[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #757
b-greek-digest Monday, 19 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 757
In this issue:
RE:The Christ Hymn (Feinberg)
Re: The Christ Hymn (Feinberg)
Re: Problems in the Christ Hymn (Phil 2:4-11)
Re: Made-up Greek sentences
RE:The Christ Hymn (Feinberg)
Re: The Christ Hymn (Feinberg)
Made up sentences
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 08:18:12 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: RE:The Christ Hymn (Feinberg)
I am away from home base by some 650 miles in the Blue Ridge mountains, but
I am trying to keep up by logging in once a day to check my mail. I'd like
to respond, albeit more cursorily--and, by your leave, without quoting the
originals--to the last two posts on this subject from William Brooks and
Gregory Jordan.
I am grateful to William Brooks for summarizing the Feinberg article. I
realize that I shall have to see the original article (once I get back to
civilization) and check whether I am in fact responding to what he argued
in detail, but I do think the summary William has given us is very helpful.
My only real problem with that summary is that in one or two instances in
which Feinberg seems to be admitting that the alternatives are not clearly
decidable one way or the other, the decision has in each instance gone in
favor of pre-existence. It seems to me that these rather arbitrary
decisions undermines the conclusions which he draws in very strong terms.
For one thing it seems to me that it has been assumed without argument that
hARPAGMOS is in fact equivalent in meaning to the more commonly found
hARPAGMA; it is then argued that the phrase hARPAGMON hHGHSASQAI must be
viewed as an idiom with a regular meaning and that Hoover's understanding
of that phrase as equivalent to "regard as something to use for [one's] own
advantage" must be the right one. While there is some plausibility to this
suggestion, it seems to me grounded in the first place upon an
undemonstrated assumption and, to that extent, less than convincing.
Secondly, if it is "difficult to determine with any certitude which sense
Paul meant" whether Paul understood "emptied himself" in the metaphorical
('he made himself nothing') or the metaphysical sense ('he emptied
himself'), it seems to me that his opting "for the latter as more
preferable" is arbitrary.
In the summary it is asserted, "(2) The kenosis consisted in the surrender
of Christ's position, not his powers or prerogatives." This seems to assume
a full-blown Chalcedonian definition that is centuries away in the
development of Christian theology. I would prefer to side with David Gowler
on this matter and see Paul's thinking as sophisticated, to be sure, but
nevertheless at a relatively early stage of endeavoring to understand the
metaphysical implications of the revelation received by the believing
community in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
I find myself (to my own surprise) in almost full agreement with Greg
Jordan's response to William's summary of Feinberg's article. In
particular, Greg underscores two points which have always seemed to me to
be paramount in considertion of the Christ Hymn:
(1) TO EINAI ISA QEWi is a rather strange phrase in the first place. I
quite agree with Greg that, far from making a strong statement in favor of
the deity of Jesus or even identity of Jesus with God, it seems far more
likely a formula of ranking in prestige or authority. To this may be added
that it DOES suggest the proposition hinted at by the serpent in his
conversation with Eve in Genesis 3: "you shall be like God, knowing good
and evil."
(2) Whatever the origin of the Christ Hymn--and it does seem more likely to
me that it is cited by Paul rather than composed by him--, the context in
which Paul employs it makes it an instrument NOT of his Christology BUT
PRIMARILY of his ethical parenesis: it is Christ's FRONHMA of humility and
mutual service to which Paul appeals and which he commends to the
Philippians as he urges them to overcome every tendency toward competition
with each other. It is, it seems to me, precisely the element that he
emphasizes repeatedly in 1 Cor when using the antithesis of AGAPH and
GNWSIS, asserting that the former builds community and establishes the
"body of Christ," while the latter divides members against each other as
each asserts his/her own individuality to the detriment of others and the
whole group.
Finally, I would agree with Greg that MORFH QEOU ought to be thought of in
terms of function--as I suggested in an earlier post when I posed the
question that hasn't yet really been responded to, what do people
understand the "image of God" in Genesis 1 to mean, if it doesn't point to
an anthropomorphic conception. I cannot demonstrate that the unknown
original composer of the Christ hymn (if it wasn't Paul) was thinking of
the phrase "image of God" in Genesis 1 when he/she wrote hOS EN MORFHi QEOU
hUPARXWN, but I really think the meaning of MORFH here has to be understood
in terms of function rather than visible form--i.e., intelligible form
rather than visible form. And what is that function? John's gospel comes
closest to saying it without "defining" it: loving, creating, building up,
sustaining, restoring, healing, renewing. And isn't it these (at least,
however much more one may feel compelled to add) that one points to
especially when one says (to use the NEB paraphrase of John 1:1) that "what
God was, the Word was" or "what God IS, Jesus demonstrated in life, death,
and resurrection?"
