¹ Jaeger, Werner Wiliam, Eine stilgeschichtliche Studie zum Philipperbrief, Hermes 50 (1915), 537–53Google Scholar.

² Among the occurrences of these phrases referred to by JAEGER are those found in the following: THUCYTDES III.; LYSIAS, Fragment XIX (extant only as a citation in Dionysius, of Halicarnassus, , On the Ancient OratorsGoogle Scholar; see the edition of H. Usener and L. Radermacher, 104); Josephus, , Antiquities 11.41Google Scholar; Luclan, , Hermotimus 52Google Scholar; Galen, , De setnine IV, p. 561Google Scholar; (Kuehn); De simpl. medicam. X, p. 314 (Kuehn); Heliodorus, , Aethiopica VII.7, 20; VIII,7. JAEGER assumes that ἃρπαγμα and ἃρπαγμα were used synonymously in Koine Greek, as were many μος and μα nouns (Studie, S48, n. 1)Google Scholar.

² In addition to these double accusative constructions JAEGER calls attention to numerous uses of ἃρπαγμα and its cognates which document their association with ideas of fortuity and good luck. Of particular interest is the use of ⋯ρπάζειν in Herondas, , Mimes VI.30Google Scholar, and of σνσαρπάζειν in Enophon, , Memorabilia I.4.8Google Scholar.

⁴ Since ⋯γείσθαι and similar verbs, when they are used in this idiomatic way, characterize someone's attitude toward a piece of good luck which is already in hand in every other text he consulted, JAEGER concluded that this was the way in which the, τ⋯ εἶναι ἳσα θεῷ of Phil. 2:6 was to be understood also (Studie, 551).

⁵ Or. IV (in Julian I). GREGORY'S remark was directed against Julian the Apostate, whose attainment to exalted station was, in his view, unmerited.

⁶ Even this most persuasive portion of JAEGER'S presentation includes an element of ambiguity which some later interpreters have not missed: while he has made it indisputable that ἃρπαγμα belongs to the idiomatic expression he identified, JAEGER did not demonstrate from usage that ἃρπαγμα and ἃρπαγός functioned as synonyms in Hellenistic Greek. He only observed, as have numerous others, that since many μα and μος terms were used synonymously, it is reasonable to assume that ἃρπαγμα and ἃρπαγός were used synonymously also (Studie, 548, n.). This argument from analogy, however, leaves the possibility open that a connotation for ἃρπαγός different from that which JAEGER has demonstrated for ἃρπαγμα may exist, since not all μα and μος terms were used synonymously in Hellenistic Greek. Cf. Hooke, S. H., Alpha and Omega (London, 1961), 258Google Scholar; and Blasss, F. and Debrunner, A., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Chicago, 1961), 109.1, 2Google Scholar.

⁷ The contrast between acting for a noble motive rather than for personal ad vantage JAEGER derived from a comparison of Alexander's ”Asian policy,” as related by PLUTARCH, with what is said about Christ in Phil. 2 rather than from the import of the idiomatic expression itself.

⁸ Foerster, W., αὑχ ⋯ρπαγμ⋯ν ⋯γ⋯σατο bei den griechischen Kirchenvätern, ZNW 29 (1930), 115–28CrossRefGoogle ScholarCrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Foerster, W., ⋯ρπάζω, ⋯ρπαγμός, TWNT I (1933), 471ff.; Eng. Transl. in: TDNT I (1964), 472ffGoogle Scholar.

⁹ Dibelius, Mart, An die Thessalonicher I, II. An die Philipfer (Band XI, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, Tübingen, 1937), 76Google Scholar. Käsemann, Ernst, in his incisive article on the Philippians Christ hymn (Kritische Analyse von Phil. 2:5–11Google Scholar, Exegetisch Versche and Bsnnungen I [Göttingen, 1960], 69–70Google Scholar)—originally published in ZTK 47 (1950), 313–60Google Scholar — adopts Jaeger's understanding of the ⋯ρπαγμός remark, although he refers only to Foerster's, TWNT articleGoogle Scholar. His familiarity with Jaeger's work is apparent, however, in his reference to the origin of the phrase and its use in refined literature. These are major concerns in Jaeger's presentation but are not mentioned by FOERSTER at all.

