Leviticus 19:35-36

Every four years or so, I re-read Luther's Small Catechism.  This time, I'm reading (for the first time) a German/English edition from 1912.  A couple months ago, I read Leviticus 19:35-36 (cited under "What particular sins are here forbidden?" in the explanation to the seventh commandment), and I noticed that the structure matches the meaning in a way.

I don't know what specific translation this Catechism uses, but these verses from Leviticus 19 appear as:

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.  Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have.  I am the Lord, your God.

In the first clause, "unrighteousness" is modified by a string of prepositional phrases ("in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure"), but in the second clause, the adjective "just" is applied individually to various measurements ("just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin").  Even in the structure of the language here, then, there's a representation of this equality.

This feature is present in the Hebrew, too:

לֹא־תַעֲשׂוּ עָוֶל בַּמִּשְׁפָּט בַּמִּדָּה בַּמִּשְׁקָל וּבַמְּשׂוּרָֽה׃

מֹאזְנֵי צֶדֶק אַבְנֵי־צֶדֶק אֵיפַת צֶדֶק וְהִין צֶדֶק יִהְיֶה לָכֶם אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר־הוֹצֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃

It also occurred to me that there's a chiastic structure that highlights these opposites:

Ye shall do

no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.

Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin,

shall ye have.

Matthew 12:30

When the Daily Dose of Greek went over Matthew 12:30 a couple months ago, I noticed a small feature in the Latin Vulgate.

Ὁ μὴ ὢν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει.

'Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.' [ESV]

qui non est mecum contra me est et qui non congregat mecum spargit

Because Latin inverts the prepositional phrase "cum me" ("with me") and combines the two words into one, there's a chiastic structure in the sequential prepositional phrases "with me" and "against me" ("mecum contra me").  This structure emphasizes these opposites.

In looking at the text more closely in order to write this post, I realized that there's also a chiasm in the Greek, just with different elements and on a broader scale:

Ὁ μὴ ὢν (the one not being)

μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ (with me)

κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ (against me)

ἐστιν (is)

With a slightly different form (a relative clause instead of a participle), this is also in the Latin:

qui non est (who is not)

mecum (with me)

contra me (against me)

est (is)

Luke 1:28

Months ago, I watched the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service from 11 December:

The service had a sort of lessons-and-carols format, and one of the readings was Luke 1:26-38.  I was following along in the Latin Vulgate, and in verse 28, I found an-other instance of a feature I've noticed elsewhere:

et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus

In the ESV, this is:

And he [the angel Gabriel] came to her [Mary] and said, 'Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!'  [some manuscripts add "'Blessed are you among women!'"]

Latin takes the prepositional phrase "cum te" ("with you"), inverts it, and combines the two words into one (tecum).  Consequently, the words for Lord (Dominus) and you (te) are directly next to each other here, lending a slightly greater sense of this accompaniment.

Proverbs 1:22

A few months ago, I started reading Proverbs in the ESV again and noticed some significance in the diction of Proverbs 1:22, where Wisdom says, "How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?  How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?"  As if to reflect the nature of the "simple ones," the vocabulary of the first clause is somewhat limited, with "simple" being repeated.

This repetition is also in the Hebrew:

עַד־מָתַי ׀ פְּתָיִם תְּֽאֵהֲבוּ פֶתִי

And in my German translation of Proverbs:

Wie lange wollt ihr Unverständigen unverständig sein

Matthew 11:30

I had a realization about Matthew 11:30 when the Daily Dose of Greek went over it a few months ago.

ὁ γὰρ ζυγός μου χρηστὸς καὶ τὸ φορτίον μου ἐλαφρόν ἐστιν.

'For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.' [ESV]

The verse contains two clauses with the same basic structure:  article, noun, possessive pronoun, adjective, copulative verb (implied in the first clause).  Partially because of the nature of copulative sentences, the grammatical elements in this verse are fairly simple (the only case here is the nominative, and the verb is in the present tense), and this simplicity matches the characteristics mentioned in the verse ("easy" and "light").

Psalm 145:5

A couple months ago, I read Psalm 145 in the ESV and noticed some significance in the structure of verse 5:  "On the glorious splendor of your majesty, and on your wondrous works, I will meditate."  The structure is inverted so that the objects on which the Psalmist meditates come first in the sentence, and to some degree, this primary position matches the importance they hold for him.  In English, "splendor" and "works" are both objects of prepositions, but if I'm not mistaken, in the Hebrew, which also has this structure, they're simply direct objects:

הֲדַר כְּבוֹד הוֹדֶךָ וְדִבְרֵי נִפְלְאוֹתֶיךָ אָשִֽׂיחָה׃

Psalm 143:3

Last year, I read Psalm 143 in the ESV and noticed a way in which the punctuation in English translations heightens the meaning.

