Apostolic Friends Forum
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)
-   Fellowship Hall (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysis (E (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=51843)

rdp 12-10-2017 11:27 PM
Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysis (E
 
*Rarely post on here, but just a little something I posted elsewhere approx. 2 years ago that I thought might be interesting here:

*Recently, I read where another minister clearly inferred that he would not accept anything Trinitarian commentaries said on a particular topic, only "the Bible" (which, of course, was translated by Trinitarians :heeheehee). And, to be fair, I can see how this could confuse some Oneness believers. That is, why would we accept what Trinitarians say on one hand, then reject their overall theological & soteriological conclusions?

*IMO, it should always be remembered that there's all the difference in the world between commentary & close textual analysis. Commentary can be arbitrary speculation often fueled by one's theological commitments and/or purview. Simply put, it's little more than man's opinion. Personally, this is why I shy away from works such as Matthew Henry, MacArthur's Commentary's, Grudem's Systematic Theology, etc. I'm simply not interested in theology, but, am intently interested in the actual biblical data standing on its own strengths.

*By contrast, detailed & rigorous discourse analysis of the originally-inspired languages is not the same thing as mere commentary. This is not to suggest that commentary cannot show up in exegesis (as my Greek prof. recently commented) - it certainly can. Indeed, this is well demonstrated in what's called the Granville Sharp Rules (http://www.pfrs.org/sharp.html).

*However, when careful authorial thought-flow is the emphasis of one's hermeneutic, theological diversion is easy to pinpoint. That is, in doing textual exegesis-proper there is far less influence of religious bias since the driving impetus is Sola-Scriptura (i.e., Solely Scripture) & Tota-Scriptura (i.e., Totality [of] Scripture).

*It's for this reason that, personally, I rarely purchase anything other than exegetical commentaries, grammars or text-critic works. This is not to say that I don't enjoy reading the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), Early Church Fathers (ECF), Josephus, Pliny, etc. However, I would venture to say we all obviously take these writings with a grain of salt. And, I am not knocking anyone who purchases strictly commentary (I still have mine from years ago). I am only wanting to delineate the differences between the two.

*Below I provide illustrations of what I'm attempting to state from two exegetical commentaries on Philippians that I've been reading. Hopefully, these excerpts will illustrate the difference between mere commentary & scrupulous-painstaking discourse analysis. This first section is taken from The Carmen Christi (2.6) in the New International Greek Testament Commentary:

έν μορφη, θεοὔ ("in the form of God") is a key phrase in the entire hymn. It stands at the head of the paragraph, and one's exegesis of it has a bearing on the interpretation of the whole passage. Since its meaning has been hotly disputed, it will be necessary to review some of the main lines along which it has been interpreted. It is of particular importance to note that the author does not say that Christ was "the form of God" (μορφὴ θεου), but that he was "in the form of God" (έν μορφῇ θεου), as though the form of God was a sphere in which he existed or a garment in which he was clothed (cf. Lk. 7:25).

The precise nuance of the important word μορφη (rendered in the AV and RV as "form"), which also turns up in the contrasting phrase of v. 7, μορφὴν δοὐλου, is unclear. Is the term to be understood as pointing: (1) to the external appearance, condition, position, or form of existence of something? Or does it denote (2) something more profound, so that it is equal to or closely related to the "nature" or "essence" of something? Could, for example, μορφῆ be regarded as an equivalent of εἰκυ'oν ("image") and/or δοξα ("glory")?

Related exegetical and theological questions arise: What is the background to μορφὴ θεου? Does the expression point to the divinity of the preexistent Jesus, or to the divinity or humanity of the earthly Jesus? Further, what is the relationship of this expression to the following τὸ εἵναι ὶσα θεὦ? Is τὸ εἵναι ὶσα θεω, like μορφὴ θεου, a possession that Christ already had?

μορφῆis found infrequently in the Greek Bible: apart from the two instances here (vv. 6, 7) it turns up in the NT only at Mk. 16:12, and in the LXX on only six occasions (four of which are in the canonical OT). Although μορφῆ appears only in this context in Paul's writings, cognate forms of the root μορφ- are elsewhere used by him: μὁρφωσις ("embodiment, outward form," Rom. 2:20; 2 Tim. 3:5), μορφὁω ("shape, form," Gal. 4:19), μεταμορφὁω ("transform," Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 3:18), συμμορφίζω ("give the same form," Phil. 3:10), and σὐμμορφος ("having the same form," Phil. 3:21).

