DISSERTATION: A Discourse Analysis of 1 Corinthians, 4.3 Field

A Discourse Analysis of First Corinthians	Ralph Bruce Terry
	Home \| Chapters: 1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4 \| 5 \| 6

Field

Particle and wave perspectives provide two different viewpoints which compliment one another in analyzing the constituent structures of a text. But there is a third perspective which provides additional insight. That is the field perspective, the viewpoint which sees a text from the standpoint of patterns and their relationships.

Even linear discourse shows a pattern, although that pattern is often quite easy to discern and adequately described in a particle approach. But non-linear discourse can be better described from a field perspective. Even though some of these patterns, such as inclusio and chiasmus, can be viewed as structures and treated under a particle perspective, they are more clearly seen as patterns in a field perspective. Just as transitions are better suited to be described from a wave perspective, patterned text, such as that found in chiasmus, is better suited to be described from a field perspective. And when there are multiple patterns overlaid on one another in a given unit of text, the field perspective is not only desirable, but necessary.

This section will begin with an overview of different types of patterns utilized in I Corinthians which a field perspective will uncover. Then it will illustrate a technique of field perspective by looking at one of those patterns, chiasmus, in greater detail.

Types of Grammatical and Conceptual Patterns

Where a paragraph structure is made up of two elements, there are two possible patterns: AA' and AB. The AA' pattern is a parallelism structure. The two elements, whether sentences or paragraphs, are either conceptually or grammatically parallel to one another or parallel in both ways. I Corinthians contains numerous examples of this pattern on a microparagraph level, including pairings in 6:7, 12; 7:12-13, 16, 22, 28; 9:1ab, 1d-2b, 5-6, 7; 10:16, 21, 23; 11:4-5, 22; 12:15-16, 17, 26, 28-29; 13:11, 12; 14:4, 15, 23-24; 15:21-22, 55; and 16:23-24. On a slightly higher paragraph level, the microparagraph in 15:13-14 is parallel to the microparagraph in 15:16-17.

The AB pattern contains two paired elements which are connected to one another in some fashion but also are quite different in form. A good example of this pattern is a question-answer paragraph, such as is found in 11:22 and 14:15. A similar structure is a question-command paragraph. Examples of this are found in 7:18, 21, 27. This structure is the functional equivalent of a conditional command. If the question is answered positively, the command applies. The example in 7:27 is a case of two question-command microparagraphs with a parallel pattern, as shown in (40).

(40) X A δέδεσαι γυναικί; (7:27)
have you been bound to a wife?
B μὴ ζήτει λύσιν
not seek a loosing.
X' A' λέλυσαι ἀπὸ γυναικός;
have you been loosed from a wife?
B' μὴ ζήτει γυναι̑κα.
not seek a wife.

The resulting structure from combining two AB patterns inside an AA' pattern is a cyclical ABA'B' pattern. It also contains a conceptual ABB'A' chiasm: bound to a wife, loosed from a wife, loosed from a wife, bound to a wife. While this passage can be viewed as a combination of embedded units as shown above in (30), only a field perspective allows these multiple patterns to come into focus.

There are also several possible patterns for paragraphs when they are made up of more than two elements. First of all, there is a parallel structure AA'A", such as those found in 4:8, 12:4-6, 22-24, 29, 30, 13:1-3, 15:42-44, and 16:19-20. Second, there is a linear structure ABC, where different items follow in some sort of logical order on one another. This structure follows a common Western way of thinking and writing and is not difficult to analyze; it is easily seen even in a particle perspective, as discussed above. Third, there is a cyclical pattern ABA'B' with four elements, as shown in (40) above for 7:27, or ABCA'B'C' with six. Other four element cycles are found in 7:32-34 and 14:6-11. In the latter passage, the A elements ask questions about tongues versus clear speech while the B elements give illustrations from various kinds of voices. This also functions as the inner two elements of a chiasmus; see (59) below for the layout. Fourth, there is a chiastic pattern ABB'A' with four elements or ABCC'B'A' with six. It is possible to combine the central elements into one in order to have an odd number of elements. Chiasmus is so common in I Corinthians that the next section is devoted to a discussion of it. Finally, there is inclusio, an ABCA pattern that repeats the first element.

