From: Al Kidd (akidd@infoave.net)
Date: Mon Jul 01 1996 - 22:14:32 EDT
David Moore has suggested that I have taken R.P. Martin out of
context as respects Martin's statement "[it is an assumption
that MORFH QEOU (in verse 6) and TO EINAI ISA QEWi (in the same
verse) are to be equated."
Of course, I did not make any comment on Martin's
Christology, but I simply stated what he said about the syntax
of the phrases under consideration. Does Martin himself make
the assumption? Or does he reject the assumption while still
managing, at least in his estimation of the matter, to present
an "orthodox" Christology--this despite the grand _non sequitur_
that he would appear to make of his Christology vis-a-vis his
rejection of the aforementioned assumption? Either alternative
is not to the point of why I made reference to it. He simply
says that there is an assumption made--and we construe that to
mean that there are no grammatical rules that can arbitrate the
issue here.
But now that David Moore wishes to make an issue of this,
I will quote Roy Hoover on Martin's misunderstanding of the
kind of Christology he (Martin) thought he was supporting.
And the reader can gather from Hoover that Martin did indeed
reject the aforementioned "assumption," so that he makes
different equations among the critical phrases. Roy Hoover,
"The Harpagmos Enigma: A Philogical Solution," HTR 64 (1971)
101, ftn. 12:
Since it is actually the MORFH phrase on
which he [(Martin)] bases his _res rapta_
conclusions, and since he believes that the
hARPAGMOS remark refers to what Christ in
prehuman existence did not yet possess
(TO EINAI ISA QEWi = the rank of KURIOS),
MARTIN [sic} actually achieves not an
"intermediate" position but a restatement
of the _res rapienda_ ['thing requiring to
be seized'] view, adorned by what he takes
to be that import of the idiomatic
hARPAGMOS expression which is most
accordant with the context. [end of quote]
But as to the issue of whether David Moore reads Martin
correctly in contradistinction to Hoover's reading of Martin
is, vis-a-vis my reason for quoting Martin, a moot issue. I
did not suggest in any way that Martin has a Christology with
which I can agree. What he does with his grammatical insights
can be a _non sequitur_ to his Christological conclusions. This
sort of thing happens all too often. Hoover believes that
Martin has not _semologically_ achieved the Christology he
apparently wanted to establish. Still, I can quote him for an
illustration of where an accomplished scholar disagrees with
the equation that David Moore has suggested.
Also, another scholar puts in his appearance here. H.A.A.
Kennedy, _The Epistle to the Philippians_ 4 (_The Expositor's
Greek Testament_ series, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans)
436:
Is TO E.[INAI] I.[SA] Q.[EWi] equivalent
to EN M.[ORFH] Q.[EOU]? In spite of some
Comm.[entators] there is absolutely
nothing in the text to justify the
supposition.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:46 EDT