μορφη, which appeared in Greek literature from Homer on-wards, in all its many nuances came to represent that "which may be perceived by the senses." It could also point to the embodiment of the form since possession of the form implied participation in its nature or character. In the six LXX instances (including the four occasions within the canonical books) μορφῆ refers to the visible form or appearance of something. But the term did not refer to external appearance alone; it regularly pointed to something more substantial. Similarly, from the NT contexts where μορφῆ and its cognates appear (noted above) it is clear that the word group describes not simply external appearance or behavior but also that which inwardly corresponds (or is expected to correspond) to the outward.

*As you can see, this is not on the same par with - say - John MacArthur or Matthew Henry commentaries.

*Below is another brief quote on the same passage from Baker Academics Exegetical Commentary Series, Dr. Moises Silva, that will hopefully (?) further elucidate my attempted point:

a. The initial statement (v. 6a). Much of the debate centers on the first line, “although he existed in the form of God,” particularly the force of the word “form” (morphe'). If we stress the classical usage of this term, the technical sense of Aristotelian philosophy suggests itself: morphe', although not equivalent to ousia (being, essence), speaks of essential or characteristic attributes and thus is to be distinguished from schema (the changeable, external “fashion”). In a valuable excursus on morphe' and schema, Dr. Lightfoot (1868: 127–33) argued along these lines and remarked that even in popular usage these respective meanings could be ascertained (cf. Trench 1880: 261–67). The many references where morphe' is used of physical appearance (see the third additional note on 2:6) make it difficult to maintain Lightfoot’s precise distinction, though there is an important element of truth in his treatment, as we shall soon see.

Dr. Käsemann (1968: 59–60) emphatically rejects the classical background on the basis of parallels in the literature of the Hellenistic religions, since “the conceptual language of the hellenistic period moves within an ideological framework quite different from that. …of the classical Greek era.” According to this new language, morphe' “no longer means the individual entity as a formed whole, but a mode of being [Daseinsweise] in a specific direction, such as, for example, being in divine substance and power."

*In conclusion, as hopefully demonstrated above there's a vast distinction to be made between careful biblical exegesis-grammar of the inspired data & mere commentary - let's never misidentify one for the other.

*It was the pious Jews that crucified the Lord of Glory, yet who had also meticulously preserved the OT Scriptures (both the Hebrew & LXX) - which the NT writers quoted from even after they had murdered Him. Hence, IMO, we have biblical precedent to reject a theological construct that counters actual textual discourse while simultaneously embracing exegesis of these same texts & allowing the actual grammatical data to inform our conclusions.

Esaias 12-11-2017 12:28 AM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
All things are ours - including all the commentaries, which while requiring wisdom in judging the opinions of men, are nevertheless at our disposal.

Paul had no problem quoting Greek poets to support his points, yet he certainly wasn't bound to their opinions, either.

What's your take on the "Philippian Hymn"? I'm not convinced it's a hymn to begin with...

Michael The Disciple 12-11-2017 05:08 AM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Let us consider that Phil. 2:5 is parallel to John 1:1.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: Phil 2:5

The "word" of John 1:1 perhaps being the "form" of Phil 2:5. Both Apostles had the same concept in mind but used two distinct words to explain it.

My short commentary.

Sean 12-11-2017 04:26 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdp (Post 1512190)
*Rarely post on here, but just a little something I posted elsewhere approx. 2 years ago that I thought might be interesting here:

*Recently, I read where another minister clearly inferred that he would not accept anything Trinitarian commentaries said on a particular topic, only "the Bible" (which, of course, was translated by Trinitarians :heeheehee). And, to be fair, I can see how this could confuse some Oneness believers. That is, why would we accept what Trinitarians say on one hand, then reject their overall theological & soteriological conclusions?

*IMO, it should always be remembered that there's all the difference in the world between commentary & close textual analysis. Commentary can be arbitrary speculation often fueled by one's theological commitments and/or purview. Simply put, it's little more than man's opinion. Personally, this is why I shy away from works such as Matthew Henry, MacArthur's Commentary's, Grudem's Systematic Theology, etc. I'm simply not interested in theology, but, am intently interested in the actual biblical data standing on its own strengths.

*By contrast, detailed & rigorous discourse analysis of the originally-inspired languages is not the same thing as mere commentary. This is not to suggest that commentary cannot show up in exegesis (as my Greek prof. recently commented) - it certainly can. Indeed, this is well demonstrated in what's called the Granville Sharp Rules (http://www.pfrs.org/sharp.html).

*However, when careful authorial thought-flow is the emphasis of one's hermeneutic, theological diversion is easy to pinpoint. That is, in doing textual exegesis-proper there is far less influence of religious bias since the driving impetus is Sola-Scriptura (i.e., Solely Scripture) & Tota-Scriptura (i.e., Totality [of] Scripture).

