Chiasm in Matt 7:6?

From: Jonathan Robie (jonathan@texcel.no)
Date: Sun Dec 07 1997 - 07:43:41 EST


In the KJV, it looks like the swine are the ones who "turn again and rend
you":

Matt. 7:6 (KJV) ãGive not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye
your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn
again and rend you.ä

In the TEV, it looks like the dogs are the ones who do this:

Matt. 7:6 (TEV) ãDo not give what is holy to dogs÷they will only turn and
attack you. Do not throw your pearls in front of pigs÷they will only
trample them underfoot.ä

I just read an article that claims this is an example of chiasm, and that
the chiasm requires the interpretation given by the TEV. The argument was
made using the KJV:

Matt. 7:6 (KJV)
[A] Give not that which is holy unto the dogs,
    [B] neither cast ye your pearls before swine,
    [B] lest they trample them under their feet,
[A] and [the dogs] turn again and rend you.

I have just started to chew on chiasm again, and haven't done much with it
in the past. When I try to structure the Greek as a chiasm, I come up with
this:

[A] MH DWTE TO hAGION TOIS KUSIN
    [B] MHDE BALHTE TOUS MARGARITAS hUMWN EMPROSQEN TWN COIRWN,
    [B] MHPOTE KATAPATHSOUSIN AUTOUS EN TOIS POSIN AUTWN
[A] KAI STRAFENTES hRHKSWSIN hUMAS

The people who wrote the article clearly knew Greek, and claim that if I
recognized the chiasm, I would realize that this last clause applies to the
dogs:

[A] KAI [TOIS KUSIN] STRAFENTES hRHKSWSIN hUMAS

Unfortunately, they don't really tell me how I can know that this is an
example of chiasm. It seems to me that the non-chiasm reading makes perfect
sense - what should tip me off to the chiasm? Or is this really chiasm?

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