Matthew 13:46

Near the end of April, the Daily Dose of Greek went over Matthew 13:46:

εὑρὼν δὲ ἕνα πολύτιμον μαργαρίτην, ἀπελθὼν πέπρακεν πάντα ὅσα εἶχεν καὶ ἠγόρασεν αὐτόν.

'who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it.'  [ESV]

I've been following along in my French New Testament, where this verse is:

Il a trouvé une perle de grand prix; et il est allé vendre tout ce qu'il avait et l'a achetée.

I noticed that (simply because of French syntax) there's a chiasm in the second half:

il est allé vendre (he went to sell)

tout ce qu'il avait (all that he had)

et l' (and it)

a achetée (bought)

This structure emphasizes the opposite nature of vendre (to sell) and a achetée (bought) and, in a way, even illustrates the exchange.  It also highlights the contrast between "all that he had" and the single pearl, here referred to with the pronoun la, which is further shortened by elision to just l'.

Psalm 46:10

While flipping through the Psalms months ago (to find Psalm 62:11 and confirm its resemblance to portions of Proverbs 30, which I was reading at the time), I happened to glance at a section of Psalm 46, and I noticed that the imperative verbs in the first part of verse 10 are stative:

'Be still, and know that I am God.'

The static nature of these verbs (especially in contrast to active voice verbs) matches the tranquility that they encourage in this context.

Isaiah 65:17

Isaiah 65:17-25 was one of the readings in a church service I attended back in the spring, and I noticed a small feature in verse 17:  "'For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.'" [ESV]

"Be remembered" and "come into mind" are parallel expressions, but this combination of passive voice and active voice provides a degree of emphasis or even a sense of totality.

I think there's a similar distinction in the Hebrew, although I'm still not very knowledgeable about the verb forms:

וְלֹא תִזָּכַרְנָה הָרִאשֹׁנוֹת וְלֹא תַעֲלֶינָה עַל־לֵֽב

John 3:16

At a church service I attended back in the spring, the pastor mentioned John 3:16 in his sermon.  Later, I had a small realization about the scope of the verse.

'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.'  [ESV]

In a way, the verse demonstrates both a macro view and micro view.  There's a breadth in "'whoever believes in him,'" but since this verse was originally directed to an individual person (as the verses at the beginning of the chapter make clear:  "1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.  2 This man came to Jesus by night..."), there's also a sort of specificity, similar to the intimate familiarity that God has with each person, as described in Psalm 139.

Proverbs 10:6

When I was flipping to Proverbs 14 in order to reference verse 35 and write this post about it, I ran across an-other significant chiastic structure, this time in Proverbs 10:6.  In the ESV, it's:

Blessings

are on the head of the righteous,

but the mouth of the wicked conceals

violence.

As with the last few chiasms in Proverbs that I've written about, the elements here are a bit more loosely equated, but the structure does highlight the contrasts between "blessings" and "violence" and between "the head of the righteous" and "the mouth of the wicked."

This chiasm is also in the Hebrew:

בְּרָכוֹת

לְרֹאשׁ צַדִּיק

וּפִי רְשָׁעִים יְכַסֶּה

חָמָֽס׃

and the Latin Vulgate:

benedictio

super caput iusti

os autem impiorum operit

iniquitatem

It's also in my German translation of Proverbs, but the meaning is a bit different:

Segen ruht

auf dem Haupt des Gerechten;

aber auf die Gottlosen

wird ihr Frevel fallen.

Something like:

Blessing rests

on the head of the righteous,

but on the wicked

will their iniquity fall.

The second half of this echoes Psalm 7:16:  "His mischief returns upon his own head, and on his own skull his violence descends."

Proverbs 29:3

Several months ago, I read Proverbs 29 in the ESV and noticed an ambiguity in verse 3:

He who loves wisdom makes his father glad, but a companion of prostitutes squanders his wealth.

It's unclear whether the antecedent of "his" in the second half of the verse ("his wealth") is the father of this "companion" (similar to how the first half mentions the father of "he who loves wisdom") or the "companion" himself.

