[B-Greek] Phil 2:11

Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Tue Oct 21 02:24:00 EDT 2003


Dear Richard,

It is precisely the confession,"Jesus Christ is Lord," that created a lot of
controversy in the early church (and subsequent church history) especially when
the threat of death was instituted. The Christian would "confess" that Jesus
Christ is Lord, but would not do the same for Caesar. Considering Paul was
writing to the Philippians , the history behind his relationship with the
Philippians (Acts 16), and the use of POLITEUSQE in 1:27, and POLITEUMA in 3:20,
and, finally, where Paul was writing from (Rome under house arrest). It makes
perfect sense to construe the phrase, KURIOS IHSOUS XRISTOS, as an
affirmation/confession of Christ's exaltation and all creations response, to the
glory of God the Father.

En Xristos,

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Ghilardi" <qodeshlayhvh at juno.com>
To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Phil 2:11


> 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
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
> For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of
Com-Pair Services!
>


For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services!




More information about the B-Greek mailing list