From: Iver Larsen (alice-iver_larsen@wycliffe.org)
Date: Tue Jan 30 2001 - 03:45:40 EST
> >The Matthew 7:6 is generally accepted as a Hebrew chiasm, partly because
> >hRHXWSIN refers to tearing apart, a word that fits wild dogs better than
> >domesticated pigs.
>
> You may be right, but it is interesting that BAGD notes that RHGNUMI is
> used of a swine tearing in pieces with his teeth in Aesop, Fable 408 H.
> The swine in the fable is tearing apart a dog (KUWN). So perhaps both
> animals could tear in pieces the pearl thrower.
>
> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard
> Dallas, TX
Thanks, Harold. I had not noticed this reference, because it was not in the old
BAG edition I was using. Nor was it in the original Bauer, but I can see it was
included in the latest edition of Bauer from 1988. However, according to Bauer
it is not the same word used, because they quote the text as TOIS ODOUSIN
ANARRHXEIN THN KUNA. Apart from the ANA- suffix (which changes the meaning) a
reference from a fable does not carry a lot of weight, because all sorts of
unusual things can happen in a fable. And a pig attacking, biting and tearing
apart a dog is in my worldview - and I believe in the worldview of Jesus, the
Jews and Matthew - highly unusual. I honestly don't think Matthew (or the
translator of Matthew's gospel, if it was translated from Hebrew) has read
Aesop's fables. It is not a relevant context.
We cannot reach a conclusion from one word alone, and that was certainly not my
intention. If you look at all the words used and are familiar with imagery used
in the Bible, I think you will find that pigs represent what is dirty and
disgusting to a Jew. Pearls are beautiful and of high value. Pigs walk around a
lot within a small area and can trample the ground into a muddy mass. Dogs don't
do that. I can picture pigs trampling down beautiful pearls in the dirty mud,
because they don't recognise the value. BAG says that KATAPATEW is used
figuratively with the meaning "treat with disdain". Jesus did not want to
lecture us about the behaviour of dogs and pigs. He assumed the listener was
familiar with the situation and therefore assumed that they would find it easy
to create in their minds certain semantic networks:
pearl+beautiful+treat-with-admiration and pigs+trample-down+treat-with-disdain.
On the other hand, turning and attacking you is more likely to be connected with
dogs than pigs. We need to remember that dogs in those days were not the pets
they are today in the Western world. They would often run around freely without
being fed, and because of hunger they could become quite ferocious. Pigs were
being cared for and fed.
IMO, the main reason why some people have difficulty recognising chiasms is that
they (I mean the people, not the chiasms - just in case you misunderstand my
English syntax) focus on the wrong thing. It is not a syntactical phenomenon,
but a discourse or rhetorical phenomenon (some prefer to call it style). I know
they are common in Hebrew thought pattern, but I did not know they were also
found in Greek literature. There are lexical clues, but apart from that it
requires a discourse or literary study to see them (or a familiarity with Hebrew
rhetoric). Positing a chiasm in Matt 7:6 does not violate Greek syntax. The
third person plural forms are the least specific in terms of personal deixis,
and they often function equivalent to a passive. (This is a claim of universal
linguistics, called declining specificity in personal pronouns.) This means that
one often has to rely in a significant way on the context and make some guesses
as to what may be the intended referent of a third person verb form. "They will
call him Emmanuel" in Matt 1:23 is one such example of a very unspecific and
general reference intended by a third person form, and there are others.
I am not sure whether MHPOTE may be an indicator of the turning point of some
types of chiasms, nor how I checked what this might translate in Hebrew. But I
find Matt 13:15 (Acts 28:27) interesting to compare. I wonder whether our
friends will also deny the chiasm found in this verse. It is easier to recognise
and therefore harder to deny.
A- the heart of these people have become dull
B - KAI with the ears they hear with difficulty
C - KAI they have closed their eyes.
MHPOTE
C' - they may se with the eyes
B' - KAI they may hear with the ears
A'- KAI they may understand in the heart
Iver Larsen
Kolding, Denmark
alice-iver_larsen@wycliffe.org
---
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:49 EDT