> I am curious about your view of this verse. It is of great interest
to me
> that the phrase <gk> hina mh huperairwmai</gk> both begins and ends
this
> phrase. Is it possible that the following structure is intended here:
>
> a- ina mh uperairwmai
> b- edoqh moi skoloy th sarki
> c- aggelos satana
> b'- ina me kolafizh
> a'- ina mh uperairwmai
>
> If this is indeed the structure- why is the 'satanic messenger' the
middle
> term and thus the center of focus?
Jim,
You could well have received many responses to this that I haven't
seen, since I'm working off the digest. So I apologize ahead of time
if I restate something already said.
You are better equipped than I to comment on the textual variants in
this verse which omit your a'. If this is omitted and a chiastic
structure is still supposed, that would throw the emphasis on the hINA
clauses, right? If it is omitted, of course, a much more likely
explanation of the structure is that the 'satanic messenger' is a
further description of the 'thorn in the flesh'. Even if the
repetition of the hINA clause is used, the 'further description'
concept still plays better in my view than does a chiasm.
I do not agree with Mike's proposal that 2 Cor 12:9b-10a is a similar
structure, since he artificially separates hHDISTA OUN MALLON from its
clause and he breaks off the thought of verse 10 in the middle.
Rather, it appears to me that verse 9b has a parallel structure to the
entire verse 10. Please note, in addition to the repetition of
ASQENEIAIS, there is also a repetition of the DUNAMIS/DUNATOS root.
Anyway, you got us thinking!
Paul
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Philippines
zellmer@faith.edu.ph