The connection between this verse and the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15, where the son does squander the father's wealth, suggests that the antecedent is an implied father.  Additionally, in this reading, the two halves of the verse parallel each other:  "he" with "companion," "wisdom" with "prostitutes" (in an inverted sort of way), and "father" with "his."

Alternatively, this "his" could indicate the "companion" himself ("his [own] wealth"), and this understanding results in an-other contrast between these two men.  The first half ("he who loves wisdom makes his father glad") contains three characters:  "he," personified "wisdom," and "father."  If "companion" is the antecedent of "his" in the second half, there are only two entities there (although, admittedly, one is plural):  "companion"/"his" and "prostitutes."  The first man ("he who loves wisdom") maintains his familial relationships, but the second (the "companion of prostitutes") lacks them.

I lookt up this verse in languages that have distinct forms for "his" and "his own" (reflexive possessive) and discovered that both follow this second reading ("his own").

Norwegian:

En mann som elsker visdom, gleder sin far; men den som holder vennskap med skjøger, øder sitt gods.

Esperanto:

Homo, kiu amas saĝon, ĝojigas sian patron; sed kiu komunikiĝas kun malĉastulinoj, tiu disperdas sian havon.

I'm not sure to what degree (if any) all of this applies to the original Hebrew text, though, because it has no "his" in the second clause; it's just "a companion of prostitutes squanders wealth":

אִֽישׁ־אֹהֵב חָכְמָה יְשַׂמַּח אָבִיו וְרֹעֶה זוֹנוֹת יְאַבֶּד־הֽוֹן׃

Proverbs 28:19

A few months ago, I read Proverbs 28 in the ESV and noticed a small feature in verse 19:

Whoever works his land will have plenty of bread, but he who follows worthless pursuits will have plenty of poverty.

The words plenty and poverty alliterate and rhyme, and since these sounds recur, there's a sense of this great degree (although the phrase actually describes a lack).  Of the translations I referenced, this is unique to the ESV.

Matthew 13:30

When the Daily Dose of Greek went over Matthew 13:30 a few months ago, I noticed some significance in the structure.

The text I referenced from the STEP Bible (the Tyndale House Greek New Testament) is slightly different (μέχρι instead of ἕως):

ἄφετε συναυξάνεσθαι ἀμφότερα μέχρι τοῦ θερισμοῦ· καὶ ἐν καιρῷ τοῦ θερισμοῦ ἐρῶ τοῖς θερισταῖς· συλλέξατε πρῶτον τὰ ζιζάνια καὶ δήσατε αὐτὰ εἰς δεσμὰς πρὸς τὸ κατακαῦσαι αὐτά· τὸν δὲ σῖτον συναγάγετε εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην μου.

This is Jesus giving the dialogue of the master of the house in the Parable of the Weeds.  In the ESV, it's:

"'Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

The direct object follows the verb in the phrase συλλέξατε πρῶτον τὰ ζιζάνια, but it precedes the verb in the phrase τὸν δὲ σῖτον συναγάγετε, forming a sort of chiasm:

συλλέξατε ("gather")

τὰ ζιζάνια ("the weeds")

τὸν δὲ σῖτον ("but the wheat")

συναγάγετε ("gather")

Such a structure highlights the different values that the weeds and the wheat have for the master of the house.

This structure is also present in the Latin Vulgate:

sinite utraque crescere usque ad messem et in tempore messis dicam messoribus colligite primum zizania et alligate ea fasciculos ad conburendum triticum autem congregate in horreum meum

My German New Testament has this structure, too, but it translates the two verbs (συλλέξατε and συναγάγετε) as the same word ("sammelt"), like the ESV does with "gather."  That this element in the chiasm is exactly the same lends even more emphasis to the contrasting nature of the inner elements (the weeds and the wheat):

Laßt beides miteinander wachsen bis zur Ernte; und um die Erntezeit will ich zu den Schnittern sagen:  Sammelt zuerst das Unkraut und bindet es in Bündel, damit man es verbrenne; aber den Weizen sammelt mir in meine Scheune.

