Re Php 2:6

From: Al Kidd (
Date: Tue Jun 25 1996 - 23:35:17 EDT

My face is red. Well, after all my effort to get the transliteration
scheme to conform with what seem to be acceptable here, I
still got part of it wrong. And pardon my earlier mistake in my
not indicating the subject matter of my last post (my answer to
Wes Williams). Well, here it is again, essentially. I did correct
more of the transliteration.

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 QEWi<< 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 QEWi<< 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 QEWi<< 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 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