*It's for this reason that, personally, I rarely purchase anything other than exegetical commentaries, grammars or text-critic works. This is not to say that I don't enjoy reading the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), Early Church Fathers (ECF), Josephus, Pliny, etc. However, I would venture to say we all obviously take these writings with a grain of salt. And, I am not knocking anyone who purchases strictly commentary (I still have mine from years ago). I am only wanting to delineate the differences between the two.

*Below I provide illustrations of what I'm attempting to state from two exegetical commentaries on Philippians that I've been reading. Hopefully, these excerpts will illustrate the difference between mere commentary & scrupulous-painstaking discourse analysis. This first section is taken from The Carmen Christi (2.6) in the New International Greek Testament Commentary:

έν μορφη, θεοὔ ("in the form of God") is a key phrase in the entire hymn. It stands at the head of the paragraph, and one's exegesis of it has a bearing on the interpretation of the whole passage. Since its meaning has been hotly disputed, it will be necessary to review some of the main lines along which it has been interpreted. It is of particular importance to note that the author does not say that Christ was "the form of God" (μορφὴ θεου), but that he was "in the form of God" (έν μορφῇ θεου), as though the form of God was a sphere in which he existed or a garment in which he was clothed (cf. Lk. 7:25).

The precise nuance of the important word μορφη (rendered in the AV and RV as "form"), which also turns up in the contrasting phrase of v. 7, μορφὴν δοὐλου, is unclear. Is the term to be understood as pointing: (1) to the external appearance, condition, position, or form of existence of something? Or does it denote (2) something more profound, so that it is equal to or closely related to the "nature" or "essence" of something? Could, for example, μορφῆ be regarded as an equivalent of εἰκυ'oν ("image") and/or δοξα ("glory")?

Related exegetical and theological questions arise: What is the background to μορφὴ θεου? Does the expression point to the divinity of the preexistent Jesus, or to the divinity or humanity of the earthly Jesus? Further, what is the relationship of this expression to the following τὸ εἵναι ὶσα θεὦ? Is τὸ εἵναι ὶσα θεω, like μορφὴ θεου, a possession that Christ already had?

μορφῆis found infrequently in the Greek Bible: apart from the two instances here (vv. 6, 7) it turns up in the NT only at Mk. 16:12, and in the LXX on only six occasions (four of which are in the canonical OT). Although μορφῆ appears only in this context in Paul's writings, cognate forms of the root μορφ- are elsewhere used by him: μὁρφωσις ("embodiment, outward form," Rom. 2:20; 2 Tim. 3:5), μορφὁω ("shape, form," Gal. 4:19), μεταμορφὁω ("transform," Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 3:18), συμμορφίζω ("give the same form," Phil. 3:10), and σὐμμορφος ("having the same form," Phil. 3:21).

μορφη, which appeared in Greek literature from Homer on-wards, in all its many nuances came to represent that "which may be perceived by the senses." It could also point to the embodiment of the form since possession of the form implied participation in its nature or character. In the six LXX instances (including the four occasions within the canonical books) μορφῆ refers to the visible form or appearance of something. But the term did not refer to external appearance alone; it regularly pointed to something more substantial. Similarly, from the NT contexts where μορφῆ and its cognates appear (noted above) it is clear that the word group describes not simply external appearance or behavior but also that which inwardly corresponds (or is expected to correspond) to the outward.

*As you can see, this is not on the same par with - say - John MacArthur or Matthew Henry commentaries.

*Below is another brief quote on the same passage from Baker Academics Exegetical Commentary Series, Dr. Moises Silva, that will hopefully (?) further elucidate my attempted point:

a. The initial statement (v. 6a). Much of the debate centers on the first line, “although he existed in the form of God,” particularly the force of the word “form” (morphe'). If we stress the classical usage of this term, the technical sense of Aristotelian philosophy suggests itself: morphe', although not equivalent to ousia (being, essence), speaks of essential or characteristic attributes and thus is to be distinguished from schema (the changeable, external “fashion”). In a valuable excursus on morphe' and schema, Dr. Lightfoot (1868: 127–33) argued along these lines and remarked that even in popular usage these respective meanings could be ascertained (cf. Trench 1880: 261–67). The many references where morphe' is used of physical appearance (see the third additional note on 2:6) make it difficult to maintain Lightfoot’s precise distinction, though there is an important element of truth in his treatment, as we shall soon see.

Dr. Käsemann (1968: 59–60) emphatically rejects the classical background on the basis of parallels in the literature of the Hellenistic religions, since “the conceptual language of the hellenistic period moves within an ideological framework quite different from that. …of the classical Greek era.” According to this new language, morphe' “no longer means the individual entity as a formed whole, but a mode of being [Daseinsweise] in a specific direction, such as, for example, being in divine substance and power."

*In conclusion, as hopefully demonstrated above there's a vast distinction to be made between careful biblical exegesis-grammar of the inspired data & mere commentary - let's never misidentify one for the other.