¹⁰ Lohmeyer, Erhst, Kyrios Jesus (Heidelberg, 1928), 20–29Google Scholar; Die Brieie an die Philipper, an die Kolosser und an Philemon (Meyer's Krit.-ex. Komm., Göttingen, 1939), 92Google Scholar.

¹¹ Martin, R. P., Carmen Christi. Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretationand in the Setting of Early Christian Worship (Cambridge, 1967), 143ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² Since it is actually the μορΦ⋯ phrase on which he bases his res rapta conclusions, and since he believes that the ⋯ρπαγμός remark refers to what Christ in his pre-existence did not yet possess (τ⋯ εἶναι ἶσα θεῷ = the rank of κ⋯ριος, MARTIN actually achieves not an ”intermediate” position but a restatement of the res rapienda view, adorned by what he takes to be that import of the idiomatic ⋯ρπαγμός expression which is most accordant with the context. See CarmenChrist, 145, 149.

¹³ For a more detailed analysis of the interpretations of JEGER and those whom he influenced as well as for summaries and critiques of alternative interpretations of the ⋯ρπαγμός remark, see my The Term Άρπαγμός in Philippians 2:6 (Harvard Ph.D. Thesis, unpublished, 1968), 4–45Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Compare the translation of Hadas, Moses: ”Arsace snatched at this suggestion….” Heliodorus. An Ethiopian Romance (Ann Arbor, 1957), 201Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Compare ⋯ρπάζειν τ⋯ νίκημα PLUTARCH, Luculliis 35.i (L. 515D), τό τε καιν⋯ν του πολέμου ἣρπασε DIO CASSIUS 41.44.2; τ⋯ν ⋯Φορώμενον Lucian, , Amores 31Google Scholar; δέδορκά σε πεἳράν τιν έχθρών ⋯ρπ⋯σαι θηρώμενον Sophocles, , Ajax I, 2Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Compare the uses of ⋯ρπάζειν and εὔρημα in Herondas, , Mimes VI.30Google Scholar, and of προαρπ⋯ζειν and ἓρμαιον in Eusebius, , Life of Constantine 52Google Scholar.

¹⁷ In Classical usage nouns with a μα suffix express the action of the verb; those with a -μα suffix express the result of the action of the verb. One often finds in articles and commentaries a list of nouns with a μος suffix which are used in both senses to document the claim that ⋯ρπαγμός should be regarded as an equivalent of ⋯ρπαγμός See, e.g., the terms mentioned in Lightfoot, , Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (London, 1913) IIIGoogle Scholar; Lohmeyer, , Kyrios Jesus, 20, n. 3Google Scholar; Martin, R. P., Carmen Christi, 136, 137Google Scholar.

¹⁸ This gap between the suggestive evidence of analogous usage and what would be conclusive evidence — the use of ⋯ρπαγμός itself — makes it possible for S. H. HOOKE, among recent interpreters, to reject the idea that ⋯ρπαγμα and ⋯ρπαγμός are equivalents. He insists on an active meaning for the latter, claiming that in the NT μα and μος terms are not generally equivalent. Cf. his Alpha and Omega, 258.

¹⁰ See, e.g., the discussion in Martin, , Carmen Christi, 136, 137Google Scholar.

