[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #753
b-greek-digest Thursday, 15 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 753
In this issue:
Panthera
Re: Phil. 2 Again
Re: Phil. 2 Again
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Dr. James Edwards" <edwards@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 16:40:09 -35900
Subject: Panthera
Hello Stephen:
Regarding Origen's report that Jesus was born as the result of a
secret affair between Mary and a Roman soldier named Panthera (_Contra
Celsum_ 1:28, 32), you may be interested in consulting the article on
"Jesus" in _Encyclopaedia Judaica_ (1971) 10.14-17. It seems to have
been part of Jewish polemic in the Talmud and among Amoraim of the third
and fourth centuries to discredit the doctrine of the virgin birth. R.
T. Herford's _Christianity in Talmud and Midrash_ (London: Williams and
Norgate, 1903) 112-115 discusses the whole issue of Jesus' profile in the
Talmud, including this point.
By the way, as a sorry testimony to the fact that malicious slurs
do not easily die, there was a theological think tank at Leipzig during
the 1930s headed up by a prestigious Neutestamentler, Walter
Grundmann, who dusted off this report in an attempt to argue that if
Jesus' father was a Roman soldier that made him an Aryan, thus
extricating him from his Jewish heritage!
James R. Edwards
Professor of Religion
Jamestown College
Jamestown, N.D. 58405
edwards@acc.jc.edu
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 17:05:18 CST
Subject: Re: Phil. 2 Again
On Tue, 13 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
>The word is, I think, a hapax legomenon, so far as our extant texts are
>concerned, but the root meaning of the verb involved seems normally to
>involve "seizure by force." That's why I find it difficult thus far to
>have it refer to something which Christ is supposed already to possess.
>How can he even contemplate taking by force what he already has? It seems
>to me some word other than hARPAGMOS ought to express that notion of
>holding on to a treasure that one possesses. This is, in fact, the more
>serious of my problems with the Greek.
The word is rare, which makes it difficult to define. As I understand it, it
can have one of these four possible meanings:
Abstractly:
1) the act of robbery
Concretely:
2) something to steal, something to grab, grasp (potential booty)
3) something stolen, something grabbed, grasped (actual booty)
By extension:
4) something to cling to, something to possess
Where a word can have this range of meanings, one almost has to understand it
by a top-down method of interpretation rather than a bottom-up. From other
places in Paul, how would he have understood it when he wrote it or quoted it?
I guess I lean toward the latter meaning where the reference to stealing has
become merely metaphorical. The main reason for this is the contrast between
meaning four and the word EKENWSEN in the next clause. It is hard to empty
yourself of something you don't have.
>My problem is
>with the logic of the use of MORFH. It appears to me that people want to
>use MORFH in a full Aristotelian sense here, but that it cannot apply to
>the two phrases MORFH QEOU and MORFH DOULOU in the same way.
You are right. Like all words, MOEFH has a range of meanings and it is used
in two different senses here.
With the expressions "form of God" and "equality with God" (if you will let me
translate TO EINAI ISA QEWi that way) in the hymn, I would say that this is a
reference to the pre-existence of Christ. It is hard to imagine what it means
for someone to seize equality with God; how would one go about doing that?
And if Christ did not have equality with God (when he had the form of God),
why would the writer even mention it? How would this fit in with the overall
message of the hymn, which seems to be to exalt Christ as our example?
But I find myself arguing by asking questions I don't answer, which very thing
I have told students not to do, even though Paul did it.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 20:03:51 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Phil. 2 Again
On Wed, 14 Jun 1995, Bruce Terry wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
>
> >The word is, I think, a hapax legomenon, so far as our extant texts are
> >concerned, but the root meaning of the verb involved seems normally to
> >involve "seizure by force." That's why I find it difficult thus far to
> >have it refer to something which Christ is supposed already to possess.
> >How can he even contemplate taking by force what he already has? It seems
> >to me some word other than hARPAGMOS ought to express that notion of
> >holding on to a treasure that one possesses. This is, in fact, the more
> >serious of my problems with the Greek.
