(David A. DeSilva) X Marks The Spot - A Critique of The Use of Chiasmus in Macro-Structural Analyses (Artículo) PDF

JSNT 303 (2008) 343-371 Copyright © 2008 SAGE Publications,
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore http://JSNT.sagepub.com

DOI: 10.1177/0142064X07088407
ÏHrï
JiwnájorthtStudyofÚieNewTestament
X Marks the Spot?

A Critique of the Use of Chiasmus in Macro-Structural
Analyses of Revelation*
David A. deSilva
Ashland Theological Seminary, 910 Center Street, Ashland, OH 44805, USA
ddesilva@ashland.edu
Abstract
The role of chiasmus as a structuring device in ancient literature continues to be
a much-debated facet of literary and rhetorical analysis, with often overly-
exuberant discovery of complex chiasmi spanning whole books running far
ahead of the methodological substructure needed to sustain a convincing demon-
stration of the same. This article analyses three recent attempts to propose a
chiastic macro-structural analysis of Revelation andfindsthem to present fine
examples of three recurring problems in the quest for the elusive chiasmus: (1)
developing chiastic outlines by means of selective shaping of summary state-
ments for major blocks of text; (2) discovering a chiasmus by means of selective
reading of key terms; and (3) creation of a chiasmus by means of manipulation
of formal markers. The article is offered in the hope that future proposals will
take the methodological cautions proposed by critics of chiasmus to heart, as
well as the standard rules of critical thinking (e.g., seeking for better alternative
structuring devices alongside the quest for the hidden chiasmus).
Key Words
Chiasmus, structure, outline, book of Revelation, Apocalypse of John
There is a segment of scholarship that exhibits a penchant for hunting for,

and celebrating the uncovering of, a previously hidden chiastic outline as
if it were buried treasure. However, the results of this quest have time and
* Researching and writing this paper was greatly facilitated by the support of the
Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and by the hospitality of both Professor Dr
Martin Hengel (emer.) and Professor Dr Hermann Lichtenberger of the Evangelisch-
Theologische Fakultät of the University of Tübingen, as well as the hospitality of Dr
Scott Caulley of the Institute for the Study of Christian Origins in the same city,
which I gratefully acknowledge.
344 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 30.3 (2008)
again exhibited the dangers of preferring form to content, ingenuity to

exegesis, misreading and misrepresenting biblical texts for the sake of
establishing the presence of a (debatable) literary device. This, in turn,
detracts from sound exegesis—or, at least, ¿fotracts usfromthe same.1
Scholars who have assumed 'chiasmus' to provide a potentially reliable
map to any textual territory have too often seen what is not present in the
text, failed to notice what is present in the text, and offered a structural
lens that threatens to blur others' ability to read the text accurately. In
this article, I will subject proposals for chiasmus in Revelation by John
Welch, Kenneth Strand and William Shea to close critical scrutiny, with
the specific goal of raising questions about these particular proposals,2
but also with the larger goal of recommending certain methodological
restraints—guard rails, if you will—that will help us be more confident of
the chiasmi wefind,and less confident that we willfinda chiasmus.
1. Chiasmus in Ancient and Recent Discussion

An initial impediment to the study of chiasmus in the (Greek) texts of the
New Testament is the relative paucity of discussion of chiasmus as a
literary device or rhetorical ornament in Greek and Latin literature by
authors who are self-consciously reflective about compositional practices
in their milieu (e.g., the many rhetorical handbooks, Aristotle's Poetics,
1. The potential of chiastic structure for informing (or deforming) exegesis is left
largely unexplored in the three principal studies considered here, which remain more
focused on the formal elements than the interpretation of the text. Ian H. Thomson,
however, a Pauline scholar, offers a stunning variety of functions that chiasmi can
serve, and thus the significance for interpretation that discovery of a genuine chiasmus
might offer. A chiasmus can decorate, serve as a mnemonic device or serve as a struc-
turing device, especially in regard to setting off one block of text from another
(Thomson 1995: 34-38). A chiasmus invites a number of interpretative questions in
regard to the thought or argument of the passage it adorns, calling for examination of
the relationship between corresponding elements in the chiasmus, the role of the
center (main point? turning point? summary point?), the shape or movement of the
argument within the chiasmus, and the role of the chiasmus in the wider argument
(Thomson 1995: 38-44).
2. The rationale for focusing on these authors includes the prominent inclusion of
Shea and Strand in recent bibliographies on rhetorical criticism of Revelation (Watson
2006:180-82; Witherington 2003:53-54) and the critical attention given to Welch on
other grounds in Porter and Reed 1998, as well as the fact that these works illustrate
rather well—and extensively—the fundamental fallacies that recur in other proposals
for a macro-chiastic outline of Revelation (to which we will turn briefly in a later
section).
DESILVA XMarL· the Spot? 345
Horace's Ars Poetica, and the like).3 George A. Kennedy (1984:28) finds
the first use of the word 'chiasmus' as a technical rhetorical term in
(Pseudo-) Hermogenes, On Invention 4.3.2, a text from the late second
century CE.4 The term is used in reference to 'the crosswise interchange
of the clauses in a four-clause sentence', thus as a structural ornament in
a very limited stretch of text.5 Commutatio is a related figure, 'a contrast
built upon the crosswise repetition of two word-stems with change of
word order and, for example, case ' (Thomson 1995:14 n. 8). This is by far
the most common kind of chiastic device in Greek and Latin literature.6 It
is also the least disputable, since the lexical terms in the text itself, often
in the space of no more than two clauses, clearly exhibit the pattern. The
necessary conclusion from the foregoing evidence is that, as Thomson
(1995: 14) and Porter and Reed (1998: 216-18) rightly point out, no one
in the ancient world talks about chiasmus as a macro-structural device,
3. The macro-chiasmus, perhaps as a result of this silence, has been promoted as a

