[B-Greek] Phil 2:11
Richard Ghilardi
qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
Mon Oct 20 16:29:28 EDT 2003
Dear B-Greekers,
Carl wrote:
<<This is something of a quibble, inasmuch as the argument turns on how
the
Latin of two Vulgate versions should be understood grammatically.>>
This is no quibble, Carl. My argument in no way depends on a Latin
translation or on any translation. (I knew I would catch some flak for
bringing in translations.) I presented these two Vulgate renderings
merely to show that there are scholars, both ancient and modern, who have
views on this verse that differ from all that has been seen thus far on
this list. I did not present them to prove that the meaning of the Greek
could be elicited by an analysis of Latin grammar.
Carl wrote:
<<It's true that this Latin version offers a dubious reading of EIS DOXAN
QEOU PATROS. On the other hand, I don't think hOTI is really understood
as
causal here; although QUIA in classical Latin does tend to be used
primarily as a causal conjunction, I've observed that it's not at all
uncommonly used in later Latin--in the Vulgate--as a conjunction
introducing a noun clause, as instanced in the following verses of Job:>>
[referenced verses have been omitted]
It's true that my Latin is not so strong as my Greek. (Some would say
that my Greek is not so hot either. Be that as it may.) The only Latin
dicionaries I have available to me (Cassell, Lewis, Traupman) all focus
on Classical Latin and all of them have but one definition for QUIA:
"because". I also didn't know that Classical Latin does not extend to the
fourth century. Thank you, Carl for that correction. It does not,
however, vitiate the central point of my argument.
Carl wrote:
<<I rather doubt that this is how the Latin of the New Vulgate should be
understood, although I won't say dogmatically that it couldn't be
understood that way. I think rather that this Latin version conveys the
Greek phrasing KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS EIS DOXAN QEOU PATROS with maximal
economy; in the Latin, as in the Greek, the copula linking DOMINUS with
IESUS CHRISTUS and KURIOS with IHSOUS CRISTOS respectively is elliptical
but implicit.>>
I don't want to be dogmatic here either. The words DOMINUS IESUS CHRISTUS
may well be taken as a nominal sentence with an implicit copula as Carl
indicates above. But, in my judgement, they may be equally taken as
acclamation or exclamation. (I won't quibble over which of the two,
acclamation or exclamation, is to be preferred.)
Carl wrote:
<<On this view the New Vulgate does not "cut the Gordian knot" at all, if
by
that is meant that it resolves the question of which is subject and which
is predicate in the hOTI clause of Phil 2:11; rather, what it actually
does
is to reproduce the structure and word-order of the Greek in a
"classical"
instance of "literal" translation.>>
I agree, provided that the words -- DOMINUS IESUS CHRISTUS -- KURIOS
IHSOUS CRISTOS -- Lord Jesus Christ -- be taken as a nominal sentence.
Carl wrote:
<<If it were not a sentence then the adverbial phrase IN
GLORIAM DEI PATRIS serves no grammatical function; if it were an
acclamation, one might expect the nouns to be in the vocative rather than
in the nominative; if it is an exclamation, then I think that we must
understand the copula to be implicit.>>
This is the only really substantial objection in your post to my
viewpoint. But before I attempt to answer it, let me explain just what my
viewpoint is and how I came to it. My idea is compounded of two elements;
one drawn from the Old Vulgate and one from the New. From the Old I got
the idea the words DOMINUS IESUS CHRISTUS are not a sentence. True, they
are the subject of a nominal sentence but they do not, by themselves,
constitute a sentence. The sentence is: DOMINUS IESUS CHRISTUS IN GLORIA
EST DEI PATRIS -- "The Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the
Father". The first three words are only the subject. Note too that Jerome
chose to make the copula EST explicit. Well aware of this traditional
rendering and in spite of it the scholars of the New Vulgate omit it.
This is a very significant omission IMHO and tips the scales in favor of
taking the nomina divina as acclamation/exclamation rather than as a
nominal sentence. If the New Vulgate wanted the reader to understand
these words as a nominal sentence, they could have just retained Jerome's
EST! But if they wanted the reader to understand these words as
acclamation/exclamation, what could they have printed in the text other
than what they did print? From the New Vulgate I got the idea that the
words DOMINUS IESUS CHRISTUS are to be understood as oratio recta not
oratio obliqua, inasmuch as a) the conjunction QUIA which introduces
indirect speech is missing and b) these three words are contained within
guillemets.
I am now ready to state my view:
The words DOMINUS IESUS CHRISTUS are the exclamatory ipsissima verba of
the confessing tongue. They do not constitute a nominal sentence.
Lest anyone accuse me of turning this list into B-Latin, all that I have
written in the previous paragraph as well as what I'm about to write may
be applied, mutatis mutandis, to the Greek text.
Now to answer Carl's objection.
I don't know whether, in Latin, to expect the nouns to be vocative rather
than nominative assuming that acclamation is in view here. But in Greek,
I see no problem at all. There a number of places in the NT and perhaps
in the OT as well where the nom. is put for the voc. with respect to the
nomina divina. I will adduce only two references: Heb 1:8 and Jn 20:28.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't believe this a moot point. So why not view
Php 2:11 as another example of the nom. being put for the voc.? So
acclamation is at least possible. The central objection, however, is that
if these words do not constitute a sentence, then the following adverbial
phrase, EIS DOXAN QEOU PATROS (to revert to the Greek) serves no
grammatical function. Lets look at what grammatical function this phrase
does serve assuming that the preceding 3 words do constitute a nominal
sentence with an implicit copula.
The phrase EIS DOXAN QEOU PATROS is really a sort of abbreviated purpose
clause, "to the end that God the Father may glorified", n'est-ce pas? In
Greek, hINA QEOS PATHR DOXASQH or better EIS TO QEON PATERA DOXASQHNAI.
It answers the question, "Why does the tongue confess?" Or more
specifically the question, "Why does the tongue confess that Jesus Christ
is Lord?" The answer: EIS TO QEON PATERA DOXASQHNAI. Now if we treat
KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS as O.R. and as an exclamation without implicit
copula, EIS DOXAN QEOU PATROS serves the very same telic function! It
answers the question, " Why does the tongue confess, <<(the) Lord Jesus
Christ>>?" The answer is the same: EIS TO QEON PATERA DOXASQHNAI ! The
fact is that EIS DOXAN QEOU PATROS is adverbial as Carl rightly points
out. As such it modifies not the preceding exclamation specifically but
the verb EXOMOLOGHSHTAI. This is the case whether we take KURIOS IHSOUS
CRISTOS as a sentence or not, as exclamation or not, as acclamation or
not! So this objection evaporates.
Finally, it is obvious that most everyone on this list agrees that the
words in question should be taken as a nominal sentence. But there is no
consensus about what's subject and what's predicate. I wonder whether in
this highest of paeans to Christ frequently sung (or recited) in church
by the common people there can be such intractable ambiguity. Would a
Christian slave of the first century church, meeting in secret with her
brothers and sisters for fear of persecution, know which word(s) were
subject and which were predicate in this "sentence"? Or would she just
sing out (but quietly), "Lord Jesus Christ" as her exclamation of praise
to her true Master?
Yours in His grace,
Richard Ghilardi -- qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
New Haven, CT USA
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list