Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysis (E

[rdp]

*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 ). 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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by rdp

*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 ). 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!

God delivered me from commentary.

Thanks for the reminder.

[Originalist]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

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.

[Scott Pitta]

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]

Originally Posted by Sean

Eeeegad!

God delivered me from commentary.

Thanks for the reminder.

*This misses the whole point of the post, but okay .

Originally Posted by Sean

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]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

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 ).

*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.