Semitic literary device. This is the intent of Nils Lund (1942:30-136), whose exten-
sive prologue to Chiasmus in the New Testament strives to demonstrate the presence
of chiasmus throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Argumentsfrominductive proof for
this claim abound and are, at the end of the day, all that one can offer since there is
no Hebrew equivalent of Aristotle's Art of Rhetoric or Demetrius's On Style. While it
is not the goal of this article to argue that chiasmi beyond the four- to six-line variety
do not exist, nor that this Semitic pattern fails to occur also in the writings of the
authors of the New Testament, it is the goal to impress upon analysts disposed to
search for macro-chiasmi that they need to be morerigorousin their demonstrations
of chiastic structure, employing more objective criteria and actively seeking out alter-
natives to their own conclusions as a means of testing the same.
4. Porter and Reed (1998: 217) suggest, however, that this text may originate as
late as the fourth century CE.
5. Thomson 1995:14. The work that launched the modern interest in chiasmus in
the New Testament was undoubtedly Lund 1942. Tellingly, in his 'preliminary survey'
he mentions no ancient theorists, orators or literary critics discussing chiasmus as a
stylistic or structuring device. Instead, he presents numerous examples of what he
recognizes to be chiasmi—usually of reasonable length (i.e., not entire works)—
hoping thereby to establish the form inductively. The four-line and six-line chiasmi
he identifies are not objectionable. There is a lexical basis for each of them, which
would present the hearer with a clear 'signal' of structure. Hermogenes, for example,
would likely hear and appreciate chiasmus at this level.
6. See the statistical counts in Steele 1890:61. John W. Welch (1981:259) quotes
these statistics in favor of his case for the widespread use of chiasmus in Greek and
Latin literature, but (mis)applies this statistical evidence for a particular kind of
chiasmus (the 'criss-cross arrangement of words' in two consecutive phrases in Latin
or Greek) to all manner of chiasmi, including the larger, 'thematic' chiasmi that so
many others delight in finding/inventing.
346 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30.3 (2008)
though they do talk about letter forms, speech forms, dramatic forms, and
so forth.7
Another term that does appear in the literature, and that is related to the
chiasmus, is hysteron proteron, the technique of taking up the last point
or question first and the first point or question last. Aristarchus (Oxy.
Pap. 1086), a scholiast dating from the first century BCE (and thus a
valuable witness to contemporary practice and, more importantly, con-
sciousness of the practice), observes the use of hysteron proteron in
Odysseus's questions to his mother's shade in the underworld and her
answers, which take up the questions in reverse order (Homer, Od.
11.170ff.).8 We should note, however, that this is not all that extended an
example (it is not, say, an entire book of the Odyssey). We should also
note the close, clearly intentional and unmistakable relationship between
the component parts: everything in the second half of this 'chiastic' pas-
sage relates to its counterpart in thefirsthalf as answer relates to specific
question. If biblical scholars limited their conversations to chiasmi whose
components were this closely and unmistakably linked, there would be no
debate over their validity. Cicero also shows himself aware of the figure's
use in Homer (Letters to Atticus 1.16.1) and uses it as a precedent to
answer Atticus's two questions in reverse order (Welch 1981:253). Here
again we are dealing with questions and answers. There can be no
question here about the thematic correspondence between the members of
the hysteron proteron in either text; it is direct and explicit.
An important distinction is drawn between chiasmus, which traditionally
depends on lexis, the inversion of particular words visible on the surface
of the text, and hysteron proteron, which traditionally can extend beyond
lexis to topics. This is true to a limited extent in the examples cited from
7. Given the abundance of texts in which authors provide reflection on the literary,
stylistic and rhetorical devices they observe in what they read or would prescribe for
those who would write 'successful' literature or persuasive speeches, the absence of
any discussion of chiasmus as a structuring device remains an argument against its
importance, even its existence. Porter and Reed (1998:222) are therefore correct to
conclude, against the claim of Luter and Lee ( 1995:101 ) that ' it is no more inherently
unlikely that Paul would have chosen to shape his correspondence with the Philippian
church as a grand chiasm than by some other literary strategy current in that society',
that it is, in fact, 'more inherently unlikely'. The playing field is simply not 'even', in
light of ancient literary and rhetorical criticism, between a chiastic outline on the one
hand and, say, a tragic plot outline or deliberative speech or epistolary outline on the
other. Chiasmus is 'a modern critical category' (Porter and Reed 1998: 218), not an
ancient one.
8. Both Welch (1981: 253-54) and Thomson (1995: 16-17) cite this example.
DESILVA X Marks the Spot? 347
Cicero and Homer, where questions and answers are related more by
topic than by lexemes (although the latter are still present to lend sup-
porting evidence). The more enthusiastic discoverers and promoters of
macro-chiasmus have, in my opinion, often sorely abused the scope of the
latter. It is quite a questionable leap from Odysseus's dialogue with his
mother to the discoveries of extended 'thematic' chiasmi based on sum-
mary headings alleged to capture an author's thought or themes.
In an important monograph, Ian H. Thomson, deeply interested in the
chiasmus as a structuring device with exegetical significance, seeks to
establish the presence of chiasmi of intermediate length in the Pauline
corpus. He is, however, keenly aware that 'the debate about chiasmus has
been polarized between the incautious enthusiasm of its exponents and
the legitimate scepticism of their critics who, in their negative reactions,
may have failed to see the possibilities that might flow from such study'
(Thomson 1995:45). Thomson therefore sets for himself certain methodo-
logical restraints as he set about his quest for chiasmi that would stand up
to the scrutiny of the skeptics.9
First, he seeks to anchor the components of chiasmus as much as possible
in the actual vocabulary and syntax of the text: 'as a general rule, the
greater the number of objective balances of vocabulary and syntax in
potentially corresponding elements, the more likely there is to be an
authentic chiasmus present' (Thomson 1995:33). It is this lexical founda-
tion that makes 'micro-chiasmi' more credible. The absence of this
foundation in many macro-chiasmi—where selective, subjective summary
statements about the text replace, sometimes rewrite, the text—has con-
tributed greatly to the air of skepticism noted by Thomson, and therefore
he calls for greater attention to such objective controls among those who
promote macro-chiastic outlines.
Second, he seeks to avoid what he calls 'chiasmus by headings', viz.,
sectional summary statements, which 'can create what may be no more
than an illusion of chiastic balancing' (Thomson 1995: 30). He finds the
chief problem with this all-too-common procedure for mapping out larger
chiasmi to be that, 'by definition, they must be both theologically and
9. His own analyses, especially those of Gal. 5.13-6.2 and Rom. 5.12-21, are
quite convincing (these rely the most strongly on lexical indicators that reinforce
thematic indicators). Although Porter and Reed (1998: 220-21) take issue with
Thomson's own criteria (in particular, Thomson's use of the adverbs 'frequently',
'sometimes', 'occasionally', 'normally' and 'often', which are telling of the lack of
rigor and precision inherent in the whole enterprise), they affirm the validity of the
strategies he excludes.
interpretatively selective. The key question is how well the chosen heading
reflects the author's focus of interest rather than the commentator's'
(Thomson 1995: 30-31). This problematic procedure, however, appears
to be the modus operandi by which many macro-chiasmi are 'discovered'
in a text.
Third, Thomsonfinds'the selective use of a commonly occurring word
in a passage to produce a chiasmus' to be 'a questionable procedure'.10
For example, when two occurrences of a particular word are selected from
five or six occurrences in the larger paragraph or paragraphs covered by
the alleged chiasmus, and when these two are singled out and highlighted
as part of a chiasmus, how do we know that this one and not that one should
be highlighted, if any at all? On what basis have certain occurrences been
selected and others passed over, other than the convenience of the former
for making a chiasmus 'work'? 'Closely related to this is the situation
where some parallels are highlighted and others are ignored, making the
whole exercise appear suspiciously subjective' (Thomson 1995: 31).
We will keep these three methodological considerations in mind
(resisting the urge to take them up in reverse order), then, as we turn to
examine three particular proposals for chiasmi in Revelation.
2. Chiasmus by Selective Summary

John W. Welch offers a macro-chiastic outline for the book of Revelation,
to a large extent derived from Nils Lund (down to the point of some of
the sectional summaries),11 that exhibits the danger of the intervening step
of 'thematic ' or ' sectional summary' when seeking to discover a chiasmus.
10. Thomson 1995:31. Thomson cites Lund's highlighting of'wives' in Eph. 5.22
and 'wife' in Eph. 5.33, presenting them as parallel terms in a chiastic analysis of
Eph. 5.22-33 (Lund 1942:198-99), when 'wife' appears also in 5.23,24,25,28, and
31 as an example of this problem of subjective selectivity.
11. See Lund 1942:325-26. Lund appears to be thefirstto allege a chiastic arrange-
ment for the entire book of Revelation, though the chiasmus only works hypothetically
due to numerous proleptic 'projections' that appear earlier than they should (i.e., in
order to present a perfect chiasmus) due to the author's desire to anticipate future
actions and the like. A structuring device waiting nineteen centuries to be discovered
(and itself obscured by John's 'projections') is indeed the sign of a shrewd thinker,
though I suspect that thinker is Lund rather than John. When it comes to shorter pas-
sages, however, where Lund actually relies on lexical signals of possible chiasmus,
his conclusions rest on more secure grounds than subjective perception and at some
points actually achieve elegance. The diagram is reproduced from Welch 1981:244-
45. Welch's decision not to cite Lund himself here is puzzling.
A Prologue (1.1-20)
a John and the Angel (1.1-3)
b The coming Jesus (1.4-8)
c John's commission to the Churches (1.9-20)
Β The Seven Letters (2.1-3.22)

Promises to the Church as it exists in the World
C The Seven Seals Opened in Heaven (4.1-7.17)

χ Christ praised around the throne as the only one strong enough to
break the seals (4.1-5.14)
y The Judgment commences: The opening of the seals (6.1-17)
χ Christ praised around the throne by the 144,000 as the only one
through whom there is salvation (7.1-17)
[D, E, and D' are excised for the sake of space; the discussion below will
focus on the A, B, C's]
C The Seven Angels Survey the Judgment on Earth (17.1-20.10)

y The fall of Babylon and the kings of the earth (17.1-18.24)
χ Christ praised by the multitude as the King of Kings (19.1-16)
y The fall of Satan and the kings of the earth (19.17-20.10)
B' The New Jerusalem (20.11-22.5)

Fulfillment of the Promises made to the Church as it will exist in Heaven
A' Epilogue (22.6-21)

a John and the Angel (22.6-9)
b The coming Jesus (22.10-15)
c John's commission to the Churches (22.16-21)
Welch (1981:245) follows up this outline with nothing less than an altar
call to faith in the chiasmus: 'Surely it would be difficult to disregard the
extensive and intricate chiastic structure of this book'.
It is immediately apparent, however, that the persuasive force of this
alleged chiasmus rests in the summary statements and their correspond
ence, which have been formulated so as to give the impression of close
correspondence between the various counterparts within the chiasmus.
Notably, these headings are crafted with attention to using as many com
mon lexemes and syntactical constructions between them as possible—
the very things that, if they were actually observed in the text, would give
a chiasmus that objectivity and reliability for which Thomson had called.
When we recall Thomson's 'key question' in regard to such a 'chiasmus
by headings', and ask 'how well the chosen heading reflects the author 's
focus of interest rather than the commentator V (Thomson 1995:30-31),
we must refuse his altar call and sit back down among the ranks of the
'almost persuaded'.
Let us begin by looking more closely at the C and corresponding C
sections, focusing on the inverse x-y-x and y-x-y blocks. Here, the problem
of summary statements replacing the text rather than representing the
text in this chiastic scheme is at its most acute. The summary statements
confidently describe these sections as alternations of sections where the
dominant theme is the praise of Christ with sections where the dominant
theme is judgment and downfall of those who have opposed Christ.
The 'y ' summaries are fairly apropos, suggesting that a section heading
does not have to be misleading. The same cannot be said of any of the 'x'
sections. In Cx(l), the summary statement effectively eliminates the
entirety of ch. 4fromview. In Cx(2), the summary statement represents
the action of 7.9-10 (assuming the 'great multitude' to be identical with
the 144,000), but obscures the remainder of ch. 7. Problematic in both
summary statements is the fact that, in the texts that they purport to repre
sent, God alone is morefrequentlythe explicated object of praise and,
where the Lamb (Christ) is the object of praise, it is more often in explicit
conjunction with God (the Lamb is the sole focus of acclamation only in
5.9-10,12). John's own theocentric perspective is eliminated in favor of
the Christocentric perspective expressed in the headings.
When we arrive at C'x, the distance between the 'summary' heading
('Christ praised by the multitude as the King of Kings [19.1-16] ') and the
actual content of the passage it purports to represent is even more glaring.
In Rev. 19.1-16, not a word is spoken in praise of Christ. He {qua 'Lamb')
is mentioned in passing only in the last section of acclamation, and then
not as an object of praise but as a genitive of description: 'the wedding of
the Lamb came' (19.7). All praise in 19.1-6 is directed toward'our God',
the 'God seated upon the throne', the 'Lord God Almighty' who has now
exercised kingly rule. No textual variant bears witness to a single scribe
who was so bold as to redirect even a part of this praise toward the Lamb,
as the summary heading does with all of it in a single stroke. When Christ
takes center stage (only in 19.11-16), he acts powerfully, but without
acclamation. In sum, the C and C sections display an elegant chiastic
structure, each section further containing reciprocal components that in
reality exist only in the summary headings, and not in the text.
Moving outward into the Β and B' sections, we find the seven oracles
paired in this chiastic outline with the vision of the Last Judgment and
the New Jerusalem. The summary headings 'help' us overlook some
obvious problems, namely, the attempt to pair as components within a

