Subject: tc-list P66: John 07-52: o profhths

From: "Wieland Willker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 18:09:30 +0100

NA-27 reads:
John 07-52 apekriqhsan kai eipan autw mh kai su ek ths galilaias ei
eraunhson kai ide oti ek ths galilaias profhths ouk egeiretai

P66* reads: ths galilaias o profhths
The "O" seems to be corrected by erasion.

Is it correct that this variant is not noted in the apparatus?  Why is it
not noted?

Best wishes
    Wieland
------------------------
Wieland Willker
[email-masked]
http://purl.org/WILLKER/index.html

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 11:36:18 -0600

>Is it correct that this variant is not noted in the apparatus?  Why is it

It's worth remembering that the variants noted in NA26/27 are
essentially the same as the variants noted in NA25. With only
minor exceptions, no new variants were added. The Nestle-Aland
edition makes no claim to include all variants of the manuscripts
it collates. It doesn't even list the differences between its
text and the TR (something which I have always though a
severe lack).

Obviously one can only wish that NA27 were fuller (it would
be wonderful if someone would combine the accuracy of NA27
with the fuller set of variants in Merk, for instance). But
it is only a pocket edition....
Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

---

From: M A Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 20:50:16 EST

On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 18:09:30 +0100 "Wieland Willker"
<[email-masked]> writes:

>Is it correct that this variant is not noted in the apparatus?  Why is 
>it not noted?

Actually, the variant *is* noted in the NA27 apparatus, but it is buried
within the cryptic "p(66*)" cited as supporting the main text (which
occurs without the article before PROFHTHS). The way to find the reading
of minority Greek witnesses enclosed in parentheses is to consult
Appendix 2, "Variae Lectiones Minores", where under Jn 7:52 one finds a
reference to the transposition variant (~), with "ut txt, sed add O a.
PROFHTHS P66* ".

NA26 did not contain this appendix, so it instead included the P66*
variant in its main apparatus. 

If I recall my collation data correctly, I think there is also one
non-significant minuscule which also reads O PROFHTHS in Jn 7:52, though
without a search through my collation sheets I could not tell you which
minuscule that might be.. 

==============================================================
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D.
Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA

---

From: Yuri Kuchinsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:30:48 -0500 (EST)

Greetings,

The verse Phil 2:6 is quite interesting. It presents some problems for
translators, and is often mistranslated, it seems.

The original Greek is,

"os en morphe theou iparkhon oukh arpagmon egesato to einai isa theo"

meaning literally, 

"Who in the form of God subsisting (iparkhon), deemed (egesato) it not
robbery (arpagmon) to be equal with God"

KJV follows very closely,

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with
God" 

And here is the standard (and somewhat problematic) "modern" translation,

NIV: "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God
something to be grasped"

Also followed by NASB, RSV, WE, etc.

The implication here is that equality can either be retained, or given up
on orders of God. The third possibility, that equality with God can also
be challenged, and superiority demanded (as rebellious angels did in times
of yore) is not implied at all. But this third possibility, on the other
hand, is clearly implied in the Greek.

Also Darby gives an interesting variation of KJV,

"Who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine
[=robbery] to be on an equality with God"

The slight difference from KJV is that, according to Darby, the equality
comes through a little more clearly as a potential object of robbery,
whereas in KJV the exact meaning of "robbery" remains more vague.

What the original Greek (and KJV and Darby) conveys, and "modern" 
translations fail to convey, is the idea that, while Christ was originally
one of the angels who were on par with God, he did not do like they did,
and remained faithful to God. Then, after the rebellious angels' rebellion
brought great discord into the world, Christ was sent on a mission to
restore the world to its original shape, and ended up suffering on the
Cross. And thus he helped to correct all the trouble started by the
rebellious angels. Total defeat for Satan will be the end result.

In other words, the Greek conveys a very special gnosis and a very special
metaphysical world view that is missed by modern translators.

All in all, I think Darby translation is probably the best. Any opinions?

Also, what about the "bishops and deacons" (episkopois kai diakonois) in
v. 1:1? This does seem like a later gloss to me (also the view of some
other scholars). 

It seems unlikely that "bishops and deacons" existed during Paul's
lifetime. KJV/RSV translates "episkopois kai diakonois" as "bishops and
deacons", but the more "modern" translations seem to politely mistranslate
this verse. Perhaps trying to avoid the question of what else may have
been added to this epistle by later editors?

Regards,

Yuri. 

