From: Steven Craig Miller (stevencraigmiller@home.com)
Date: Mon Jan 29 2001 - 15:13:02 EST
<x-flowed>
To: Stephen C. Carlson,
<< Syntax permits either the dogs or pigs or both (or possibly even some
other subject in mind) to be the antecedent of either of the verbs. The
particular assignment of these antecedents to the verbs' subjects (whether
in parallel, inverted parellel, etc.) is a matter of style, not syntax.
Thus, there are no *syntactical* grounds in objecting to Matt 7:6 as a
chiasmus. >>
(a) MH DWTE TO hAGION TOIS KUSIN
(b) MHDE BALHTE TOUS MARGARITAS hUMWN EMPROSQEN TWN COIRWN,
(c) MHPOTE KATAPATHSOUSIN AUTOUS EN TOIS POSIN AUTWN
(d) KAI STRAFENTES hRHXWSIN hUMAS (Mt 7:6).
My claim is that here a natural reading of the Greek text would assume that
the subject of 6c and 6d are the same subject, since there is no indication
in the Greek text that the subject changed. Those who claim that this
passage is a chiasmus claim that the subject of 6c and 6d are different,
namely, they claim "pigs" is the subject of 6c and "dogs" is the subject of
6d. In my opinion, such an interpretation is arbitrary. Is any reading of
this passage legitimate? What if someone offered the following translation:
<< Do not give what is holy to dogs,
or they will trample them under foot.
And do not throw your pearls before swine,
or they will turn and maul you >>
One could justify this translation based on parallelism. So instead of
seeing the "a b b a" structure of a chiasmus, one could see the "a b a b"
structure of parallelism. My claim would be that both interpretations are a
violation of normal Greek syntax. And furthermore, it is an attempt to
impose an artificial structure overriding the normal Greek syntax of this
passage. To claim that the subject of 6c must be "pigs" and the subject of
6d must be "dogs" (or vice versa), despite the very clear fact that there
is no indication in the Greek text that the subject has changed is to do
eisegesis and not exegesis.
Unless one knows for a fact that the subject of 6c is "pigs" and the
subject of 6d is "dogs," one cannot assume that one has a chiasmus with the
"a b b a" structure. If subjects can be assigned at random, then one could
just as easily assume that the subject of 6c is "dogs" and the subject of
6d is "pigs" so as to have the "a b a b" structure. But if one is going to
follow normal Greek syntax, then one has to assume that the subject of both
6c and 6d are the same, and that to force the "a b b a" or the "a b a b"
structure onto the text is to do violence to normal Greek syntax.
As I see it, the bottom line is this: What justification in the Greek text
is there for assuming that the subject of 6c and 6d are different? In my
opinion, the answer to this question is clear. The answer is: None!
-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