Talk:Chiasmus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some view Judeo-Christian religious history as a macro chiasm: "(a)The first shall be (b) last, and the (b) last shall be (a) first," referring to the times of the Jews and the times of the Gentiles in a prophetic timeline. [1]

Chiasmus has been found extensively in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Declaration of Independence, and even modern speaches, raising the question as to whether chiasmus is created intentionally by the author or, as some might propose, a sign of inspiration. [2]

Are these claims anything more than Sterling D. Allan's pet theories? The second part is at least half-true, but since when is knowledge of rhetoric indicative of anything more than, well, knowledge of rhetoric? --MIRV 09:11, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mae West

Are the epigrams of Mae West double entendres or an exmple of chiasmus? Would love to know which is more accurate. Lentisco 03:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] antimetabole

Should the examples of antimetabole be moved to its own page or should antimetabole be merged with this page? --Ben Trent 19:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the examples should be moved to the antimetabole page, and a reference placed in this article along the lines of: "Chiasmus is often misinterpreted as antimetabole. However, the difference lies in th chiastic tendency to use different inverted words or phrases," with a link placed to the antimetabole page. Merging the antimetabole article is wrong because it is simply not chiasmus, and therefore should not come under that heading. --duklai 20:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Two separate articles for antimetabole and chiasmus are clearer, but yes move the examples of antimetaboles from chiasmus, and reference them Eslonim 10:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slightly different interpretation of Chiasm(us)

My understanding of the ABBA structure of a Chiasm is that it takes this type of form:

Philemon 1:5 (King James Version) "Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints;"

Love for the saints, faith in the Lord. A for the A, B in the B. A and B, for the B and A.

I don't see this type of construction in any of the citations mentioned on this main page. Am I wrong, or is an update/addition necessary?

I'll take a look at that passage in Latin and Greek to get a sense of the grammar. Chiasm, chiasma, chiasmata are biological terms. Chiasmus (pl. chiasmi) is the rhetorical device.

"akouôn sou tên agapên kai tên pistin hên echeis eis ton kurion Iêsoun kai eis pantas tous hagious"

"audiens caritatem tuam et fidem quam habes in Domino Iesu et in omnes sanctos"

Looking at the Greek and Latin, I can see why there are so many different translations of this passage. It is not exactly clear whether the two prepositional phrases in the relative clause go with fidem and caritatem individually or together. Some translations put it into a chiasmus while others take them together; still others take them singularly but in parallel structure. Through your translation, the reversal is syntactical as the prepositional phrases are reversed in the order of the objects they modify and the verb in the center "habes" forms the grammatical cross. Because this has to do with the grammar, it falls under the grammatical chiasmus category for rhetorical purposes. Quite a few scholarly articles have been written about chiasmus in the Bible. Chiasmus can sometimes give a different meaning from a parallel sentence. In Philemon 1:5 for instance, the issue of chiasmus centers on the issue of "faith in the saints". To keep neutrality, any article describing this passage would have to discuss each side. Because this is an article on a rhetorical figure, I believe discussion of some of the more controversial chiasmus would be tangential. But, a new article on chiasmus in the Bible which addresses this discussion would be a great idea. The scholarly debate is quite good and has been going on for several hundred years. Legis Nuntius 08:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)