Now the simple pattern ABA' can be either a reduced form of chiasmus, a defective cycle, or a simple case of inclusio. The exact rhetorical scheme is impossible to tell since all three of these cases show the same pattern. In this study, however, such a pattern is analyzed as chiasmus since it is so pervasive throughout I Corinthians.

Chiasmus on the Paragraph Level

As noted in chapter III of this study, several of the discourses show a form of ABA' chiasmus. But chiasmus is present, not only on the macroparagraph level, but also on the microparagraph and intermediate levels. The major studies of chiasmus in I Corinthians have been by Lund (1942; reprinted 1992) and Bailey (1983). If there is a fault in their work, it is that they tend to find chiasmus throughout the book, even in locations where other rhetorical strategies seem to be used. Lund is better than Bailey about identifying alternate rhetorical schemes, but even he takes the use of chiasmus to an extreme. But there are many clear cases of chiasmus in this letter, and several of these are discussed below.

It is important to note that three kinds of chiasmus exist in I Corinthians: lexical, in which words are repeated in a chiastic pattern; grammatical, in which grammatical structures are repeated in a chiastic manner; and conceptual, in which concepts are repeated chiastically. Some patterns have only a single one of these types, but others show a combination of them.

Now Bailey (1983, 177) identifies 3:1-23 as showing an ABB'A'' scheme found in (41).

(41)  A   Paul and Apollos (3:1-4) 
         B   The illustration of the field (3:5-9b) 
         B'  The illustration of the building (3:9c-15) 
      A'  Paul, Apollos, and Cephas (3:21-23)

Certainly this pattern exists, but the problem with it is that it omits the passages about the Corinthians being God's temple (3:16-17) and about the wisdom of men (3:18-20). A pattern without such breaks can be found in 3:21-4:7 as shown in (42).

(42)   A   Boasting (3:21) 
          B   Paul and Apollos (3:22-23) 
             C   Servants of Christ (4:1-5) 
          B'  Paul and Apollos (4:6) 
       A'  Boasting (4:7)

But this pattern as well as Bailey's suggested pattern has a difficulty. They both cut across the chiastic macroparagraph structure of the first discourse as given in (43) and shown also in Table 4.

 (43)  A   Division (1:10-17) 
          B   Wisdom (1:18-2:16) 
       A'  Division (3:1-4) 
       C   Servanthood (3:5-15) 
          D   Wisdom and Division (3:16-23) 
       C'  Servanthood (4:1-17)

This major structure also exists. Bailey's pattern shown in (41) has taken the elements of A'CD in this analysis and made them ABA'. The problem is that his analysis here is too small. But the analysis in (42) also is legitimate, and it too cuts across the boundary lines of the analysis given in (43). This tells us that the rhetorical structure of the first discourse is quite complex and is probably composed of several patterns interwoven together (cf. Longacre 1979a on both an episodic and a chiastic structure in the Genesis flood narrative and Pike 1987 on the multi-dimensional patterns of the Sermon on the Mount). Certainly the C section of (43) in 3:5-15 on servanthood is composed of two major paragraphs, as Bailey notes, which form an AA' parallelism. This multiple relationship patterning cannot be seen from a purely particle perspective; while a single pattern can be viewed as a type of particle structure, it takes a field perspective to view multiple patterns.

Within the first discourse another chiasm can be noted in the paragraph (3:16-17) about the Corinthians being the temple of God as shown in (44).

(44) A οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ναὸς θεου̑ ἐστε (3:16)
not do you know that temple of God you are
B καὶ τὸ πνευ̑μα του̑ θεου̑ οἰκει̑ ἐν ὑμι̑ν
and the Spirit of God dwells in you?
C εἴ τις τὸν ναὸν του̑ θεου̑ φθείρει (3:17)
If anyone the temple of God destroys
C' φθερει̑ του̑τον ὁ θεός^.
will destroy this one [O] God [S]
B' ὁ γὰρ ναὸς του̑ θεου̑ ἅγιός ἐστιν,
the for temple of God holy is
A' οἵτινές ἐστε ὑμει̑ς.
which are you

The A, B, and C elements are all conceptually and lexically connected.