chiasmus two sections that are formally quite dissimilar (seven discrete
oracles to seven communities, versus a fairly well-unified, expansive vision
of a city), and that share very little in the way of vocabulary, forms and
thematic content. The summary headings are able to bring what little is
shared into the spotlight, while sending the other elements off into the
wings: the seven oracles are represented by the phrase 'Promises to the
Church as it exists in the World', while the vision of the New Jerusalem
is represented by the very similar phrase 'Fulfillment of the Promises
made to the Church as it will exist in Heaven'.
These headings have the benefit of foregrounding a universally recog-
nized aspect of the seven oracles: the content of (the majority of) the pro-
mises Christ makes to the seven churches appears again in the broader
denouement of John's vision, several indeed within the vision of the New
Jerusalem and its immediate prelude (20.11-22.5). But even in regard to
the extremely limited content of the promises within the seven oracles
(contained within nine verses out of the whole two chapters), the headings
are misleading in their suggestion that their fulfillment is found in 20.11-
22.5. The hidden manna and white stone with a new name for the individual
recipient (2.17) never appear again in Revelation. Receiving the morning
star (2.28) appears again only within the epilogue (22.16). Going about
clothed in white (3.5) is picked up again in a different scene of fulfillment
(7.9, 13-14). Becoming a pillar in the Temple of God (3.12a) is
emphatically not fulfilled in New Jerusalem, where there is no Temple
(3.12b is, however, picked up in 21.1-22.5). And the closest we come to
sitting with Christ on his throne, as Christ sits with God on God's throne
(3.21 ), is the millennial reign ofthe saints in 20.4-6, also outside the section
in question.12
But granting, nonetheless, that the oracles to the seven churches resonate
with the portrayal of the life of New Jerusalem at several points, what are
we not looking at here in order to focus merely on that portion that supports
a chiastic outline? We are not looking at the equally impressive lexical
connections between the Christophany in 1.9-20 and Jesus' self-
12. It should also be noted that escaping 'the second death' is most forcefully
presented again in regard to 20.6 (in one the seven makarisms, no less); the phrase
does not only link the promise in the oracle to Smyrna to 20.11-22.5, where it appears
in 20.14 and 21.8, both times in regard to the unsaved rather than those who received
the promise (making this facet another example of the selective choice of which
occurrences of the same phrase will be used to make a chiasmus work).
designations throughout these oracles.13 We are not looking at ways in

which the individual oracles resonate with the main body of visions,
where some other stunning lexical and conceptual connections appear
(e.g., the vision of Babylon and the letters to Thyatira and Laodicea).14
We are not looking at other préfigurations of the New Jerusalem vision,
for example, the state of the white-robed army that came outfrom'great
tribulation' in 7.13-17 or the announcement of the marriage of the Lamb
in 19.7-9. Most importantly, we are not looking at what has been long
recognized as an important diptych within the flow of Revelation, the
contrast between Babylon and New Jerusalem.
In sum, commitment to discovering a chiasmus here has led to the
highly selective summarization of 2.1-3.22 as a section of'promises' and
an equally dubious designation of 20.11-22.5 as the block of text where
these promises are displayed as fulfilled. The section headings obscure
the textual data for the sake of facilitating the display of, and winning
assent to, a proposed chiasmus.
To complete my critique, we turn to the A and A' sections. Because of
the general tendency in ancient texts (particular those influenced by
Greco-Roman rhetorical and compositional models, where beginnings
sound the key notes of works, and endings are resumptive) to reprise key
words and phrases at the end that werefirstuttered in the beginning, we
should not be surprised tofindclose correspondences between the 'pro-
logue' and 'epilogue' of Revelation. Such correspondences would not, by
themselves, signal a chiastic arrangement for the whole, but reflect rather
a more widespread 'framing' technique.
As expected, we find such resumption in 22.6-21 of material sounded
in 1.1-20, especially 1.1-8. What I would question here is the claim that
the material in the prologue and epilogue further displays an abc...abc
parallelism between these two sections. Welch inherits this 'abc' scheme
and its accompanying summary headings verbatimfromNils Lund. Once
again, it is easy to see how the content has been all too selectively sum-
marized in order to enhance the impression (or illusion) of parallelism.
13. Though Welch does attempt to promote a smaller-scale chiasmus between 1.13
and 2.18—here, though, the decision to end a chiasmus in what is clearly the middle
of a section (he stops at the fourth of the seven oracles to the churches, a block of text
that could not be more clearly defined as a literary unit), while crossing between two
clearly differentiated sections (rather than remaining within a single rhetorical unit or
encompassing several complete rhetorical units) raises the question of artificiality
(see, on this point, Thomson 1995: 29-30).
14. On these connections, in particular, see Duff 2001.
The fact that John and an angel are both mentioned in 1.1-3 hardly
justifies representing the section as 'John and the angel'. The more salient
features of that opening paragraph would be the larger 'chain of
revelation' by which John's words can be traced to God and the makarism
that begins a series of seven running throughout the book. The latter half
ofRev. 22.6-9 is more adequately summarized by the heading. It is interest-
ing here, however, that the verses that the heading best reflects (22.8-9)
are actually the part that has the least resonance with 1.1-3. It is the refer-
ence to the chain of revelation (1.1-2//22.6), coupled with a makarism
very closely related to thefirstin vocabulary and content (1.3//22.7), that
effects the resumption. The second half, where we do in fact see John
interacting with an angel, unmistakably recalls 19.9-10 with the longest
string of verbatim repetition within John's Apocalypse. Here is a case of
the chiastic outline and its peculiar summary headings masking a much
more obvious structural link.15 While, then, both John and an angel are
mentioned in 1.1 -3 and 22.6-9, each block is being summarized in such a
way as to force similarity so as to be able to designate them as parallel
elements.
Similar critiques could be lodged against the other headings here. What
is of greater importance, however, is how the headings that Welch has
inherited and adoptedfromLund override his own reading of, and better
observations upon, the text. To his credit, Welch (1981: 245) seeks to
substantiate this chiastic outline with a discussion of shared lexical motifs
between the larger counterparts. He discovers verbal links between 1.1
and 22.16, betweenl.3 and 22.17-19, 1.8, and between 22.13, 1.10, 17
and 22.8-9, and concludes that 'these refrains are surely distinct enough
to constitute strong evidence of an inclusio formed by the material
contained in thefirstand last chapters of his book' (which we have already
observed to be common enough in the period). However, he does not
notice how these same correspondences vitiate the attempt to maintain
the abc... abc pattern (most notably the correspondence between 1.10,17
and 22.8-9, and the inverse relationship between 1.3 and 22.18-19).16
The presentation of the structure of the opening and closing has been
overly formalized, and this largely on the basis of formulating summary
statements calculated more to create the visual parallelism than to reflect
the complexities of the lexical and thematic resonances of the text itself.
15. See the excellent discussion in Longenecker 2001.

