RE: Phil 2:6

From: Rolf Furuli (
Date: Sat Feb 08 1997 - 13:46:28 EST

The following questions are philological rather than
(1) The exact meaning of the hapax l. HARPAGMOS is difficult
to ascertain. The meaning of the verb HARPAZW and the noun
HARPAGH (Heb 10:34), and the ending -MOS rather than -MA
speaks for an active sense including force of some sort.It
seems that the passive meaning `that which is seized` is
very late. What is the oldest evidence for a meaning not
including force?

(2) There are two accusatives in the verse. I understand the
article TO before the infinitive to be anaphoric. The
antecedent is often explained to be EN MORFH THEOU HUPARXWN,
but what about the view that HARPAGMON is both the object of
the clause and the antecedent of TO EINAI ISA THEW,and the
infinitive thus being an apposition to HARPAGMOS? (Jesus did
not consider HARPAGMOS (that is) to be equal with God.) Are
there any decisive grammatical or syntactical arguments
against this view?



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:05 EDT