The second discourse also shows evidence of chiasmus on a smaller scale. The passage in 6:13-14 (noted by Fee 1987, 253-254) shows a complex pattern of two lexical chiasms embedded within a cyclical XYX'Y' pattern as shown in (45).

(45) X A τὰ βρώματα (6:13)
the foods
B τη̨̑ κοιλία̨
for the stomach
B' καὶ ἡ κοιλία
and the stomach
A' τοι̑ς βρώμασιν ^.
for the foods
Y ὁ δὲ θεὸς καὶ ταύτην καὶ ταυ̑τα καταργήσει.
and God both this and these will destroy
X' A τὸ δὲ σω̑μα οὐ τη̨̑ πορνεία̨
the but body not for the fornication
B ἀλλὰ τω̨̑ κυρίω̨,
but for the Lord,
B' καὶ ὁ κύριος
and the Lord
A' τω̨̑ σώματι ^.
for the body.
Y' ὁ δὲ θεὸς καὶ τὸν κύριον ἤγειρεν (6:14)
the but God both the Lord raised
καὶ ἡμα̑ς ἐξεγερει̑ διὰ τη̑ς δυνάμεως αὐτου̑.
and us will raise up through the power of him

This multiple patterning is best seen from the perspective of a field. Fee (1987, 257) also notes that the next verses contain a lexical and conceptual chiasmus as shown in (46).

(46)  A   members of Christ(6:15)
         B   members of a prostitute
         B'  the one joined to a prostitute(6:16)
      A'  the one joined to the Lord(6:17)

The third discourse begins with several examples of lexical chiasmus as noted by Lund (1942; reprinted 1992, 151-152), who has noted that 7:2-5 form a chiasmus as shown in (47).

(47)

διὰ

δὲ

τὰς

πορνείας

(7:2)

because of

but

the

fornication

ε�́καϒ�ο�

�η̬ν

ε�α�ο�&�

γ�&ναι�κα

ε��!έ��0,

each [man]

his

own

wife

let him have

και̬

ε�κάϒ�η

�ο̬ν

ι�́διον

α�́νδρα

ε��!έ��0.

and

each [woman]

her

own

husband

let her have.

�η�̨

γ�&ναικι̬

ο�

α�νη̬ρ

�η̬ν

ο�� ειλη̬ν

α�Ϭοδιδό��0

(7:3)

the wife

the

husband

the

due

should give

ο�μοί�0�

δε̬

και̬

η�

γ�&νη̬

��0�̨

α�νδρί.

likewise

and

also

the

wife

to the

husband.

η�

γ�&νη̬

�ο�&�

ι�δίο�&

ϒ�0́μα�ο�

(7:4)

the

wife

her

own

body

ο�&�κ

ε�ξο�&ϒιάζει

α�λλα̬

ο�

α�νήρ

not

rule over

but

the

husband [does];

ο�μοί�0�

δε̬

και̬

ο�

α�νη̬ρ

�ο�&�

ι�δίο�&

ϒ�0́μα�ο�

likewise

and

also

the

husband

his

own

body

ο�&�κ

ε�ξο�&ϒιάζει

α�λλα̬

η�

γ�&νή.

not

rule over

but

the

wife [does].

μη̬

α�Ϭοϒ�ερει��ε

α�λλήλο�&�,

ει� μή�ι

α�̬ν

(7:5)

not

defraud

one another,

except

maybe

ε�κ

ϒ�&μ� �0́νο�&

Ϭρο̬�

καιϬόν,

ι�́να

ϒ�!ολάϒη�ε

�η�̨ Ϭροϒε�&�!η�̨

agreement

for

a season

that

you may say

prayers

και̬

Ϭάλιν

ε�Ϭι̬ �ο̬ α�&��ο̬

η��ε,

and

again

together

ι�́να

μη̬

Ϭειράζη̨

�&�μα��

ο�

ϒα�ανα��

that

not

tempt

you

the

Satan

δια̬

�η̬ν

α�κραϒίαν

�&μ�0�ν.

because of

theThe chiasmus is conceptual, with fornication equaling a lack of self-control, having a person being the same as not defrauding and being together, and giving due equaling not having authority over one's own body. There is also a lexical chiasmus in verse 4 using the words ἀνήρ 'husband' and γυνή 'wife'. At the same time, the grammatical structure of verses 2-4 is a series of parallel units: AA' BB' CC' DD', where the last three primed elements omit the predicate. Again, a field perspective allows this overlay of patterns clearly to be seen.