16. Although, again, the quest to support the chiasmus has prevented him also from
exploring other resonances and 'refrains' throughout the work that might suggest
alternative patterns of overall structuring.
The persuasive power of the visual arrangement of the chiasm, with its
display of the alleged parallel themes encapsulated in the summary state
ments (in this case, inheritedfromNilsLund), prevents the analyst himself
from drawing the proper conclusionsfromhis own observations based on
the text.
3. Chiasmus by Selective Reading of Key Terms

Kenneth Strand ( 1978) attempts to bolster the case for his overall chiastic
structural outline of Revelation (developed more fully in Strand 1976),
with its identification of the chapter break between Rev. 14 and 15 as the
maj or turning point in the book, by arguing for the presence of a secondary
chiasmus (in this case, the term hysteronproteron might indeed be more
accurate, as the [alleged] exact series is taken up in reverse order) formed
by appearances of the members of Satan's party.17 In particular, Strand
claims, the members of this party are introduced in a particular order, and
then judged in the reverse order.18
The Evil Hierarchy Introduced and Judged (only thefirstverse of multi-verse

references is given)
A Dragon (12.3)
Β Sea-Beast (13.1)
C Earth-Beast = False Prophet (13.11)
D Babylon (14.8)
E Beast-Worshipers (14.9)
E' Beast-Worshipers (16.2)

D'Babylon (16.19)
C Earth-Beast = False Prophet (19.20)
B'Sea-Beast (19.20)
A' Dragon (20.2)
While this diagram has a certain elegance and initially persuasive appeal,
the devil (or, in this case, the dragon) is, as always, in the details. In this
instance in particular, we need to ask what details ofthe actual text ofRev
elation are being overlooked or misrepresented in this visual presentation.
17. For the full case for the chiastic outline for the whole book, Strand refers
readers to his Interpreting the Book of Revelation (Strand 1976:43-52). Other chiastic
outlines of Revelation center on ch. 12 (Welch 1981: 244), chs. 11-12 (Lund 1942:
326) and 10.1-15.4 (Schüssler Fiorenza 1991: 35).
18. The following diagram is reproducedfromStrand 1978: 403.
First, there is a problem with the visual representation of the appearance

of the 'Beast-Worshipers', who here occupy the central place of the
chiasmus. They are not, in fact, introduced in Rev. 14.9 and judged in
Rev. 16.2. They are introduced much earlier, in Rev 13.8, before the Earth-
Beast (C): 'And all the inhabitants of the earth worshiped him, [all those]
whose names do not stand written in the Book of Life of the lamb slain
from the foundation ofthe cosmos. ' John could not have provided a clearer
'introduction' for the body of people that we might label 'beast-wor-
shipers' than this, and yet it is de-selected, even suppressed, in the diagram
above for the sake offindingthis chiasmus. If one were to have innocently
overlooked this introduction, however, John provided another in 13.12,
this time prior to the introduction of Babylon (D): 'He [the earth-beast]
makes the earth and the one dwelling in it to worship thefirstbeast. ' We
recall here the words ofThomson( 1995:31): 'The selective use of a com-
monly occurring word in a passage to produce a chiasmus is often a
questionable procedure' that ends up making 'the whole exercise appear
suspiciously subjective'. What guides Strand to foreground the appearance
of these beast-worshipers in Rev. 14.9, and to hide their appearance in
13.8,12, except the convenience of highlighting their appearance in 14.9
for the sake of the chiasmus?
Also problematic for this alleged 'introduction' of the 'beast-wor-
shipers' in 14.9, with the corresponding 'judgment' upon them in 16.2, is
the fact that the circumstances in which the beast-worshipersfindthem-
selves in 14.9 is far more grievous and long-lasting than the situation
envisioned in 16.2. In fact, then, the beast-worshipers are introduced in
13.8 and judged (at least, sentenced) in 14.9.19 Babylon likewise is 'intro-
duced' as already 'judged' in 14.8, so the major premise of this diagram—
the hinge of the chiasmus marking the transition from introduction to
judgment—is doubly vitiated.
On to the beasts. If Strand takes 16.2 as the point at which it is significant
to talk about the beast-worshipers being judged (i.e., the first explicit
mention of them in the series of seven bowls, or the 'eschatological
series'), it is difficult to see why he would pass over the reference to a
bowl being emptied out 'over the throne of the beast' in 16.10 as the
significant point at which to mark the judgment of the sea-beast. Perhaps
one could argue that the beast was 'out' at the time, but it seems more
19. It could be argued here, however, that the judgment is only threatened in 14.9-
11, although it is indeed portrayed quite vividly, even as happening before our eyes in
the use of the present tense verbs in 14.11. Even so, it is emphatically not their
introduction.
likely that we should hear the mention of 'the throne of the beast' to
indicate also the sea-beast himself by metonymy (as when we hear a
'voice from the throne' in the heavenly sphere we do not imagine it
unoccupied). If, however, the suffering of the plague of darkness is not
deemed a significant enough judgment to merit such attention (and, com-
pared to the lake offirein 19.20, it is surely not), then neither should the
plague of boils be deemed the significant point at which to mark the
judgment of the beast-worshipers.
The decisive act ofjudgment visited upon the sea-beast and earth-beast
occurs in 19.20. Strand (1978: 403) correctly notes that they are treated
together here: 'they are taken together and thrown into the lake of fire
together'. When he separates them out, however, for the sake of his
chiasmus—'because they are introduced separately in chap. 13' (Strand
1978: 403)—he fills out his chiasmus in the opposite order in which the
text actually mentions the pair! John writes: 'And the beast was seized,
and the false prophet who works the signs before him' (19.20). Strand,
however, presents the 'false prophet' (not actually mentioned here as the
'earth-beast') as C and the 'beast' as B', as if the false prophet was named
ahead of the beast in 19.20. To represent the text accurately, B' would
have to appear in his diagram ahead of C (vitiating the chiasmus), but
this does not happen because, when all is said and done, it is the discovery
of a chiasmus that is the driving force here, not the text of Revelation.
This last error would fall under the category of rearranging the text, how-
ever subtly, in order to create the chiasmus.20
Strand concludes his article by pointing out the relationship between
the various component passages of his proposed overall chiastic structure
20. As a corollary to this deconstruction of his proposed chiasmus, it should be

noted that a fair amount of evidence is now removed from the overall proposition of
the article, namely that the major turning point of Revelation falls between chs. 14
and 15, rather than somewhere closer to chs. 10-12 (as in virtually every commentary
on the subject). Indeed, in light of criticisms of all attempts to discover a macro-
chiastic structure to the whole book, it becomes questionable whether or not we should
seek a 'turn' at all.
Richard Bauckham (1993: 20) fares better with his proposed chiasmus (again,
perhaps better, hysteron proteron) for the introduction and destruction of the forces
of evil: Introduced: Death and Hades, 6.8; Dragon, ch. 12; Beast and False Prophet,
ch. 13; Babylon, ch. 17; Destroyed: Babylon, ch. 18; Beast and False Prophet, 19.20;
Dragon, 20.1-10; Death and Hades, 20.14. He bravely admits that this overlooks
certain occurrences of these figures, which he describes as anticipatory, namely the
appearance of the Beast in 11.7 and the brief mentions of Babylon in 14.8 and 16.19,
though neither of the latter two would disturb his schema.
(for which the above-deconstructed chiasmus was offered merely as

additional evidence), for example, the thematic parallels between the
'Throne Room/Seven-Seals section in 4.1-8.Γ and the section 19.1-21.4.
He does not explicate what bearing noting these 'thematic parallels'
should have upon interpretation in any way, though one might assume
that the counterparts would be mutually informative in some way. What
ever conclusions one might be left to draw, the chiastic arrangement is
seen here to obscure other equally cogent—as well as more obvious—
thematic parallels throughout the book.
For example, the most obvious thematic parallel to the character of
Babylon, her destiny and the quality of life under her sway (17.1-18.24)
is the characterization of the New Jerusalem, her destiny and the quality
of life in this city (21.1-22.5). The two commissioning scenes (1.9-10
and 10.1-11) are clearly related thematically (the climax of both is the
commissioning of John to write prophecy or to prophesy himself), but
this is obscured by the alleged chiastic arrangement and its suggestions of
'thematic parallels'. And, of course, the scenes of heavenly activity and
worship around the throne in chs. 4-5 have frequently been compared
thematically to the scenes of heavenly activity and worship around the
beast in chs. 12-13. My main concern regarding Strand's analysis, then,
is with what 'seeing a chiasmus' (if it should be seen at all) foregrounds
in terms of words, thematic parallels, and inter-relationships, and what it
relegates to the background or hides from sight entirely. If the overall
chiasmus is itself as illusory as its supporting chiasmus proved to be, then
it becomes a distorting lens upon the text.
4. Chiasmus by Contrived Form and Enumeration