*It was the pious Jews that crucified the Lord of Glory, yet who had also meticulously preserved the OT Scriptures (both the Hebrew & LXX) - which the NT writers quoted from even after they had murdered Him. Hence, IMO, we have biblical precedent to reject a theological construct that counters actual textual discourse while simultaneously embracing exegesis of these same texts & allowing the actual grammatical data to inform our conclusions.
Eeeegad!:foottap

God delivered me from commentary.

Thanks for the reminder.:thumbsup

Originalist 12-11-2017 06:19 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Every post on AFF is a commentary. I take for granted that I will glean new angles and insight from many on here. I also exercise discernment and ignore troll spew commentary. The same rule applies to commentaries one can buy at the Christin book store. Some good. Some bad. Just check everything according to scripture.

Sean 12-11-2017 10:17 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Commentary is for those that are not satisfied with what the simple meaning of a verse is speaking of.

Some of the worst case scenarios of commentary is a "Biblical" explanation of a verse that takes a paragraph(s) or page(s) to explain.

Sean 12-11-2017 10:32 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple (Post 1512193)
Let us consider that Phil. 2:5 is parallel to John 1:1.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: Phil 2:5

The "word" of John 1:1 perhaps being the "form" of Phil 2:5. Both Apostles had the same concept in mind but used two distinct words to explain it.

My short commentary.
...and wonderfully posted.:highfive

Scott Pitta 12-12-2017 01:24 AM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Discourse analysis is a fresh approach to literature. There is not enough of it in print.

The Phil. 2 passage in question has been described as poetry or a psalm and it may well be.

The Greek of this passage does make for some interesting theological discussion. But I usually compare Jn. 1:1 with 1 John 1:1. The difference between the opening of John and the Philippians passage is vocabulary and focus. But then again, Paul writes differently than John.

rdp 12-12-2017 01:45 AM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1512210)
Eeeegad!:foottap

God delivered me from commentary.

Thanks for the reminder.:thumbsup
*This misses the whole point of the post, but okay :thumbsup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1512214)
Commentary is for those that are not satisfied with what the simple meaning of a verse is speaking of.

Some of the worst case scenarios of commentary is a "Biblical" explanation of a verse that takes a paragraph(s) or page(s) to explain.
*Of course, biblical "verses" were not written in English. The "simple meaning" is only found in close analysis-exegesis of the text at hand w. an emphasis on the originally-inspired languages.

*And, you do realize that every translation (esp. the KJV) is a sort of mini "commentary" since there are places that the translator is forced to make an interpretive decision based upon numerous factors (e.g., euphony of the receiving language, context, syntactical parallels, morphology, etc.)?

rdp 12-12-2017 02:04 AM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Pitta (Post 1512217)
Discourse analysis is a fresh approach to literature. There is not enough of it in print.
*Agreed. Although, personally, I have spent thousands of $$ in the last few years to ensure I have the most reputable exegetical resources available (as well as several semester of ancient Greek :tantrum).

*I have found a ton of original-language discourse analysis...but, it is quite costly (I use Olive Tree software). Intend to purchase a referred sentence diagram of the entire Greek NT in the next few weeks (https://www.inthebeginning.org/e-dia...erupgrade.html).

*Point is, I am simply no longer interested in theology, but rather am intently interested in the actual biblical text itself.

*A few months ago I was reading through a recently released book by a Oneness teacher throwing out Greek all over the place & was making so many unbelievable original-language errors (e.g., flat-wrong parsing data from the LXX) that I just lost interest in the book altogether & haven't been able to pick it back up.

Steven Avery 12-12-2017 04:22 AM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdp (Post 1512220)
[COLOR="Blue"] *A few months ago I was reading through a recently released book by a Oneness teacher throwing out Greek all over the place & was making so many unbelievable original-language errors (e.g., flat-wrong parsing data from the LXX) that I just lost interest in the book altogether & haven't been able to pick it back up.
You can share which book. Much simpler to use the pure Bible, the Authorised Version (KJB).

Steven

Steven Avery 12-12-2017 04:26 AM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
The Word took on the form of Jesus. John 1:14, 1 Tim 3:16. So it is hard to make the words equivlents.

Scott Pitta 12-12-2017 06:56 AM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
I rarely made reference to the Greek when I taught at church. It is a needless distraction.

Explaining the text without any reference on how I do it is what people really want.

Reading a text as literature and not as a sermon text has had a positive impact on how I interpret Scripture.

Sean 12-12-2017 07:07 AM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Quote:
*And, you do realize that every translation (esp. the KJV) is a sort of mini "commentary" since there are places that the translator is forced to make an interpretive decision based upon numerous factors (e.g., euphony of the receiving language, context, syntactical parallels, morphology, etc.)?

