From: Al Kidd (akidd@infoave.net)
Date: Sun Jun 30 1996 - 18:31:40 EDT
David Moore has posted as follows to b-greek in rebuttal of my post
on Php 2:6 (see above for its content):
>Al Kidd has obviously given considerable thought to his proposed
>interpretation of Php. 2:6.
>
>It seems difficult to me, however, to take hHGEOMAI in such an
>absolute sense. What is being proposed, if I've understood the
>explanation correctly, is, "He did not consider usurpation." The
>verb hHGEOMAI in the sense of "consider" is practically always used
>by Paul in constructions with a double accusative or with adjectives
>or infinitives that serve an accusative function. So we have
>ANAGKAION OUN hHGHSAMHN PARAKALESAI (2Co 9:5); ALLHLOUS hHGOUMENOI
>(TOUS [so P46 and B]) hUPEREXONTAS hEAUTWN (Php. 2:3). Other
>examples of similar constructions are Php. 2:25; 3:7, 8; 2Ths. 3:15
>(where AUTON is understood from the context); 1Tim. 1:12; 6:1. Only
>in 1Thes. 5:13 is there a somewhat different construction, but, in
>this case, a phrase that functions adverbially fills out the thought
>in place of the second accusative.
>
>I would suggest that the "anaphoric significance of the article,"
>mentioned in Blass-DeBrunner as cited above, is applicable in the
>case of Php. 2:6. But it does not refer back to hARPAGMON as Al
>Kidd has suggested. Rather, the referent is EN MORFH QEOU UPARXWN.
>Taking it thus would give the sense "Who, being in the likeness of
>God, did not consider that equality with God something to be taken
>advantage of..."
>
>A fine article which goes over the history of the interpretation
>of this passage is "hARPAGMOS and the Meaning of Philippians 2:5-11,"
>by N. T. Wright, _Journal of Theological Studies_ 37 (Oct. 1986):
>321-52.
>
>
>--
>
>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
As to David Moore's argument that he is finding it
>difficult to take hHGEOMAI in such an absolute sense . . .
>"He did not consider usurpation." The verb hHGEOMAI in
>the sense of "consider" is practically always used by Paul in
>constructions with a double accusative or with adjectives or
>infinitives that serve an accusative function.
I would argue:
Does not hARPAGMON _in the sense of an usurpation_ furnish the verb
>>hHGHSATO<< an object that makes for logically coherent thought? And if
we are looking for some sort of idiom or stylistic feature peculiar to
Paul's usage of hHGEOMAI whereby Paul uses it--to quote David Moore--
>. . . in
>constructions with a double accusative or with adjectives or
>infinitives that serve an accusative function,< [end of quote]
then there can be no _grammatical argument_ that precludes us from
seeing that Paul's stylistic usage of hHGEOMAI is preserved at Php 2:6
in that he has given it to us in his--to quote David Moore again--
>infinitive [clause] that serves an accusative function,< [end of
quote]
namely, >>TO EINAI ISA QEWi<< _as an epexegetical infinitive clause in
apposition to hARPAGMON_ (an "active" noun that, in its context for
Php 2:6, implies the nature of its "object," namely God's
prerogatives--Christ gave thought to no usurpation = seizure of God's
prerogatives).
David Moore also states:
>I would suggest that the "anaphoric significance of the article,"
>mentioned in Blass-DeBrunner as cited above, is applicable in the
>case of Php. 2:6. But it does not refer back to hARPAGMON as Al Kidd
>has suggested. Rather, the referent is EN MORFH QEOU UPARXWN.<
[end of quote]
David Moore has not reviewed any grammatical dicta by which we are
precluded from making >>TO EINAI ISA QEWi<< to refer back to hARPAGMON.
I did review certain grammatical rules that most translators violate
when they 1) make >>ISA QEWi<< to function as accusative of the
subject for the articulated infinitive, and 2) make >>hARPAGMON<< to
function as accusative of the predicate for the articulated infinitive.
Furthermore, if Paul were trying to express some meaning equivalent to
what a majority of translators and commentators want to see in Php 2:6,
then he should have chosen a far more direct route to (syntax for) that
meaning, one that does not have the reader to supply some other word(s)
in order that the text should only then logically give up the desired
(presupposed) meaning. What might he have written? He might have
written:
MH hWS _hARPAGMA_ [sic] hHGHSATO TO EINAI AUTON ISA QEWi.
If that were Paul's meaning, then his exhortation (that we keep in us
the attitude that was in Christ) becomes a problematic exhortation
indeed, for then the development of his argument should have to have
gone something like this:
Though some of you are equal to--if indeed not even
superior to--many of your brothers, yet keep Christ's
attitude in you: he was in God's form but he did not
consider his equality with God to be a prize.
Paul's argument, however, _explicitly_ posits in our behalf neither
an equality nor a superiority to our fellow believers. His argument
makes explicit reference to the fact that humble believers are
"considering that others are _superior_" to them (Php 2:3).
As to the thought that the articulated infinitive has reference
back to EN MORFH QEOU, R.P. Martin, _Carmen Christi: Philippians ii:
5-11_ (Ch. 6: "His Choice," SNTSMS 4 [Cambridge, 1967]) 138, ftn. 4
says that that is an
"assumption that MORFH QEOU (in verse 6) and TO EINAI
ISA QEWi (in the same verse) are to be equated."
It is an assumption driven by certain theological/christological
presuppositions, and not by one's considering just the grammar.
Indeed, the philology of the term MORFH should preclude our seeing
in it an antecedent to >>TO EINAI ISA QEWi.<< In support of this
last statement, I can point the reader to a couple of articles:
David Steenburg, "The Case Against the Synonymity of MORFH and
EIKON," JSNT 34 (1988) 83; and C.A. Wanamaker, "Philippians 2:6-11:
Son of God or Adamic Christology?", NTS 33 (1987) 183-4, 187-8.
It is the matter of philology which would prove to be the most
controversial; therefore, I propose that we not discuss this on
b-greek. I am open to E-mail discussions of the entire question
of Php 2:6, and I may respond to one's effort(s) for his attempt
to prove a misapprehension on the part of NWT for its treatment
of the grammar informing Paul's Greek at Php 2:6. Unless that
should happen, then I am not inclined to make any more response
via b-greek.
Al Kidd
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:46 EDT