Our third example comes from an article by William Shea on chiasmus in
Rev. 18, offered as an attempt to extend and support the work of his
colleague (Strand 1982) on the same subject. Where Strand sought to
21
establish a chiasmus 'bytheme', Shea (1982) seeks to add further support
to this chiasmus by means of attention to 'form'.
Shea ( 1982:250) outlines the series of trumpets and plagues, noting the
21. It is to the credit of both Strand and Shea that they give some attention to
establishing this chiasmus on the basis of the actual lexis of the text in regard to the A
and A' components. Strand's suggestions for viable B-B' components are less con
vincing due, in part, to the obvious and immense imbalance of these two components
(four verses standing against one verse). Other considerations against hearing v. 20 as
a separate pronouncement/section are given below.
similar nature of the first trumpet and first bowl, and so forth, and
concludes from this that 'the seven trumpets are indeed balanced chias-
tically by the seven last plagues'. In fact, they are not, since chiastic bal
ance would properly require thefirstbowl to relate to the seventh trumpet,
the second bowl to the sixth, and so forth. Rather, he has here simply
demonstrated what readers have always seen, namely that the trumpets
and the bowls parallel one another, but failed to acknowledge that they
do so in a linear, not a chiastic, arrangement. Indeed, their significance is
in the linear progression and the intensification of the trumpets plagues in
the bowl plagues, as admonition unto repentance (as in Wis. 12.10) gives
way to all-out judgment upon the recalcitrant. This parallelism, in turn,
does nothing to enhance the argument for a chiastic arrangement—only
for parallelism between the seven trumpets and the seven bowls.
From this observation of seven bowls paralleling the seven trumpets,
all within the context of accepting Strand's chiastic outline of the whole
book, Shea (1982:250) raises the question 'as to whether the seven seals
may also be balanced by chap. 18, since that chapter in the eschatological
series provides the chiastic counterpart to the section in the historical
series that presents the seven seals (primarily in chap. 6, with the final
seal in 8.1)'. He does notfindseven judgments in ch. 18 to balance the
seven seals, but he does discover 'seven units of something else that may
provide the balancing elements'. The fact that the seven seals, trumpets
and plagues are explicitly enumerated (rendering the parallelism between
the latter two sets unsurprising), while there is no enumeration of anything,
let alone a septet, in the judgments/laments over Babylon, does not enter
into the conversation, nor deter Shea from the conviction that they are
there to be found.
Hefindswhat he seeks, then, in 'seven main hymns ofjudgment upon,
or lament over, Babylon' (Shea 1982: 251). As it happens, however, he
actually identifies eight such hymns, themselves arrayed (to the surprise
of all?) in a chiastic structure. He advances two claims to overcome this
numerical obstacle to the balance he seeks between ch. 18 and the seven
seals of ch. 6. First, 'the two hymns at the center ofthat chiasm are linked
together so closely that they may actually be considered as being one in
nature; hence it is correct to identify seven "main" hymns here'. Second,
he appeals to the prophetic formula, 'for x, even for χ + 1 ', as a basis for
treating the eighth as part of the seven (Shea 1982: 251).
To treat the second pointfirst,the use of the 'for x, even for χ + Γ
formula in a text is identified primarily by—to state the obvious—the
appearance of this very formula in that text. Its glaring absence here
should deter Shea from claiming that it is somehow the hidden
mathematical formula for turning his eight hymns back into seven (and,
no, Rev. 17.11 is not a cryptic key here). Appealing to the 'χ + Γ
argument is whimsical at best, a desperate attempt to conform the number
of segments in ch. 18 to the seven seals. In regard to thefirstpoint, we
shall see below that the two middle hymns are not in fact linked so
closely as to be taken as a single unit (all the more as John clearly
separates the two by the re-introduction of the speakers in 18.15-16a). If
there are, then, eight hymns, the quest for balance with the seven seals
falters here already. This faltering would be, moreover, no failure at all—
but it should be admitted, and the quest for some mystical 'balance' with
the seven seals of ch. 6 abandoned.
We thenfindthe following identification of the eight hymns, which are
22
presented in a visually appealing chiasmus.
A Prose Introduction—an angel calls with a mighty voice, v. 2a

Hymn No. /, w . 2b-3
Β Prose Introduction—another voice from heaven, v. 4a
Hymn No. 2, w . 4b-8
C Prose Introduction—kings of the earth..., w . 9-10a
Hymn No. 3, ν. 10b
D Prose Introduction—'and the merchants of the
earth...', w . 11-13
Hymn No. 49v. 14
D' Prose Introduction—'the merchants of these
wares...', v. 15
Hymn No. 5, w . 16-17a
C Prose Introduction—sailors of the sea..., w . 17b-19a
Hymn No. 6, v. 19b
B' [Prose Introduction—another voice, unidentified]
Hymn No. 7, v. 20
A' Prose Introduction—a mighty angel said, v. 21 a
Hymn No. 8,w. 21b-24
The formal headings given to this chiastic outline—'Prose Introduction'

and 'Hymn' repeating in rhythmic fashion—add credibility to the visual
impression of this chiasmus.
Since Shea's overall thesis is that the 7 + 1 hymns in Rev. 18 provide
the (needed?) balance for the 7 seals (mostly) in Rev. 6, we should begin
by asking whether the 'hymns' in 18.14 and 18.16 are in fact 'linked
together so closely that they may actually be considered as being one in
22. The following diagram is reproducedfromShea 1982:252, with some abbrevi