²⁰ George W. MacRae, S. J. (Visiting Professor of NT at Harvard Divinity School, Spring, 1968), suggested in a private conversation that one should perhaps attribute these uses of ⋯ρπαγμα and ⋯ρπαγμός in EUSEBIUS to the direct influence of the ⋯ρπαγμός remark in Paul's letter rather than to assume that his language here reflects only idiomatic usage in general. In this regard it may be noted that both of these uses of these terms are set in the context of martyrdom, as is the quotation of Phil. 2:6 in Hist. Eccl. V.2.2. The latter passage may indicate how a specifically Christian use of the ⋯ρπαγμός expression was precipitated by the Pauline text. EUSEBIUS is here quoting the letter from the churches of Vienne and Lyons in which Christ is referred to as the true martyr and in which Phil. 2:6 is cited. The ⋯ρπαγμός expression, one might infer from this, may have become an appropriate thing to say, in Christian circles, in reference to persons who for their faith endured even death. The fact that EUSEBIUS has used ⋯ρπαγμα and ⋯ρπαγμός in double accusative constructions in the texts cited above, however, shows that he was familiar with the idiomatic expression apart from its use in the Pauline text, even if he has been influenced by the latter, This is evidenced by the fact that EUSEBIUS has not merely used the term ⋯ρπαγμός in a martyrdom context, but has used that term in the idiomatic expression (contrary to the letter of the churches of Vienne and Lyons) — and with two other verbs than the one which occurs in Phil. 2:6. This combination of factors suggests familiarity with the idiom as it was employed apart from the NT text.

The interchangeability of ⋯ρπαγμα and ⋯ρπαγμός in this idiomatic expression is evidenced further by the fact that on the third occasion of the expression's use by EIISEBIUS he employs ⋯ρπαγμα with ποιεϊσθαι (Vit. Const. 11.31.2), whereas he utilizes ⋯ρπαγμός with that verb in the occurrence of the expression in Comm. in Luc. 6.

Other writers have been aware of these uses of the expression, of course. LIGHTOOT, for example, quotes all three; but because he has not recognized the precise import of the expression ἃρπαγμά τι ⋯γεϊσθαι and seems not to be aware of the fact that ⋯ρπαγμα connotes an active sense on occasion, he has not been able to see the full significance of this evidence for interpreting the ⋯ρπαγμός expression in Phil. 2:6. He sees that ἃρπαγμά τι ⋯γεϊσθαι is equivalent to ἃρπαγμά τι ⋯γεϊσθαι in the three texts he knows of, but assumes only that in those instances ⋯ρπαγμός must be understood passively. Far from feeling that these Eusebian texts are of decisive significance for assessing the relation of ⋯ρπαγμα and ⋯ρπαγμός he concludes that the question remains whether the latter term has an active or passive sense in Phil. 2:6 and that an answer can be determined only from the context. Cf. his Phppians,.

²¹ Eusebius', Commentary on LukeGoogle Scholar is no longer extant. The text published by MAI (from which the above quotation is taken) is a compilation of fragments drawn from catenae on Luke, which clearly designate the work. While we have only quotations, there seems to be no question that EUSEBIUS did author such a work. Cf. Wallace-Hadrill, D. S., Eusebius of Caesarea (London, 1960), 51 and 99Google Scholar; and Schaff, Philip and Wace, Henry (eds.), A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (New York, 1886-1900), Second Series, I, 41Google Scholar.

²² Cf. LIGHTOOT'S comment on CYRIL'S remark: ”… it is difficult to conceive that the phrase can mean anything else but 'did not eagerly close with, did not gladly welcome their refusal,'” Philippians, 137, n. 2.

²³ See p. 96 above for text and translation.

²⁴ I.e., it is the ἃρπαγμα εὓτεχίας ⋯νελπίστου which is roughly synonymous with the ἒρμαιον and εὐρημα

²⁵ Geography 10.4.21. I am indebted for this reference to Hammeeich, L. L., An Ancient Misunderstanding, Historisk-filosofiske Meddlelser 41,4 (1966), 17Google Scholar.

²⁶ Although ⋯ρπαγ⋯ occurs as a predicate accusative in THUCYDIDES VI.62 with ποιείσθαι, that singular usage is a variant of the more frequent ἃρπαγμά τι ⋯γεϊσθαι rather than a parallel to ἃρπαγμά τι ⋯γεϊσθαι as is indicated both by the context of the remark in THUCYDDES and by the fact that ⋯ρπαγμός appears not to have been used as a predicate accusative with the verbs ⋯γείσθαι, τίθεσθαι or νομιζειν.