Having said all that in support of the ESXATOS ANQRWPOS interpretation of
the Christ hymn, I want to re-iterate what I stated in my first post on the
subject: I think that the Greek text as it stands poses problems BOTH for
the traditional interpretation of the Hymn (which I would characterize as
the "Out of the ivory palaces" view) AND for the Second Adam view for which
I have been arguing and which it seems to me that Greg has upheld.
The only matter on which I may remain at odds with Greg (on this subject)
is the Christological question of the pre-existence of Jesus. I would like
to know which texts (apart from the letters of more questionable Pauline
authenticity, 2 Thess, Eph, Col, and the Pastorals) seem explicitly or
implicitly to point to the pre-existence of Jesus.
Best wishes to all, cwc
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/
------------------------------
From: RoyRM@aol.com
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 14:58:50 -0400
Subject: Re: The Christ Hymn (Feinberg)
Its possible I'm jumping in over my head, but here goes:
>No, "theos On" would be a strong statement. To me the argument >is
>running as Jesus's rejection of divinity for himself, and the danger of
>"snatching" God's unique divinity for any person. One can compare >the
>relevant "isos" passage in John's gospel.
I fail to see this. In fact, it looks more like some of your "theological
exegesis" than anything else. EINAI ISA QEOU seems like a very profound
statement. Especially in light of the original hymn writer(s) likely
Jewishness, as well as Paul's. You might want to explain this a little
better in case I'm missing your point.
>Does Feinberg notice the pun on "kenodoksian" in 2:3? The >"emptying," it
>seems to me, is emptying of arrogance and audacity, the same >feelings and
>attitudes Paul's audience were in danger of displaying.
You seem to be reaching with this also. If this is indeed a hymn, was your
meaning likely an original intention? I think not. Also, in order to empty
himself of those things, wouldn't it follow that he (Christ) first had them?
My Christology may temper how I understand this, but if Paul and other
writers (as you suggest) held to Christ's preexistence, this seems like an
unlikely conclusion to draw from the passage. Could the perceived pun be
unintentional?
>> (5) The kenosis involved the voluntary non-use of Jesus' divine
attributes.
>> "The emptying of the savior consisted, not in subtraction, but in the
>> addition of true humanity."
>This is just plain contradictory. I suppose that's the "theological"
>part of his exegesis.
While I see this can be taken as a theological conclusion, I've read it over
and over and don't see the "plain" contradiction. Perhaps you could help me
here.
Roy R. Millhouse
RoyRM@aol.com
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 14:29:54 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Problems in the Christ Hymn (Phil 2:4-11)
Carl Conrad's query about Phil 2:5-11 reflects discussions among NT
scholars for the last couple decades. Supporting a strong "Adam
Christology" approach, with no real pre-existence seen, see J.D.G. Dunn's
_Christology in the Making_, in which this passage is treated rather
fully and others taking this position are lined up.
Most, including yours truly, aren't persuaded, however. A few
observations must suffice for this medium
1) On "morphe": Contrary to many claims, "morphe" and "eikon" are *not*
handled the same in the biblical texts, and probably don't = the same
connotation. The Gen creation accounts emphasize Adam as God's "eikon",
and this has special connotations, because "eikon" is also used for
images of the gods. Thus, Adam as/in (Heb. = "b") God's image probably =
Adam in the role/dignity of the "image" of a god, that is, the physical
manifestation/representation of the deity and thus deserving of the same
respect or sanctity one gives to images of gods. It *certainly* (in my
view!) has nothing to do with any particular attribute or faculty of the
adam (e.g., such as reason, etc., all of which are ideas showing the
influence of Greek philosophy).
2) Given Paul's familiarity and commitment to what he saw as scripture,
it is logical to think that "morphe" may have been shaped by its use in
the Bible. In the LXX morphe does *not* carry the Aristotelian-type
notions of "essence" etc., but can represent someone's appearance or
visage. Thus, "morphe theou" in Phil 2 may mean something like "godlike
in form/appearance". If Paul had wanted to allude to Gen 2, "eikon
theou" would have done it straight off. That he avoided "eikon" in favor
of "morphe" is significant, I think.
3) AT the same time, I think it quite plausible that Phil 2 hints at a
contrast twixt Jesus and the story of Adam's disobedience, esp. in 2:6-7,
where "equality with God" is mentioned, and even in the whole direction
of the action, away from godlike status to servant/human status--which is
opposite the wrongful aspirations of Adam (and Eve) in Gen 2.