ation of the quotations in the 'prose introductions'.
nature', and thus bringing the sum back down from 8 to 7 in some way.
Shea's mistaken assumption here is that the merchants have two
occasions to utter lament, these occasions providing the D and D' at the
center of the alleged chiasmus. But the merchants of 18.11 cannot have
uttered the 'hymn' in 18.14. The καί that opens 18.14 indicates that this
verse is to be read as a continuation of the narratorial voice rather than
suggesting a sudden change of voice. While this narratorial voice could
be heard as John's voice (if he is understood to resume 'narratorship' at
18.9),23 it is far more likely that all of 18.4-20 is to be heard as the single
speech of 'another voicefromheaven',24 since v. 9 does not take us back
to John seeing or hearing new sights (as in, e.g., 18.1, 4; 19.1), but
continues to elaborate the judgment God visits upon Babylon by depicting
it as it is seenfromthe perspectives ofobservers. The unspecified heavenly
being continues his elaboration through the familiar convention ofproso
popoeia, creating 'speech-in-character' in the laments of w . 10,16 and
19 (-20?). Since this being intrudes, in a sense, by giving voice to his own
response to Babylon's wealth in v. 14, the merchants must be named a
second time in 18.15 (it has been too long since the focus was on them),
after which theirfirstspeech is now properly introduced with the participle
λέγοντες, as is the case with the literary parallels in this chapter, namely
the speech of the kings and the sea-captains (18.10,19).
Identifying the speaker of the 'hymn' in 18.14 as the narrating 'voice
from heaven' has several consequences for Shea's proposals. First, it
calls into question the meaningfulness of labeling 'hymns' 4 and 5 the D
and D' at the center of a chiasmus, since, properly, we no longer have
here 'the two laments that issuefromthe mouths of the merchants' (Shea
1982: 282). Indeed, the implied speakers could not be more different
(which would now contrast markedly with Shea's Ά ' and ' C set), and the
content is not related in a way that suggests pairing at the center of a
chiasmus. Indeed, the lexis and thematic content of 18.14 correspond
much more closely to Shea's 'Hymn 8'. Both speak of contents that could
once be found in Babylon (material contents in hymn 4, material, abstract
and human contents in hymn 8) that will no longer be found there.
23. A. Gelin ( 1951:649), for example, understands John to resume narration at this
point.
24. Thus,rightly,Bauckham 1993:368; Caird 1964:225; Schüssler Fiorenza 1991:
99 (while in herfirststatement she mistakenly assigns all of 18.1 -20 to this 'heavenly
voice', she correctly limits this, however, in the following sentence to 18.4-20); Beale
1999: 915 (making the same mistake, however, as Schüssler Fiorenza, without the
self-correction).
Indeed, the presence of ου μη and ετι in both hymns (the latter in the
compound form ουκέτι in 18.14), particularly in conjunction with a form
of the verb ευρίσκω (ευρήσουσιν in 18.14; ευρέθη in 18.21, thefirstverse
of hymn 8), provides the kind of hard, lexical data that would persuade
me that John, if he intended any parallelisms to be perceived or counter
parts to be named between the various utterances in ch. 18, would have
intended for hymns 4 and 8 to be seen as a pair.25
Second, it reminds us that, in fact, all of 18.4-20 is spoken by one voice,
not many (something of which Shea appears to be unaware).26 It may be
that John provides a more modest intercalation structure (an A-B-A'
pattern), with the speeches by angels associated with the quality of 'might'
(whether their voices, as in 18.1 [A], or their persons, as in 18.21 [A'])27
25. R.H. Charles (1920: II, 351) regarded 18.14 as a 'fragmentary' lament, and
restored it to what he believed, on the basis of its form (apostrophe addressing
Babylon) and content (the list of what would 'be found no more' in Babylon) was its
original location, namely 18.21-24. This opinion persists in Lohmeyer 1970:151 and
Kraft 1974: 235. Charles's influence is still felt, not surprisingly, in the work of
DavidE. Aune (1998b: 1003): 'V14 is problematic because it is a fragmentary speech
directly addressed to the ruined Babylon in the style of the angelic speech of w 21-
24, though the speaker or speakers are not explicitly identified unless one assumes
that they are the merchants. The fragmentary character of this isolated speech is
indicated by the lack of a verb of saying or speaking, which introduces the other
speeches in this chapter (w 10,16,19,21 [to which Aune could have added w . 2,
4]).' Aune's analysis proceeds from the unexamined assumption, the legacy of
Charles, that this is a fragmentary speech, rather than a complete narratorial comment
in the (common enough) rhetorical form of apostrophe. He also exhibits the same
willingness to 'assume' that the merchants are the best candidate for being the speak
ers in the present context, rather than seeing all of 18.9-20 as the unbroken continu
ation of the speech of the 'voice from heaven' begun in 18.4-8. Of note, however, is
his observation that the character of the speech matches more precisely the speech in
18.21 -24, an observation shared by Charles, supporting my contention that the hearer/
reader naturally links 18.14 with 18.21-24 in tone and style, not with 18.16, as Shea's
chiasmus would suggest (see also, in favor of the link with 18.21-24, Prigent 1988:
272: v. 14 is 'a proleptic announcement of the final proclamation of verses 21-24'
['un signe annonciateur de la proclamation finale des versets 21-24']).
26. As Strand is unaware, even more clearly, before him. Strand (1982: 55) des
cribes the speech in w . 4-8 and 20 as 'set apartfromthe vision proper as set forth in
the litany of the central section in vss. 9-19', unaware that this litany is not part of a
vision, but an audition. This is an indirect testimony, however, to the power of John's
ekphrasis, his ability to bring scenes so vividly before our mind's eye that we forget
when we are seeing and when we are hearing.
27. Shea's observation (1982: 254) of this shared lexical term is valuable as a
structural marker.
framing this longer discourse by the 'other voice from heaven', the
contents of which might not, then, display further chiastic arrangement.
The most important structuring device within this speech would be the
three laments by the various groups of Babylon's partners, a device that
is brought to the fore for the hearer of this text by the repetitive texture of
the introduction of each party, their pronouncement of'woe, woe, the great
city' at the opening of each of their speeches, and their closing note of
the 'single hour' in which such a reversal occurred.28
Third, it removes the grounds for a supporting argument Shea will offer
(see below) for his overall chiastic outline in regards to the Β and B' com
ponents (hymns 2 and 7), to which we now turn.
Shea proposes that the opening speech of 'another voice from heaven'
(18.4-8) and the considerably briefer summons to rejoice by 'another
voice, unidentified' (18.20) constitute another pair of counterparts in this
chiasmus. An immediate problem, of course, is the lack of any kind of
introductory 'prose introduction' in regard to the latter. In Shea's outline,
having this 'prose introduction' has been vitally important in the struc
turing of the chiasmus. Moreover, it has made for a reasonable balance in
all the component parts in terms of overall length. Suddenly, we are
confronted with a presumed change ofvoice that has no prose introduction,
and yields a sadly unbalanced component in terms of length—a single,
rather brief, verse in an alleged chiasmus oftwo- to four-verse components.
Chiasmus is primarily a formal device. When formal markers are
absent—i.e., those signals that would especially clue a listening audience
(presumed in Rev. 1.3) in to the structure—a person of lesser faith in
chiasmi as regular, expected, even desirable things tofindin a text would
take a step back and say, 'no, then, that can't beright.Let's try something
else.' The cost, here, is functionally introducing into the text 'And I heard
this other voice from heaven say', when John does not himself do so at
Rev. 18.20. This fails the test of treating the text as it stands (Thomson
1995: 28), for a bracketed prose introduction is no prose introduction at
all. In this regard, it is also somewhat surprising that Shea fails to notice
the presence of thefirst'hymn' in 18.18b ('Who is like the great city?!')
28. Bauckham (1993: 340) suggests that this A-B-A' pattern needs to be extended
to include 19.1 -8 as Β '. There is much to be said for this, as 19.1 -8 enacts a response
to 18.4-20 (indeed, is precisely the kind of activity anticipated in 18.20), presents a
celebration to counterbalance the lament, and is connected lexically and thematically
to 18.1-24 (especially in 19.2). There is certainly more to be said about close verbal
and thematic connections here than between ch. 18 and its alleged chiastic counterpart,
ch.6.
uttered by the seafarers, all the more as it has its own 'Prose Introduction'
(18.17b-18a) and is followed by still more narration (18.19a) that would
be able to function still as a 'Prose Introduction' to their longer hymn
(18.19b). It is this sort of inconsistency (a hymn with its own prose intro
duction is relegated to the background, while a hymn with no prose
introduction is selected to be highlighted) that gives the enterprise an
29
ever greater aura of subjectivity.
Another issue is the question concerning whether 18.20 should indeed
be treated as a separate 'hymn'—or, to put the matter more precisely,
whether 18.20 represents the 'other voice from heaven' (who has been, in
fact, the only voice speaking since 18.4) speaking in his own voice, or
still speaking in the voice of the sailors, continuing his prosopopoeia, his
'speech in character'.
Shea stands in a venerable tradition when he treats 18.20 as a separate
hymn (the tradition has not been sufficiently clear in regard to 18.4-20
representing a single speech). He joins in the traditional assertion (for
there is no argumentation on this point) that 'the content of [18.20] is
sufficient to indicate that it should be set apartfromthe seamen's lament'
(Shea 1982: 253). This is a position that he shares with other fine
scholars,30 but it is an error that stems ultimately from the tendency of
source-critical analyses of Revelation to excise 18.20 as out of place or a
later addition.31 The summons to 'rejoice' was simply deemed incom
patible with the lament of Babylon's partners. However, there is nothing
29. If it should be objected that 'Who is like the great city' is too short to be
considered a 'hymn' here, I draw attention to Shea 1984, where 'Amen' and 'Amen,
Alleluia' are of sufficient length to be treated and referred to as discrete 'hymns' for
the purposes of the structural outlines of the chapters, and the ensuing chiasmi that
devolve.
30. Richard Bauckham, for example, argues that 18.20 represents the voice of the
heavenly being speaking in his own voice again, arguing only that 'it would be quite
incongruous for the sailors who are lamenting the loss of their own livelihood through
the fall of Babylon to continue by calling on the inhabitants of heaven to rejoice
because of it' (1993:341). Thus also Heinz Giessen (1986:141), though without any
rationale for his preference. Eduard Lohse (1960: 98) speaks only of 'eine Stimme'
responsible for this verse, again without discussion. H. Kraft (1974: 236-37) and
Robert Mounce (1997: 332) give ambiguous signals: they treat the verse on its own,
but do not discuss whether or not the implied speaker has changed from 18.19. Gelin
(1951: 651) and Wilhelm Bousset (1896: 423) hear John speaking in his own voice
here, but, again, without any discussion or argument concerning the change of speaker.
31. Charles, e.g., places it in the context of the last angel's speech in 18.21-24 in
his extensive rearrangement of Revelation (1920: Π, 111-12, 353). Aune, in many
ways the 'new Charles', also regards it as a later addition to the text (1998b: 1007).
to suggest that the tone of the voice telling heaven and its party to rejoice
is a happy one, and therefore inappropriate for the lips of lamenters.32 In
one very important sense it 'belongs' as part of the prosopopoeiac repre
sentation of the sea-captains' lament: it represents the acknowledgment
on the part of Babylon's party that God has acted in favor of those who
have been victimized by Babylon.33 The importance of who speaks the
words ' for God has vindicated your case against her' should not be under
estimated. It must be imagined as being spoken by Babylon's partisans in
order for the vindication of the saints to be complete. Babylon's party
must come to acknowledge the lightness of the Christians' walk and the
justice of their cause for the Christians' vindication to be complete, for
vindication in the eyes—and on the lips—of one's enemies meant restora
tion of one's honor.34
Reading 18.20 as the conclusion of the sailors' lament would indeed
break the parallelism of the three groups of partners' laments, which
otherwise all end with the line beginning 'in a single hour'. However,
adding a final line to the last lament would mark it as the climactic pro
nouncement emerging from these laments. The added line would be
highlighted as the 'punch line' to the whole, as it were. In this case, 18.20
makes an excellent 'punch line', for it answers the poignant cries that
have reverberated through Revelation since 6.9-11 (see also 16.5-7), a
primary source of dramatic tension throughout the book (how and when
will the just God deliver justice?!). Moreover, the stich in 18.19 appears
to be intentionally truncated when set alongside its counterparts in 18.10,
17, missing, as it is, the final nominal clause:
32. It is possible to hear it with the tone with which we might say, in our
disappointment or worse, Ί hope you're happy! ' Thefirstway to test this, of course,
would be to survey Greek literary texts (e.g., Greek tragedy) for speakers using the
verb 'rejoice' (or otherwise inviting the perhaps inevitable gloating) in apostrophe or
direct address to the cause of their misfortune.
33. F.J. Murphy (1998:375) is at least willing to consider this possibility, given his
own observation of the lack of any change in speaker. He claims that 'putting these
words in their [the seafarers'] mouths makes the message more powerful' (Murphy
1998:375), though he does not explore why the message would become more power
ful thus heard, as I do here. In the end, he prefers to hear this in the voice of the
narrator (whom he does not specify) rather than in the voice of the seafarers.
Josephine M. Ford (1975: 306) reads it as the conclusion of the sailors' lament,
though gives no discussion on this point.
34. Wisdom of Solomon 2-5 is eloquent on this point (see especially 5.3-13). This
passage is discussed in deSilva 1995:121-27. Of course, one need not go furtherthan
Rev. 3.9 to illustrate the point.
οτι μια ώρα ΐηλθεν η Kpíois σου (18.10)

