Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:41:30.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Philippians as a Macro-Chiasm and its Exegetical Significance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Stanley E. Porter  and
Jeffrey T. Reed
Stanley E. Porter
Affiliation:
Dept of Theology and Religious Studies, Roehampton Institute London, Southlands College, 80 Roehampton Lane, London SW15 5SL, England
Jeffrey T. Reed
Affiliation:
Dept of Theology and Religious Studies, Roehampton Institute London, Southlands College, 80 Roehampton Lane, London SW15 5SL, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article, a rejoinder to a recent article in this journal by A. B. Luter and M. Lee, responds to their presentation of a macro-chiastic analysis of Philippians by examining two issues. The first is the use of chiasm in recent New Testament study, where it is shown that there is a lack of methodological rigour in explication of the concept. The second scrutinizes analyses of Philippians using chiasm with regard to three areas: macro-chiasm as a method, the nature and quality of macro-chiastic claims regarding the structure of Philippians, and its possible use in determining the literary integrity of Philippians.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 1998 , pp. 213 - 231
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘Philippians as Chiasmus: Key to the Structure, Unity and Theme Questions’, NTS 41 (1995) 89–101.Google Scholar

2 M. Dahood appears to be responsible for the language of micro- and macro-chiastic structures in biblical studies, distinguishing between simple chiasms of four members (micro-chiasm) and chiasms of larger units such as several chapters (macro-chiasm). See Dahood, M., ‘Chiasmus’, IDBSup (ed. Crim, K.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1976) 145.Google Scholar

3 Chiasmus in the New Testament: A Study in Formgeschichte (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1942),Google Scholar repr. with a preface by Scholer, D. M. and Snodgrass, K. N. as Chiasmus in the New Testament: A Study in the Form and Function of Chiastic Structures (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992).Google Scholar

4 Lund, , Chiasmus in the New Testament, 41.Google Scholar

5 For early recognition of the problem of calling Lund's criteria ‘laws’, see Manson's, T. W. review in JTS o.s. 45 (1944) 82.Google Scholar

6 Welch, J. W., ed., Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structure, Analyses, Exegesis (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1981),Google Scholar who writes the methodological preface and chapter on the New Testament.

7 Welch, , ed., Chiasmus in Antiquity, 226.Google Scholar

8 Also to note is the work of A. di Marco, who has not had the impact that others have. His major work is Il Chiasmo nella Bibbia (Turin: Marietti, 1980),Google Scholar drawing from his articles, ‘Der Chiasmus in der Bibel’, LingBib 36 (1975) 21–97;Google Scholar 37 (1976) 49–68; 39 (1976) 37–85; 44 (1979) 3–70. His work is summarized in his recent article ‘Rhetoric and Hermeneutic – On a Rhetorical Pattern: Chiasmus and Circularity’, Rhetoric and the New Testament (ed. Porter, S. E. and Olbricht, T. H.; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993) 479–91.Google Scholar There he admits that chiasm is not a term known to the ancients until the time of Pseudo-Hermogenes (Ore Invention 4.3.2). The examples that he cites – and far from all of them are from ancient authors – tend to be simple a-b-b-a patterns with individual words or clauses. See below for further discussion.

9 ‘The Structure of 2 Corinthians 1–7’, Criswell Theological Review 4.1 (1989) 5.Google Scholar See also Scholer, and Snodgrass, , ‘Preface’, xviii.Google Scholar

10 Blomberg, , ‘Structure’, 5.Google Scholar

11 ‘Chiastic Awareness and Education in Antiquity’, BTB 14 (1984) 24,Google Scholar citing Marrou, H. I., A History of Education in Antiquity (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1956).Google Scholar

12 Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters (Sheffield: Academic, 1995).Google Scholar

13 Thomson's contention that ‘any [ancient] reading ability demanded a much closer scrutiny of the text than in current Western education’ (Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters, 21) seems to be refuted by the very existence of his work, which began as a Ph.D. thesis.

14 The composition of the Septuagint bears witness to the lack of significant bilingualism with Greek and Semitic languages outside of Palestine, if it existed widely there.

