From: Thomas Bond (lpbond@pld.net)
Date: Mon Dec 08 1997 - 10:53:12 EST
Andrew Kulikovsky wrote:
> 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...
I would qualify this statement a bit. I don't necessarily think chiasm
was
just a rhetorical device used to emphasize a point, but was a way of
ordering thoughts. As a way of structuring thought, or communicating
thought, a chiasmus would be used to indicate what items relate to each
other, rather than just what is at focus.
Philippians 3:10, 11 is an example of this (Sorry I do not have my GNT
with
me):
A -- I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection;
B, -- [I want to know Christ] and the sharing of his sufferings;
B' -- by becoming like him in his death;
A' -- if somehow I might attain the resurrection from the dead.
In the overall context of Philippians, I believe this to indicate that
Paul
perceived his sharing in "suffering," i.e. imprisonment, to be, in
effect,
like Christ's death (see 2:5ff.) -- B and B'.
However, occasionally there will appear a chiasmus with an A, B, C, B',
A'
structure. In this case, I it is important to understand C as the focus
of
a particular pericope, the point to be highlighted. I think an example
of
this can be found in 1 Cor. 11:17-22:
A -- I do not commend you, vs. 17;
B -- There are divisions, vs. 18;
C -- the "genuine," vs. 19;
D -- your meals are not the Lord's Supper, vs. 20;
C' -- the drunk and hungry, vs. 21;
B' -- contempt for the church, vs. 22a;
A' -- I do not commend you, vs. 22b.
In this case the chiasmus helps understand the focus of the problem --
the
community meal. Paul did not consider their meal to be the Lord's
Supper
because of they manner in which they met.
Sometimes I think a chiasmus has to be supported on exegetical grounds,
as
well as become a supportive part of exegesis. They are not always
crystal
clear, sometimes a slippery slope. An example of a very clear chiasmus
is
Philippians 1:15-18a.
> 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 don't think this is a good example of a chiasmus. It seems to me that
it
is more of a parallelism of some kind.
Thomas Bond
lpbond@pldi.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:36 EDT