[B-Greek] Re: The Lexical Semantics of MORFH (long)

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Dec 7 12:53:25 EST 2004


At 9:29 AM -0800 12/6/04, Edgar Foster wrote:
>Dear B-Greekers,
>
>I've analyzed the signifer MORFH in many different
>contexts for a number of years and one common
>statement concerning this term that I still have a
>question about relates to what is written in sources
>such as _The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the
>Greek New Testament_.
>
>This work states that MORFH (in Phil 2:6) refers to
>"The outward display of the inner reality or
>substance."
>
>My question: is this "signification" or definiens
>based on lexical semantics or pragmatics. Worded
>another way, is the previously mentioned signification
>of MORFH a denotation or connotation? To me, it
>appears to be connotative and not denotational since
>MORFH is used in the Classical literature as a
>signifier for the signified "beauty" or "grace" (as in
>Homer and Euripides). I thus fail to see how the
>definiens in Rogers and Rogers could represent a
>strict denotation of the term. But, maybe I'm not
>understanding this matter aright. I guess this nuance
>of the signifier could also be employed in
>philosophical contexts like Aristotle or Philo.

Like Bob Fuller, I'm hoping we may have a fruitful discussion of the
question Edgar has presented to us (where have you been, Edgar; long time,
no hear from!); I hope too that we can keep the discussion focused on
lexical evidence and clear indicators deriving from immediate context of
passages in which the word MORFH is found, both in the GNT and in
extra-biblical literature. For my part I don't see any justification
whatsoever for the definition of MORFH cited above, "the outward display of
the inner reality or substance."

The word is found only in two texts in the GNT, once in the questionable
"late-ending" of Mark's gospel, Mk 16:12, where the word pretty clearly
means "external appearance"--and we'd have to assume, I think, that hETERAi
certainly indicates that this MORFH is NOT identical with the inner reality
of the risen Jesus.

Mk 16:12 META DE TAUTA DUSIN EX AUTWN PERPATOUSIN EFANERWQH EN hETERAi
MORFHi POREUOMENOIS EIS AGRON.

The other passage is the Christ-hymn of Phil 2, where the word appears in
successive verses 6 (EN MORFHi QEOU hUPARCWN) and 7 (MORFHN DOULOU LABWN).

Phil 2:6 hOS EN MORFHi QEOU hUPARCWN OUC hARPAGMON hHGHSATO TO EINAI ISA
QEWi. 7 ALLA hEAUTON EKENWSEN MORFHN DOULOU LABWN, EN hOMOIWMATI ANQRWPWN
GENOMENOS; KAI SCHMATI hEUREQEIS hWS ANQRWPOS ...

And here, of course, the real problem is that, if MORFH means "essential
form" in verse 6 for MORFH QEOU, it does not SEEM to mean the same thing in
verse 7 for MORFHN DOULOU. It seems to me that Louw & Nida have a clear
sense of what the problem here is but they have some problem in applying
their perspective to Phil 2:6-7, inasmuch as they deem MORFH to have the
sense "nature or character" as opposed to discernible form. With respect to
MORFHN DOULOU they understand not "guise of a servant" but rather being and
doing what a servant is and does as MORFH QEOU is supposed by them to mean
"being and doing what God is and does."

58.2 MORFHa, HS, f: the nature or character of something, with emphasis
upon both the internal and external form - 'nature, character.' hOS EN
MORFHi QEOU hUPARCWN 'he always had the very nature of God' Php 2:6; MORFHN
DOULOU LABWN 'he took on the nature of a servant' Php 2:7. In view of the
lack of a closely corresponding lexical item such as 'nature,' it may be
necessary to restructure the form of Php 2:7 as 'he became truly a servant.'

58.15 MORFHa, HS, f: a visual form of something - 'visual form,
appearance.' EFANERWQH EN hETERAi MORFHi 'he appeared in a different form'
Mk 16:12.

The problem, it seems to me, as evidently it did to Edgar, that this sense
of "nature" is not readily found attested elsewhere for the noun MORFH.
Although Aristotle's metaphysics/ontology is sometimes called
"hylomorphism" because it involves the interrelations of hULH (matter) and
MORFH (form) at the various levels of the Scala Naturae, Aristotle himself
doesn't use the term MORFH of "essential form" but speaks rather of OUSIA
or TO TI HN EINAI, which latter phrase (lit. something like "being what it
(in fact) is") comes close to the phrase I've used above, "being and doing
what X is and does."

