[Fwd: Re: Re Php 2:6 (2d response to David Moore)]

From: David L. Moore (dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Mon Jul 08 1996 - 10:53:39 EDT


I find that I sent this post only to Wes Williams, so I'm now
forwarding it to b-greek.

-- 
David L. Moore                             Director
Miami, Florida, USA                        Department of Education
dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com                     Southeastern Spanish District
http://www.netcom.com/~dvdmoore            of the Assemblies of God

X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Message-ID: <31DF2025.618@ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, 06 Jul 1996 22:25:41 -0400 From: "David L. Moore" <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com> Organization: SE Spanish District of the Assemblies of God, Dept. of Education X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wes Williams <71414.3647@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Re Php 2:6 (2d response to David Moore) References: <960706195110_71414.3647_CHU49-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Wes Williams wrote: > > Dear David, > <<Hoover, for instance, basing his arguments on non-biblical instances of the > idiom in question, says that, within the idiom hARPAGMON[-MA] hHGEISQAI [TI], > the object > under consideration is always something already posessed. And it refers to the > attitude > one will take towards something which is in one's possession and grasp already, > and will > remain there (hARPAGMOS and the Meaning of Philippians 2:5-11," by N. T. > Wright, > _Journal of Theological Studies_ 37[October 1986]: 321-52, in _The Best in > Theology_ > series, Vol. 2 [Carol Stream, Ill.: CTI, n.d.], p.98). >> > > Of course, this is not the usual meaning of hARPAGMON in the N.T. > > The Expositor's Greek Testament says: "We cannot find any passage where > [har.pa'zo] or any of its derivatives [including har.pag.mon'] has the sense of > 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' > 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense > 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast.'"(Grand Rapids, > Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.

Well, the truth is that hARPAGMON, as the accusative of hARPAGMOS, is a hapax legomena in the New Testament appearing in no other place than here at Phil. 2:6. There is a real question as to whether its cognate hARPAZW, which, according to Moulton & Geden, appears 14 times in the NT, can give us a true picture of the meaning of hARPAGMOS. In Hellenistic writing outside the NT, however, the word hARPAGMA is fairly common and is taken by some commentators as a better indicator than the verb hARPAZW for the meaning of hARPAGMOS.

J. B. Lightfoot, for instance, says "The more usual form of the word is hARPAGMA, which properly signifies simply 'a piece of plunder,' but especially with such verbs as hHGEISQAI, POIEISQAI, NOMIZEIN, etc., is employed like hERMAION, hEURHMA, to denote 'a highly-prized posession, an unexpected gain.'" Lightfoot then gives a number of examples from Hellenistic lit. and sums up saying, "It appears then from these instances that hARPAGMA hHGEISQAI frequently signifies nothing more than 'to clutch greedily,' 'prize highly,' 'to set store by;' the idea of plunder or robbery having passed out of sight" (Lightfoot, _Pilippians_, p. 111).

Words ending in -MOS are normally taken to indicate a process, but Lightfoot also points out that substantives in -MOS are "frequently used to describe a concrete thing, e.g. QESMOS, XRHSMOS, FRAGMOS, etc....so that the form is no impediment to the sense adopted above" (_Ibid._).

Lightfoot further butresses this view with the observation that the Greek Fathers, in contraposition to the Latin Fathers, consistently rendered hARPAGMON hHGEISQAI as equivalent to the common phrase hARPAGMA hHGEISQAI which he took as justifying his _res retinenda_ view (_Ibid._, p. 134f.).

Hoover followed the same general line of reasoning as Lightfoot in reasearching the Greek idiom which appears to be used in this clause, but his conclusions were slightly different. He pointed out that hARPAGMON hHGEISQAI [TI], although similar to constructions with hERMAION and hEURHMA (see above), is not identical in meaning to them. He did agree, however, with the view hinted at by Lightfoot that "hARPAGMOS and hARPAGMA do both appear in virtually interchangeable context WITHIN THIS IDIOM, both taking on a special sense not identical to their usual one" (Wright, p. 98, emphasis in original).

Hoover's work indicated that hARPAGMON hHGEISQAI [TI] means "'to regard as something to be taken advantage of' or 'to regard as something to be used for one's own advantage'" (_Ibid._). It is this meaning that IMO fits best in the context, taking into account Paul's Christology which we know from other passages he has written.

> > The following translation committees also saw fit to render hARPAGMON as "a > thing to be grasped," and not "a thing to be retained." > ASV Philippians 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on > an equality with God a thing to be grasped, > NAS Philippians 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard > equality with God a thing to be grasped, > NAB Philippians 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard > equality with God a thing to be grasped, > RSV Philippians 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count > equality with God a thing to be grasped, > > Which thought agrees with the context? Php 2:5 (the previous verse) counsels > Christians to imitate Christ in the matter here being discussed. Could they be > urged to consider it "not robbery," but their right, "to be equal with God"? > Surely not! However, they can imitate one who "did not regard equality with God > a thing to be grasped." (NAS) (Compare Genesis 3:5. [count me in with the > "oddball" group])

All the translations mentioned were already in print when the works pointing to the translation I have suggested were published. Cf. NRSV which reads in Phil 2:6, "Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be eploited... In any case, IMHO, the line of reasoning I have outlined here is the best we have available toward a solution to the _crux interpretum_ that this passage presents.

-- David L. Moore Director Miami, Florida, USA Department of Education dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com Southeastern Spanish District http://www.netcom.com/~dvdmoore of the Assemblies of God



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:46 EDT