"Syntactical Chiasmus"

Steven Craig Miller stevencraigmiller at home.com
Sun Jan 28 17:10:29 EST 2001


To: Wayne Leman,

<< Steven, *if* Philemon 5 and Matt. 7:6 were intended to be understood 
chiastically, from that I would still not consider chiasmus to be a natural 
syntactic form of Greek. I would, instead, regard the syntactic forms as 
being borrowed from Hebrew and imposed upon the Greek of the NT by its 
Jewish writers. I have read some on the issue of chiasmus in these two 
verses and at this point I buy the scholarly arguments (Dr. Black, et al) 
that chiasmus was intended. There are a huge number of Semiticisms in the 
Greek of the NT. It would, therefore, not surprise me in the least, to see 
some Semitic syntactic borrowing, as well as the Semitic lexical and 
idiomatic borrowings that we are usually more aware of. The NT is a very 
Hebraic document, even though it was not written in the lingua franca of 
its day, rather than a Semitic language. >>

I wonder if you are merely making a wild guess as to what you surmise might 
be true? I would have had more confidence in your statement if you would 
have backed it up with concrete examples. Please show me real examples 
where in Biblical Hebrew the chiasmus effects Hebrew syntax? Your 
suggestion that this is a Semitism would explain why one doesn't find 
examples of "Syntactical Chiasmus" in classical Greek literature (at least 
not in grammars of classical literature). But even if we can assume that a 
"Syntactical Chiasmus" is common in Hebrew and/or Aramaic, for it to be a 
Semitism it also has to be understood in Greek, and by 
Greek-speakers/readers. More often than not, a Semitisim merely emphasizes 
a rare possibility in Greek syntax. Are there examples of "Syntactical 
Chiasmus" in the LXX? Are there examples of "Syntactical Chiasmus" in 
Hebrew? WHERE ARE THEY? I have "Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar" by Kautzsch and 
Cowley (1910) as well as "An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax" by 
Waltke and O'Connor (1990). Neither of these grammars have a section on 
chiasmus as it relates to syntax. Why not? I suspect that this supposed 
"Syntactical Chiasmus" is more scholarly imagination than sober analysis of 
syntax. But if I'm wrong, I would like to see the evidence which supports 
the notion of a "Syntactical Chiasmus."  Please show me real examples where 
in Biblical Hebrew the chiasmus effects Hebrew syntax! Please show me real 
examples in the LXX where the chiasmus effects Greek syntax! Give me solid 
examples, and I will be more than happy to admit that my doubts have been 
wrong.

-Steven Craig Miller
Alton, Illinois (USA)
stevencraigmiller at home.com




More information about the B-Greek mailing list