LSJ doesn't even HINT at any sense of MORFH as "nature" or "essential form":

MORFH, HS, hH , form, shape, twice in Hom. (not in Hes.), SOI D' EPI MEN
MORFH EPEWN  thou hast comeliness of words, Od.11.367 (cf. Eust. ad loc.);
so prob. ALLOS MEN ... EIDOS AKIDNOTEROS PELEI ANHR, ALLA QEOS MORFHN EPESI
STEFEI ? God adds a crown of shapeliness to his words, Od.8.170: freq.
later, MORFAS DUO ONOMAZEIN Parm.8.53 ; MORFHN ALLAXANTA  Emp.137.1 ;MORFAN
BRACUS Pi.I.4(3).53 ; MORFHS METRA  shape and size, E.Alc.1063: periphr.,
MORFHS FUSIS A.Supp.496 ; MORFHS SCHMA,TUPWMA, E.Ion992, Ph.162; THN AUTHN
TOU SCHMATOS MORFHN Arist.PA640b34 ; KAI GAIA, POLLWN ONOMATWN MORFH MIA
A.Pr.212 ; ONEIRATWN ALIGKIOI MORFAISIN ib.449; NUKTERWN FANTASMATWN ECOUSI
MORFAS Id.Fr.312 ; PROUPEMYEN ANTI FILTATHS MORPHS SPODON S.El.1159 ; of
plants, Thphr.HP1.1.12 (pl.); esp. with ref. to beauty of form, hUPERFATON
MORFAi Pi.O.9.65 ; hOIS POSTISTAXHi CARIS EUKLEA MORFH ib.6.76, cf. IG42
(1).121.119 (Epid., iv B. C.), LXX To.1.13, Vett.Val.1.6, etc.; SWMA MORFHS
EMHS OGI383.41 (Commagene, i B. C.); MORFHS EIKONAS ib.27; CARAKTHRA MORFHS
EMHS ib.60.
     2. generally, form, fashion, appearance, A.Pr.78, S.Tr.699, El.199
(lyr.); outward form, opp. EIDOS, HEKATERW TW EIDEOS POLLAI MORFAI Philol.5
; ALLATTONTA TO AUTOU EIDOS EIS POLLAS MORFAS Pl.R.380d ; MORFH QEWN
X.Mem.4.3.13 , cf. Ep.Phil.2.6, Dam.Pr.304; hHRWWN EIDEA KAI MORFAS
A.R.4.1193 ; KATA TE MORFAS KAI FWNAS gesticulations and cries, D.H.14.9;
THN MORFHN MELAGCROUS, THi MORFHi MELICROAS, in complexion, Ptol.Tetr.143,
144.
     3. kind, sort, E. Ion 382, 1068 (lyr.), Pl.R.397c, etc.

The meanings cataloged in LSJ seem then to range from a more fundamental
"aesthetically gratifying guise" through "outward form" to "discernible
variety." The focal element seems to be "discernible framework" or
"Gestalt" or "pattern."

When we turn to Fred Danker's latest revision of Bauer (BDAG), we have:

MORFH, HS, hH  (Hom.+) form, outward appearance, shape gener. of bodily
form 1 Cl 39:3; ApcPt 4:13 (Job 4:16; ApcEsdr 4:14 p. 28, 16 Tdf.; SJCh 78,
13). Of the shape or form of statues (Jos., Vi. 65; Iren. 1, 8, 1 [Harv. I
67, 11]) Dg 2:3. Of appearances in visions, etc., similar to persons
(Callisthenes [IV BC]: 124 fgm. 13 p. 644, 32 Jac. [in Athen. 10, 75, 452b]
LIMOS ECWN GUNAIKOS MORFHN; Diod. S. 3, 31, 4 EN MORFAIS ANQRWPWN; TestAbr
A 16 p. 97, 11 [Stone p. 42] ARCAGGELOU MORFHN PERIKEIMENOS; Jos., Ant. 5,
213 a messenger fr. heaven NEANISKOU MORFHi): of God's assembly, the church
Hv 3, 10, 2; 9; 3, 11, 1; 3, 13, 1; s 9, 1, 1; of the angel of repentance
hH MORFH AUTOU HLLOIWQH his appearance had changed m 12, 4, 1. Of Christ
(EN MORFHi ANQRWPOU TestBenj 10:7; Just., D. 61, 1; Tat. 2, 1; Hippol.,
Ref. 5, 16, 10. Cp. Did., Gen. 56, 18; of deities EN ANQRWPINHi MORFHi:
Iambl., Vi. Pyth. 6, 30; cp. Philo, Abr. 118) MORFHN DOULOU LABWN he took
on the form of a slave=expression of servility Phil 2:7 (w. SCHMA as
Aristot., Cat. 10a, 11f, PA 640b, 30-36). This is in contrast to expression
of divinity in the preëxistent Christ: EN MORFHi QEOU hUPARCWN although he
was in the form of God (cp. OGI 383, 40f: Antiochus' body is the framework
for his m. or essential identity as a descendant of divinities; sim. human
fragility [Phil 2:7] becomes the supporting framework for Christ's
servility and therefore of his KENWSIS [on the appearance one projects cp.
the epitaph EpigrAnat 17, '91, 156, no. 3, 5-8]; on MORFH QEOU cp. Orig.,
C. Cels. 7, 66, 21; Pla., Rep. 2, 380d; 381bc; X., Mem. 4, 3, 13; Diog. L.
1, 10 the Egyptians say; Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 80; 110; Jos., C. Ap. 2, 190;
Just., A I, 9, 1; PGM 7, 563; 13, 272; 584.-Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 357f)
Phil 2:6. The risen Christ EFANERWQH EN hETERAi MORFHi appeared in a
different form Mk 16:12 (of the transfiguration of Jesus: EDEIXEN hHMIN THN
ENDOXON MORFHN hEAUTOU Orig., C. Cels. 6, 68, 23). For lit. s. on hARPAGMA
and KENOW 1b; RMartin, ET 70, '59, 183f.-DSteenberg, The Case against the
Synonymity of MORFH and EIKWN: JSNT 34, '88, 77-86; GStroumsa, HTR 76, '83,
269-88 (Semitic background).-DELG. Schmidt, Syn. IV 345-60. M-M. EDNT. TW.
Spicq. Sv.