4) But, if Phil 2 refers entirely and only to Jesus' earthly life, and if
"morphe theou" only refers to the human Jesus described honorifically,
then I think we have some problems understanding what "ekenosen" (2:7)
could mean ("emptied" what? human status? some honorific role? what?).
Also, what does "en homoiomati anthropon genomenos" =?? If "morphe theou"
= being a man, then what happened in 2:7?
So, all in all I think we have to see "morphe theou" as connoting
some kind of status and form of existence *prior to* and *above*
"becoming human". We don't have Nicaea or Chalcedon here by any means
(they had other fish to fry than Paul). But we don't have simply a human
Jesus who acts like a good boy.
Can I point to my discussion of "pre-existence" in the
_Dictionary of Paul and His Letters_, eds. G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin,
for a bit more discussion and bibliog??
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 23:00:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Made-up Greek sentences
On Sat, 17 Jun 1995 Yirah@aol.com wrote:
> My story comes from learning Hebrew. I'll keep the name of the higher
> learning institute anonymous so not to embarass it. Our Hebrew "grammar" used
> not the Scripture to teach us Hebrew, but made-up sentences. Oh, I learned a
> lot about Goldilocks and the Three Bears, and Hanzel and Gretel (in Hebrew no
> less) and other stories, but I always thought it quite odd that I was
> attending an evangelical seminary to learn Hebrew to help me appreciate what
> God revealed in the OT and we weren't even studying it! Toward the end we did
> delve into Ruth a little, but I vowed that if I ever had the opportunity to
> teach Greek or Hebrew I would go to the Book--after all, that's why I
> invested thousands of dollars, moved my family and put in the effort.
>
Mr. Brooks,
Perhaps this is off-subject of the list, and also a little late. But if
you still have a curiosity for learning OT Hebrew, I would heartily
recommend one book that I think stands far above its competition -
_Biblical Hebrew: A Text and Workbook_ by Bonnie Pedrotti Kittel, Vicki
Hoffer, and Rebecca Abts Wright (Yale 1989). It's a beautifully packaged
and excitingly designed work that can be used for self-teaching. It
employs the inductive approach. First the OT Hebrew was statistically
analyzed for the most common vocabulary and grammatical forms. Then
these are taught *in that order*. There is nothing quite like studying
the first lesson, on "Vayyomer YHWH" "And the LORD said", and then being
told that you now can now understand 4% of the entire OT!
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 23:22:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE:The Christ Hymn (Feinberg)
On Sun, 18 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> Finally, I would agree with Greg that MORFH QEOU ought to be thought of in
> terms of function--as I suggested in an earlier post when I posed the
> question that hasn't yet really been responded to, what do people
> understand the "image of God" in Genesis 1 to mean, if it doesn't point to
> an anthropomorphic conception. I cannot demonstrate that the unknown
> original composer of the Christ hymn (if it wasn't Paul) was thinking of
> the phrase "image of God" in Genesis 1 when he/she wrote hOS EN MORFHi QEOU
> hUPARXWN, but I really think the meaning of MORFH here has to be understood
> in terms of function rather than visible form--i.e., intelligible form
> rather than visible form. And what is that function? John's gospel comes
> closest to saying it without "defining" it: loving, creating, building up,
> sustaining, restoring, healing, renewing. And isn't it these (at least,
> however much more one may feel compelled to add) that one points to
> especially when one says (to use the NEB paraphrase of John 1:1) that "what
> God was, the Word was" or "what God IS, Jesus demonstrated in life, death,
> and resurrection?"
As Larry said, Gen. uses the word "eikOn," and in the original Old Hebrew
story it may have meant something like he indicated. But by Paul's time,
the theory of man-in-God's-image (tselem) was being reworked by
Hellenistic Jews. According to them, all human beings contained
something "divine" in them - sometimes this was specifically human
reason, sometimes just some sort of vague dignity. Then there were the
messianists who interpreted the eikOn as the Messiah himself as demiurge
(cf. Col. 1:15). I'm not sure how far one can go with the Adam allusions
- - I tend to agree with those who see more of the Suffering Servant here.
But there is a sense in which human beings were regarded as natural
slaves of God (Gen. 2:15 establishes Adam as God's eved/slave). So by
fulfilling his humanity by being God's most perfect slave, Jesus
unwittingly qualified himself to be master of all, apparently.
> The only matter on which I may remain at odds with Greg (on this subject)
> is the Christological question of the pre-existence of Jesus. I would like
> to know which texts (apart from the letters of more questionable Pauline
> authenticity, 2 Thess, Eph, Col, and the Pastorals) seem explicitly or
> implicitly to point to the pre-existence of Jesus.