A little farther on in the third discourse Fee (1987, 299) has noted that 7:12-14 form what he calls "a perfect triple chiasm" as shown in (48).

(48)  A   any brother has 
         B   an unbelieving wife
            C   any woman has 
               D   an unbelieving husband
               D'  the unbelieving husband is sanctified
            C'  through his wife
         B'  the unbelieving wife is sanctified
      A'  through her husband

Once again note that the lexical chiasmus is embedded within a different grammatical pattern—this time a couple of parallelisms: AB is parallel to CD and D'C' is parallel to B'A'. A field perspective is required to show the overlay of patterns.

The fourth discourse also contains several examples of chiasmus. Youngman (1987, 189) has noted that there is a chiastic pattern in 9:4-12 as shown in (49).


(49)  A   Church workers (9:4-6)
         B   Secular workers (9:7)
            C   God's ordinance (9:8-10)
         B'  Secular work (9:11)
      A'  Church workers (9:12)

Further, 9:16 contains a lexical and structural chiasmus as shown in (50). It is apparent only in the Greek, for much of the structure is lost in translation.

(50) A ἐὰν γὰρ εὐαγγελίζωμαι
if for I preach the gospel
B οὐκ ἔστιν μοι καύχημα ^.
not is to me boast
C ἀνάγκη γάρ μοι ἐπίκειται^.
necessity for on me is laid
B' οὐαὶ γάρ μοί ἐστιν
woe for to me is
A' ἐὰν μὴ εὐγγελίσωμαι.
if not I preach the gospel

But the most obvious example of chiasmus in the fourth discourse is found in 9:19-22 as shown in (51). It has been noted by Lund (1942; reprinted 1992, 147), Bailey (1983, 167), Youngman (1987, 195), and Fee, although the latter states that it is chiastic "in form only, not in content" (1987, 423).

(51) A 'Ελεύθερος γὰρ ὢν ἐκ πάντων (9:19)
free for being from all
πα̑σιν ἐμαυτὸν ἐδούλωσα,
to all myself I have enslaved
ἵνα τοὺς πλείονας κερδήσω^.
that the many I might gain

B καὶ ἐγενόμην τοι̑ς 'Ιουδαίοις ὡς 'Ιουδαι̑ος, (9:20)
and I became to the Jews as a Jew
ἵνα 'Ιουδαίους κερδήσω^.
that Jews I might gain
C τοι̑ς ὑπὸ νόμον ὡς ὑπὸ νόμον,
to those under [the] law as under [the] law
μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον,
not being myself under [the] law
ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον κερδήσω^.
that those under [the] law I might gain
C' τοι̑ς ἀνόμοις ὡς ἄνομος, (9:21)
to those without [the] law as without [the] law
μὴ ὢν ἂνομος θεου̑ ἀλλ'
not being without [the] law of God but
ἔννομος Χριστου̑,
within [the] law of Christ
ἵνα κερδάνω τοὺς ἀνόμους^.
that I might gain those without [the] law
B' ἐγενόμην τοι̑ς ἀσθεvέσιν ἀσθενής, (9:22)
I became to the weak weak
ἵνα τοὺς ἀσθενει̑ς κερδήσω^.
that the weak I might gain
A' τοι̑ς πα̑σιν γέγονα πάντα,
to all I have become all things
ἵνα πάντως τινὰς σώσω.
that by all means some I might save

Each of the six elements ends with a purpose clause beginning with ἵνα 'in order to'. The chiasmus is conceptually defective in the B' element, although Bailey (1983, 167) and Youngman (1987, 195) argue that the weak are the same as the Gentiles. It is true that the weak person in 8:7 is someone accustomed to idols, that is, a Gentile, but there are weak Christians who are not Gentiles, and Gentiles who are not weak. It hardly seems worth limiting Paul's meaning to preserve the chiasm.

But these are not the only examples of chiasmus in the fourth discourse. Youngman (1987, 202) notes another in 10:7-10 as shown in (52). This chiasm is grammatical rather than conceptual.

