Greek: ἔχοντες μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας τὴν δὲ δύναμιν αὐτῆς ἠρνημένοι· καὶ τούτους ἀποτρέπου.
Donald Guthrie (The Pastoral Epistles, Tyndale NTC): "In verse 5 the apostle examines more exactly the religious situation. Religion is not entirely denied, but it amounts to no more than an empty shell. There is an outward form (morphōsis) of godliness, but no power. Indeed, it is not simply a matter of an organized religion which has ceased to function, but a religion which is not intended to function. Its adherents are denying its power, which suggests a positive rejection of its effectiveness. They have no conception of the gospel as a regenerating force. It is clear that moral decadents can hardly be expected to pay more than the most superficial lip-service to piety, and then only to maintain a cloak of respectability."
But to whom do the words τούτους ἀποτρέπου apply? Guthrie seems to limit their application to the people mentioned in 3:5; however, he indicates that καὶ could be ascensive, thus being understood as "even, also." He then says the warning to eschew such ones could apply to those persons referenced in 2 Tim. 2:23, but Guthrie doesn't seem to offer much explanation beyond that point.
From William Mounce:
μόρφωσις, “appearance, form” (BAGD 528), describes the mere shell, and the context shows that the shell has no correspondence to reality (contra W. Pöhlmann, EDNT 2: 444; cf. J. Behm, TDNT 4: 742– 59). Their appearance of godliness (teaching the law, asceticism, etc.) is shown to be false because at the same time they love themselves, money, and pleasure rather than God.Pastoral Epistles, Volume 46 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 21714-21717). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Mounce offers these remarks concerning the latter part of 2 Tim. 3:5:
τούτους, “these people,” connects back with τοῦτο, “this,” in v 1 (cf. τούτων, “of these,” in v 6) and summarizes Paul’s teaching about the kinds of people in vv 2– 4: “Know this [τοῦτο γίνωσκε] . . . and avoid them [τούτους ἀποτρέπου].” ἀποτρέπεσθαι, “to avoid” (BAGD 101), occurs only here in the NT, but it restates a common theme heard throughout the PE (cf., e.g., 1 Tim 6: 20; 2 Tim 2: 16, 23).Pastoral Epistles, Volume 46 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 21731-21734). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
31 comments:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/inflections.cfm?strongs=G2150&t=NKJV&ot=LXX&word=%CE%B5%E1%BD%90%CF%83%E1%BD%B3%CE%B2%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%B1
Just looking at LXX usage, how does the term mean "godliness"?
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1993-3_211.pdf
From Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon (Domain 53.5):
Eusebeia is defined as "behavior reflecting correct religious beliefs and attitudes -‘piety, godliness.’"
In many languages, eusebeia "in 1 Tm 2.2 may be appropriately translated as ‘to live as God would have us live’ or ‘to live as God has told us we should live.’"
https://biblehub.com/greek/atenizete_816.htm
LXX Judges 8:18
Brenton translates morphe in Judges 8:18 with "likeness." NETS likewise renders the word, "likeness."
So what is the appearance of a king?
And what is the appearance of godliness?
I don't think these are abstract.
I believe this still is about external appearance or how something strikes the eyes, so to speak. Someone could have the appearance of a pauper and give the impression to others that he/she is poor, or a house could appear to be dilapidated or its appearance could be grand.
Those who have the form of godliness seem to be pious to others since they have a veneer of piety, but their show of godliness belies the fact that they're anything but godly.
If such appearances strike the eyes, they cannot be abstract.
Note that morphe is used to describe Jesus' resurrection body in Mark 16:12.
There seems to be more to it than that in Mark. He seem to change appearance.
Mark writes in part, ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ
What took on another form (appearance) if not his body? 1 Corinthians and Philippians both talk about the glorious resurrection body of Christ, which contrasts with his body/form of flesh. Compare 2 Baruch 49-51.
Jesus might have changed his appearance after being raised from the dead, but what changed, if it wasn't his body? Cranfield suggests that the change might have been subjective in the disciples' minds but how does that harmonize with a change in morphe?
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/%CE%BC%CF%8C%CF%81%CF%86%CF%89%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82
morphosis
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/was-mark-16-9-20-originally-mark-gospel/
Also, the appearance to Mary is before the appearance change.
I don't think the text is genuine, but we can start another thread about that issue. Regardless, my point is that he appeared (that's the verb in the text) in a different/another form. There are three major explanations for the wording of the verse, but either way, we have another instance of form/external appearance.
