[B-Greek] Chiastic Structure in Philemon 5

Tony Pope borikayaama_tekiri at sil.org
Wed Nov 4 16:23:15 EST 2009


In the majority of instances it is true that PISTIS has a divine object in Paul, but this does not 
seem to be the case in Galatians 5.22, where PISTIS occurs in a list of qualities that are directed 
towards fellow human beings, nor in Titus 2.10, where PASAN ... PISTIN AGAQHN must by contrast 
denote a quality exhibited by slaves towards their masters. Nor probably in Titus 3.15, ASPASAI TOUS 
FILOUNTAS hHMAS EN PISTEI, which according to Spicq reflects a standard form of expression combining 
friendship (hence FILEW) and fidelity (PISTIS).

Incidentally, Spicq's article on PISTIS in Vol. 3 of his Theological Lexicon of the New Testament 
(Hendrickson, 1994) is to be recommended for broadening one's horizons on the different senses of 
PISTIS that were used in NT times. (As it is on a lot of other words too. For those who read French, 
the original Lexique théologique du Nouveau Testament is available from Editions Cerf.)

What determines the sense of a word is, as we are so often in danger of forgetting, the immediate 
context. It strikes me that this is a particular danger when coming across examples of words that 
are often elsewhere used in theologically weighty statements. We tend to shoehorn every example into 
the "primary" sense. It's particularly a problem for words that are traditionally translated by a 
"religious" word. Thus all examples of CHARIS must everywhere mean grace, APOSTOLOS must everywhere 
refer to one of the twelve apostles or Paul, GRAMMATEUS must everywhere refer to a Jewish scribe, 
EUAGGELION must everywhere mean gospel, BAPTIZW must everywhere mean to baptize, KAQARIZW must 
everywhere mean to cleanse ritually, etc. etc. But if you think about it, such an approach would 
impose enormous restrictions on anyone who wants to speak or write the language.

Also, and this I believe is crucial, when you are dealing with a relatively small corpus of written 
material there will inevitably be cases where a word is commonly used in one sense but also used 
maybe only once or twice in a different sense that can only be exampled from outside biblical Greek.

Begging the moderator's pardon and not wishing to reopen a closed thread "by the back door", but 
merely to point out what is lexically attested and thereby put the record straight, re KAQARIZW and 
KAQAIRW, see lines 6-7 of the BAGD entry for KAQARIZW. For one interesting attested object of 
KAQARIZW, see LSJ: "prune away, PERISSA BLASTHMATA [superfluous shoots] P. Lond. 1.131r 192 (i. 
A.D.)" The object of KAQARIZW is in that case the item removed. (There are more given for KAQAIRW.) 
In the NT itself, Matt 8.3b EKAQARISQH AUTOU hH LEPRA [his leprosy cleared, i.e. disappeared] comes 
under this head. It is not the ritual cleansing that is being recorded at that point.

Tony Pope


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Iver Larsen"
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Chiastic Structure in Philemon 5


>
> PISTIS in Paul's writings has as its object God or Jesus, not people, and this is so much expected 
> that the word often occurs without an object, since the reader can easily supply it.
>
> In 1 Thes 1:2-3 there is a similar thanksgiving in prayer because of their ERGON THS PISTEWS KAI 
> KOPOS THS AGAPHS.
>
> PISTIS is directed to God and AGAPH to other people. Paul obviously sought and received reports 
> about these two things from the churches. How is your faith (in Jesus)? How do you express that 
> faith in your love towards one another? (cf. Gal 5:6 πίστις δι᾽ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη - PISTIS DI' 
> AGAPHS ENERGOUMENH).
>
> IMO, this practice of Paul is enough to show that the intention in Phm 1:5 is that PISTIS is 
> directed to Jesus - PROS TON KURION IHSOUN - and love is directed to people -  EIS PANTAS TOUS 
> hAGIOUS.
> Paul, of course, is very familiar with Hebrew chiasms, and the letter to Philemon is not a casual, 
> hurriedly written letter, but a fine piece of rhetoric, so I don't have a problem with the chiasm 
> here - although I do not subscribe to all examples of chiasms that commentaries have suggested.
>
> Iver Larsen
> 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list