"Syntactic Chiasmus"

Steven Craig Miller stevencraigmiller at home.com
Mon Jan 29 08:25:40 EST 2001


To: Kevin L. Barney,

<< Well, I noticed on my own the chiastic character of your original two 
examples (Mt. 7:6 and Phil. 5), so at least that speaks well for the 
relative objectivity of the phenomenon actually being there. >>

Perhaps. But in my opinion, there is not a real chiasmus at either passage.

<< Lund, _Chiasmus in the New Testament_, 32 [since you have this book in 
your library, you might look at that page to see what Lund has to say on 
this verse]. >>

He does mention the (supposed) chiasmus at Mt 7:6, but he doesn't discuss 
the issue of Greek syntax. In fact all he really offers is the following 
English translation:

<< Give not that which is holy unto the dogs,
Neither cast your pearls before the swine,
Lest haply they (the swine) trample them under their feet,
And they (the dogs) turn and rend you. >>

He never explains how one knows that "they" = "the swine" in line c or how 
one knows that "they" = "the dogs" in line d. He never argues his case, he 
merely assumes that it is legitimate.

I'll give you one more reference to add to your collection. I don't have a 
lot of commentaries on Philemon, but I do have Vincent's ICC commentary 
(published in 1897). Commenting on Philemon 5, he writes:

<< A very common explanation is by the rhetorical chiasmus or 
cross-reference, by which AGAPHN is referred to TOUS hAGIOUS and PISTIN to 
KUR. IHS. But the examples of chiasmus commonly cited, even from the 
class., illustrate mainly the mere arrangement of the words ... >> (179).

Thus Vincent, back in 1897, knew of this (supposed) chiasmus, and knew of 
this "interpretation" of this passage, but he rejected it,  since in 
classical literature chiasmus is considered to be style and not syntax. IMO 
that is a strong argument against taking Mt 7:6 and Phil 5 as a real chiasmus.

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




More information about the B-Greek mailing list