# Chiasmus in the New Testament (Lund)



## RamistThomist (Apr 9, 2021)

Lund, Nils. Chiasmus in the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, reprint 2013 [1942].

Interesting question: in what way, if any, did ancient man think in chiastic patterns? If he did, does this suggest a non-linear way of thinking? He certainly thought in chiastic patterns, but it is dangerous to make sharp dichotomies on that alone (since chiasms can also be found in Homer).

While many Biblical passages are of a sublime style, it must be noted that some passages seem verbose, repetitive, or monotonous. The genius of chiasm is that it shows these passages aren’t simply being verbose, but are integral to a sophisticated (and quite beautiful) literary pattern.

The center of the chiasm is the turning point. Sometimes there is a change of thought at the center, which Lund calls “shift at the center.” 

Key point: if the chiasm is longer than four elements, then the center is more clearly emphasized and the corresponding elements refresh each other. 







Chiasms can also follow a linear pattern.





Sometimes chiasms can be mixed.





Sometimes the book consists of a string of chiastic examples. It’s hard to know if he is explaining the theory of chiasm or just finding them. I shouldn’t judge it too harshly, though. This was brand new in the middle of the century (or at least it wasn’t widely known). 

This book is different from other books on chiasm is that he sees clusters of statements as forming one element in a chiasm. Modern works on chiasm see each statement (or part of a statement) as an element.






Lund is very aware that Paul didn’t write “Holy Ghost Greek.” Paul’s style is definitely not that of Homer. Is he inferior, then? Does not his constant beginning of sentences with kai and hoti indicate a cumbersome style? Perhaps not. Might it be evidence of an earlier Semitic (or even Asiatic Greek) style? 

Lund is able to identify chiastic patterns in Paul’s letters, but as noted above, Lund combines multiple units into one element. This gives the text a “clunky” feel. For example,





Even though it is cumbersome at times, the chiasm is still clearly there.










When Lund gives chiastic outlines of whole books, his arrangement is much neater. I think that is because there are fewer units within the text to arrange.





Lund’s section on the gospels is quite good, as narrative, especially narrative with a Hebraic background, lends itself quite readily to chiasm.










While it is always good to look for chiasms, as it is a most superior way of organizing the text, we must admit that Lund goes overboard, as evidenced below:





The sending out of the seventy evidences a nice chiasm.














His take on Revelation is somewhat forced at times. That there is a literary structure to it is undeniable. In fact, it is probably chiastic in some ways. I just don’t find all of his chiasms persuasive, though. He does make some good observations, though. Per Rev. 9:






Some humor: “Chapter 13 did not, as some writers hold, come out of one of Paul’s portfolios.”

Conclusion:

It’s true this book nowhere near approaches the sophistication of Dorsey (1999). To be fair to Lund, however, he broke the ground for chiasmus in the 20th century. It is dated in some regards, as noted by the references to form criticism. One of the advantages of chiasm is that it shows how form criticism is completely wrong. Aside from that, and taken with a grain of salt on some passages, Lund gives the student a number of chiastic outlines to work with.


----------



## KMK (Apr 9, 2021)

A. Chiasms are like horoscopes.
B. They are always true if you want them to be.
C. Scorpio is the BEST!
B1. Even a broken clock is accurate twice a day (unless you are in the military or work at a hospital.)
A1. "Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down..."

HA! you just got Rickrolled!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

KMK said:


> A. Chiasms are like horoscopes.
> B. They are always true if you want them to be.
> C. Scorpio is the BEST!
> B1. Even a broken clock is accurate twice a day (unless you are in the military or work at a hospital.)
> ...



Touche


----------



## hammondjones (Apr 13, 2021)

Wonder if it is a bit harder to abuse chiasm in Greek since you don't have the 'flexibility' to revocalize according to your desires.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 13, 2021)

hammondjones said:


> Wonder if it is a bit harder to abuse chiasm in Greek since you don't have the 'flexibility' to revocalize according to your desires.



Good point. Many chiasms, like parallelism in Hebrew poetry, are based on thought-units, not words. That puts a break on some abuses. David Dorsey in his work on Old Testament chiasms anchors many of his chiasms on Hebrew words.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 13, 2021)

I've never formally studied the biblical languages, so this is speculation from a non-expert, but...

At times, I have wondered of some chiasms in biblical writing (especially the not-so-obvious ones) are not intentional but rather happened because writers of that time and place were used to thinking that way and chiasms felt right to them, so that they fell into writing patterns that were more-or-less chiasmic without really trying.

An example in English writing would be triplets. If you study writing, you learn that sentences sound good when they contain elements that come in threes: "I got up, poured myself some coffee, and opened my email to see if my client had responded." Triplets sound complete and have a pleasing lilt. In many cases, they let you set up and emphasize the final item of the three. As a writer, you can make a point of using triplets, but much of the time an experienced writer will use them without even thinking about it. It just comes out because it's how the writer has learned to process and communicate.

Anyway, I wonder if some of the biblical writers follow chiasm-ish thinking and writing simply because it feels natural but without always being intentional and careful to make every element fit perfectly. I might do the same if I write an article: I'll introduce it with a few interesting hooks that set up my main point, and then I'll revisit those hooks at the end of the article because it makes the conclusion feel satisfying. I don't think to myself, "I've created a chiasm!" but a reader who is looking for one might see a structure that suggests one.

What do folks here think? Might this be the case with biblical writers? And if so, does it mean we should be careful not to over-analyze the structure, or is there some other interpretive application?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## iainduguid (Apr 13, 2021)

1. There are definitely some deliberate chiasms in the OT. The Book of Esther is an obvious example, where everything revolves around the hinge of 6:1, when the king has a sleepless night (NOT around Esther's decision to confront the king!)

2. Some events lend themselves naturally to almost unconscious chiastic telling: think of the flood narrative, where elements that start the story (going into the ark, closing the door, rain starting) are naturally balanced by later elements (rain stopping, opening the door, leaving the ark). My old professor at Cambridge, John Emerton, pointed this out many years ago.

3. Not all literary patterns in the OT are chiasms: for example, some are panel construction: ABC/A'B'C'. Some literary patterns are deliberately broken for effect - if you force each element to match, you will distort the text.

4. Some scholars are "chiasmatics" (Alec Motyer I'm looking at you), and will see chiasms everywhere.

5. The key point with any claimed literary pattern is "So what?". If it doesn't enhance and help your reading of the text, it probably isn't really there; likewise, if it can't be supported by other more obvious statements in the text, it probably isn't really there either.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------

