Chiasmus in Philippians 2:7-8?

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Chiasmus in Philippians 2:7-8?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

leonardjayawardena wrote:An interpretation which applies the clause ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν to a pre-existent Jesus has to take both the following clauses (μορφὴν δούλου λαβών and μορφὴν δούλου λαβών[that should read...ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος]) as adverbial clauses of manner (as NASB translators do, joining the two clauses with "and": "taking the form of a bond-servant and being made in the likeness of men").
I think this questions our understanding of verbal aspect. The common sense way to take an aorist participle is that it indicates that the action expressed by the participle happened before the action of the main verb. If that rule is applied here then the Greek indicates that both μορφὴν δούλου λαβών and ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος happened before the ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν.

Bear with me for a moment, as I tiptoe across the forum's constraints on discussing doctrinal issues for a moment to question our understanding of grammar. If as Leonard has suggested that the kenosis (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν) is held by most of Christendom to refer to a time before the incarnation (what he calls, "a pre-existent Jesus"), then perhaps that is a valid test of our understanding of aspect. Were the people who read this passage and concluded that μορφὴν δούλου λαβών and ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος happened after (or as part of) the kenosis (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν) Greek speakers? If these aorist participles suggested that to them, our understanding is quite wrong, and if they saw no problem with the fact that a concurrent action was expressed by the aorist, then that suggests the non-importance of aspect in some cases.

I personally think that the λαβών and γενόμενος are aorist to refer to the fact that the action of receiving and the description of becoming are things that happened in a very brief period of time. That is usually a distinction made for aspect in the finite rather than non-finite verbs (in which case it is said that they mark the relative sequence of events).
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Chiasmus in Philippians 2:7-8?

Post by cwconrad »

I object to even a hypothetical consideration of how the aorist forms in question here may function in accordance with theological assumptions about this passage, whether they be those held by "most of Christendom" or by others within or outside of Christendom.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Chiasmus in Philippians 2:7-8?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

cwconrad wrote:I object to even a hypothetical consideration of how the aorist forms in question here may function in accordance with theological assumptions about this passage, whether they be those held by "most of Christendom" or by others within or outside of Christendom.
Sorry about that. It is in fact something that could be discussed without specific reference to this passage.

Are there other ways to think of aorist participles other than as marking relative time sequence? Is relative time sequence something specific to narrative text? Does / can it have (an)other significance(s) in descriptive texts?

It seems as if there are two different ways of understanding the aorist, that don't always complement each other. Describing the type of action and designating the relative order of actions.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Chiasmus in Philippians 2:7-8?

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Hughes wrote:Are there other ways to think of aorist participles other than as marking relative time sequence? Is relative time sequence something specific to narrative text? Does / can it have (an)other significance(s) in descriptive texts?
Try this from Iliad 6:
Iliad 6.482-4 wrote:ὣς εἰπὼν ἀλόχοιο φίλης ἐν χερσὶν ἔθηκε
παῖδ᾽ ἑόν: ἣ δ᾽ ἄρα μιν κηώδεϊ δέξατο κόλπῳ
δακρυόεν γελάσασα
Here γελάσασα does not mean, I think, that Andromache laughed/smiled before she took the infant Astyanax from Hector, but that she laughed/smiled (through her tears) at the very same moment as she took him.

This is a passage that sticks in one's memory for the enduring image, but at the same time it neatly illustrates how an aorist participle can function to indicate an action that is simultaneous to that of the main verb -- and that's another reason why I have never forgotten it.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Chiasmus in Philippians 2:7-8?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Well, thanks for that. By way of explanation, my question actually goes back to late September to the 1 John 5:16 possible with aorist? thread.
Erik Peterson wrote:My assumption is that there are no restrictions on the pairing of horao with this participle or any others, and that the use of the aorist of hamartano would carry a punctual rather than durative meaning, roughly speaking.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:Rather odd question. Yes, using the aorist participle rather than the present would change the meaning. It would mean that the action of the participle would be antecedent to that of the main verb rather than concurrent with it.
Leaving my own reply to that September thread aside, it seems that Erik and Barry were working from different theoretical models. It is also related to the ideas that were brought up in a much older topic Definition of Aorist.
leonardjayawardena wrote:has to take both the following clauses (μορφὴν δούλου λαβών and μορφὴν δούλου λαβών) as adverbial clauses of manner
Leonard's topic seemed like a relevant place to re-visit the issue, because adverbial clauses of manner are usually present participles, aren't they? (non-rhetorical question)
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Chiasmus in Philippians 2:7-8?

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Hughes wrote:... adverbial clauses of manner are usually present participles, aren't they? (non-rhetorical question)
Good question. I don't think that they need to be. I think it depends on how the action is being conceived by the speaker/author -- as a whole or as an action in process. I recall a thread from the old mailing list about a decade (or more) back examining GNT aorist participial clauses whose aorist participles didn't indicate time prior to that of the verb on which they depended; I'll see if I can locate that and bring it back here, but note that my Homeric example from Iliad 6 had an adverbial clause of manner with an aorist participle (δέξατο ... γελάσασα). Another that comes to my mind is the Hellenistic motto, λαθὲ βιώσας. That's a bit different; βιώσας is not a clause of manner; rather βιώσας is complementary to the imperative λαθέ. But there are a few other verbs that take complementary participles in the same way as does λανθάνειν, e.g. φθάνειν, τυγχάνειν, κινδυνεύειν, ἄρχεσθαι. Participles used with those auxiliaries aren't adverbial, of course. I'll see if i can find that other list and report back.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Temporal reference of subordinate aorist participles

Post by cwconrad »

I'm taking the liberty -- à la Stephen Hughes -- to indicate the somewhat tangential focus of what is here under discussion.
cwconrad wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:... adverbial clauses of manner are usually present participles, aren't they? (non-rhetorical question)
Good question. I don't think that they need to be. I think it depends on how the action is being conceived by the speaker/author -- as a whole or as an action in process. I recall a thread from the old mailing list about a decade (or more) back examining GNT aorist participial clauses whose aorist participles didn't indicate time prior to that of the verb on which they depended; I'll see if I can locate that and bring it back here, but note that my Homeric example from Iliad 6 had an adverbial clause of manner with an aorist participle (δέξατο ... γελάσασα). Another that comes to my mind is the Hellenistic motto, λαθὲ βιώσας. That's a bit different; βιώσας is not a clause of manner; rather βιώσας is complementary to the imperative λαθέ. But there are a few other verbs that take complementary participles in the same way as does λανθάνειν, e.g. φθάνειν, τυγχάνειν, κινδυνεύειν, ἄρχεσθαι. Participles used with those auxiliaries aren't adverbial, of course. I'll see if i can find that other list and report back.
For any who may be interested, I have found a couple items in the archives that are relevant to this question (ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω) of the temporal reference of aorist participles that are subordinate to another verb.

In the fall of 1997 (17 years ago!) there was a thread running from October 29 through November 6, part of it concerned with these very lines in the Christ-hymn in Phil 2: the subject-header is "More on participles ... " http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-arch ... 21931.html
In the following year (1998) I posted on October 14 a lengthy piece entitled, "Adverbial aor ptcs of subsequent time rfc (LONG)" http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-arch ... 27970.html
I haven't read carefully through all of this; I'd just note that I don't necessarily hold with all the notions that I held seventeen years ago -- but the discussion was on this precise topic.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”