I don't think the attribution of pre-existence would necessarily have
been exceptional - it seemed to have been a widespread belief that all
human beings pre-existed in some vague way. Presumably, though, the
Messiah's pre-existence would have been more exceptional. I
would suggest 1 Cor. 8:6 implies Jesus was creator of the universe. But
then "panta" may not refer to the entire created cosmos - maybe it refers
to "blessings" or something. Your comments have reminded me that Paul
says very little on this subject, if anything.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 23:55:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: The Christ Hymn (Feinberg)
On Sun, 18 Jun 1995 RoyRM@aol.com wrote:
> You seem to be reaching with this also. If this is indeed a hymn, was your
> meaning likely an original intention? I think not. Also, in order to empty
> himself of those things, wouldn't it follow that he (Christ) first had them?
> My Christology may temper how I understand this, but if Paul and other
> writers (as you suggest) held to Christ's preexistence, this seems like an
> unlikely conclusion to draw from the passage. Could the perceived pun be
> unintentional?
I assume Paul agreed with the content of the Hymn, even if it wasn't his,
and I think Paul wove it very carefully and tightly to his preceding and
following text. I don't think Paul's pun is unintentional (it's not the
only echo - look at tapeino- in v. 3 and in v. 8 of the hymn, etc.)
although it's possible Paul misrepresented/misunderstood the hymn's
point, which I am not considering.
> >> "The emptying of the savior consisted, not in subtraction, but in the
> >> addition of true humanity."
>
> >This is just plain contradictory. I suppose that's the "theological"
> >part of his exegesis.
>
> While I see this can be taken as a theological conclusion, I've read it over
> and over and don't see the "plain" contradiction. Perhaps you could help me
> here.[A
Roy, explain, without theology, how emptying can be addition. I have the
same problem as I think others here do with seeing transformations of
essences, metamorphoses of natures, etc. here - not only are they conceptually
awkward (look how their Chalcedonian resolution, a diplomatic hash if
ever there was one, busted the orthodox church into three pieces), but
they are also unnecessary and, I think, anachronistic.
Paul uses morph-, here as in Gal. 4:19, I think, to refer to personality
and character formation, and the practical application of Paul's
"christology" to his follower's lives in a nontheoretical way. I would
offer the following as a kind of paraphrase just to explain how I
understand the passage...
Phil. 2:5-11
Have that attitude among yourselves which Messiah Jesus also had! who,
existing with the character of God did not consider the audacity
(contemplate the presumption) of being equal to God, but instead
humbled himself, taking on the attitude of a slave - since he happened to
be (came into existence) like human beings, and since he could be
recognized by his form as a human being, he humbled himself, by being
obedient to the death, death by crucifixion. For this reason, God
exalted him and bestowed on him the name (reputation) above every name
(reputation), so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend - in
the sky, on earth, and under the the earth - and every tongue acclaim in
unison that Jesus the Messiah is master, to the renown of God his father.
Notice the contrasting parallel with Jesus's refusal to "seize" equality with
God (6 harpagmon) and God's voluntary bestowal of something quite like
equality with Himself on Jesus as a reward for his exemplary obedience
(9 ekharisato). This strongly implies that Jesus should not be
understood as having ever been God's equal - even in his glorification,
it is derivative. The image is one of a slave who is being promoted to
overseer of the other slaves, combined with the image of a master
presenting his son to the slaves as their new master - they must acclaim
him and kneel. Jesus is not only God's son, he is His ultimate Freedman.
The underlying theory is the traditional "humble yourself and God will
exalt you" (Job 22:29, Matt. 23:12, James 4:10, etc.) - Jesus humbled
himself more than anyone else, so God exalted him more than anyone else.
Jesus recognized his humanity more fully than those who pretended to be
God's equal (apparently some of the Philippians did so in their behaviors
and attitudes toward others 2:2-4) - he knew that it meant being a slave,
so he became the ultimate slave. Then God rewarded him - and now he provides
Paul's example to imitate.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Martin Luther <CRF_WEBBERDJ@crf.cuis.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 23:19:09 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Made up sentences
As a student of Biblical Greek, I used Machen with his made-up sentences.
And yes, I occasionally grew weary of reading about how "the going-into the
temple apostle loosed the having sinned slaves," I think it is a better
approach than just sentences from the Bible. Knowing that I would someday
have a command of the Greek of the New Testament was my motivation. I think
that translating Bible passages only isn't the best way to learn Greek,
because it's too easy already to know the verse or verses in question. A mix
would be best, im my opinion. I know that once we moved out of the textbook
and into translation, it was a lot easier and required less work because I
was so familiar with the New Testament. When we did the Apocrypha and the
Greek Fathers, we found out whether we really knew Greek or not.
Just thought you all might want to have a student's opinion.
James Sharp
Recently Graduated
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #757
*****************************
** 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