From: Peter Phillips (p.m.phillips@cliff.shef.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Dec 09 1997 - 10:17:57 EST
Aaah but there is a grammatical device which makes it more understandable -
chiasmus - have you heard of it. Here we are on a roundabout never knowing
where to get off. Is hRHGNUMI ever used of pigs in Greek?
Pete Phillips
----------
From: Jonathan Robie [SMTP:jonathan@texcel.no]
Sent: 09 December 1997 14:59
To: Peter Phillips
Cc: tolliver@tstar.net; 'Randy Leedy'; b-greek@virginia.edu
Subject: RE: Chiasm in Matt 7:6?
At 01:48 PM 12/9/97 -0000, Peter Phillips wrote:
>BUT...
>
>Which animals are more likely to do which. Pigs are notorious for
>trampling their food. Dogs are notorious for tearing things up. You
>cannot say that the same goes the other way round - no dogs that I know do
>much trampling and not many pigs (though they may be able to) are
notorious
>for tearing/rending.
But there is no law saying that one of these verbs applies to the pigs and
the other applies to the dogs. It is perfectly natural to read this passage
as though both verbs apply to the pigs, who trample, then turn around and
tear you to pieces.
If the dogs tear you, why do they turn? Why don't they just come right at
you, clamp on your leg or your neck, drag you down, and tear you into
pieces?
>Just because you can theoretically make a noise like turkey doesn't make
>you a candidate for Christmas dinner!
Applying this principle would have a devastating effect on much of the
exegesis I hear...
Jonathan
jonathan@texcel.no
Texcel Research
http://www.texcel.no
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:36 EDT