PS:

These items came up as a result of a more general discussion of
Philippians on Crosstalk-L. For more context, you may look up this and
other articles at eGroups,

http://www.egroups.com/list/crosstalk/5934.html

Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto
                                
http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm                  
                                                         
The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian

---

From: "Dave Washburn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 11:27:55 -0700

[snip]
> rebellious angels. Total defeat for Satan will be the end result.

*yawn* Not only is this off-topic for TC-list, but it's nothing more 
than the same tired old stuff that Arians have been preaching for 
centuries.  The NT NOWHERE gives any indication that Christ was 
ever an angel; as for the meaning of harpagmos, see Moulton-
Milligan and BAG, to name just a couple.  TDNT 1:473-474 gives a 
full exposition of the 3 possible meanings of the word and treats all 
of them grammatically, concluding that the meaning is "He did not 
regard equality with God as a gain, either in the sense of 
something not to be let slip, or in the sense of something not to be 
left unutilised."  IOW, the Arian nonsense expounded above has 
been answered many, many, many times and it's high time it was 
put to bed for good.

And since this subject has nothing at all to do with textual 
criticism, that will be my final word on this subject in this forum.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.

---

From: lakr <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 13:27:23 -0800 (PST)

> The NT NOWHERE gives any indication that Christ was 
> ever an angel; 
> Dave Washburn

Oh, are you aware of any textual critical issues surrounding
Galatians 4:14 which would make this doubtfull?

Sincerely,
Larry Kruper

---

From: Yuri Kuchinsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 12:36:34 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Dave Washburn wrote:

[Yuri:]
> centuries. 

Dave,

This subject is not really off-topic for TC-list. The reason why you
thought so is because you seem to have misunderstood my post to some
extent.

My second question re Phil 1:1 should have given you the idea, but you
snipped it, unfortunately. 

What all this was leading towards, as my question re Phil 1:1 should have
indicated, was the question of interpolations in Philippians. In other
words, textual integrity of Philippians. 

"Bishops and deacons" in Phil 1:1 seem like an obvious late interpolation.
And the reason why I was asking about the hymn to Christ in Phil is
because it also seems like it was not written by Paul. Therefore,
questions arise about the history, authorship, and the dating of this
text. (Actually, I happen to think that the hymn dates from the time after
Paul's lifetime).

> The NT NOWHERE gives any indication that Christ was ever an angel;

Debatable.

> as for the meaning of harpagmos, see Moulton- Milligan and BAG, to
> name just a couple.

Thanks for helping me with this.

I've been trying to understand the meaning of this passage, along with
great many other students of the NT. This is a very difficult passage
indeed (and it generated huge amounts of literature, as you've pointed
out). This is why the correct translation is important. And once this is
clarified, the focus should logically move further to the history of this
text.

Now, I certainly would not like to post off-topic material to tc-list.
If after this post some people still think this subject is irrelevant, I
will certainly stop, and will try to move the discussion elsewhere.
Because I consider myself a good cyber-citizen. <grin>

> IOW, the Arian nonsense expounded above has been answered many, many,
> many times and it's high time it was put to bed for good.

I find it very interesting that you should have brought up Arianism. Do
you think KJV was Arian-influenced?

Arianist controversy was supposed to be the controversy about the nature
of the relationship of Father to Son. I wasn't really aware of the Arian
angle on this passage before. So I'm thankful to you for pointing me in
that direction. Now, after some more reading, I confess that my position
on this passage has changed already. I would like to take back and modify
some of the things I said before.

This is the translation that I prefer now (of course something similar has
been proposed before by other scholars),

"Who, while in the form of God, 
did not esteem it as his lawful prize 
to become equal to God."

Where Arianism comes in this debate, is the question of whether the
pre-existent Son was equal to the Father, or he was merely on the similar
heavenly level with the Father, while not being equal. 

Here's the NIV translation again (that is similar to most "modern"
translations).

"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God
something to be grasped."

This sure seems like the equality of Father and Son is assumed in this
translation. But I don't think the Greek really supports this, since in
the Greek text "being in the form of God", and "being equal to God" do not
seem to be treated as identical concepts.

So what if my reading seems like an Arian reading? Why can't the Arians be
right about some things sometimes? What if their theology was actually
more reflective of earliest Christianity in some respects? Is this totally
impossible in your view?

