"Syntactical Chiasmus"

Steven Craig Miller stevencraigmiller at home.com
Tue Jan 30 11:40:17 EST 2001


To: Stephen C. Carlson,

<< The justification is that it is an authentic Semitic inverted 
parallelism. Talking about "normal Greek syntax" misses the point. >>

Indirectly you are substantiating my point. What you appear to be saying is 
that you will interpret Mt 7:6 as a Chiasmus without any regard to normal 
Greek syntax. And indeed, that is precisely what I think is going on. Those 
who interpret Mt 7:6 as a Chiasmus are simply ignoring normal Greek syntax 
and imposing on this passage an artificial interpretation.

<< The emphasis on "normal Greek syntax" seems designed to preclude the 
very real possibility that Matt 7:6 follows the Semitic poetic forms ... >>

You miss my point here completely. It is not my intent to preclude the 
possibility that Matthew might have used Semitic poetic forms. I would only 
suggest that if he was going to use Semitic poetic forms, he would have 
done so in such a way that his audience would have understood what was 
meant. But do these (so called) "Semitic poetic forms" have no substance? 
Can you give real examples of Semitic poetic forms (whether in Hebrew or 
Greek) which truly parallels this Mt 7:6 example? I would like to see them! 
More precisely: How about an example of a A B B' A' structure, where a 3rd 
person plural verb in B' refers back to a subject in B and a 3rd person 
plural verb in A' refers back to a subject in A, without there being any 
syntactical indication of a change in subject. How many examples can you 
cite with that type of structure? Any? None? Although a number of people 
have posted messages attempting to define the notion that Mt 7:6 is a 
Chiasmus, NOT ONE similar EXAMPLE has been posted. How could this (so 
called) "Semitic poetic form" be so common as to leave only one ambiguous 
example?

What I find objectionable is for someone to merely CLAIM that Matthew is 
here using a "Semitic poetic form" and/or Chiasmus, without any need to 
justify such an arbitrary interpretation. How do you know for a fact that 
Matthew was using a "Semitic poetic form" here at Matthew 7:6?

<< It stands to reason that this possibility has to be considered rather 
than dismissed out of hand. >>

Let us consider the possibilities here. Let us look at three possible 
interpretations.

Interpretation one: the subject of 6c is "pigs" and the subject of 6d is 
"dogs."

Interpretation two: the subject of 6c is "dogs" and the subject of 6d is 
"pigs."

Interpretation three: the subject of 6c and the subject of 6d are the same.

Now, before you dismiss any of these out of hand, which interpretation has 
the most merit? And why? What clues did the author leave in the Greek text 
for anyone to know for certain that the first interpretation is correct? 
None! What clues did the author leave in the Greek text for anyone to know 
for certain that the second interpretation is correct? None! What clues did 
the author leave in the Greek text for anyone to know for certain that the 
third interpretation is correct? Here the answer is simple. Given the FACT 
that he did not indicate a change in subject, normal Greek syntax would 
assume that the subjects of 6c and 6d are the same. Why do you dismiss this 
interpretation out of hand?

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




More information about the B-Greek mailing list