Date: Fri Nov 26 1999 - 13:20:22 EST
In Phil 1:21 Paul says:
EMOI GAR TO ZHN CRISTOS KAI TO APOQANEIN KERDOS.
John Calvin argues for taking CRISTOS as the subject of
discourse in both clauses, so that Christ is being declared
by Paul to be gain to him both in life and in death, rather than
saying that Christ was life and death was gain.
He argues it is customary with the Greeks to leave the word
PROS to be understood and that the meaning is less forced,
comporting better with the immediately preceding verses and
containing more complete doctrine. The idea is that Christ is
gain whether Paul lives or dies.
My main question pertains to Calvin's first point. Was it indeed
customary with the Greeks to supply PROS in such constructions?
If so, how would that argue for Calvin's interpretation?
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:46 EDT