οτι μια ώρα ήρημώθη ò TOGOUTOS TTÀOÛTOS (18.17)
οτι μια ώρα ηρημώθη (18.19)
This is a rather anti-climactic end to this series of laments unless it is

truncated specifically to make room for the final declaration to be heard
as uttered by these witnesses to Babylon's destruction and to God's justice.
In the end, whether or not the voice has stepped out of his (or her)
prosopopoeia to utter 18.20 is going to be very hard to determine with
any degree of certainty (though I hope I have given some cause to reflect
more fully on the possibility that the voice from heaven does not end his
prosopopoeia of the sailors before 18.20). In either event, the absence of
any notice of a change of speaker—the absence of the 'prose introduction'
that is otherwise so prominent in mapping out this alleged chiasmus—
should at least occasion admission of a problem. Instead, Shea (1982:
253) offers the coup de grâce by claiming the invisible elements (not) in
the text as proofs of the chiasmus: 'For Hymn 2, the person from whom
the voice comes is not identified; and for Hymn 7, even the voice itself is
not mentioned. This contrast of Hymns 2 and 7 with the rest of the hymns
in the chapter [whose speakers are clearly identified] constitutes a further
evidence of the link between them that Strand has already noted through
another avenue of examination' (emphasis mine). This is an argument
from silence indeed! But it also is vitiated by the fact that the same
unidentified voice gives us hymn 4 as utters hymn 2 and, if it is finally
decided that 18.20 should be taken as a separate speech, hymn 7 as well.
The neat correspondence here between hymns 2 and 7 evaporates, since
there is no reason to connect these two hymns by their unidentified speaker
without also connecting them with hymn 4 (unless one is to step into the
same trap of convenient selection that we observed in Strand's article).
The interpretation of Rev. 18 is not affected by whether or not one is able
to 'find the chiasmus' that Shea and Strand have sought so earnestly to
establish. The disproportionate attention given to the merchants and the
cargoes thatflowedinto Babylon—heightened even more by the intrusion
of the heavenly narrator's apostrophe (18.14) in the otherwise structurally
pleasing series of three laments by the parties who made Babylon's imperi-
alistic economy work and derived all their prestige and profit from that
partnership—still makes the economic critique of Babylon stand out for
special attention. It still calls us to examine this aspect of our own imperial-
istic systems, to follow the money, as it were, to the other crimes of vio-
lence, suppression of the truth, self-glorification and diverting other
nations from their proper courses (i.e., 'leading the nations astray'). And
it does it without chiasmus, without hyper-structured literary patterning

and visual diagrams.
A Passing Phase?
The majority of commentaries on Revelation written in the past four
decades in English, French and German do not attempt to establish a
macro-chiastic structure underlying the book.35 However, a few recent
commentaries and monographs have included proposals for a macro-
chiastic outline (including Schüssler Fiorenza 1991:35-36; Snyder 1991:
84;Beale 1999:130-131, based on the unpublished work of M.G.Kline),
though generally with less supportive (or even descriptive) argumentation.
Schüssler Fiorenza (1977: 364; 1991: 35-36) argues for a chiastic
outline primarily on the basis of her (correct) observations of correspond-
ence between the two sections of the narrativeframe(Rev. 1.1-8; 22.10-
21) and the opening and closing sections of the visionary experience
(Rev. 1.9-3.22; 19.11-22.9). She offers, however, no detailed defense for
the remaining correspondences, and so has demonstrated nothing more
than that John provides closure by displaying the fulfillment of the pro-
mises made to the churches in the seven oracles and by returning to the
frame narrative in which John 'debriefs', as it were, with his otherworldly
interlocutor(s). Witherington (2003: 19) has also rightly critiqued
Schüssler Fiorenza's chiasmus on the basis of her rearrangement of
material: 'the artificiality of this is evident because [the] C [section] in
fact involves two sections of the book, not one, and C skips some material
as well'. He prefers to speak of 'the book's use of parallelism and to
some degree of recapitulation'.36 In her more recent presentation of this
macro-chiastic outline (which, in turn, provides the outline for the entire
commentary), Schüssler Fiorenza (1991:35-36) also falls prey to 'chias-
mus by summary headings', already seen to represent a tactic for making
the weaker argument (for a chiasmus) seem the stronger.
35. The roster of commentaries that do not present a chiastic structure include
Aune 1997; 1998a; 1998b; Ford 1975; Giessen 1997; Harrington 1969; Lohse 1988;
Michaels 1997; Mounce 1997 [1977]; Müller 1984; Murphy 1998; Prigent 1988;
Roloff 1984; Smalley 2005; and Witherington 2003. Among monographs that deal
with the structure of Revelation, Resseguie 1998, for example, also eschews a
chiastic outline in favor of developing a more dramatic outline of plot.
36. Thomson (1995: 28) and Blomberg (1989: 7) also critique the strategy of
rearrangement (here, not dealing with the text in strict sequential order) as disqualify-
ing any resultant chiasmus.
In his magisterial commentary, Gregory K. Beale offers no theoretical

discussion of macro-chiasmus as a viable approach to the structure of an
entire book, but accepts it more or less as a given. He also exhibits a high
degree of tolerance for significantly differing chiastic outlines without
regarding their very multiplicity as, in some sense, vitiating the project as
a whole. If there are indeed that many possibilities for discerning parallel
sections on the basis of the same data, perhaps there is indeed no
underlying chiastic pattern at all. He himself offers (without defense or
explanation) a nine-part macro-chiasmus (Beale 1999:131) as one struc-
ture that 'can also possibly be discerned in Revelation', which hefinds,in
turn, to support recapitulation in the interpretation of the book. He des-
cribes Schüssler Fiorenza's 'sevenfold chiastic structure' as 'another
plausible' one, despite its significant contradictions of his own, but then,
surprisingly, offers a chiastic outline by Barbara Snyder (1991: 84; dis-
cussed in Beale 1999: 141-44) as 'the most viable chiastic outline of the
book so far attempted', again offered in support of 'her notion of recapitu-
lation' (Beale 1999:143). The only word of criticism he offers is that 'the
outline still does not seem to divide the book according to its most natural
literary divisions' (notably, an important criterion for control in the dis-
cernment of chiasmi in Blomberg 1989: 7), particularly in regard to chs.
12-14, which Beale suggests is best regarded as a single unit ( 1999:144).
Snyder's proposal runs afoul of other reefs as well, however. It is
particularly striking that she sets the seven seals (D: 6.1-8.1) over against
the seven bowls (D': chs. 15-16), while regarding the seven trumpets (E:
8.2-9.21) and an 'unnumbered series of seven proclamations' (E': ch. 14)
as counterparts. Aside from the much-discussed dangers attending
'unnumbered' series of seven in Revelation, Snyder here departs from the
one point of parallelism between the two alleged halves of the book of
Revelation emphasized by virtually all other scholars, whether promoting
a chiastic outline or not, namely the parallelism between the trumpets and
the bowl plagues.37
Further, Snyder's outline exhibits both the fallacy of the 'chiasmus by
summary headings' that helps to make Welch's chiastic outline visually
persuasive, as well as the fallacy of'chiasmus by selective reading' neces-
sary to establish Strand's chiasmus. For example, section G (eh. 11) is
labeled 'War against the Saints on Earth', producing a pleasing corres-
37. Blomberg (1989: 5) suggests that proposals for chiastic outlines would be the
stronger the more fully they included parallelisms that had been observed both by
scholars sympathetic to chiastic structure and by those who approached the structure
of the book non-chiastically.
pondence with section G' (ch. 12), labeled 'War against the Dragon in
Heaven'. While 11.7 does indeed refer to the beast making 'war' on the
two witnesses and overcoming them, so does 13.7 (indeed, there specifi-
cally in reference to 'saints'), and the theme of making war and the danger
to 'the saints on earth' is much more strongly emphasized in this context
(13.4b, 9-10,16-17). Moreover, 'making war' with the saints qua 'the rest
of the woman's seed' (12.17) is explained in the text as a result of, not a
prelude to, the 'War against the Dragon in Heaven'. Thus, in the quest for
nailing down a chiastic scheme, Snyder has exercised a selectivity that
results, in fact, in obscuring (or, at least, ignoring) the cause-and-effect
relationships explicated within the text.
The same critique can be leveled against Snyder's C and C sections,
'The Heavenly Sanhédrin Convened for Judgment and Enthronement
(chs. 4-5)' and 'The Heavenly Sanhédrin Convened for Judgment and the
Messianic Reign (chs. 17-20; cf. 20.4-15)'. It is, of course, an eye-catching
and winsome suggestion, but problematic as a representation of the text.
The 'Heavenly Sanhédrin' plays no role in chs. 17-18, appearing only in
19.1-10 (specifically only in 19.4) and possibly in 20.4, depending on
who one understands to occupy these 'thrones'. Since John, however,
everywhere else mentions the 'elders' when he intends them to be 'seen'
by the audience, it is unlikely that he is evoking images of the same body
here as had been encountered in chs. 4-5. Once again one must come to
the conclusion that Revelation would actually have to look quite different
in order to resemble the 'Cliff Notes' summaries in these chiastic outlines.
In regard to the fallacy of selective highlighting, Snyder has passed over
the far more prominent presence and role of 'thé Heavenly Sanhédrin' in
chs. 6-7 (the living creatures summon the four horsemen; all the parties
encountered in ch. 4 appear again in ch. 7 in connection with the celebra-
tion of God's deliverance of the 'great multitude') for the sake of empha-
sizing the correspondence between chs. 4-5 and chs. 17-20 required by
her macro-chiastic outline.
Conclusion
The hunt for structural markers in Revelation has been too often led
astray by the deeply held faith that 'X marks the spot', and the unbridled
hunt for all-too-hidden treasure that ensues. Some viable chiasmi have
been discovered among the writings of the New Testament; many others
have been discovered to be the invention of the analyst. Particularly in
regard to the macro-chiasmus, the method of using abstracted summary
statements of alleged 'theme' (i.e., 'headings') facilitates the process of
constructing an alleged chiasmus and rendering it more persuasive to the