The first several lines of the above accounting are consistent in pointing
in the same direction as LSJ: an outward form that may change, as in the
compound verb and noun METAMORFOW and METAMORFWSIS. But when it comes to
our text in Phil 2:6, I'm frankly not quite sure what is intended by what
is said: is it that the pre-existent Jesus somehow "expressed" or
"manifested" God? And if so, is that really quite the same thing as the
"nature" that Louw & Nida seem to understand MORFH to convey?

The end of the BDAG offering points us to Spicq, _Theological Lexicon of
the New Testament_ (tr. James Ernest). Spicq has a fuller, more articulate
discussion of MORFH, one that is, on the one hand, thoughtful and
illuminating, and on the other hand, not as conclusive as one might perhaps
have hoped. In the first place he offers the following as potential senses:
"stature, form, condition, feature, external appearance, reproduction"--and
note that this doesn't include "nature" or "being and doing what X is and
does." Here are the key pair of paragraphs:

	"Although MORFH is often very close in meaning to EIKWN, 9 and
later on even becomes synonymous with it in Gnosticism,10 the texts cited
disallow identifying them, as does this inscription from Laodicea, which
distinguishes the two terms: "I bear the (bodily) form of Docticius, but
the image of his divine virtue is carried on the lips of each person."11
This should be taken into account in the translation of Phil 2:6-7 (hOS EN
MORFHi QEOU ... MORFHN DOULOU LABWN), which the Bible de Jérusalem
correctly renders "Lui, de condition divine . . . prenant la condition
d'esclave."12 It is characteristic of MORFH to be modified, to appear to be
changed, to take on new features,13 like the risen Lord appearing to the
disciples at Emmaus en hETERA MORFH. 14 He had a new mode of being and a
new appearance, analogous to that at the transfiguration (METAMORFOUSQAI,
Matt 17:2). This is why in epiphanies of heavenly beings the MORFH is
indeed said to be different, but not without affinities with earthly
forms.15
	"This changing of MORFH is to be compared on the one hand with the
theme of "descent and ascent" because of the double MORFH in Phil 2:6-7
(MORFH QEOU, MORFH DOULOU )-which owes nothing to the gnostic redeemer
myth, which had not yet been concocted-and on the other hand with the
consistent meaning of this term in the magical papyri. Whereas the
Christian faith affirms that God is invisible and that no human has seen
him or can see him (John 1:18; 6:46; 1John 4:12; Rom 1:20; 1Tim 1:17;
6:16), the magicians call upon the deity as having a "form"16 and pray him
to appear in his "true form."17 This is a signal favor, for the Eight Books
of Moses acknowledge that no one has been able to see this true divine
form.18 The devotee of Hermes Trismegistos knows that his god appears in
the East in the form of an ibis, in the West in the form of a dog's head,
in the North in the form of a serpent, and in the south in the form of a
wolf.19 What the mystic wishes to contemplate and be united with is "the
sacred form" (Pap.Graec.Mag.  4, 216; vol. 1, p. 78; cf. XIII, 271; vol. 2,
p. 101), the "gracious or joyous form,"20 and in the case of Aphrodite, her
beauty made manifest: EPIKALOUMAI SE . . . DEIXASA THN KALHN SOU MORFHN.
211"

Spicq cites the French Jerusalem Bible here with approval, "Lui, de
condition divine . . . prenant la condition d'esclave." I don't know
whether English "condition" is quite equivalent to the French "condition."
Perhaps better would be "circumstances, terms of existence." Certainly he's
right to call attention to the fact that the usage of MORFH in Phil 2:6-7
is closely bound up with the context of "transformation" or METAMORFWSIS.
If that's the case, then MORFH in 2:6 EN MORFHi QEOU hUPARCWN and in 2:7
MORFHN DOULOU LABWN are indeed to be understood in the same sense,
something like "mode of existence," the underlying assumption being that
"mode of existence" is something that can undergo alteration. This is a
notion that does seem consistent with other usages of MORFH, and it
certainly doesn't approach the sense that Edgar cites: "the outward display
of the inner reality or substance." "Outward display" is right, but if we
say "outward display of the inner reality or substance," then we'd have to
accept that the OUTWARD DISPLAY may mislead the one who views it regarding
the "inner reality or substance" of what one beholds.

To sum up, Spicq writes, "It is clear from all of these examples that the
use of MORFH in the hymn in Phil 2 is entirely to be expected in a context
of metamorphosis or incarnation, but that it would be risky to give it a
precise theological meaning."

And that seems like an appropriate imprecise formulation in which to end
this endeavor to "divide the word."
-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list