Joe Mullen suggests that there is another example of where chiasmus begins in one book and is finished in another.
A And Enoch WALKED WITH GOD:
B and HE WAS NOT;
C for God TOOK him.
D By faith
C’ Enoch was TRANSLATED that he should not see death;
B’ and WAS NOT FOUND, because God had translated him:
A’ for before his translation he had this testimony, that HE PLEASED GOD.
Note: “Walking” in the right way is shown to “please God” in Colossians 1:10 & 1 Thessalonians 4:1, so the two words are connected expositionally, if not etymologically.
One thought on “Genesis 5:24 and Hebrews 11:5”
Thank you for this chiasm and your observations.
This trans-testamental chiasmic continuum connects with what I represented as ‘trans-testamental quotational parallelism’ in my article (first published by Bro Dudley Fifield) in ‘The New Bible Student’ in the mid-90s, and more recently, 2011, with slight tweaking, in the ‘Christadelphian ejournal of Biblical interpretation’ (Cejbi).
My article is entitled: “Complementary Difference: Why NT Quotations often differ from their OT Source.”
In that article, I focused on quotations that arrive in the NT and are reused more than once. In some cases, these, like Gospel parallels, present word differences over their multiple re-use.
Also, I took it as a precedent or model, how that such differences, like yours from Gen 5 to Heb 11 re Enoch, are complementary transformations. I cited the case of Hebrew ‘ears’ (Psa 40:6) to Greek ‘body’ (Heb 10:5).
I am continuing documentation and research in these areas, and also have an eye on inspiration issues.
Associated with this is my mission to counter claims that the ‘Septuagint’ (sic), being a translation, and by definition not inspired, should be cited in, or being an influence upon, Christ, the apostles, or the NT writings.