The next and related question to consider is the vexing question of
"harpagmos". Here's some useful information I've found on the Web,

[quote]

The word "harpagmos" stems from the word "harpazo". According to
Zodhiates' "The Complete Wordstudy Dictionary, New Testament" the word
differs from "klepto" (to steal) in that it is an open act of theft,  
or robbery. It is admitted that it is not exclusively used thus, but  
also in a more general sense of forcible seizure. In Chadwick's       
"Lexicographica Graeca" the word is said to mean [seizure] "executed  
rapidly", "saisir l'instant", "to be caught" or "got by chance".      
Hickie's "Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament" has "to seize", 
"take by force" & "snatch away" for "harpazo", but for the word in    
question (harpagmos) it has "a thing to be seized; an accidental      
acquisition".

http://www.bcca.org/srb/archive/980101-980228/0060.html

[end quote]

Also it is relevant to consider that, while "harpagmos" is found only once
in the Bible, there is a very similar word, "harpagma", that is quite
common in the Septuagint. This word is always found in the sense of
'booty' or 'prize'. And this is how I prefer to interpret "harpagmos".

Also, Vulgate translates "harpagmon" as "rapinam", a word which can mean
not only the act of plundering or robbery but also the concrete noun
'plunder' or 'booty'.

So this is the crux of our problem, it seems. What to do with this word,
and how to interpret it? I find these comments by Dr. Rodney J. Decker
quite valid,

[quote]

The word group of which [hARPAGMOS] is a part seems to convey ideas that
are totally out of character with the context of Phil. 2: robbery,
plunder, greediness, swindler, rape, booty, stolen, to seize hastily, to
be a thief, etc.  It is the attempt to make these meanings suitable in a
Christological reference that has engendered much of the confusion over
the text.

[end quote]

So how do we interpret this unusual word? It implies certain amount of
violence, and seems to allude to some past conflict in the heavenly
spheres. This is important, it seems to me. To continue with Dr. Decker's
comments,

[quote]

Two primary explanations have been offered for this word. 

1) Res rapta, equality with God was his by right and by nature and was not
a theft, i.e., he did not steal his position unjustly. This takes
hARPAGMOS in an active sense to mean "robbery, snatching."

2) Res rapienda, equality with God was not viewed by Christ as something
to be seized; i.e., he was not equal with God and did not make any
"snatching effort" to achieve that position. (Cf. NEB, "he did not think
to snatch at equality with God.") This is a passive sense, "something to
be seized."

http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/rd_ken.htm

[end quote]

So here I prefer the solution #2. This is how I interpret this text. But
of the seven translations available at The Bible Gateway

http://www.gospelcom.net/bible

only the Darby translation reflects this point of view.

Any way you consider this problem, pre-existence of Christ is clearly
implied in this passage. The question is, What was the exact status of the
pre-existent Christ as reflected in our hymn?

You continued in your post:

> TDNT 1:473-474 gives a full exposition of the 3 possible meanings of
> the word and treats all of them grammatically, concluding that the
> meaning is "He did not regard equality with God as a gain, either in
> the sense of something not to be let slip, or in the sense of
> something not to be left unutilised."

So you're offering yet another translation that assumes that in his
pre-existence Christ was equal to God. I doubt that this is a valid
interpretation for the reasons already outlined.

Generally speaking, I don't think this hymn dates to the lifetime of Paul,
primarily because of the rather high Christology implied in it, and
because of its more developed gnosis. In my view, the Historical Paul
followed low (quasi-Ebionite) Christology. Pre-existence does generally
seem like a rather late theological concept.

But the Christology of the hymn, while rather high, is still not quite as
high as almost all modern translations would like it to make, in my view.

Regards,

Yuri.

---

From: "Dave Washburn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 17:41:28 -0700

> words, textual integrity of Philippians. 

I don't understand how a comment on the meaning of harpagmos in 
Phil 2:6 has anything to do with the textual integrity of Phil 1:1.  

> text. (Actually, I happen to think that the hymn dates from the time after

That's form criticism, not textual criticism.  So it's still off-topic.

> you think KJV was Arian-influenced?

One of the most annoying things in the world is when someone 
doesn't actually read what a person writes, but tries to answer it 
anyway.  I didn't say anything in the KJV was Arian, I said your 
post about Christ as an angel was Arian-influenced.  If you're going 
to try and respond to me, PLEASE read what I actually write.

[snip again - still off-topic]

Dave Washburn

---

From: Yuri Kuchinsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 14:24:27 -0500 (EST)

> Phil 2:6 has anything to do with the textual integrity of Phil 1:1.  

Clarifying the meaning of harpagmos may help to understand who wrote this
hymn and when.

> That's form criticism, not textual criticism.  So it's still off-topic.

