|
****JavaScript based drop down DHTML menu generated by NavStudio. (OpenCube Inc. - http://www.opencube.com)****
|
|
|
|
When I began to study
biblical structure in the early 80's, I had no idea that it would cause me to
rethink my entire approach to the Bible, both in terms of my teaching experience and in my own
personal use of the biblical text in study, reflection, mediation, and prayer.
The Bible is much more than I had thought, and concepts like the "Word of
God" and "inerrancy" have taken on deeper meaning because of my
personal journey into the structural elements of the biblical texts of both the
Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. It has proved thus far to be
heuristic worth for me personally, in that it has provided a new "set of
interpretive eyeglasses".
Many biblical scholars now recognize that
both Old and New Testament authors drafted their documents according to
carefully predetermined plans. The most influential yet subtle feature of an
author'’ work in relating theological concepts within an historical context is
the overall framework within which he arranged his material. Some would call
this the literary context. Perhaps a more accurate term would be to speak of it
as the "structure" of the passage. What this explicitly states is that
there is always an internal relationship of each part (no matter how small or
large) of Scripture with that of another.
When we speak of structure then, we are
speaking of the total set of relationships within a given biblical context. No
close reading (and its proper interpretation) of a biblical text is possible
without an awareness of ancient literary techniques of structure.
In a culture wherein words, sentences,
paragraphs, episodes were not separated but ran together, there was a need for
literary devices to signal the beginning and end of a thought unit. Whereas in a
modern literary context, such boundaries are designated by punctuation,
paragraphs, chapters, subheadings, or even enumeration, the ancient literary
techniques relied upon repeated key words, phrases, and ideas at the start and
finish of a though unit. Thus the fundamental function of such a framing
technique was to mark the boundaries of a thought unit.
A fundamental principle when dealing with chiasmus is not to
think linear, but concentric. We have been trained to think and outline in our
western culture in a fashion incongruent with the literary patterns of both the
ancient Near Eastern civilizations and the Graco-Roman. When we outline, we
designate with an ever increasing alphanumeric point of harmonize with the
progressive thoughts of a speech or book (i.e., I, II, III, IV; A, B, C,
etc.). However, do we stop and ask ourselves
whether or not this form of Western outlining actually does justice to a
passage, chapter or book which was written in a very different language spanning
2000 to 3500 years ago?
 An
improved approach to outlining chiastic structure is to employ repeating
numbers or alphabetical characters (which is traditional: A, B,
X, B', A'), and thus
conforming to the very thought structure of the literary device. Admittedly,
such a structure is alien to modern experience (especially Western literary
thought) and difficult to appreciate. But for those who are willing to study the
principles of chiastic structure and apply them to Scripture, the aesthetic,
literary, and theological rewards are considerable.
Under no circumstances should it be assumed from this system of
repeating alphabetical characters that the ancient manuscripts were written with
indentations in order to exhibit chiastic structure. The graphic method of
presentation is merely a device adopted in order to eliminate unnecessary
explanations and to render a complicated subject easy to grasp with a minimum of
time and effort.
I have reached the firm conclusion that many of these symmetries
were altogether subconscious, and that it was felt rather than seen. This is
merely another way of saying that the writers had learned their forms so
thoroughly that they had forgotten them as forms. For the more extensive
chiastic structures; however, I posit some degree of conscious effort on
the part of the writer.
All too often chiastic structures are passed off in the
scholarly literature as mere literary niceties, a structural tour de force
which serves only aesthetic ends. Too little consideration has been given to the
possible exegetical significance of such structures in the interpretation of
biblical passages. In fact, theological studies which have used chiasmus for
purposes of exegesis are rare.
Actually the modern study of chiasmus
in exegesis dates back to John A. Bengel in the 18th century, as Lund notes: "To
Bengel . . . belongs the credit of having first grasped the significance of
chiastic forms in the writings of the New Testament and of having applied the
principle to exegesis" (Chiasmus in the New Testament, pp. 35-36). In his
fifth volume of Gnomon of the New Testament (p. 399), Bengel wrote:
"Often there is the greatest use in the employment of this figure, and it is
never without some use, viz, in perceiving the ornament, in observing the force
of the language; in understanding the true and full sense; in making clear the
sound exegesis; and in demonstrating the true and neat analysis of the sacred
text."
Bengel studies chiasmus in this way, but unfortunately, few have
done so since then. In recent years, though, Gaechter in his commentary on
Matthew, Bailey in his work on the Lucan parables, and Miesner in his study on
the missionary journeys narratives in Acts have all pioneered in giving
attention to chiasm in the interpretation of their respective texts. Hopefully
the examples in this study will give ample proof that the recognition of
chiastic structures in the biblical text may greatly enrich one's study and
understanding of the Scriptures.
