From: Steven Craig Miller (stevencraigmiller@home.com)
Date: Tue Jan 30 2001 - 11:40:17 EST
<x-flowed>
To: Stephen C. Carlson,
<< The justification is that it is an authentic Semitic inverted
parallelism. Talking about "normal Greek syntax" misses the point. >>
Indirectly you are substantiating my point. What you appear to be saying is
that you will interpret Mt 7:6 as a Chiasmus without any regard to normal
Greek syntax. And indeed, that is precisely what I think is going on. Those
who interpret Mt 7:6 as a Chiasmus are simply ignoring normal Greek syntax
and imposing on this passage an artificial interpretation.
<< The emphasis on "normal Greek syntax" seems designed to preclude the
very real possibility that Matt 7:6 follows the Semitic poetic forms ... >>
You miss my point here completely. It is not my intent to preclude the
possibility that Matthew might have used Semitic poetic forms. I would only
suggest that if he was going to use Semitic poetic forms, he would have
done so in such a way that his audience would have understood what was
meant. But do these (so called) "Semitic poetic forms" have no substance?
Can you give real examples of Semitic poetic forms (whether in Hebrew or
Greek) which truly parallels this Mt 7:6 example? I would like to see them!
More precisely: How about an example of a A B B' A' structure, where a 3rd
person plural verb in B' refers back to a subject in B and a 3rd person
plural verb in A' refers back to a subject in A, without there being any
syntactical indication of a change in subject. How many examples can you
cite with that type of structure? Any? None? Although a number of people
have posted messages attempting to define the notion that Mt 7:6 is a
Chiasmus, NOT ONE similar EXAMPLE has been posted. How could this (so
called) "Semitic poetic form" be so common as to leave only one ambiguous
example?
What I find objectionable is for someone to merely CLAIM that Matthew is
here using a "Semitic poetic form" and/or Chiasmus, without any need to
justify such an arbitrary interpretation. How do you know for a fact that
Matthew was using a "Semitic poetic form" here at Matthew 7:6?
<< It stands to reason that this possibility has to be considered rather
than dismissed out of hand. >>
Let us consider the possibilities here. Let us look at three possible
interpretations.
Interpretation one: the subject of 6c is "pigs" and the subject of 6d is
"dogs."
Interpretation two: the subject of 6c is "dogs" and the subject of 6d is
"pigs."
Interpretation three: the subject of 6c and the subject of 6d are the same.
Now, before you dismiss any of these out of hand, which interpretation has
the most merit? And why? What clues did the author leave in the Greek text
for anyone to know for certain that the first interpretation is correct?
None! What clues did the author leave in the Greek text for anyone to know
for certain that the second interpretation is correct? None! What clues did
the author leave in the Greek text for anyone to know for certain that the
third interpretation is correct? Here the answer is simple. Given the FACT
that he did not indicate a change in subject, normal Greek syntax would
assume that the subjects of 6c and 6d are the same. Why do you dismiss this
interpretation out of hand?
-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