(52)	A	μηδὲ	εἰδωλολάτραι	γίνεσθε,	καθώς	τινες	αὐτω̑ν			(10:7)
		do not	idolators	become	just as	some	of them [did]
		ὥσπερ	γέγραπται,	ἐκάθισεν	ὁ	λαὸς	φαγει̑ν	καὶ
		as	it is written,	Sat down	the	people	to eat	and
		πει̑ν	καὶ	ἀνέστησαν	παίζειν.
		drink	and	rose up	to play
		B	μηδὲ	πορνεύωμεν	καθώς	τινες	αὐτω̑ν	ἐπόρνευσαν,		(8)
			let us not	fornicate,	just as	some	of them	did
			καὶ	ἔπεσαν	μια̨̑	ἡμέρα̨	εἴκοσι	τρει̑ς	χιλιάδες.
			and	fell	one	day	twenty	three	thousand
		B'	μηδὲ	ἐκπειράζωμεν	τὸν	Χριστόν,	καθώς	τινες	αὐτω̑ν	(9)
			let us not	test	the	Christ,	just as	some	of them
			ἐπείρασαν,	καὶ	ὑπὸ	τω̑ν	ὄφεων	ἀπώλλυντο.
			tested,	and	by	the	snakes	they were destroyed
	A'	μηδὲ	γογγύζετε,	καθάπερ	τινὲς	αὐτω̑ν	ἐγόγγυσαν,			(10)
		do not	grumble,	just like	some	of them	grumbled
		και	ἀπώλοντο	ὑπὸ	του̑	ὀλοθρευτου̑.
		and	they were destroyed	by	the	destroyer

The B and B' colons contain first person subjunctive verbs in their independent clauses, sandwiched between second person imperative verbs in the main clauses of the A and A' colons. There is an apparent imbalance to this nice scheme, however, for the A colon is followed by a quotation from Ex. 32:6 (LXX) to illustrate it and the other colons are not.

A fifth example of chiasmus in the fourth discourse is found in 10:16-21 as shown in (53). Both Bailey (1983, 169) and Youngman (1987, 208) have previously noted this example.

(53) A  The cup of blessing . . . is it not a sharing            (10:16)
        The bread . . . is it not a sharing
       B   Are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers          (10:18)
          C   That food offered to idols is anything             (10:19)
          C'  They sacrifice to demons and not to God            (10:20)
       B'  I do not want you to be sharers with demons
     A' You cannot drink of the cup of the Lord                  (10:21)
        You cannot partake of the table of the Lord

Here the correspondences are conceptual rather than grammatical. The A and A' elements deal with the cup and the bread (or table) of the Lord's Supper. The B and B' elements relate that eating a sacrifice makes one a sharer or partner with an altar or a demon, respectively. The C and C' elements discuss sacrifices offered to idols.

The fifth discourse has an example of embedded chiasmus in 11:8-12 as shown in (54). Lund (1942; reprinted 1992, 148) has shown that these verses form a ABCB'A' chiasm with the A, B, B', and A' elements containing lexical chiasms using the words ἀνήρ 'man' and γυνή 'woman'.

(54) A οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀνὴρ ἐκ γυναικὸς, (11:8)
not for is man from woman
ἀλλὰ γυνὴ ἐζ ἀνδρός^.
but woman from man
B καὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἐκτίσθη ἀνὴρ διὰ τὴν γυναι̑κα, (11:9)
indeed for not was created man because of the woman
ἀλλὰ γυνὴ διὰ τὸν ἄνδρα.
but woman because of the man
C διὰ του̑το ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔξειν (11:10)
because of this ought woman authority to have
ἐπὶ τη̑ς κεφαλη̑ς διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους.
on the head because of the angels.
B' πλὴν οὔτε γυνὴ χωπὶς ἀνδρὸς (11:11)
however neither woman without man
οὔτε ἀνὴρ χωπὶς γυναικὸς ἐν κυρίω^.
nor man without woman in the Lord
A' ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ γυνὴ ἐκ του̑ ἀνδρός, (11:12)
as for the woman from the man
οὕτως καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ διὰ τη̑ς γυναικός^.
so also the man through the woman
τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ του̑ θεου̑.
the but all things from the God

The first two elements have the chiastic order "man-woman-woman-man," while the last two have the order "woman-man-man-woman." Once again, the multiple patterns are most clearly seen from a field perspective.