God is not a "commentator" in my point of view.

It it His word and He invents his own ideas.

He spoke through men that wrote His thoughts.

If not, God is not the author of His word.

When I say commentary, I think of opinion pieces.

Originalist 12-12-2017 09:38 AM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdp (Post 1512220)
*Agreed. Although, personally, I have spent thousands of $$ in the last few years to ensure I have the most reputable exegetical resources available (as well as several semester of ancient Greek :tantrum).

*I have found a ton of original-language discourse analysis...but, it is quite costly (I use Olive Tree software). Intend to purchase a referred sentence diagram of the entire Greek NT in the next few weeks (https://www.inthebeginning.org/e-dia...erupgrade.html).

*Point is, I am simply no longer interested in theology, but rather am intently interested in the actual biblical text itself.

*A few months ago I was reading through a recently released book by a Oneness teacher throwing out Greek all over the place & was making so many unbelievable original-language errors (e.g., flat-wrong parsing data from the LXX) that I just lost interest in the book altogether & haven't been able to pick it back up.
If you do not feel comfortable sharing the title of the book publically, please PM me the title. Thanks!

Esaias 12-12-2017 03:17 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Well, I'd like to know the book title as well, so that I can make an informed decision if I ever come across an opportunity to purchase it. (I usually don't buy "Christian books" unless they are at least pre-1950, preferably 19th century or earlier, modern books usually keep my interest somewhat less than Dr Seuss.)

Esaias 12-12-2017 03:37 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdp (Post 1512190)

έν μορφη, θεοὔ ("in the form of God") is a key phrase in the entire hymn. It stands at the head of the paragraph, and one's exegesis of it has a bearing on the interpretation of the whole passage. Since its meaning has been hotly disputed, it will be necessary to review some of the main lines along which it has been interpreted. It is of particular importance to note that the author does not say that Christ was "the form of God" (μορφὴ θεου), but that he was "in the form of God" (έν μορφῇ θεου), as though the form of God was a sphere in which he existed or a garment in which he was clothed (cf. Lk. 7:25).

The precise nuance of the important word μορφη (rendered in the AV and RV as "form"), which also turns up in the contrasting phrase of v. 7, μορφὴν δοὐλου, is unclear. Is the term to be understood as pointing: (1) to the external appearance, condition, position, or form of existence of something? Or does it denote (2) something more profound, so that it is equal to or closely related to the "nature" or "essence" of something? Could, for example, μορφῆ be regarded as an equivalent of εἰκυ'oν ("image") and/or δοξα ("glory")?

Related exegetical and theological questions arise: What is the background to μορφὴ θεου? Does the expression point to the divinity of the preexistent Jesus, or to the divinity or humanity of the earthly Jesus? Further, what is the relationship of this expression to the following τὸ εἵναι ὶσα θεὦ? Is τὸ εἵναι ὶσα θεω, like μορφὴ θεου, a possession that Christ already had?

μορφῆis found infrequently in the Greek Bible: apart from the two instances here (vv. 6, 7) it turns up in the NT only at Mk. 16:12, and in the LXX on only six occasions (four of which are in the canonical OT). Although μορφῆ appears only in this context in Paul's writings, cognate forms of the root μορφ- are elsewhere used by him: μὁρφωσις ("embodiment, outward form," Rom. 2:20; 2 Tim. 3:5), μορφὁω ("shape, form," Gal. 4:19), μεταμορφὁω ("transform," Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 3:18), συμμορφίζω ("give the same form," Phil. 3:10), and σὐμμορφος ("having the same form," Phil. 3:21).

μορφη, which appeared in Greek literature from Homer on-wards, in all its many nuances came to represent that "which may be perceived by the senses." It could also point to the embodiment of the form since possession of the form implied participation in its nature or character. In the six LXX instances (including the four occasions within the canonical books) μορφῆ refers to the visible form or appearance of something. But the term did not refer to external appearance alone; it regularly pointed to something more substantial. Similarly, from the NT contexts where μορφῆ and its cognates appear (noted above) it is clear that the word group describes not simply external appearance or behavior but also that which inwardly corresponds (or is expected to correspond) to the outward.

*As you can see, this is not on the same par with - say - John MacArthur or Matthew Henry commentaries.