Chiastic structures should always be examined
as part of biblical exegesis. Chiasmus is significant
and demonstrates the subtle narrator's skill, which is interwoven beneath
the surface of the text.
DefinitionWhereas many literary structures
have been recognized in the past (step parallelism, inclusion,
etc.), a significant literary structure of biblical texts has received
noted recognition in the past century, an especially in the past two
decades, is chiasmus. Chiasmus, also spelled sometimes as
"chiasm", is derived from a Greek verb meaning "mark with
two lines crossing like an ‘X’" (chi, the 22nd
letter of the Greek alphabet). The following
graphics illustrates this idea.
The name given to the "X-Files" reflects this literary device.
In general, chiasmus refers to an
inverted parallelism or sequence of words or ideas in a phrase or
clause, sentence, paragraph, chapter, or an entire literary work. For
example, Matthew 7:6 contains a simple chiasmus which may be represented
as follows:
A "Do not give what is holy to dogs,
B and do not throw your pearls before swine,
B’ lest they trample them under their feet,
A’ and turn and tear you to pieces"
In this instance, the propositions
A and B are reflected as in a reversed mirror image by the propositions
B’ (said as "B prime") and A’ (said as "A
prime"). By recognizing Matthew 7:6 as a chiastic structure, one
can make much better sense of this verse than might otherwise be done;
for it seems most logical that the dogs (A) tear to pieces (A’), and
the swine (B) do the trampling (B’).
Chiasmus involves fundamentally
two elements: inversion and balance (as shown in the
example above). These two main elements of chiasmus, inversion and
balance, produce a third, climactic centrality. Looking at the above
illustration, strictly speaking, it represents inverted parallelism
rather than chiasmus. Thus, the uniqueness of the chiastic structure
lies in its focus upon a pivotal theme, about which the other
propositions of the literary unit are developed, whereby the author may
compare, contrast, or complete each of the flanking elements in the
chiastic structure. An example of formal
chiasmus may be found in Genesis 17:1-25:
A Abram's age (1a)
B The LORD appears to Abram (1b)
C God's first speech (1b-2)
D Abram falls on his face (3)
E God's second speech
(Abram's name changed, kings; 4-8)
X God's Third Speech
(the covenant of circumcision; 9-14)
E' God's fourth speech
(Sari's name changed, kings; 15-16)
D' Abraham falls on his face (17-18)
C' God's fifth speech (19-21)
B' God "goes up" from Abraham (22)
A' Abraham's age (24-25)
Thus, technically
speaking, "chiasmus"
refers to an author’s literary structure whereby he
produces balanced statements, in direct, inverted, or antithetical
parallelism, constructed symmetrically and encompassing a central idea. The
abrupt repetition by which the last elements of the first half of the
system become the first elements of the second half, draws attention to
the central terms (A/B/X/B’/A’).
How To Find Chiasmus
For the reader who wishes to study chiasmus
with appreciation for the author's artistry and with a view to sharpening
the focus with which to look at a biblical passage as
a whole and in its parts, the following exercises are suggested in discovering
chiasmus, and criteria for distinguishing and
determining distinct sequences according to the principles of chiastic
parallelism.
-
Make a preview of what appears to be a unit. Use several good
English translations if possible (NASB, KJV, NEB, NIV) and compare them in
order to determine what they believe constitutes a paragraph, section, or
sequence of thought.
Use a pencil or pen while observing to write down any
observations. Writing down one's observations is beneficial for several reasons,
not the least of which it impresses them upon one's mind. Writing is a great aid
to memory.
There are two primary approaches in the observation of a passage
of Scripture. One type of observation begins with a detailed noting of
particulars and proceeds to the observation of the whole. The second kind of
observation begins with a survey of the whole, progresses to the noting of
particulars, and moves finally to a synthesis of the particulars. Both of these
types are valid and useful.
The first reflects the usual process followed in the reading of
a passage, for it involves beginning from the beginning and moving term by term,
phrase by phrase, and clause by clause to the conclusion. The second kind of
observation is most salutary when one is dealing with a longer body of material,
where perspective is essential to effective observation. However, the reader is
urged to experiment with both types and to determine the best for them.
-
Make a study of its components or what looks to be its
components.
In recording detailed components, list them so as to make them
distinct from each other. Use some means, such as underlining or encircling, to
indicate major observations of movements, parts, and sections. Find ways of
organizing your observations so that they will be accessible with the least
possible effort. Give specific chapter and verse references for each observation
so that there will be no question as to the particulars of the text upon which
the observations are based.
-
Review the unit with all parallels in mind and then apply the
following criteria for distinguishing and determining distinct parts,
sequences, sections, and other elements.
-
Is there a change of time, place, subject matter, or speaker(s)?
-
Is
there a balance of parts, e.g., part one with part five, part two with
part four?
-
Are there any inclusion-conclusions by way of names, places, ideas, or key words?
|
|
|