The whole sixth discourse can be divided into an ABA' chiastic pattern as shown in (55).

(55)  A   The Lord's Supper at Corinth (11:17-22)
         B   How Jesus Instituted the Lord's Supper (11:23-25)
      A'  The Lord's Supper at Corinth (11:26-34)

The B element at the center is marked by narrative texttype.

The seventh discourse is the most chiastic of all the discourses, showing several levels of embedded chiasmus. In this regard, it seems significant that chapter V will show that this discourse is within the peak of the letter. First, the whole discourse can be seen as one large chiastic pattern (here labeled XYX' to avoid confusion) as shown in (56).

(56)  X   Spiritual gifts (12)
         Y   Love (13)
      X'  Spiritual gifts (14)

Bailey (1983, 178) has pointed out that what is here called the X element (12:1-31) can be itself interpreted as a chiastic pattern. Strictly speaking, the chiasm runs from 12:4-30 rather than over the whole twelfth chapter. The secondary level of chiasmus is here labeled RSR' as shown in (57).

(57)  R   Various types of gifts (12:4-11)
         S   The body and its members (12:12-27)
      R'  Various types of gifts (12:28-30)

In the same way the Y element (13:1-13) also contains a chiastic pattern, as shown in (58).

(58)  R   Transition (12:31)
         S   Love and spiritual gifts (13:1-3)
            T   Characteristics of love (13:4-7)
         S'  Love and spiritual gifts (13:8-13)
      R'  Transition (14:1)

This has been noted by Lund (1942; reprinted 1992, 175-176) and Osburn (1976, 150-152) among others.

Both Lund (1942; reprinted 1992, 184) and Bailey (1983, 178) have noted that the first part of the Y' element (chapter 14) is chiastic in structure, although they have differed over how much text it covers. Lund sees the structure as covering 14:5b-13, while Bailey extends it to 14:1b-25. There are two problems with Bailey's analysis: it is not in enough depth (forming merely an RSR' chiasm) and his S element could be labeled as saying the same thing as the R and R' elements. Bailey labels the R (14:1b-5) and R' (14:13-25) elements "Prophecy is better than tongues"; he has the S element composed of the three parables of the flute (14:7), bugle (14:8-9), and the foreign language (14:11-12). The problem is that the point of the central S element is also that prophecy is better than tongues. It is just that in these verses Paul is arguing by analogy. The chiasm should be more specific than what Bailey proposes. Lund's (1942; reprinted 1992, 184) analysis is superior in this respect. The pattern given in (59) basically follows Lund with minor variations to improve the correspondences.

(59) R μείζων δὲ ὁ προφητεύων ἢ ὁ (14:5b)
greater but the prophesying than the [one]

λαλ�0�ν γλ�0́ϒϒαι�, ε�κ�ο̬� ει� μη̬ διερμηνε�&́η̨,
speaking in tongues unless he interprets
S ι�́να η� ε�κκληϒία οι�κοδομη̬ν λάβη̨. (14:5c)
so that the church edification may receive
T A . . . ε�α̬ν ε�́λθ�0 Ϭρο̬� �&�μα�� γλ�0́ϒϒαι� λαλ�0�ν, (14:6)
. . . if I come to you in tongues speaking
�ί �&�μα�� 0�� ελήϒ�0, . . .;
what you will I profit?
B ο�́μ�0� �α̬ α�́��&�!α � �0νη̬ν διδόν�α, . . . (14:7)
likewise the lifeless sounds giving
T' A' ο�&�́��0� και̬ �&�μει�� δια̬ �η�� γλ�0́ϒϒη� (14:9)
so also you through your tongue
ε�άν μη̬ ε�&�́ϒημον λόγον δ�0��ε, Ϭ�0�� γν�0ϒθήϒε�αι
unless intelligible word give how will one know
�ο̬ λαλο�&́μενον; . . .
the thing spoken?
B' �οϒα�&��α ει� ��&́�!οι γένη (14:10)
so many perhaps kinds of
� �0ν�0�ν ει�ϒιν ε�ν κόϒμ�0, . . .
languages there are in the world
S' Ϭρο̬� �η̬ν οι�κοδομη̬ν �η�� ε�κκληϒία� ζη�ει��ε (14:12)
for the edification of the church seek
ι�́να Ϭεριϒϒε�&́η�ε.
that you may abound
R' διο̬ ο� λαλ�0�ν γλ�0́ϒϒη Ϭροϒε�&�!έϒθ�0 (14:13)
therefore the one speaking in a tongue should pray
ι�́�
The T and T' elements of this chiasm contain an ABA'B' cyclical structure of question-illustration. These multiple overlaid patterns are most clearly seen from a field perspective.

