Dear readers,
I recommend the following article by J.C. O'Neill, which can be found in the Harvard Theological Review
81.4 (1988): 445-449.
The first paragraph states:
"It has been held that R.W. Hoover's article on hARPAGMOS in Phil. 2:6 has 'undercut at a stroke' all contrary views, and that 'no one has ventured to
challenge him on philological grounds.' I am afraid Hoover's views, for all
the skill and knowledge he brought to bear on a complicated set of
philological phenomena, are wide open to challenge. I doubt if he really did
settle the meaning of hARPAGMOS in Phil. 2:6."
O'Neill produces an interesting read.
However, compare https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/%E1%BC%81%CF%81%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%B3%CE%BC%CF%8C%CF%82-Revisited%3A-A-Philological-Reexamination-of-Martin/0e0bb59438ab31b9ce7176a27e22cdd8951c3863
The debate goes on, but regardless of one's Christology, I still have a difficult time believing that harpagmos is used passively in Phil. 2:6.
See https://brill.com/view/journals/bi/25/3/article-p342_4.xml
Even F.F. Bruce (an Evangelical scholar) tried to make a case for understanding harpagmos actively rather than passively.
Wednesday, January 18, 2023
J.C. O'Neill and Harpagmos (Philippians 2:6)--A Brief Note
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
https://leannacoylecarr.squarespace.com/s/Seeing-Rape-and-Robbery_Shaner.pdf
"Visual rhetoric, found ubiquitously in ancient cityscapes, does as much to construct ancient (and modern) theologies as literary texts." - I absolutely agree on that point, yet they go underrepresented in the majority of discussions.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7ZZycCcUbyw/maxresdefault.jpg
The acropolis of Lindos at Rhodes, Paul was supposed to have landed in the cove and preached on the steps of the amphitheater below.
http://www.travel-images.com/pht/greece455.jpg
This place was inundated with statues of god's and men, but only the bases of most now exist.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20065539
According to Mirriam Webster:Inundated;inundate
verb,1
: OVERWHELM
was inundated with phone calls
2
: to cover with a flood : OVERFLOW.
Servant, again you exceptional at stating the obvious, but not recognising hyperbole.
I have been to this acropolis as seen just how many statue bases there actually are.
But what is your point exactly?
I just felt that it was interesting way to put things. Personally I'm a fan of hyperbole.
BTW, I own a Miriam Webster and I also own an Oxford English dictionary.
Guess I shouldn't be pedantic y'all and I've made my share of typos, but I think it's Merriam- Webster. Apologies for my OCD.
I could not remember the name, because I never use it. I have the 11th edition. along with a CD version. It seemed like a good idea at the time that I bought it.
Obsessive yes, and compulsive yes, but hopefully not both at the same time :)
I stand corrected.
J.C. O'Neill's take on Phil. 2 is very interesting. I believe that it was in his book "Who Did Jesus Think He Was" that he said the text would either have to be about an angel or about God, but he argues that it can't be an angel based on theology.
His proposed solution to the Harpagmos "problem" is to suggest that a second "Not" was originally in the text but fell out during the copying process. Here's a paraphrase what he thought the text originally said:
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery not to be equal with God."
In other words, the Son did not consider the Father's requirement that he take the form of a servant to be an act of robbery.
He clearly felt that the solutions on the table based on an uncorrupted text were unsatisfactory, but his orthodoxy wouldn't allow him to embrace the most likely solution available.
~Sean
I use the MW online, but nice that you have the 11th edition and the CD version, Duncan. And yes, I hope both obsessiveness and compulsivity don't take place simultanoeusly :-)
@servant: I thought about saying nothing. Thanks to you and Duncan for understanding why I mentioned it. I just hope no one takes what I said too seriously.
Hi Sean, thanks for providing the added details for O'Neill. He produced some interesting work: don't know if you ever read his book about the Bible's authority, but I recommend that work too. It is mainly about how biblical scholarship developed in Germany, and how thinkers like Kant and Bultmann influenced the way people think about scriptual authority.
Post a Comment