 to an inept editor (2007, pp. 68-71), in other words, brings diachronic speculations into an otherwise strictly synchronic discussion. If the current ending of Numbers is redactional, why not other parts of the book—as claimed, for example, by Noth, pp. 4-11?

Gooding, pp. 72*-78*; Dorsey, pp. 106-107, 111-112, 116-120; Way, 2014, p. 248.

Quoted from Way, 2014, p. 248. Globe (p. 246) differs only in treating the sequences of “minor judges” in 10:1-5; 12:8-15 as a single unit and matching it to the notice on Shamgar in 3:31. Accordingly, he sees seven rather than six structural tiers in the book.

Brettler, 2002, pp. 92-102, even argues that Judg 1:1-2:10 is the original conclusion of Joshua.

Sweeney, pp. 520-522. Cf. T.C. Butler, Judges (wbc 8; Nashville, 2009), pp. 10-12.

Way, 2014, pp. 254-255. He claims to follow Douglas’s concept of a “latch” (2.1 above), but she does not split the central unit of her ring reconstruction in any way (which in any case would not be easy given the fragment’s strong narrative continuity), seeking instead to connect it as a whole to the book’s beginning and ending (3.1.7 below).

Way, 2014, p. 254.

Brettler, 2002, p. 11, was among the first to draw attention to this pattern. He quotes David P. Wright’s oral suggestion to call it “chiastic interference” (p. 118). Since this seems to presuppose the existence of a chiasmus, or at least the desirability of discovering it, I will henceforth use the strictly descriptive term “distributed parallel.”

Douglas, 2007, pp. 69-70.

Douglas, 2007, pp. 58-64.

Way, 2014, p. 254.

Way, 2014, pp. 254-255.

Way, 2014, p. 255 n. 28.

Way, 2014, p. 256; cf. Gooding, p. 76*; Dorsey, pp. 118-119.

Way, 2014, p. 256.

Way, 2014, p. 256; cf. Gooding, p. 76*; Globe, p. 247; Dorsey, pp. 118-119.

Way, 2014, p. 256; cf. Gooding, p. 77; Globe, p. 247.

Dorsey, pp. 118-119.

Way, 2014, p. 256; cf. Gooding, p. 77*.

Way, 2014, p. 256.

Way, 2014, pp. 256-257; cf. Gooding, pp. 76*-78*; Dorsey, pp. 118-119.

Way, 2014, p. 257; cf. Dorsey, pp. 118-119.

Way, 2014, p. 257; cf. Gooding, pp. 76*-78*; Globe, pp. 246-247; Dorsey, pp. 118-119.

Dorsey, p. 119.

Way, 2014, p. 257.

Way, 2014, p. 257; cf. Gooding, pp. 76*-78*; Globe, pp. 246-247; Dorsey, p. 119.

Dorsey, p. 119; cf. Gooding, pp. 76*-78*.

Dorsey, p. 119.

Way, 2014, p. 251.

Way, 2014, p. 251; cf. Gooding, pp. 73*, 77*-78*; Globe, pp. 246-247; Dorsey, pp. 114-115.

Way, 2014, pp. 251-252.

Way, 2014, p. 252; cf. Dorsey, pp. 114-115.

Way, 2014, p. 252.

Dorsey, p. 114.

Way, 2014, p. 252.

Way, 2014, p. 252; cf. Gooding, pp. 73*, 78*; Globe, pp. 246-247; Dorsey, pp. 114-115.

Way, 2014, p. 252; cf. Dorsey, pp. 114-115.

Way, 2014, p. 252; cf. Gooding, pp. 73*, 78*; Globe, pp. 246-247; Dorsey, pp. 114-115.

Way, 2014, p. 252.

Dorsey, p. 114.

Way, 2014, p. 252.

Way, 2014, p. 252; cf. Gooding, pp. 73*-74*, 78*; Globe, pp. 246-247; Dorsey, pp. 114-115.

Way, 2014, pp. 252-253.

Way, 2014, p. 253.

Douglas, 2007, pp. 58-64.

Douglas, 2007, pp. 64-67, also claims that Numbers is particularly interested in Josephite tribes and Benjamin, but she fails to demonstrate how her ring schema promotes this interest.

Way, 2014, p. 260.

See, e.g., Sweeney, pp. 523-524; Frolov, 2013, pp. 95-97, 113-117, 142-147, 358-359.