Re: Re Php 2:6 (2d response to David Moore)

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Fri Jul 05 1996 - 20:11:17 EDT


At 2:46 PM -0400 7/5/96, David L. Moore wrote:
>Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
>> It struck me that in the initial discussion of Phil 2:6 by Al Kidd there
>> was a strange and unnecessary argument about the article TO used with EINAI
>> here. It is, I really think, the article used with the infinitive to
>> indicate clearly the primary (subject) accusative with which hARPAGMON, as
>> a substantive predicate accusative, is equated by hHGHSATO.
>
> Carl's suggestion on this point is quite plausible. If we accepted
>the article
>in this sense, might it also have an anaphoric function?

I wouldn't want to make any dogmatic assertion here, but I see no reason
why it could not IMPLICITLY refer back to MORFH QEOU; but I don't think it
requires any intricate grammatical justification to see it as referring
back to MORFH QEOU.

In my Adamic view, of course, I'm rather inclined to see it as referring to
the serpent's temptation (in Genesis 3) to pluck (which would, of course,
be hARPAZW) and eat, thereby becoming "like God, knowing good and evil."
This would, of course, be the temptation to which Jesus, unlike Adam & Eve,
did NOT yield.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



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