²⁷ Similar uses of ἓρμαιον occur in Plato, , Theages 27BGoogle Scholar; and in Galen, , De simpl. medicam. mixt.Google Scholar, Kuchn, XII, 313-14.

²⁸ For similar uses of #x1F13;ρμαιον see POLYBIUS, 936; EPICTETUS IV.1.163; and Dio CASSIUS 8.2.7 (Zonaras). Cf. also Demosthenes, , Against Nausimachus 6Google Scholar; Plato, , Gorg. 489bGoogle Scholar; PHTLO, Leg. Gaj. VI.193.5Google Scholar(Cohn and Wendland); Philostratus, , Vit. Ap. III.28Google Scholar.

²⁹ Compare the uses of εὓρημα in the following: LYSIAS, Frag. XIX, as cited in DIONYSIUS of Halicarnassus, On the Ancient Orators, ed. Usener, H. and Rader-Macher, L., p. 104Google Scholar; Isocrates, , Against Lochites 13Google Scholar; ISAEUS IX.26; Xenophon, , An. VII.3.13Google Scholar; Phlostratus, , Heroic. 262Google Scholar.

³⁰ Similar uses of εὑτύχημα are found in Lysias, , Against Philon 31.17Google Scholar; Demosthenes, , Against Stephanus XLV.70Google Scholar; and Plato, , Symposium 217AGoogle Scholar.

³¹ Kaseann, , Kritische Analyse, 70Google Scholar.

³² Compare the following uses of κέρδος Euripides, , Med. 454Google Scholar; TJCYDES 11.44.4; VII.68.22; VIII.66; LYSIAS 25.6; HERODOTUS VII.d; Isocrates, , Nicoles 50Google Scholar; To Demoncus 21; Xenophon, , Mem. 1.2.7Google Scholar; EPICTETUS III.26.25; IV.5.8; Lucian, , Charid. 27Google Scholar; D CASSIUS 43.30.2; 52.5.2.

³³ The single exception to this finding is the usage of ⋯ρπαγμα in the comment of ISIDORE of Pelusium referred to on p. 102 above. In this case the comparison between the status of one born a slave and one born a son dominates the passage and requires the reader to translate ⋯ρπαγμα with the word ”booty” even though it occurs in a double accusative construction.

³⁴ One might say, therefore, that JAEGER and some of those who were influenced by his work offered the right translation, but for the wrong reasons.

³⁵ Larsson, Edvin in Christus als Vorbild (Uppsala, 1962), 234ff and 242f.Google Scholar, has perceived the similarity of the two passages as well as the correspondence of the ⋯ρπαγμός statement with the οὐχ ⋯αντῷ ἤρεσεν of Ro. 15:3 even though his apprehension of the meaning of the ⋯ρπαγμός expression itself is awry.

³⁶ Cf. especially the work of Jervell, Jacob, Imago Dei. Gen. 1.26f im Späjudentum, in der Gnosis und den paulnischen Brief en (Göttingen, 1960); and of Käsemann, Kritische AnalyseGoogle Scholar.

³⁷ Ίερ 45.-2 (Jer. 38:2); Ίερ. 46:18 (Jer. 39:18); Ίερ 51:35 (Jer. 45:5); cf. also 21:9. The term is translated by σκὔλα more than fifty times; it is rendered by εὓρεμα only in these instances.

³⁸ The most important indices or lexicons for sixty-eight Classical and Hellenistic authors, as listed in Harald, and Riesenfeld, Blenda, Repertorium Lexicographicum Graecam (Stockholm, 1954)Google Scholar, were canvassed in connection with this study. Collections of papyri published 1898-1966 held by Widener Library at Harvard were also examined.