John 15:5

Months ago, I lookt up John 15 in order to confirm a similarity to verses 4-5 in a hymn text I was translating ("Du Lebensbrod, Herr Jesu" by Johann Rist).  Specifically, I referenced the NKJV, in which verse 5 appears as:

"I am the vine, you are the branches.  He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing."

The italics indicate a word that's supplied in the NKJV translation that's not in the Greek:

ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος, ὑμεῖς τὰ κλήματα. ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ, οὗτος φέρει καρπὸν πολύν· ὅτι χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν.

The verb is explicit in the first clause ("'I am the vine'"), but it's merely implied in the second ("'you [are] the branches'").  The same is true of the Latin Vulgate:

ego sum vitis vos palmites qui manet in me et ego in eo hic fert fructum multum quia sine me nihil potestis facere

By itself, "you the branches" is just a phrase.  Semantically, it can't stand by itself (formally speaking, at least).  The preceding "I am the vine" sets up an instance of ellipsis, indicating that the copulative verb is implied and that this is, in fact, a complete clause.  Grammatically, then, the second clause has a sort of dependence on the first to make its meaning clear, and this matches the broader idea behind the metaphor here ("'without Me you can do nothing'").

According to my Greek textbook (New Testament Greek for Laymen: An Introductory Grammar by Michael A. Merritt, which I got as a .pdf for free from the Daily Dose of Greek website), "Greek differs from English in that the verb εἰμί (to be) may be omitted from a sentence if it is understood from the context" (p. 54), so I'm not sure how applicable my comments are to the Greek (or to the Latin, which I think is comparable in this regard).

Luke 15:11-32

Luke 15:1-3, 11-32 (the Parable of the Prodigal Son) was the reading for the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service on 1 April:

I'm not sure if these are very significant, but I noticed some parallels between this parable and the account of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4.  The most obvious is that each story is about two brothers who have contrasting qualities.  Also in both, the elder brother becomes angry with the younger brother, who - in the older brother's view, at least - receives preferential treatment (Abel's sacrifices are accepted by God, but Cain's aren't; the prodigal son is honored by a party upon his return, but his older brother never received even a young goat), and each younger brother deals with livestock of a sort:  Abel kept sheep, and the prodigal son fed pigs.

Matthew 13:20

Back in March, I watched the Daily Dose of Greek video on Matthew 13:20:

ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη σπαρείς, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν λόγον ἀκούων καὶ εὐθὺς μετὰ χαρᾶς λαμβάνων αὐτόν.

In the ESV, this is:

"As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy"

In both my German and French translations of the New Testament, the pronoun referring to the word is drawn forward in the clause:

Bei dem aber auf felsigen Boden gesät ist, das ist, der das Wort hört und es gleich mit Freuden aufnimmt

Celui qui a reçu la semence dans les endroits pierreux, c'est celui qui entend la parole et la reçoit aussitôt avec joie

As far as I can tell, this placement is just because of the syntax of each of these languages, not a sort of inversion to create some emphasis, but to some degree, it does indicate the eagerness with which the word is received.

Proverbs 24:4

When I read Proverbs 24 in the ESV months ago, I noticed a small feature in verse 4:  "by knowledge the rooms are filled with all precious and pleasant riches."  The words precious and pleasant alliterate, and they have the same number of syllables (with the emphasis falling on the same syllable in each).  To some degree, the euphony of these features matches the meaning.

Matthew 13:16

Months ago, the Daily Dose of Greek went over Matthew 13:16:

Ὑμῶν δὲ μακάριοι οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ὅτι βλέπουσιν καὶ τὰ ὦτα ὑμῶν ὅτι ἀκούουσιν.

In the ESV, this is:

"But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear."

I've been following along in my French New Testament and noticed a feature specific to that translation:

Mais heureux sont vos yeux, parce qu'ils voient, et vos oreilles, parce qu'elles entendent!

"Heureux" ("blessed") and "yeux" ("eyes") rhyme, and this resemblance highlights the relationship between the two words:  that they're being equated in this copulative sentence and therefore, as subject and predicate nominatives, are in the same case.

Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34

The divine vocatives in Daniel 9:19 that I wrote about last week got me thinking about Matthew 27:46:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Mark 15:34 is a parallel verse:

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

I think it may be significant that "My God" is repeated here.  Of course, this is a quotation of Psalm 22:1, where אֵלִי appears twice, but in this context, where Jesus is experiencing a separation from God as part of the punishment for sin, it's almost as if each "My God" is directed to an-other Person in the Trinity:  one to God the Father and one to the Holy Spirit.  The verbs here are singular, though.

Daniel 9:19

A few months ago, I watched the Daily Dose of Hebrew video on Daniel 9:19:

אֲדֹנָי ׀ שְׁמָעָה אֲדֹנָי ׀ סְלָחָה אֲדֹנָי הַֽקֲשִׁיבָה וַעֲשֵׂה אַל־תְּאַחַר לְמַֽעֲנְךָ אֱלֹהַי כִּֽי־שִׁמְךָ נִקְרָא עַל־עִירְךָ וְעַל־עַמֶּֽךָ׃

In the ESV, this is:

"O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive.  O Lord, pay attention and act.  Delay not, for your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people are called by your name."

There are three vocatives referring to God in roughly the first half of the verse ("'O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive.  O Lord, pay attention and act.'"), and these are paralleled with a single vocative in the second half ("'Delay not, for your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people are called by your name.'").  To some degree, the placement of these vocatives indicates the Trinity:  three Persons but one God.

Ruth 2:4

Months ago, the Daily Dose of Aramaic went over Targum Ruth 2:4:

As I follow along in the series, I've been referencing the Vulgate, in which this verse is:

et ecce ipse veniebat de Bethleem dixitque messoribus Dominus vobiscum qui responderunt ei benedicat tibi Dominus

In the ESV, it's:

And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem.  And he said to the reapers, "The LORD be with you!"  And they answered, "The LORD bless you."

In the Vulgate, I found an-other instance of a feature I've noted a few other times.  As usual, the prepositional phrase "cum vobis" ("with you") is inverted and condensed into one word (vobiscum).  Because this immediately follows "Dominus," the words for "the LORD" and "you" are directly next to each other, lending a slightly greater sense of this accompaniment.

Psalm 1:2

Months ago, I watched the Worship Anew program for 16 February (Sixth Sunday after Epiphany).  The Psalm was Psalm 1, and in verse 2, I found the same sort of feature that I'd previously noticed in Psalm 145:5:  the object of the man's meditation comes first in the clause, and to some degree, this placement illustrates its importance for him:

But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.  [ESV]

This structure is also in the Hebrew:

כִּי אִם בְּתוֹרַת יְהוָה חֶפְצוֹ וּֽבְתוֹרָתוֹ יֶהְגֶּה יוֹמָם וָלָֽיְלָה׃

and the Latin Vulgate:

sed in lege Domini voluntas eius et in lege eius meditabitur die ac nocte

I'd previously noticed (but didn't think it significant enough to note on its own) that "day and night" is a temporal merism.

Luke 6:17

When I watched the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service from 18 February, I found the same feature that I'd noticed in the reading from Luke 5 the previous week.

The reading for this service was Luke 6:17-26.  I was following along in the Vulgate, where verse 17 is:

Et descendens cum illis stetit in loco campestri et turba discipulorum eius et multitudo copiosa plebis ab omni Iudaea et Hierusalem et maritimae Tyri et Sidonis

In the ESV, this is:

And he [Jesus] came down with them and stood on a level place, with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon

In the Latin, the phrase "multitudo copiosa" (translated as "a great multitude" in the ESV) is redundant (something like "an abundant multitude"), but this redundancy lends a greater sense of the large number of people.

Again like Luke 5:6, the phrase alliterates in Greek (πλῆθος πολὺ), and the repetition involved also suggests a great quantity.  Here's the full verse:

καὶ καταβὰς μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔστη ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ. καὶ ὄχλος πολὺς μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ πλῆθος πολὺ τοῦ λαοῦ ἀπὸ πάσης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ τῆς παραλίου Τύρου καὶ Σειδῶνος

John 12:6

Months ago, I watched the Daily Dose of Latin video on John 12:6:

dixit autem hoc non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum sed quia fur erat et loculos habens ea quae mittebantur portabat

In the ESV, this is:

He [Judas Iscariot] said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it.