>
> The word is rare, which makes it difficult to define. As I understand it, it
> can have one of these four possible meanings:
I think the definitions are actually for hARPAGMA and the assumption is
being made that hARPAGMOS is equivalent in meaning. I found BAGD's
discussion of this rather interesting; there is at least some reason to
doubt the equivalence of the two and the assumption that this is a
secondary form of hARPAGMA; one rfc cited by BAGD indicated that -MA
nouns more generally are secondary formations from -MOS nouns rather than
- -MOS from -MA. This is one of the tantalizing aspects of the problem.
Shaughn Daniels sent me a list of 217 instances of hARPAGMA, but
hARPAGMOS stands in what the British used to call "splendid isolation."
> Abstractly:
> 1) the act of robbery
> Concretely:
> 2) something to steal, something to grab, grasp (potential booty)
> 3) something stolen, something grabbed, grasped (actual booty)
> By extension:
> 4) something to cling to, something to possess
>
> Where a word can have this range of meanings, one almost has to understand it
> by a top-down method of interpretation rather than a bottom-up. From other
> places in Paul, how would he have understood it when he wrote it or quoted it?
> I guess I lean toward the latter meaning where the reference to stealing has
> become merely metaphorical. The main reason for this is the contrast between
> meaning four and the word EKENWSEN in the next clause. It is hard to empty
> yourself of something you don't have.
Yes--just as, if one does NOT go with #4, it is hard to seize something
that you already have.
> >My problem is
> >with the logic of the use of MORFH. It appears to me that people want to
> >use MORFH in a full Aristotelian sense here, but that it cannot apply to
> >the two phrases MORFH QEOU and MORFH DOULOU in the same way.
>
> You are right. Like all words, MOEFH has a range of meanings and it is used
> in two different senses here.
>
> With the expressions "form of God" and "equality with God" (if you will let me
> translate TO EINAI ISA QEWi that way) in the hymn, I would say that this is a
> reference to the pre-existence of Christ. It is hard to imagine what it means
> for someone to seize equality with God; how would one go about doing that?
> And if Christ did not have equality with God (when he had the form of God),
> why would the writer even mention it? How would this fit in with the overall
> message of the hymn, which seems to be to exalt Christ as our example?
Well, let me give you what I think is a plausible alternative to that
understanding of TO EINAI ISA QEWi. Suppose that we understand a Second
Eden Scenario: the serpent says, [NEB] "Of course you will not die. God
knows that as soon as you eat it, your eyes will be opened and YOU WILL
BE LIKE GODS/GOD." It is this phrase in Genesis 3:5 that seems to me
suggestive of TO EINAI ISA QEWi, which I suggested be translated, "being
on a par with God." The fruit that yields this "being on a par" is
forbidden but tempting. I see a plausible reading of OUX hARPAGMON
hHGHSATO TO EINAI ISA QEWi in the sense that Jesus did not yield to the
temptation; instead he accepted the status intended for the human
creature: servanthood, a servanthood which also entails death.
I don't insist on this interpretation as THE RIGHT ONE. But I do think
that the Second Garden of Eden Scenario does offer an appropriate setting
for the peculiar language of verse 6.
A sidelight: we've been talking about honest translation (I think). I
note that NEB gives in the continuous text for verse 6: "For the divine
nature was his from the first; yet he did not think to snatch at equality
with God, ..." and in the footnote offers an alternative, "... yet he did
not prize his equality with God." I find it fascinating that the NEB's
primary version of verse 6 directly expresses the problem I see with this
verse in the Greek.
I note that as yet no one has taken my bait and offered a suggestion as
to what is actually meant by "the image and likeness of God" in Genesis
1:26-27.
> But I find myself arguing by asking questions I don't answer, which very thing
> I have told students not to do, even though Paul did it.
"Do as I SAY, not as I DO!" But your last sentence is truly marvelous,
Bruce. I said earlier that I really don't want to apply an Aristotelian
definition of MORFH to this Philippians passage; nevertheless, I think
that Aristotle was right on target when he said that philosophy began and
begins with wonder/puzzlement and also that problem-solving begins with
TO APOREIN, "recognizing the existence of a problem."
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #753
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu