u/Kingshorsey

In this passage (Il 6.527-529), Hektor acknowledges Paris's indiscretions but suggests moving on from them and concentrating on the task at hand.

ἀλλʼ ἴομεν· τὰ δʼ ὄπισθεν ἀρεσσόμεθʼ, αἴ κέ ποθι Ζεὺς

δώῃ ἐπουρανίοισι θεοῖς αἰειγενέτῃσι

κρητῆρα στήσασθαι ἐλεύθερον ἐν μεγάροισιν

ἐκ Τροίης ἐλάσαντας ἐϋκνήμιδας Ἀχαιούς.

I'm curious about the accusative participle phrase in the final line. How is it connected syntactically to the rest of the sentence? Is it loosely circumstantial, even absolute? Or is it a second object of δώῃ?

Also, why is ἐλάσαντας active? Are we to imagine a subject, like "we the Trojans", or is it intransitive?

In M David Litwa's Marcion, in the chapter "Marcion's View of Christ," he discusses early debates about the nature of Jesus's incarnate (not post-resurrection) body.

Litwa says that "all interpreters of Paul had to reckon with two verses," Rom 8:3 and Phil 2:7. Both of these contain the language "in the likeness of", and Philippians additionally describes Jesus as "in appearance as".

Litwa then gives an interpretation of Paul's thought:

“Paul’s consistent use of Christ’s “likeness” or “appearance” in flesh is important. The Tarsian evidently thought that Jesus was “born of woman” (Gal 4:4) and that he had something that strongly resembled human flesh, but he was not exactly human in the way that all other humans were. One cannot expect the body of the incarnate son of God to be identical with the default flesh of common humanity. Being a god logically made a difference to one’s bodily constitution—as seen in the Transfiguration story (where Jesus’s flesh literally glows). At the very least, Christ’s flesh was not tainted by human sin and throttled by base desires.” (176-177)

If I'm reading him correctly, Litwa interprets Paul as saying that, while Jesus was truly a human being, he was also gifted with certain unusual properties and capacities at a biological/physical level.

I'm just not familiar with this line of interpretation in Pauline studies, and Litwa drops what seems to me to be a very large claim into the body of his text without much argument or elaboration. Litwa has a footnote referencing Francis Watson, "Pauline Reception and the Problem of Docetism," but I'm interested to know where else in the literature I could find a discussion of this issue.