(no subject)

From: Al Kidd (akidd@infoave.net)
Date: Tue Jun 25 1996 - 22:56:42 EDT

Wes Williams has very respectfully requested clarification of my
analysis of Php 2:6. He writes:

>I had a slight difficulty following some of the words, but is the
>following what your question is?
>1) "he gave thought to no usurpation, namely that he should be equal
>to God"
>"he gave no thought to that equality with God should be a usurpation"
>1) is preferred to 2) because "equality with God" is not the subject
>of eimi, but rather the object?
>Wes Williams

I believe we should hold that >>hHGHSATO<< in the text at Php 2:6 has
dual objects: 1) >>hARPAGMON<< --forgive my earlier slips* in
transliterating the text--, and 2) the whole of the infinitive clause,
so that it functions as an epexegetical reference to >>hARPAGMON<< for
defining the salient. And >>ISA QEOi<< functions in the infinitive
clause as the infinitive's predicate adjective.

The thought given up in the sentence "he gave no thought that equality
with God should be a usurpation" depends on, among other things, the
idea that we should make "equality with God" to be an accusative of the
subject for the infinitive. If that were a thought in agreement with
Paul's Christology, then we should have expected to find the clause
>>EINAI TA ISA QEOi<< in the text, this so that we might have had
indication of a marked word-order from Paul's hand for his making
1) >>TA ISA QEOi<< the accusative of the subject for the infinitive,
and 2) >>hARPAGMON<< an accusative of the predicate for >>EINAI<<.

*Am I correct in holding that b-greek readership generally prefers all caps for
transliterating Greek characters (but exception is made when "i" is
used in transliterating "iota subscript")--and that it prefers a
one-to-one correspondence in the transliteration scheme?

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:46 EDT