*Below is another brief quote on the same passage from Baker Academics Exegetical Commentary Series, Dr. Moises Silva, that will hopefully (?) further elucidate my attempted point:

a. The initial statement (v. 6a). Much of the debate centers on the first line, “although he existed in the form of God,” particularly the force of the word “form” (morphe'). If we stress the classical usage of this term, the technical sense of Aristotelian philosophy suggests itself: morphe', although not equivalent to ousia (being, essence), speaks of essential or characteristic attributes and thus is to be distinguished from schema (the changeable, external “fashion”). In a valuable excursus on morphe' and schema, Dr. Lightfoot (1868: 127–33) argued along these lines and remarked that even in popular usage these respective meanings could be ascertained (cf. Trench 1880: 261–67). The many references where morphe' is used of physical appearance (see the third additional note on 2:6) make it difficult to maintain Lightfoot’s precise distinction, though there is an important element of truth in his treatment, as we shall soon see.

Dr. Käsemann (1968: 59–60) emphatically rejects the classical background on the basis of parallels in the literature of the Hellenistic religions, since “the conceptual language of the hellenistic period moves within an ideological framework quite different from that. …of the classical Greek era.” According to this new language, morphe' “no longer means the individual entity as a formed whole, but a mode of being [Daseinsweise] in a specific direction, such as, for example, being in divine substance and power."
Looks to me like exegetes often drive their exegesis towards certain conclusions that are "required". In both cases it seems as if the exegetes must make their way to "morphe" indicating "divine nature" yet distinct from the Father in order to uphold a trinitarian outlook on the passage.

Compare those with JFB:
Translate, “Who subsisting (or existing, namely, originally: the Greek is not the simple substantive verb, ‘to be’) in the form of God (the divine essence is not meant: but the external self-manifesting characteristics of God, the form shining forth from His glorious essence). The divine nature had infinite BEAUTY in itself, even without any creature contemplating that beauty: that beauty was ‘the form of God’; as ‘the form of a servant’ (Phi_2:7), which is in contrasted opposition to it, takes for granted the existence of His human nature, so ‘the form of God’ takes for granted His divine nature [Bengel], Compare Joh_5:37; Joh_17:5; Col_1:15, ‘Who is the IMAGE of the invisible God’ at a time before ‘every creature,’ 2Co_4:4, esteemed (the same Greek verb as in Phi_2:3) His being on an equality with God no (act of) robbery” or self-arrogation; claiming to one’s self what does not belong to him. Ellicott, Wahl, and others have translated, “A thing to be grasped at,” which would require the Greek to be harpagma, whereas harpagmos means the act of seizing. So harpagmos means in the only other passage where it occurs, Plutarch [On the Education of Children, 120]. The same insuperable objection lies against Alford’s translation, “He regarded not as self-enrichment (that is, an opportunity for self-exaltation) His equality with God.” His argument is that the antithesis (Phi_2:7) requires it, “He used His equality with God as an opportunity, not for self-exaltation, but for self-abasement, or emptying Himself.” But the antithesis is not between His being on an equality with God, and His emptying Himself; for He never emptied Himself of the fullness of His Godhead, or His “BEING on an equality with God”; but between His being “in the FORM (that is, the outward glorious self-manifestation) of God,” and His “taking on Him the form of a servant,” whereby He in a great measure emptied Himself of His precedent “form,” or outward self-manifesting glory as God. Not “looking on His own things” (Phi_2:4), He, though existing in the form of God, He esteemed it no robbery to be on an equality with God, yet made Himself of no reputation. “Being on an equality with God, is not identical with subsisting in the form of God”; the latter expresses the external characteristics, majesty, and beauty of the Deity, which “He emptied Himself of,” to assume “the form of a servant”; the former, “HIS BEING,” or NATURE, His already existing STATE OF EQUALITY with God, both the Father and the Son having the same ESSENCE. A glimpse of Him “in the form of God,” previous to His incarnation, was given to Moses (Exo_24:10, Exo_24:11), Aaron, etc.
Obviously, JFB take a trinitarian view, but they seem to jettison the identification of "morphe" with essential being and instead prefer it to refer to "external characteristics or appearance. As the second citation above notes, the LXX uses "morphe" to refer to external appearance, not essential "essence" or "being", and it is likely the NT writers - being familiar with LXX text-types and usages - would have had their vocabulary informed by said usages.

Scott Pitta 12-12-2017 04:33 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Silva is one of my favorite authors. His syntax skills and readability make for some interesting reading. I remember reading Lightfoot's commentary when I was a student. I never read Kasemann.

the two quotes rdp posted are very interesting and the sort of theological literature I prefer.

Sean 12-12-2017 05:19 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery (Post 1512221)
You can share which book. Much simpler to use the pure Bible, the Authorised Version (KJB).

Steven
:yourock

Originalist 12-12-2017 09:20 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias (Post 1512260)
Looks to me like exegetes often drive their exegesis towards certain conclusions that are "required". In both cases it seems as if the exegetes must make their way to "morphe" indicating "divine nature" yet distinct from the Father in order to uphold a trinitarian outlook on the passage.

