From: Steven Craig Miller (stevencraigmiller@home.com)
Date: Sun Jan 28 2001 - 17:10:29 EST
<x-flowed>
To: Wayne Leman,
<< Steven, *if* Philemon 5 and Matt. 7:6 were intended to be understood
chiastically, from that I would still not consider chiasmus to be a natural
syntactic form of Greek. I would, instead, regard the syntactic forms as
being borrowed from Hebrew and imposed upon the Greek of the NT by its
Jewish writers. I have read some on the issue of chiasmus in these two
verses and at this point I buy the scholarly arguments (Dr. Black, et al)
that chiasmus was intended. There are a huge number of Semiticisms in the
Greek of the NT. It would, therefore, not surprise me in the least, to see
some Semitic syntactic borrowing, as well as the Semitic lexical and
idiomatic borrowings that we are usually more aware of. The NT is a very
Hebraic document, even though it was not written in the lingua franca of
its day, rather than a Semitic language. >>
I wonder if you are merely making a wild guess as to what you surmise might
be true? I would have had more confidence in your statement if you would
have backed it up with concrete examples. Please show me real examples
where in Biblical Hebrew the chiasmus effects Hebrew syntax? Your
suggestion that this is a Semitism would explain why one doesn't find
examples of "Syntactical Chiasmus" in classical Greek literature (at least
not in grammars of classical literature). But even if we can assume that a
"Syntactical Chiasmus" is common in Hebrew and/or Aramaic, for it to be a
Semitism it also has to be understood in Greek, and by
Greek-speakers/readers. More often than not, a Semitisim merely emphasizes
a rare possibility in Greek syntax. Are there examples of "Syntactical
Chiasmus" in the LXX? Are there examples of "Syntactical Chiasmus" in
Hebrew? WHERE ARE THEY? I have "Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar" by Kautzsch and
Cowley (1910) as well as "An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax" by
Waltke and O'Connor (1990). Neither of these grammars have a section on
chiasmus as it relates to syntax. Why not? I suspect that this supposed
"Syntactical Chiasmus" is more scholarly imagination than sober analysis of
syntax. But if I'm wrong, I would like to see the evidence which supports
the notion of a "Syntactical Chiasmus." Please show me real examples where
in Biblical Hebrew the chiasmus effects Hebrew syntax! Please show me real
examples in the LXX where the chiasmus effects Greek syntax! Give me solid
examples, and I will be more than happy to admit that my doubts have been
wrong.
-Steven Craig Miller
Alton, Illinois (USA)
stevencraigmiller@home.com
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
</x-flowed>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:49 EDT