In John, does Jesus have the appearance of a gardener (whatever that might mean in the period) or is he the new Adam?
In any case, where is this all going and why do you think it makes any difference to form of a servant?
It's in John 20 that Mary mistakes him for "the gardener" (YLT): I once did research on that point and found that scholars give diverse reasons for why Mary did not recognize Jesus. IMO, the new Adam is another matter altogether, but I don't think John is hinting at that. The noun is definite there, not anarthrous.
I was focusing on two points in this blog entry? Who are the ones that Timothy is supposed to avoid? Secondly, does morphosis lend weight to the idea that form of God and form of a servant refers to external appearances? I think the answer is yes, which Hellerman concedes for the semantic value of morphe, but whether ones takes the analysis further is another matter.
In Roman society gardeners were normally slaves in a position of trust.
"Does morphosis lend weight to the idea that form of God and form of a servant refers to external appearances" - agreed, so what does god look like?
On the equation of imperial images and their prototypes, see Francis (cf. fn. 14) including the statement by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria and contemporary of Constantine:
In the image (eikon) [of the emperor] there is the character (eidos) and the form (morphe) of the emperor, and in the emperor is that character which is in the image. For the emperor’s likeness is exact in the image, so that the one gazing at the image sees the emperor in it … (587);
Later ideas.
Also from - https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110186437.43/html
Much has been written about the actual appearance of Constantine.31 Appearance, however, like other aspects of identity, was (and is) situational, and Constantine’s portraits are excellent examples of this. At the beginning of his reign he was depicted as mature and block-headed, like the other tetrarchs; later he would present himself as a new Alexander or Augustus, youthful and handsome; or as godlike, accompanied by Sol Invictus.
With his colossal scale, a pose and materials evoking Jupiter and Zeus, and a
tradition of divinized emperors in the background, it seems likely that Constantine was seen as godlike.
Duncan,
1) I don't believe that we can infer too much from Jesus being mistaken as "the gardener" in terms of socioeconomic status. It was a case of mistaken identity: scholars may wonder why, but regardless of the reason, I don't believe John or Jehovah God wanted us to get distracted from the real issues. Besides, she thought he was the gardener, but Mary was mistaken. He was the risen Lord Christ Jesus, given all authority in heaven and on the earth: the Christ was no longer a slave, even if he appeared to be human.
2) When we talk about God's appearance, I believe the primary focus is his doxa as manifested in the Bible. But the divine doxa is more phenomenal than noumenal. I.e., it is about how God appears to creatures more so than how God looks in se/quoad se.
3) You're correct about later ideas. Morphe/morphosis are terms that one must read in context. For example, Aristotle's use of morphe does not fit Pauline usage. In my humble opinion, Homer's use of morphe is more helpful for NT use than Aristotle or some of the later ways of understanding the word.
There is a gargantuan amount of literature on Roman gardens/gardening. Here is one source that is supposed to be comprehensive: https://archive.org/details/ancientromangard0000farr
I have seen reconstructions and excavations of Roman gardens at Pompeii and Herculaneum. No evidence available at Vindolanda but that is not unexpected.
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2019/04/18/newman-on-doxa-god-and-jesus/
DOXA of the risen Jesus.
Let's not forget how the risen Christ appeared to Saul of Tarsus. See Acts 26:13-15, which seems to give evidence for the doxa of the resurrected Messiah.
Does it say that he appeared?
See https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/phaneroo
Mounce translated the verb, "appeared" at Mark 16:12.
Compare John 2:11.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7676119/#:~:text=The%20Apostle%20Paul%20had%20a,disturbances%20coming%20after%20ecstatic%20seizures.
GJohn has numerous references to "glory," (1:14; 17:5) and I believe these occurrences are related but must be contextualized within the wider narrative of GJohn. One way the Lord Jesus is glorified, according to John, is by means of his resurrection from the dead.
Sorry, but I don't have a lot of confidence in hypotheses that are so speculative. Paul was supposed to have epilepsy? I don't think anyone living today can demonstrate that "hypothesis" to be true. Maybe Newton comes in handy here: "Hypotheses non fingo."
https://www.epsyhealth.com/seizure-epilepsy-blog/did-julius-caesar-have-epilepsy#:~:text=In%20the%20ancient%20world%2C%20epilepsy,well%20have%20believed%20this%20himself.
https://www.epsyhealth.com/seizure-epilepsy-blog/epilepsy-and-hot-weather#:~:text=Many%20scientific%20studies%20have%20shown,could%20cause%20a%20heat%20seizure.
Post a Comment