Compare those with JFB:
Translate, “Who subsisting (or existing, namely, originally: the Greek is not the simple substantive verb, ‘to be’) in the form of God (the divine essence is not meant: but the external self-manifesting characteristics of God, the form shining forth from His glorious essence). The divine nature had infinite BEAUTY in itself, even without any creature contemplating that beauty: that beauty was ‘the form of God’; as ‘the form of a servant’ (Phi_2:7), which is in contrasted opposition to it, takes for granted the existence of His human nature, so ‘the form of God’ takes for granted His divine nature [Bengel], Compare Joh_5:37; Joh_17:5; Col_1:15, ‘Who is the IMAGE of the invisible God’ at a time before ‘every creature,’ 2Co_4:4, esteemed (the same Greek verb as in Phi_2:3) His being on an equality with God no (act of) robbery” or self-arrogation; claiming to one’s self what does not belong to him. Ellicott, Wahl, and others have translated, “A thing to be grasped at,” which would require the Greek to be harpagma, whereas harpagmos means the act of seizing. So harpagmos means in the only other passage where it occurs, Plutarch [On the Education of Children, 120]. The same insuperable objection lies against Alford’s translation, “He regarded not as self-enrichment (that is, an opportunity for self-exaltation) His equality with God.” His argument is that the antithesis (Phi_2:7) requires it, “He used His equality with God as an opportunity, not for self-exaltation, but for self-abasement, or emptying Himself.” But the antithesis is not between His being on an equality with God, and His emptying Himself; for He never emptied Himself of the fullness of His Godhead, or His “BEING on an equality with God”; but between His being “in the FORM (that is, the outward glorious self-manifestation) of God,” and His “taking on Him the form of a servant,” whereby He in a great measure emptied Himself of His precedent “form,” or outward self-manifesting glory as God. Not “looking on His own things” (Phi_2:4), He, though existing in the form of God, He esteemed it no robbery to be on an equality with God, yet made Himself of no reputation. “Being on an equality with God, is not identical with subsisting in the form of God”; the latter expresses the external characteristics, majesty, and beauty of the Deity, which “He emptied Himself of,” to assume “the form of a servant”; the former, “HIS BEING,” or NATURE, His already existing STATE OF EQUALITY with God, both the Father and the Son having the same ESSENCE. A glimpse of Him “in the form of God,” previous to His incarnation, was given to Moses (Exo_24:10, Exo_24:11), Aaron, etc.
Obviously, JFB take a trinitarian view, but they seem to jettison the identification of "morphe" with essential being and instead prefer it to refer to "external characteristics or appearance. As the second citation above notes, the LXX uses "morphe" to refer to external appearance, not essential "essence" or "being", and it is likely the NT writers - being familiar with LXX text-types and usages - would have had their vocabulary informed by said usages.
I do not see JFB sounding overtly Trinitarian here. If you view him as speaking of the Man, Christ Jesus, it sounds Oneness.

Sean 12-12-2017 10:25 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
ex·e·gete
ˈeksəˌjēt/Submit
noun
1.
an expounder or textual interpreter, especially of scripture.
verb
1.
expound or interpret (a text, especially scripture).
"I am able to exegete the scriptures in ways that make sense"





The result....tens of thousands of unique Christian belief systems, and one particular meaning in one Bible.

So, expound on........

rdp 12-13-2017 02:12 AM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery (Post 1512221)
You can share which book. Much simpler to use the pure Bible, the Authorised Version (KJB).

Steven
*Yes, I am well familiar w. your thoughts on the KJV & I tenaciously disagree (to put it mildly). In fact, we are currently in the process of switching from the KJV to the ESV for our public reading in the church I pastor...& the people love it. I regularly teach on the errors of KJVO (which is not the same thing as being anti-KJV).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Pitta (Post 1512224)
I rarely made reference to the Greek when I taught at church. It is a needless distraction.
*I would differ w. you here inasmuch as the NT apostles & Jesus Himself appealed to specific grammar to formulate their doctrines (e.g., resurrection doctrine, baptism, etc.). While I do understand that in-depth exegesis (e.g., sentence diagramming, syntactical parallels, etc.) can be overwhelming to the lay church member, I do highly encourage original language research for the saints. Simply, I encourage "growing in knowledge."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1512226)
God is not a "commentator" in my point of view.

It it His word and He invents his own ideas.

He spoke through men that wrote His thoughts.

If not, God is not the author of His word.