15 Thomson, , Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters, 21.Google Scholar

16 By this logic, chiasm should have diminished in importance when boustropheidon (the writing of lines of inscriptions both right to left and left to right) was no longer used, which was essentially by the fifth century BCE. See Woodhead, A. G., The Study of Greek Inscriptions (Cambridge: University, 2nd edn, 1981) 24–9.Google Scholar

17 Welch, (ed.), Chiasmus in Antiquity, 14Google Scholar, citing Cicero Att. 1.16; Servius and Donatus on ϋστερоν πρότερоν, Scholia A on Od. 56, Scholia Euripides Or. 702 (on πρоθστερоν), and Scholia Euripides Phoen. 88 (on ὐστερоλоγία).

18 Thomson, , Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters, 14.Google Scholar

19 See Thomson, , Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters, 14–15Google Scholar for a survey of the evidence.

20 New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1984) 28, 29.Google Scholar Kennedy notes that the ‘closest parallel term in Latin is probably commutatio’ (p. 28), although they are not identical. The example Kennedy, cites of commutatio is Mk 2.27,Google Scholar with a simple a-b-b-a pattern. Nevertheless, B. Standaert claims that chiasmus was an ancient compositional technique, despite its never being defined as a term, even though others were (‘La rhétorique ancienne dans Saint Paul’, L'apôtre Paul: Personnalité, style et conception du ministère [ed. Vanhoye, A.; Leuven: Peeters/Leuven University, 1986] 86).Google Scholar It is difficult to imagine how one might prove this.

21 Blomberg, , ‘Structure’, 5.Google Scholar Although Scholer and Snodgrass do not suggest criteria, they raise pertinent questions (‘Preface’, xix–xxi).

22 ‘The Literary Structure of the Controversy Stories in Mark 2:1–3:6’, JBL 92 (1973) 394–401;Google Scholar cf. also her Markan Public Debate: Literary Technique, Concentric Structure, and Theology in Mark 2:1–3:6 (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1980) 132–6.Google Scholar

23 Clark, D. J., ‘Criteria for Identifying Chiasm’, LingBib 35 (1975) 63–72.Google Scholar He is followed by Porter, S. E., ‘ἴστε γινώσкоντες in Ephesians 5, 5: Does Chiasm Solve a Problem?’, ZNW 81 (1990) 270–6.Google Scholar

24 Scholer, and Snodgrass, , ‘Preface’, xxi.Google Scholar

25 See Thomson, , Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters, 32–3 n. 93.Google Scholar

26 Blomberg, , ‘Structure’, 4–5.Google Scholar

27 Blomberg, , ‘Structure’, 5–7.Google Scholar

28 Blomberg contends that simple chiastic patterns involving only three or four elements are so common ‘to so many different forms of rhetoric that it usually yields few startlingly profound insights’ (‘Structure’, 6). As noted above, this is the only chiasm apparently recognized by the ancients. Cf. Jeremias, J., ‘Chiasmus in den Paulusbriefen’, ZNW 49 (1958) 145–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Thomson, , Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters, 24–5 n. 66.Google Scholar

30 Thomson, , Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters, 27.Google Scholar

31 Thomson, , Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters, 28–9,Google Scholar who cites examples of abuses of these principles.

32 Luter, and Lee, , ‘Philippians’, 95–7.Google Scholar

33 Luter, and Lee, , ‘Philippians’, 101.Google Scholar

34 Major attempts to find macro-chiastic structures for entire New Testament books (such as those of Bligh, J., Galatians in Greek: A Structural Analysis of St Paul's Epistle to the Galatians [Detroit: University of Detroit Press, 1966])Google Scholar have for the most part been rejected by modern scholarship.

35 See Welch, , ed., Chiasmus in Antiquity, 226;Google ScholarThomson, , Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters, 25.Google Scholar

36 Wick, P., Der Philipperbrief: Der formale Aufbau des Briefs als Schlüssel zum Verständnis seines Inhalts (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1994)Google Scholarpassim.

37 Wick, , Philipperbrief, 177.Google Scholar For a similar but very brief analysis, see Rolland, P., ‘La structure littéraire et l'unité de l'Épitre aux Philippiens’, RSR 64 (1990) 213–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 Wick (1) parallels the commendations in 2.19–30 (noticeably omitting 3.1 from this section) with the ‘joy’ expression in 4.10–20 as ‘Korrespondenz’, but with no discussion of the epistolary structure and the fact that these sections perform distinct functions (the former is a commendation and the latter is an expression of joy for the receipt of assistance). (2) He must omit the thanksgiving from his outline despite its importance to Paul's epistolary strategy. (3) He must separate 4.1–3 from the exhortations of 4.4–9 in order to parallel the call to unity with similar language in 2.1–11. (4) He distorts the epistolary function of the disclosure in 2.12–18 by paralleling it with generic exhortations in 4.4–9.

