Yes. The scholar Brown, I said, not the novelist, has clearly highlighted the chiastic structure of the whole account of the Crucifixion and the burial in the Gospel of John. He shows that John 19, 25-27 constitutes what he calls “an excellent centerpiece of the crucifixion account”. The whole structure is perfectly articulated around John 19, 25-27 which is the key and which allows to apprehend the whole.
And is it also this scholar who highlighted the chiasmus present in John 19, 25?
No. Like his predecessors, this scholar did not push the analysis beyond the macrostructure. He spotted the “macro-chiasm” structuring the whole episode: the one starting from the scene of the condemnation of Jesus, leading to John 19, 25-27 and going back to the scene of the entombment. But he did not go down to the microstructure level. Raymond E. Brown therefore remains on the idea that John mentions, in total, three or four women ...
What if he was right?
Unfortunately, this scholar died in 1998. But I remain convinced that if he had been able to read it, he would have subscribed to my explanation. With this new sequencing, there are only two women with the same name at Calvary, instead of three or four. In addition, the main differences between the list provided by John – the only one to mention the mother of Jesus – and those proposed by the other evangelists happen to be resolved since all agree to report, first, the presence of Mary of Magdala. Finally, and above all, the problem of the apparent absence of the mother of Jesus during the Passion in the synoptic gospels, and during the entombment and the Resurrection in the four gospels, is definitively resolved.
John 19, 16b-30: Chiastic structure according to Raymond E. Brown