When I say commentary, I think of opinion pieces.
*Again, not interested in opinions - only the originally-inspired grammar of the biblical data itself. Already explained that every translator absolutely must make interpretive decisions in the transmission process from sender language to receiving language.

rdp 12-13-2017 02:14 AM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1512277)
ex·e·gete
ˈeksəˌjēt/Submit
noun
1.
an expounder or textual interpreter, especially of scripture.
verb
1.
expound or interpret (a text, especially scripture).
"I am able to exegete the scriptures in ways that make sense"





The result....tens of thousands of unique Christian belief systems, and one particular meaning in one Bible.

So, expound on........
:ohplease

Sean 12-13-2017 07:16 AM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Quote:
*Yes, I am well familiar w. your thoughts on the KJV & I tenaciously disagree (to put it mildly). In fact, we are currently in the process of switching from the KJV to the ESV for our public reading in the church I pastor...& the people love it. I regularly teach on the errors of KJVO (which is not the same thing as being anti-KJV).
No, it is identical.

Once you finish wrecking the KJV, then you will be wrecked by endless new modern versions that all say an average of 50,000 words different from each other because of copyright laws.

You are in no man's land now, and free from the word of God, to switch to seminary translations, which are actually.... commentary .

Sean 12-13-2017 07:22 AM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
What we did in our men's group meeting is compare verses from the KJV to the completely missing or completely changed verses in the modern versions.

Jaws dropped unanimously.

Try it sometime.

Scott Pitta 12-13-2017 01:31 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
The issue is different translations are translated from different Greek manuscripts. No 2 manuscripts are word for word identical.

It makes perfect sense for Bibles translated from different manuscripts to read differently.

Just to make things worse, the quotes from the OT in the NT do not always match how they read in the OT. Since this does not seem to be a problem for NT authors, it is not a problem for me.

Sean 12-13-2017 01:43 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Pitta (Post 1512314)
The issue is different translations are translated from different Greek manuscripts. No 2 manuscripts are word for word identical.

It makes perfect sense for Bibles translated from different manuscripts to read differently.

Just to make things worse, the quotes from the OT in the NT do not always match how they read in the OT. Since this does not seem to be a problem for NT authors, it is not a problem for me.
Scott, you are ignoring the fact that these modern translations are forced to differ from each other by about 10%.

They are forced to change verses by copyright law.

Sean 12-13-2017 02:01 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Just imagine a law telling you to change what is written in your Bible to make sure it does not resemble someone else's Bible.

Well, there is such a law.

Sean 12-13-2017 02:04 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1512316)
Just imagine a law telling you to change what is written in your Bible to make sure it does not resemble someone else's Bible.

Well, there is such a law.
So those that choose to be "different" than the KJV and want to create their own translations, are open game to that law.

Scott Pitta 12-13-2017 02:05 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
I have yet to see a translator refer to copyright laws.

english NT's differ because they are translated by different manuscripts. Differences in translator style come into play. Translation technique also impact how readings are made in English.

I have seen plenty of ink spilled over those issues. Not once have I seen a translator mention copyright law.

Sean 12-13-2017 02:23 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
They know better.

They dare not be too similar to any of the other 100 plus modern translations.

If you were to create your own modern translation for sale, you would need to do the same thing, before copyrighting your new one too.

Sean 12-13-2017 02:25 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...eDZ-ydaZQHmJX3


Etc.

Sean 12-13-2017 02:30 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...GM1Ff8YOFhnZ3A


Etc!!!

Scott Pitta 12-13-2017 03:24 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
I prefer reading a statement from actual Bible translators.

Steven Avery 12-13-2017 03:34 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdp (Post 1512283)
we are currently in the process of switching from the KJV to the ESV for our public reading in the church I pastor...
Did your research determine that the Westcott-Hort recension, the Critical Text, is superior and authentic compared to the Reformation Bible text? That the 45 verses, including the Mark Ending, the Pericope Adulterae, Acts 8:37, “father, forgive them”, the heavenly winesses, were dastardly interpolations rather than authenic scripture?

Steven

Scott Pitta 12-13-2017 04:02 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
No 2 Greek manuscripts are identical. Each and every one is different in content.

I have no love or concern for the TC research done by Westcott/Hort.

Sean 12-13-2017 04:26 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Pitta (Post 1512331)
I prefer reading a statement from actual Bible translators.
Do they all agree as per their translations, or do copyrights force them to disagree?

Scott Pitta 12-13-2017 04:46 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
I have never seen any statement from any translator or translation team that mentioned copyright issues.

Hopefully, this post will return to text linguistics and discourse analysis. Discourse analysis deserves more attention.

Sean 12-13-2017 04:50 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Maybe it is because everyone of them disagree with enough definitions that they just define new stuff per their whim.

Then finish and notice they are already different that the hundreds of others.

Now, that is a great representation of the word of God.

Scott Pitta 12-13-2017 05:08 PM
Re: Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysi
 
Are there more discourse analysis quotes ? Any from OT literature ?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:30 AM.
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.