Where the ESV has "not because he cared about the poor," the Latin has "non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum."  This is something like:  "not because about the destitute, it pertained to him."  The Greek text is comparable:

εἶπεν δὲ τοῦτο οὐχ ὅτι περὶ τῶν πτωχῶν ἔμελεν αὐτῷ, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι κλέπτης ἦν καὶ τὸ γλωσσόκομον ἔχων τὰ βαλλόμενα ἐβάσταζεν.

Like the Latin pertinēre, the Greek verb μέλω is impersonal.  I'm not sure if a native speaker of either of these languages would take it this way, but it seems to me that this sort of construction (where Judas isn't the subject of the verb) lends a greater sense of the distance between him and the poor.  Even grammatically, there's less of a relationship between them.

Ruth 1:21

A few months ago, I watched the two Daily Dose of Aramaic videos on Targum Ruth 1:21:

I was following in the Latin Vulgate and noticed a feature specific to that translation:

Egressa sum plena et vacuam reduxit me Dominus cur igitur vocatis me Noemi quam humiliavit Dominus et adflixit Omnipotens

In the ESV, this is:

"I went away full, and the LORD has brought me back empty.  Why call me Naomi, when the LORD has testified against me and the Almighty has brought calamity upon me?"

In the Vulgate, there's a chiasm that highlights the opposites "went away" and "brought back" ("egressa sum" and "reduxit") and "full" and "empty" ("plena" and "vacuam"):

Egressa sum

plena et

vacuam

reduxit me Dominus

Following this word order, an English translation of this section of the verse would be something like:  "I went away full, and empty brought me back the LORD."

Luke 5:6

A few months ago, I watched the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service from 11 February:

The reading was Luke 5:1-11, and while following along in the Vulgate, I noticed a small feature in verse 6:

et cum hoc fecissent concluserunt piscium multitudinem copiosam rumpebatur autem rete eorum

In the ESV, this is:

And when they had done this, they enclosed a large number of fish, and their nets were breaking.

The phrase "multitudinem copiosam" is redundant (something like "an abundant multitude"), but this redundancy does heighten the sense of this large amount.

This feature is also present in the Greek:

καὶ τοῦτο ποιήσαντες συνέκλεισαν πλῆθος ἰχθύων πολύ· διερρήσσετο δὲ τὰ δίκτυα αὐτῶν.

Additionally, the words πλῆθος (multitude) and πολύ (much) alliterate.  To a small degree, the repetition in this alliteration contributes to this sense of abundance even further.

Proverbs 15:9

When I read Proverbs 15:9 in the ESV a few months ago, I found yet an-other chiastic structure, although the elements are a bit more loosely equated:

The way of the wicked

Is an abomination to the LORD,

but he loves

him who pursues righteousness.

Like other chiasms I've found, this one highlights contrasts:  "the way of the wicked" with "him who pursues righteousness" and "an abomination to the LORD" with "he loves."

This structure is in the Hebrew, too, but in the opposite order:

תּוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה דֶּרֶךְ רָשָׁע וּמְרַדֵּף צְדָקָה יֶאֱהָֽב׃

It's more like "An abomination to the LORD is the way of the wicked, but him who pursues righteousness he loves."  The Latin Vulgate follows roughly the same word order:

abominatio est Domino

via impii

qui sequitur iustitiam

diligetur ab eo

2 Kings 2:12

A few months ago, I read 2 Kings 2 in the NIV, where Elijah is taken up to Heaven in a whirlwind after a chariot and horses of fire separate him from Elisha.  Elisha sees Elijah taken up and says (in verse 12), "My father!  My father!  The chariots and horsemen of Israel!"  I think it may be significant that Elisha says, "My father!" twice.  Before Elijah is taken, Elisha makes a request of him:  "Let me inherit a double portion of your spirit" (verse 9), and Elijah replies, "If you see me when I am taken from you, it will be yours" (verse 10).  Because Elisha's repeated "My father!" coincides with his seeing this event, it seems to indicate his inheriting this double portion as it occurs.  (Verse 15 makes it clear that Elisha does receive it:  "The company of the prophets from Jericho, who were watching, said, 'The spirit of Elijah is resting on Elisha.'")