39 Luter, and Lee, , ‘Philippians’, 91;Google Scholar cf. Dalton, W. J., ‘The Integrity of Philippians’, Bib 60 (1979) 101.Google Scholar

40 White, J. L., Light from Ancient Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 219.Google Scholar

41 Black, D. A. (‘The Discourse Structure of Philippians: A Study in Textlinguistics’, NovT 37 [1995] 16–49),Google Scholar in his so-called ‘textlinguistic’ analysis of the letter (the method which Luter and Lee single out for significant mention in their final footnote), asserts that ‘with the words μετὰ χαρᾶς (1:4) Paul announces one of the most obvious subthemes of the letter –joy in the midst of adversity’ (p. 30).

42 The following parallels do not fit into Luter and Lee's chiastic outline: περισσεύω (1.9, 26; 4.12, 18); кαρπός (1.11, 22; 4.17);σкоπέω (2.4; 3.17); and έπίγεоς (2.18; 3.19). In addition, other themes do not fit into their scheme: call to unity (1.27–8; 2.16); sufferings (1.29–30; 3.10); exhortation to imitation (1.30; 2.11; 3.17); humility (2.1–11; 3.1–11); and progress in the Christian life (2.12–18; 3.12–13) (see Bloomquist, L. G., The Function of Suffering in Philippians [Sheffield; JSOT, 1993] 103).Google Scholar This all seems to suggest that different outlines can be arrived at (and have been) using the same basic method of word and conceptual parallelism.

43 In contrast to Luter and Lee's chiastic understanding, Wick, (Philipperbrief, 39)Google Scholar suggests that the letter consists of five basic themes: Freude, Gegner, Selbstbericht, Gesinnung, and Korrespondenz. He later identifies five different ‘reasons’ why Paul wrote the letter (p. 138).

44 See Alexander, L., ‘Hellenistic Letter-Forms and the Structure of Philippians’, JSNT 37 (1989) 87–101, esp. 94–6Google Scholar; Bloomquist, , Function, 107, 123–5.Google Scholar

45 For examples nearly contemporaneous with Paul, see e.g. P.Oxy. IV 743.27–8 (2 BCE)ἂν τоῦτό σε θέλω γινώσкειν ὄτι …P.Oxy. IV 744.3 (1 BCE) ὲγίνωσкε ὠς …; P.Köln. I 56.3 (I CE) γινώσкειν σε θέλω ὄτι … P.Mich. VIII 464.3–4 (99 CE) γινώσкειν σε θέλω ὂτι … (The spelling in these papyri has been regularized.)

46 Luter, and Lee, , ‘Philippians’, 92–3.Google Scholar

47 Luter, and Lee, , ‘Philippians’, 93.Google Scholar

48 Furthermore, Luter and Lee give no justification why they separate the exhortations in vv. 6–9 from those in vv. 4–5, though these verses appear to run together as a series of epistolary paraenesis.

49 Luter, and Lee, , ‘Philippians’, 93.Google Scholar

50 Luter, and Lee, , ‘Philippians’, 98.Google Scholar

51 Cf. Schenk, W., Die Philipperbriefe des Paulus (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1984) 335–6;Google Scholar see also Schmithals, W., ‘Die Irrlehrer des Philipperbriefes’, ZTK 54 (1957) 297–341.Google Scholar

52 Luter, and Lee, , ‘Philippians’, 99.Google Scholar

53 Doughty, D. J. (‘Citizens of Heaven: Philippians 3.2–21’, NTS 41 [1995] 102–22)CrossRefGoogle Scholar argues that Phil 3.2–21 is a non-Pauline interpolation (thus leaving him with a multiple-letter theory), based primarily on material in the text.

54 For the latter, see Sellew, P., ‘Laodiceans and the Philippians Fragments Hypothesis‘, HTR 87 (1994) 17–28,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Skeat, T. C., ‘Did Paul Write to “Bishops and Deacons” at Philippi? A Note on Philippians 1:1’, NovT 37 (1995) 12–15.Google Scholar