LSJ 9 entry

jburke at sprint.com.au jburke at sprint.com.au
Tue Apr 23 23:27:18 EDT 2002




Hi Clay,

>
>From EDNT v.2 p443.

"The understanding of MORFH as essential being possibly points to
Gnosticism, where MORFH and EIKWN are synonyms."

"The equation of MORFH and OUSIA is first attested in patristic exegesis
(Lampe PGL 884f)."

Please note that neither OUSIA nor EIKWN are exactly what you are looking
for.
>

Thanks, that helps.

>
"Essential nature" as a gloss for MORPH seems to be up against some serious
difficulties, since most of the elements in MORPH's semantic domain have to
do with physical appearance. The big problem with the NT use of the term is
Phil 2:6ff. What does  hOS EN MORFHi QEOU hUPARCWN mean?
>

Well, it seems to me that the examples given by LSJ are perfectly in order.  I don't see any reason to get all hot and bothered about the passage in Philippians.  Why not just translate it as 'form'?  That's well within the semantic range of MORFH.  I don't see what the fuss is about.

>
I assume this issue is lurking unmentioned in your question. Perhaps not.
>

Perhaps, but until I've had further correspondence, I won't know what this guy is getting at.  We're actually having a discussion about the legitimacy of lexicons, and what to do when lexical definitios conflict.  As an example, he gave me the definition which is apparently in his favourite lexicon (but without any supporting evidence), knowing that I use LSJ and that it is different.  I gave him LSJ 9 with the supporting quotes, and he insists that the definition is the same, and that the two Greek passages I cited refer explicitly to 'essential nature'.  It didn't look that way to me.

>
On the use and abuse of LSJ 9, I will leave that to someone else.
>

Thanks.  Perhaps Ann can help.

Jonathan Burke.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




More information about the B-Greek mailing list