Proverbs 14:35

A few months ago, I read Proverbs 14 in the ESV and noticed a loose chiastic structure in verse 35:

A servant who deals wisely

Has the king's favor,

But his wrath falls on

One who acts shamefully.

Such a structure highlights the opposite nature of how the two servants behave (wisely or shamefully) and of the king's disposition toward them (favor or wrath).

The NIV has a similar structure but in a different order:

A king delights in

A wise servant,

But a shameful servant

Incurs his wrath.

This structure isn't in the Hebrew, though, or in any of the other translations I referenced.

Hebrews 2:16

A couple months ago, I watched the Worship Anew program for 2 February (The Purification of Mary and Presentation of Our Lord).  The epistle reading was Hebrews 2:14-18, and I noticed verse 16 in particular:  "For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham."

There's a chiastic structure highlighting this difference:

It is not angels

that he helps,

but he helps

the offspring of Abraham.

Of the translations I referenced, this is unique to the ESV and my German New Testament, in which this verse is:

Denn er nimmt sich

nicht der Engel an,

sondern der Kinder Abrahams

nimmt er sich an.

Proverbs 12:20

A few months ago, I read Proverbs 12 and noticed a chiasm in verse 20, although it isn't as precise as others I've found.  In the ESV, it's:

Deceit is in the heart of

those who devise evil,

but those who plan peace

have joy.

In an inverted way, "deceit is in the heart of" almost parallels "have joy," and likewise, "those who devise evil" sort of parallels "those who plan peace."  The opposite order in the structure (deceit | devise evil || plan peace | joy) matches these differences.

This structure is also in the Hebrew:

מִרְמָה בְּלֶב־חֹרְשֵׁי רָע וּֽלְיֹעֲצֵי שָׁלוֹם שִׂמְחָֽה׃

and in the Latin Vulgate:

dolus in corde

cogitantium mala

qui autem ineunt pacis consilia

sequitur eos gaudium

Hebrews 13:8

A few months ago, I read Hebrews 13:8 in my German/English catechism (cited under "Who is Jesus Christ?" in the explanation to the second article of the creed) and noticed that there's no explicit verb in the German translation:

Jesus Christus, gestern und heute und derselbe auch in Ewigkeit.

It's something like:  "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and today and also in eternity."

The Greek text also has no verb:

Ἰησοῦς χριστὸς ἐχθὲς καὶ σήμερον ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.

Likewise the Latin Vulgate:

Iesus Christus heri et hodie ipse et in saecula

I think it may be significant that a form of "to be" is merely implied here.  All tenses equally apply (Jesus was, is, and will be the same, as the different time elements in the verse indicate), so it's almost as if any one form would be too temporally specific.

Proverbs 9:11

A few months ago, I read Proverbs 9 in the ESV, and I noticed that a slight difference in the parallelism of verse 11 illustrates the meaning of the verse.

For by me your days will be multiplied, and years will be added to your life.

"Days will be multiplied" and "years will be added" are parallel expressions, but because the scale of the measurements increases ("days" to "years"), there's a picture of this expansion.

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...."

1 Kings 17:8-16

On Worship Anew a couple months ago (10 November, Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Pentecost), the Old Testament reading was 1 Kings 17:8-16, and I noticed a way in which the vocabulary sort of mirrors the meaning of the text.

Initially, the widow at Zarephath has "only a handful of flour in a jar and a little oil in a jug.  And now I am gathering a couple of sticks that I may go in and prepare it for myself and my son, that we may eat it and die."  Elijah asks her for some food and tells her "thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'The jar of flour shall not be spent, and the jug of oil shall not be empty, until the day that the LORD sends rain upon the earth.'"  By the providence of God, "she and he and her household ate for many days."

"Her household" (בֵיתָהּ) here is really just her son, but the multitude of people that this term could imply matches the abundance of the provisions that don't run out.