The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Chiasmus in Biblical Narrative: Rhetoric of Characterization
Abstract
Chiasmus is commonly explained as a means of focusing the reader's attention on the center of the unit, where the central idea or turning point is situated. I propose an alternative explanation that illuminates many chiastic passages. The reader appreciates the skillfulness and the well-planned composition of chiasmus, which require determination of all components in advance, and word choice that is concordant with its context while resembling the parallel component of the chiasmus. Awareness of the reader's response led biblical authors to employ chiasmus to reflect the inner world of a character: to present the character's deeds or discourse as deliberate and premeditated. Chiasmus appears especially where one would otherwise regard the character's actions or discourse as spontaneous or unaccounted for. In other cases, words of advice are formed chiastically to cast the adviser's idea in a premeditated and convincing manner. Contrary to the common conviction of biblical scholars that chiasmus is largely a schematic phenomenon that indicates the main idea, I claim that chiasmus is a stylistic and rhetorical phenomenon that must be considered in a comprehensive literary analysis.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Biblical scholars have proposed chiasmus's use to underscore characterization in narrative passages, as a poetic device in the Psalms, and to capture ritualistic language in legal documents.
“Biblical scholars have proposed its use to underscore characterization in narrative passages (Assis, 2002), as a poetic device in the Psalms (Martin, 2018), and to capture ritualistic language in legal documents (McCoy, 2003).”
From Computational Discovery of Chiasmus in Ancient Religious Text (2025) · cites this paper as Assis, 2002
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Computational Discovery of Chiasmus in Ancient Religious Text
McGovern, H., Sirin, H., & Lippincott, T. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 2: Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-short.13 · Cited by 2
Computational Discovery of Chiasmus in Ancient Religious Text
McGovern, H., Sirin, H., & Lippincott, T. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.10739
Metadata
- Authors
- Assis, E.
- Corresponding author
- Assis, Elie
- Venue
- Prooftexts
- Publisher
- Project MUSE
- Published
- 2002
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 273-304
- ISSN
- 0272-9601 (ISSN-L)
- 1086-3311
- OpenAlex
- W2014807721
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Prooftexts (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Narrative Theory and Analysis
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
- Keywords
- chiasmus, biblical narrative, characterization, rhetoric, reader response, parallelism, stylistics, biblical composition, advice literature
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review