re: Phil 2.13
On Thu, 3 Nov 1994, INTL GEWEX PROT OFF wrote:
> Relative clauses (such as the one containing the participle predicate
> substantive in Phil 2.13) are so called because they *relate* the clause
> itself to the word(s) that they modify.
I am a bit puzzled by Chuck Arnold's proposal that there is a relative
clause containing a participle in Phil 2.13. There is an articular
participle in the Greek text of this verse, but not a relative clause.
There is a relative clause in any English translation simply because
English does not have a construction which corresponds directly to the
articular participle in this verse. There is no relative clause in a
GREEK sentence unless there is a relative pronoun in that sentence.
Mellon Research Fellow in Greek Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill