[B-Greek] How Novatian understood the Greek of Phil 2:6

Octavio Rodriguez octaviors at gmail.com
Tue Mar 21 08:43:02 EST 2006


Dear Sir:

   Recently i asked about how Tertullian understood the Greek of Phil 2:6 :

OS EN MORPHE QEOU UPARXWN OUX ARPAGMON HGHSATO TO EINAI ISA QEOU


" qui in effigie dei constitutus non rapinam existimavit pariari deo"
(Tertullian , "Resurrection of the flesh")

However i could not  find an explicit commentary about "OUX ARPAGMON HGHSATO
TO EINAI ISA QEOU" from a pre-Nicaea Church Father. However, recently , i
found in the "De Trinitate" chapter XXII of Novatian, a commentary about
this. I don´t know if Novatian translated the greek of this text to the
latin, or he quoted this from an Old latin Version, however a think , due to
his explanation, that he understood "TO EINAI ISA QEOU" as  apposition with
"ARPAGMON". Being ARPAGMON the object of HGHSATO.

This is his explanation:

"Hic ergo *quamuis esset in forma Dei, non est rapinam arbitratus aequalem
se Deo esse* *. *Quamuis enim se ex Deo Patre Deum esse meminisset, numquam
se Deo Patri aut comparauit aut contulit, memor se esse ex suo Patre et hoc
ipsum, quod est, habere se, quia Pater dedisset. Inde denique et ante carnis
assumptionem, sed et post assumptionem corporis, post ipsam praeterea
resurrectionem omnem Patri in omnibus rebus oboedientiam praestitit pariter
ac praestat.* *Ex quo probatur numquam arbitratum illum esse rapinam quandam
diuinitatem, ut aequaret se Patri Deo, quin immo contra omni ipsius imperio
et uoluntati oboediens atque subiectus, ".

I ask , how the Jerome translation :

"qui cum in forma Dei esset non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo
"

is different from Novatian:

"Hic ergo *quamuis esset in forma Dei, non est rapinam arbitratus aequalem
se Deo esse"
*

Best Regards

Octavio Rodriguez



More information about the B-Greek mailing list