Are you saying that asking about textual integrity of Phil is not textual
criticism? Identifying a possible interpolation in Phil 1:1 is irrelevant
to textual criticism?

Let me ask you this, Dave. Do you feel uncomfortable when questions about
interpolations in Pauline epistles are raised? If so, then you're probably
not alone. But I'm afraid, such questions need to be asked.

[Dave:]

[Yuri:]

> One of the most annoying things in the world is when someone doesn't
> actually read what a person writes, but tries to answer it anyway.  I
> didn't say anything in the KJV was Arian, I said your post about
> Christ as an angel was Arian-influenced.  If you're going to try and
> respond to me, PLEASE read what I actually write.

So this was the meaning of your complaint then? In such a case, I would
like to assure you that I meant no Arian subversion whatsoever by the use
of this word. Sorry for the misunderstanding. If you replace "angel" in my
original post with "spiritual being", the meaning of my post would not be
affected in any way. (I do hope that you have no objections to Christ
being described as a spiritual being.)

Regards,

Yuri.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 13:56:00 -0600

>not alone. But I'm afraid, such questions need to be asked.

Theological questions are not the point. Not on this list. In fact,
the matter ought not to be discussed, because they interfere with
our ability to work together.

As best I can tell, you are proposing a conjectural emendation to
Phil. 1:1. Now conjectural emendations are a legitimate topic for
discussion on this list, as some critics allow them. However, I
think it safe to say that, in New Testament criticism, *no*
scholar will allow conjectural emendation unless the passage
involves a crux -- some sort of difficulty in understanding.

You need to establish the existence of that crux. And if you
need this much argument to establish its existence, that proves
on its very face that you have *not* established it. So your
conjectural emendation is not allowed.

You may still argue that the passage has been edited. But it
was edited in a primitive way (presumably before the Pauline
corpus was assembled). This is not the field of textual criticism;
it is indeed a matter for form criticism or some other
discipline.

Hence I agree with the call for taking the matter off-list.

And note that I express no theological opinions in so
saying. :-)

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: Yuri Kuchinsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 14:36:29 -0500 (EST)

Sorry for late reply, Robert.

> our ability to work together.

I agree completely.

While my original post was not intended to be concerned with theological
issues, I regret that it could have been interpreted as such. My fault. I
should have expressed myself more clearly.

> Phil. 1:1.

Yes.

> Now conjectural emendations are a legitimate topic for

Perhaps so.

> You need to establish the existence of that crux.

But it has already been established for a long time.

> And if you need this much argument to establish its existence, that
> proves on its very face that you have *not* established it.

You misunderstand. So far, I gave no argument to establish its existence.
Nevertheless, many scholars argued that this is an interpolation.

Here's this from the article on the Philippians in ANCHOR BD (1992) 5:319

"Critics frequently have viewed the reference to "bishops and deacons"
(1:1), for insance, as an ecclesiastical anachronism and dismissed it as
an ancient gloss (so, e.g., Riddle and Hutson 1946: 123; Schmithals 1971:
89-90 n. 14; Schenke and Fisher 1978: 126; Schenk 1984: 78-82, 334)."

Also, according to the article, the earliest ms of Phil is P46, one of the
three Chester Beatty papyri of the NT that dates from ca ad 200. It's only
missing a few insignificant verses. Generally, the article says that,
based only on mss, there are no significant textual problems with Phil.

> So your conjectural emendation is not allowed.
> 
> corpus was assembled).

I agree with you here. 

There's actuallly very little textual mss evidence for later
interpolations in Pauline epistles. Existing mss of Pauline epistles are
remarkably consistent, and show very little variation, compared even to
the mss of the gospels. Two conclusions can be drawn from this.

Either

a) there are no later interpolations in Pauline epistles, or

b) epistles were standartised at a very early stage by some centralized
authority, and only "approved" versions were preserved for posterity.

Myself, I incline to version b).

While apparently textual criticism can do little to clarify this matter,
still the question needs to be asked. Because there's more than enough
evidence from other directions that the Pauline epistles had been
labouriously edited, collated from various much shorter epistles, and
heavily interpolated with later material. The scholar who has done more
than anyone else to analyse this subject was Alfred Loisy, but
unfortunately his work in this area is basically unknown the the current
generation of scholars.

> This is not the field of textual criticism; it is indeed a matter for
> form criticism or some other discipline.

Fine. But I think I was entitled to ask the question. Now it seems to be
answered, so I'm happy.

> Hence I agree with the call for taking the matter off-list.

Fine with me.

> And note that I express no theological opinions in so

Thank you. :-)

Yuri.