Besides these intermediate levels of chiasmus in the seventh discourse, there are several examples of low level chiasmus in chapters twelve through fourteen also. For example, there is a lexical chiasm in 12:3 as shown in (60).

(60) A . . . οὐδεὶς ἐν πνεύματι θεου̑ λαλω̑ν (12:3)
no one by the Spirit of God speaking
B λέγει, 'Ανάθεμα 'Ιησου̑ς,
says "cursed Jesus"
B' καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπει̑ν, Κύριος 'Ιησου̑ς,
and no one can say "Lord Jesus"
A' εἰ μὴ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίω̨.
except by Spirit Holy

This has previously been noted by Lund (1942; reprinted 1992, 164).

In the same way, Lund (1942; reprinted 1992, 165) has also noted a lexical and conceptual chiasm in 12:12, as shown in (61).

(61) A Καθάπερ γὰρ τὸ σω̑μα ἕν ἐστιν (12:12)
just as for the body one is
B καὶ μέλη πολλὰ ἔχει,
and members many has
B' πάντα δὲ τὰ μέλη του̑ σώματος πολλὰ ὄντα
all and the members of the body many being
A' ἕν ἐστιν σω̑μα, οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστός^.
one is body so also the Christ.

But perhaps the best example of embedded chiasmus is found in 13:8-13, as shown in (62). It has been noted by Lund (1942; reprinted 1992, 176) and Osburn (1976, 151-152).

(62) A 'Η ἀγάπη οὐδέποτε πίπτει. (13:8)
the love never fails
B ἐκ μέρους γὰρ γινώσκομεν . . . (13:9)
in part for we know
C ὅταν δὲ ἔλθη̨ τὸ τέλειον, τὸ ἐκ μέρους (13:10)
when but comes the perfect the in part
καταργηθήσεται.
will be done away
D ὅτε ἤμην νήπιος, ἐλάλουν ὡς (13:11)
when I was a child I spoke as
νήπιος, . . .
a child
C' ὅτε γέγονα ἀνήρ, κατήργηκα τὰ
when I became a man I did away with the [ways]
του̑ νηπίου.
of the child
B' . . . ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, . . . (13:12)
      now I know in part
A' νυνὶ δὲ μένει πίστις, ἐλπίς, (13:13)
now but remain faith hope
ἀγάπη, τὰ τρία ταυ̑τα . . .
love the three these

This chiasm forms the S' element of the intermediate level chiasm in (58) which is the Y element of the high level chiasm in (56). The corresponding elements are not only conceptually parallel, but to a certain extent grammatically as well.

A further example of chiasmus in the seventh discourse is found in 14:33b-36, as shown in (63).
(63) A 'Ως ἐν πάσαις ται̑ς ἐκκλησίαις τω̑ν ἁγίων (14:33b)
As in all the churches of the saints,
B αἱ γυναι̑κες ἐν ται̑ς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν (14:34a)
the women in the churches let them keep silent
C . . . ἀλλὰ ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, . . . (14:34b)
      but let them be subordinate
C' . . . ἐν οἴκω̨ τοὺς ἰδίους ἄνδρας (14:35a)
      at home their own husbands
ἐπερωτάτωσαν,
let them ask
B' αἰσχρὸν γάρ ἐστιν γυναικὶ λαλει̑ν (14:35b)
shameful for it is for a woman to speak
ἐν ἐκκλησία̨.
in church.
A' ἢ ἀφ' ὑμω̑ν ὁ λόγος του̑ θεου̑ ἐξη̑λθεν, (14:36)
or from you the word of God came out
ἢ εἰς ὑμα̑ς μόνους κατήντησεν;
or to you only did it arrive?