In the ESV, verse 3 is:  "For the enemy has pursued my soul; he has crushed my life to the ground; he has made me sit in darkness like those long dead."  In the NIV, it's:  "The enemy pursues me, he crushes me to the ground; he makes me dwell in darkness like those long dead."  The NKJV renders it as:  "For the enemy has persecuted my soul; he has crushed my life to the ground; he has made me dwell in darkness, like those who have long been dead."

The NIV has a comma splice, but otherwise, all of these translations connect the three clauses with semicolons.  Because the clauses follow each other so closely, without the pause that a sentence break or even a conjunction would provide, there's a sense of being "pursued" or "crushed."

1 Kings 2:33

While reading 1 Kings in the NIV last year, I found an-other instance where a chiastic structure highlights opposites, this time in 1 Kings 2:33:

May the guilt of their blood rest

on the head of Joab and his descendants forever.

But on David and his descendants, his house and his throne,

may there be the LORD's peace forever.

This structure is also in the Hebrew:

וְשָׁבוּ דְמֵיהֶם

בְּרֹאשׁ יוֹאָב וּבְרֹאשׁ זַרְעוֹ לְעֹלָם

וּלְדָוִד וּלְזַרְעוֹ וּלְבֵיתוֹ וּלְכִסְאוֹ

יִהְיֶה שָׁלוֹם עַד־עוֹלָם מֵעִם יְהוָֽה׃

And the Latin Vulgate:

et revertetur sanguis illorum

in caput Ioab et in caput seminis eius in sempiternum

David autem et semini eius et domui et throno illius

sit pax usque in aeternum a Domino

Psalm 139:5

A few months ago, I read Psalm 139 in the ESV and noticed a small feature in verse 5:  "You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me."  There's a sort of parallelism between "behind" and "before," and the visual similarity of the words matches this.

This feature is also present in the NIV and the NKJV, but it seems specific to what English translations I referenced.

1 Kings 1:25-26

In reading 1 Kings in the NIV a couple months ago, I found an-other chiasm that highlights opposites.  In verses 25-26, Nathan says to David, "25 Today he [Adonijah] has gone down and sacrificed great numbers of cattle, fattened calves, and sheep.  He has invited all the king's sons, the commanders of the army and Abiathar the priest.  Right now they are eating and drinking with him and saying, 'Long live King Adonijah!'  26 But me your servant, and Zadok the priest, and Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and your servant Solomon he did not invite."

The sentence structure is inverted between "He has invited all the king's sons, the commanders of the army and Abiathar the priest" and "But me your servant, and Zadok the priest, and Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and your servant Solomon he did not invite," highlighting this contrast.

This feature is also present in the Hebrew:

וַיִּקְרָא לְכָל־בְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וּלְשָׂרֵי הַצָּבָא וּלְאֶבְיָתָר הַכֹּהֵן

וְלִי אֲנִֽי־עַבְדֶּךָ וּלְצָדֹק הַכֹּהֵן וְלִבְנָיָהוּ בֶן־יְהוֹיָדָע וְלִשְׁלֹמֹה עַבְדְּךָ לֹא קָרָֽא

And in the Latin Vulgate:

vocavit universos filios regis et principes exercitus Abiathar quoque sacerdotum

me servum tuum et Sadoc sacerdotem et Banaiam filium Ioiadae et Salomonem famulum tuum non vocavit

Psalm 132:18

A couple months ago, I read Psalm 132 in the ESV and noticed an interesting feature in verse 18:  "'His enemies I will clothe with shame, but on him his crown will shine.'"  The phrases "clothe with shame" and "crown will shine" resemble each other visually, and to some degree, this superficial resemblance draws attention to their opposite nature.

Mark 12:44

On Worship Anew a couple months ago, the Gospel reading was Mark 12:38-44.  In all of the English translations I referenced (ESV, NIV, and NKJV), there's a chiastic structure in verse 44.  Here's the ESV:

"For they all contributed

out of their abundance,

but she out of her poverty

has put in everything she had, all she had to live on."

Such a structure highlights the opposite natures of "abundance" (the NIV has "wealth") and "poverty" and perhaps even the different manners in which the rich people and poor widow gave their offerings.

This structure isn't in the Greek, though, where this verse is:  πάντες γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ περισσεύοντος αὐτοῖς ἔβαλον, αὕτη δὲ ἐκ τῆς ὑστερήσεως αὐτῆς πάντα ὅσα εἶχεν ἔβαλεν, ὅλον τὸν βίον αὐτῆς.  The two clauses have roughly the same structure here, something like "All out of their abundance contributed, but she out of her poverty put in...."