From: George Blaisdell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jun 02 1999 - 12:36:02 EDT
>From: Edgar Foster
>In Phil. 2:6, the apostle Paul writes:
>hOS EN MORFH QEOU hUPARXWN OUX hARPAGMON hHGHSATO TO EINAI ISA QEWi.
>Would it be correct to view TO as an anaphorical article? Does the
>phrase TO EINAI ISA QEWi point back to hOS EN MORFH QEOU hUPARXWN?
This is an interesting segment.
RSV: "Who, though He was in the form of God, did not
count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
[but emptied himself...]"
Concordant Literal: "Who, being inherently in the form
of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God,
[nevertheless empties Himself...]"
It seems to divide into three parts:
hOS EN MORFH QEOU hUPARXWN
OUX hARPAGMON hHGHSATO
TO EINAI ISA QEWi
So that the hOS clause is linked to the TO clause by the main clause, and
both linked clauses appear to be substantives, functioning as nouns.
hOS EN MORFH QEOU hUPARXWN = "Who, in God's form inhering..."
TO EINAI ISA QEWi = "That [which is] to be equal [to] God..."
And your question seems to be: 'Does this segment assert that Christ Jesus
deems Himself equal to God in virtue of His being inherently in God's form?"
Have I got this right?
And it all seems to turn on:
OUX hARPAGMON hHGHSATO = "[Who] does not deem 'snatching' [His]
being equal to God...
I will be very interested in what the 'big Greeks' have to say on this one!
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:29 EDT