This chiasm is purely conceptual. The point presented in a phrase at the beginning (the A element) is repeated at the end in the A' element with a compound question (or it can be analyzed as two questions).

Finally, the eighth discourse also contains an example of chiasmus in 15:12-13, as shown in (64).
(64) A Εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς κηρύσσεται ὅτι ἐκ νεκρω̑ν (15:12)
if but Christ is preached that from the dead
ἐγήγερται,
he is raised
B πω̑ς λέγουσιν ἐν ὑμι̑ν τινες ὅτι
how do say among you some that
ἀνάστασις νεκρω̑ν οὐκ ἔστιν;
resurrection of the dead not there is no?
B' εἰ δὲ ἀνάστασις νεκρω̑ν οὐκ ἔστιν, (15:13)
if but resurrection of the dead not there is
A' οὐδὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται^.
neither Christ has been raised

The ninth and tenth discourses in chapter 16 are very short and do not seem to contain examples of chiasmus. The examples listed here are not exhaustive. Both Lund (1942; reprinted 1992) and Bailey (1983) list other examples, although the correspondences for some of them seem rather strained; only the most obvious have been listed above. But these are enough examples to show that Paul made ample use of the rhetorical device of chiasm at all levels of the text and that these patterns are best seen from a field perspective.

Back to top | Next: Chapter 4.4 The Value of Multiple Perspectives

http://bible.ovu.edu/terry/dissertation/u-4_3-field.htm
Last Updated February 24, 2004
Page developed by Ben Cheek and Paul Rennix, and maintained by .
Copyright © 1993 Ralph Bruce Terry. All rights reserved.

(40)	X	A	δέδεσαι	γυναικί;		(7:27)
			have you been bound	to a wife?
		B	μὴ	ζήτει	λύσιν
			not	seek	a loosing.
	X'	A'	λέλυσαι	ἀπὸ	γυναικός;
			have you been loosed	from	a wife?
		B'	μὴ	ζήτει	γυναι̑κα.
			not	seek	a wife.

(44)	A	οὐκ	οἴδατε	ὅτι	ναὸς	θεου̑	ἐστε				(3:16)
		not	do you know	that	temple	of God	you are
		B	καὶ	τὸ	πνευ̑μα	του̑	θεου̑	οἰκει̑	ἐν	ὑμι̑ν
			and	the	Spirit	of	God	dwells	in	you?
			C	εἴ	τις	τὸν	ναὸν	του̑	θεου̑	φθείρει	(3:17)
				If	anyone	the	temple	of	God	destroys
			C'	φθερει̑	του̑τον	ὁ	θεός^.
				will destroy	this	one [O]	God [S]
		B'	ὁ	γὰρ	ναὸς	του̑	θεου̑	ἅγιός	ἐστιν,
			the	for	temple	of	God	holy	is
	A'	οἵτινές	ἐστε	ὑμει̑ς.
		which	are	you

(45)	X	A	τὰ	βρώματα						(6:13)
			the	foods
			B	τη̨̑	κοιλία̨
				for the	stomach
			B'	καὶ	ἡ	κοιλία
				and	the	stomach
		A'	τοι̑ς	βρώμασιν ^.
			for the	foods
	Y	ὁ δὲ	θεὸς	καὶ	ταύτην	καὶ	ταυ̑τα	καταργήσει.
		and	God	both	this	and	these	will destroy
	X'	A	τὸ	δὲ	σω̑μα	οὐ	τη̨̑	πορνεία̨
			the	but	body	not	for the	fornication
			B	ἀλλὰ	τω̨̑	κυρίω̨,
				but	for the	Lord,
			B'	καὶ	ὁ	κύριος
				and	the	Lord
		A'	τω̨̑	σώματι ^.
			for	the body.
	Y'	ὁ	δὲ	θεὸς	καὶ	τὸν	κύριον	ἤγειρεν		(6:14)
		the	but	God	both	the	Lord	raised
			καὶ	ἡμα̑ς	ἐξεγερει̑	διὰ	τη̑ς	δυνάμεως	αὐτου̑.
			and	us	will raise up	through	the	power	of him