From: Alex / Ali (alexali@surf.net.au)
Date: Fri Dec 24 1999 - 05:04:47 EST
<x-html><!x-stuff-for-pete base="" src="" id="0" charset="iso-8859-1"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>I notice in the daily digest received today that
Edgar Foster took up some comments I made yesterday in regard to Philippians
2:6, particularly in relation to hUPARCWN's being taken as causal or
concessive. I thank Edgar for citing these; my intention had
been mainly to identify hUPARCON as yet one more element in the mix that makes
this verse difficult, and particularly to indicate the outworking of that in
translation (since Grant Polle's initial post indicated that his interest had
been aroused in part through his noting the range of translations). I
think that if we were to present to non-Greek readers some understanding of the
difficulties behind the verse, three factors come to mind: 1.
hARPAGMOS. The difficulty of this word is borne out yet again in the posts
of the digest I've just read (including those from Rod Decker, Jeffrey B.
Gibson, Greg Stafford, Edgar Foster, <FONT face=Arial>Jon R. Venema).
Despite Rod's apparent confidence (shared by Moises Silva [Philippians, in The
Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary series, p118 and fn 38 on that page] who says,
"Hoover's essay, which reflects thoroughness and a clear-headed method,
must be regarded as having settled this particular question"), I'm not sure
we can 'nail it down', and this because the evidence we have of it is simply too
thin. To my mind, the very fact that the literature on the verse so often
resorts to the analogy of the word's cognates is indicative of the paucity of
evidence available to us. In this regard, I would take up a point made by
Grant Polle in his saying of hARPAGMOS, "<FONT face=Arial>Notice some of
its verb meanings", simply to say that it can be misleading to assume the
meaning of a noun based on its cognate verb (sometimes they may take unexpected
and divergent paths). That is particularly true in a case such as this
where our knowledge of a specific word is based on very few examples, for the
reliance on etymology and the meaning of cognates can give us an unwarranted
confidence. 2 The understanding of MORFH. 3 The possibility of
understanding hUPARCWN in different ways, including the concessive and causal
senses, while acknowledging that the nuances derived from it such as
"because he was" or "although he was" are *not* dictated by
the form.</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT face=Arial>Edgar cited
Professor Gerald Hawthorne as taking HUPARCWN in a causal sense, and Richard R.
Melick Jr and Moises Silva as favouring the concessive (I didn't understand
Edgar to be necessarily citing with approval either the one or the two).
Part of Edgar's message read:</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT face=Arial>>Richard R.
Melick Jr. (NA Commentary) critiques Hawthorne's idea as follows:
"Hawthorne, Philippians, 85, takes the participle causally: "Precisely
because he was in the form of God." The idea is attractive, but the text
speaks of giving up what one has, and the concessive emphasizes that more"
<BR>(Melick [1991] ).</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT face=Arial>I myself think
that Melick's point that "the text speaks of giving up what one has"
in fact argues *against* taking hUPARCWN concessively, because of the position
the adversative ALLA at the beginning of verse seven. Verse six
establishes the magnitude of what was given up by Christ Jesus,
"</FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT color=#000000 size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT
face=Arial>who being in the form of God did not consider equality with God as
robbery"; then the adversative ALLA is in its proper place to give
emphasis: "*but* he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant
…".</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Moises Silva [fn 11, p105] quotes a remark made
by Morna D Hooker in the broader context of verses 6-11 with which we can
perhaps all relate to: "I myself have produced six or seven different
analyses - and found each of them convincing at the time!"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>It being only three hours before Santa attempts to crawl down
the chimney here (I have never quite got the hang of working out the time for
most of you over there in America), I must close with my best wishes to
all.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Dr Alex Hopkins (Melbourne, Australia)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:51 EDT