“Rethinking Alma 36,” and remembering Clayton Christensen

I’m saddened to learn of the passing of Clayton Christensen:

“Clayton Christensen, guru of disruptive innovation and Latter-day Saint leader, dies at 67: Apple’s Steve Jobs, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Netflix’s Reed Hastings and Intel’s Andy Grove looked to influential management thinker”

“Clark Gilbert: How will you measure your life? A tribute to the life of Clay Christensen”

I first met Clay when we were freshman dormitory neighbors at Brigham Young University.  His roommate was the late Bruce D. Porter, who, like Clay, went on to earn a doctorate at Harvard.  Bruce became a lifelong friend to both of us and also served for many years as a member of the Seventy.  Both Bruce and Clay passed away too early — Bruce at 64 and, now, Clay at 67.

Clayton Christensen was one of the first to contribute an entry to my then-new Mormon Scholars Testify website:

Clayton M. Christensen

Clayton M. Christensen (Japanese)

He also contributed the 2015 Christmas essay to Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship:

““He Did It”: A Christmas Message”

Although Clay died far too early, I’m really quite surprised that he made it as long as he did.  For years, he had faced serious health challenges, including cardiac disease, cancer, and stroke.  And yet he carried on, faithfully, productively, and usefully.

His wise, humble, and measured voice will be sorely missed.  And, by far, not only among members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

***

Today being Friday, a new article — this one by Noel B. Reynolds — has appeared in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship:

Rethinking Alma 36

Abstract: While Alma 36 has long been one of the most admired examples of classical Hebrew chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, critiques in the last two decades have questioned whether, in fact, it really meets the requirements of classical biblical chiasms. The principal objections have pointed to the large sections of the chapter that are not easily included in the chiasm as outlined by John W. Welch and other proponents. Until now, this debate has not taken note of dramatic new developments in the analysis of Hebrew rhetoric over the last fifty years. The following essay turns to the discoveries made in this new approach to Hebrew rhetoric and shows that when the new “levels analysis” is incorporated into a study of Alma 36, the entire text does have a role to play in the extended chiastic structure of the chapter.