eye, while in fact suppressing the complexities ofthe texts and the relation-
ships they purport to represent. We have also seen the dangers of selective
reading to establish a chiasmus, at first blush apparently well founded on
lexical occurrences, upon closer examination seen to misrepresent the data
of the text. We have also seen how the prior assumption of the presence
of a chiasmus leads to the failure to read the text carefully, question
assumptions in the history of interpretation, and to test the soundness of
one's arguments (so as to avoid, e.g., obvious arguments from silence/
absence and specious, near-cabalistic numerical arguments). Even in the
midst of the quest for chiasmus, interpreters must keep themselves open
to the possibility offinding—eventryingtofind—otherliterary structuring
devices and other connections that resist their chiastic alignments. If
chiasmus is to be treated seriously as a literary device by enthusiasts and
skeptics alike, it is vital that we keep in mind the salutary caveat that Welch
voiced at the beginning of his book, but had forgotten by its ending, that
we should take special precautions to avoid imposing a chiasmus 'upon
the text by Procrustean design or artifice of the reader' (Welch 1981:13).
We need to keep the text, and not the pattern, foremost before our eyes.
References
Aune, David E.
1997 Revelation 1-5 (WBC, 52A; Dallas, TX: Word Books).
1998a Revelation 6-16 (WBC, 52B; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson).
1998b Revelation 17-22 (WBC, 52C; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson).
Bauckham, Richard
1993 The Climax of Prophecy: Studies in the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark).
Beale, G.K.
1999 The Book ofRevelation (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Blomberg, Craig
1989 'The Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7', Criswell Theological Review 4: 4-8.
Bousset, Wilhelm
1896 Die Offenbarung Johannis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Caird, G.B.
1964 A Commentary on the Revelation of Saint John the Divine (New York:
Harper & Row).
Charles, R.H.
1920 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (2
volumes; Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
deSilva, D.A.
1995 Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the
Epistle to the Hebrews (SBLDS, 152; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press).
Duff, Paul B.
2001 Who Rides the Beast? Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the
Churches of the Apocalypse (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Ford, Josephine M.
1975 Revelation (AB, 38; Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Gelin, A.
1951 'L'Apocalypse', in L. Pirot and A. Clamer (eds.), La Sainte Bible (12 vols.;
Paris: Letouzy et Ané), XII: 581-667.
Giessen, Heinz
1986 Die Johannes-Apokalypse (SKK, 18; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches
Bibelwerk).
1997 Die Offenbarung des Johannes (Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet).
Harrington, Wilfrid
1969 The Apocalypse of Saint John: A Commentary (London: Geoffrey
Chapman).
Kennedy, G.A.
1984 New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press).
Kraft, H.
1974 Die Offenbarung des Johannes (HNT, 16a; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Lohmeyer, E.
1970 Die Offenbarung des Johannes (HNT, 16; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Lohse, Eduard
1960 Die Offenbarung des Johannes (NTD, 11; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht).
Longenecker, Bruce W.
2001 "'Linked Like a Chain": Rev. 22.6-9 in Light of an Ancient Transition
Technique', NTS 47: 105-17.
Lund, Nils
1942 Chiasmus in the New Testament (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press).
Luter, A. Boyd, and Michelle Lee
1995 'Philippians as Chiasmus: Key to the Structure, Unity and Theme Questions',
M S 41: 89-101.
Michaels, J. Ramsey
1997 Revelation (IVPNTC; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Mounce, Robert H.
1997 [1977] The Booh of Revelation (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Müller, Ulrich Β.
1984 Die Offenbarung des Johannes (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn).
Murphy, Frederick J.
1998 Fallen is Babylon: The Revelation to John (New Testament in Context;
Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International).
Porter, Stanley E., and Jonathan T. Reed
1998 'Philippians as a Macro-Chiasm and its Exegetical Significance', NTS 44:
213-31.
Prigent, Pierre
1988 L'Apocalypse de Saint Jean (CNT, 14; Geneva: Labor et Fides).
Resseguie, James L.
1998 Revelation Unsealed: A Narrative-Critical Approach to John's Apocalypse
(Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Roloff, Jürgen
1984 Die Offenbarung des Johannes (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag).
Schüssler Fiorenza, Elizabeth
1977 'Composition and Structure of the Book of Revelation', CBQ 39: 344-66.
1991 Revelation: Vision of a Just World (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press).
Shea, William H.
1982 'Chiasm in Theme and by Form in Revelation 18', AUSS 20: 249-56.
1984 'Revelation 5 and 19 as Literary Reciprocals', AUSS 22: 248-57.
Smalley, Stephen S.
2005 The Revelation to John (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Snyder, Barbara W.
1991 'Combat Myth in the Apocalypse: The Liturgy of the Day of the Lord and the
Dedication of the Heavenly Temple', unpublished PhD dissertation, Graduate
Theological Union and University of California, Berkeley.
Steele, R.B.
1890 Chiasmus in Sallust, Caesar, Tacitus, andJustinus (Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press).
Strand, Kenneth A.
1976 Interpreting the Book of Revelation (Worthington, OH: Ann Arbor
Publishers).
1978 'Chiastic Structure and Some Motifs in the Book of Revelation', AUSS 16:
401-408.
1982 'Two Aspects of Babylon's Judgment as Portrayed in Revelation 18', AUSS
20: 53-59.
Thomson, Ian H.
1995 Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters (JSNTSup, 111; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press).
Watson, D.F.
2006 The Rhetoric of the New Testament: A Bibliographic Survey (Blandford
Forum, UK: Deo Publishing).
Welch, John W.
1981 Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis (Hildesheim:
Gerstenberg Verlag).
Witherington, Ben, III
2003 Revelation (New Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.

(David A. DeSilva) X Marks The Spot - A Critique of The Use of Chiasmus in Macro-Structural Analyses (Artículo) PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

(David A. DeSilva) X Marks The Spot - A Critique of The Use of Chiasmus in Macro-Structural Analyses (Artículo) PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

JSNT 303 (2008) 343-371 Copyright © 2008 SAGE Publications,

Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore http://JSNT.sagepub.com

X Marks the Spot?

There is a segment of scholarship that exhibits a penchant for hunting for,

again exhibited the dangers of preferring form to content, ingenuity to

1. Chiasmus in Ancient and Recent Discussion

3. The macro-chiasmus, perhaps as a result of this silence, has been promoted as a

2. Chiasmus by Selective Summary

Β The Seven Letters (2.1-3.22)

C The Seven Seals Opened in Heaven (4.1-7.17)

C The Seven Angels Survey the Judgment on Earth (17.1-20.10)

B' The New Jerusalem (20.11-22.5)

A' Epilogue (22.6-21)

obvious problems, namely, the attempt to pair as components within a

designations throughout these oracles.13 We are not looking at ways in

15. See the excellent discussion in Longenecker 2001.

3. Chiasmus by Selective Reading of Key Terms

The Evil Hierarchy Introduced and Judged (only thefirstverse of multi-verse

E' Beast-Worshipers (16.2)

First, there is a problem with the visual representation of the appearance

20. As a corollary to this deconstruction of his proposed chiasmus, it should be

(for which the above-deconstructed chiasmus was offered merely as

4. Chiasmus by Contrived Form and Enumeration

A Prose Introduction—an angel calls with a mighty voice, v. 2a

The formal headings given to this chiastic outline—'Prose Introduction'

22. The following diagram is reproducedfromShea 1982:252, with some abbrevi­

οτι μια ώρα ΐηλθεν η Kpíois σου (18.10)

This is a rather anti-climactic end to this series of laments unless it is

it does it without chiasmus, without hyper-structured literary patterning

In his magisterial commentary, Gregory K. Beale offers no theoretical

constructing an alleged chiasmus and rendering it more persuasive to the

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

S-ar putea să vă placă și

22. The following diagram is reproducedfromShea 1982:252, with some abbrevi