From: Peter Phillips (p.m.phillips@cliff.shef.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Dec 08 1997 - 03:05:56 EST
Betz commentary on the Sermon on the Mount goes into some length about this
chiasmus. Clearly it is dogs that do the rending and pigs that do the
trampling. I don't feel there is any need to focus upon individual
emphases within the structure - ABB'A' is good enough to prove the chiastic
structure. Moreover the reference to Mk2:27 actually confuses the issue -
the chiasmus there is much simpler (Sabbath:human:human:Sabbath) but it is
only one form of chiasmus. It would be incorrect to then say that all
chiasmi would have to transfer the indirect object of the first clause to
become the subject of the second - as happens to ANQRWPOS.
Pete Phillips
Cliff College
----------
From: Andrew Kulikovsky [SMTP:anku@celsiustech.com.au]
Sent: 08 December 1997 07:20
To: 'b-greek@virginia.edu'
Subject: Chiasm in Matt 7:6?
Carl and Jonathan,
I always understood chiasm as a rhetorical device used by the author to
emphasize a point, which is usually set in the centre of the chiasm.
However, in this case there seems to be no logical focus on a central
point - so I would doubt whether this really is a chiasm...
When we read "The sabbath was not made for man but man for the sabbath",
it is obvious that man is the focus here (the context also suggests this
is the case).
I have Nils Lund's book on chiasm at home - I'll have a look at what he
says - although I know others have suggested Lund has a tendency to see
chiasm that is not there.
cheers,
Andrew
-- Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS Software Engineer CelsiusTech Australia Module 6, Endeavour House,Technology Park, The Levels, S.A. 5095 Phone : +61 8 8343 3837 (Direct) Fax : +61 8 8343 3778 Email : anku@celsiustech.com.au"There's no gene for the human spirit."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:36 EDT