M̷y̷ ̷q̷u̷e̷s̷t̷i̷o̷n̷ ̷i̷s̷ ̷w̷i̷t̷h̷ ̷r̷e̷f̷e̷r̷e̷n̷c̷e̷ ̷t̷o̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷D̷.̷J̷.̷ ̷M̷a̷s̷t̷r̷o̷n̷a̷r̷d̷e̷'̷s̷ ̷f̷o̷r̷m̷u̷l̷a̷t̷i̷o̷n̷ ̷o̷f̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷r̷u̷l̷e̷ ̷o̷f̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷e̷m̷p̷h̷a̷t̷i̷c̷ ̷ἔ̷σ̷τ̷ι̷ν̷ ̷t̷h̷a̷t̷ ̷i̷n̷c̷l̷u̷d̷e̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷p̷r̷o̷v̷i̷s̷i̷o̷n̷ ̷t̷h̷a̷t̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷e̷m̷p̷h̷a̷t̷i̷c̷ ̷ἔ̷σ̷τ̷ι̷ν̷,̷ ̷e̷v̷e̷n̷ ̷w̷h̷e̷n̷ ̷n̷e̷g̷a̷t̷e̷d̷,̷ ̷m̷u̷s̷t̷ ̷t̷a̷k̷e̷ ̷f̷i̷r̷s̷t̷ ̷p̷o̷s̷i̷t̷i̷o̷n̷ ̷i̷n̷ ̷a̷ ̷s̷e̷n̷t̷e̷n̷c̷e̷.̷ ̷W̷e̷ ̷d̷i̷s̷c̷u̷s̷s̷e̷d̷ ̷t̷h̷a̷t̷ ̷r̷u̷l̷e̷ ̷a̷t̷ ̷s̷o̷m̷e̷ ̷l̷e̷n̷g̷t̷h̷ ̷i̷n̷ ̷a̷n̷o̷t̷h̷e̷r̷ ̷t̷h̷r̷e̷a̷d̷..̷ ̷I̷ ̷t̷h̷i̷n̷k̷ ̷t̷h̷a̷t̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷s̷t̷i̷p̷u̷l̷a̷t̷i̷o̷n̷ ̷t̷h̷a̷t̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷e̷m̷p̷h̷a̷t̷i̷c̷ ̷ἔ̷σ̷τ̷ι̷ν̷ ̷(̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷e̷x̷i̷s̷t̷e̷n̷t̷i̷a̷l̷ ̷v̷e̷r̷b̷)̷ ̷m̷u̷s̷t̷ ̷b̷e̷ ̷i̷n̷ ̷s̷e̷n̷t̷e̷n̷c̷e̷ ̷i̷n̷i̷t̷i̷a̷l̷ ̷p̷o̷s̷i̷t̷i̷o̷n̷ ̷f̷a̷l̷l̷s̷ ̷d̷o̷w̷n̷ ̷a̷f̷t̷e̷r̷ ̷a̷ ̷f̷e̷w̷ ̷m̷i̷n̷u̷t̷e̷s̷ ̷o̷f̷ ̷l̷o̷o̷k̷i̷n̷g̷ ̷a̷t̷ ̷a̷c̷t̷u̷a̷l̷ ̷e̷x̷a̷m̷p̷l̷e̷s̷ ̷f̷r̷o̷m̷ ̷G̷r̷e̷e̷k̷ ̷l̷i̷t̷e̷r̷a̷t̷u̷r̷e̷.̷ ̷κατὰ τῶν τοιούτων οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος.
If it is allowable to take non-initial οὐκ ἔστιν as emphatic (in the terminology of D.J. Mastronarde) / as the existential verb (in the terminology of LSJ), rather than automatically reading all non-initial occurrences of οὐκ ἔστιν as unemphatic (in the terminology of D.J. Mastronarde) / as the copula (in the terminology of LSJ), is there a significance in our understanding of this phrase of the verse?
I̷n̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷P̷a̷u̷l̷i̷n̷e̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷o̷l̷o̷g̷i̷c̷a̷l̷ ̷c̷o̷n̷t̷e̷x̷t̷,̷ ̷d̷o̷e̷s̷ ̷a̷p̷p̷l̷y̷i̷n̷g̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷n̷a̷r̷r̷o̷w̷ ̷p̷o̷s̷i̷t̷i̷o̷n̷a̷l̷ ̷c̷o̷n̷s̷t̷r̷a̷i̷n̷s̷ ̷o̷n̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷e̷m̷p̷h̷a̷t̷i̷c̷ ̷ἔ̷σ̷τ̷ι̷ν̷ ̷(̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷e̷x̷i̷s̷t̷e̷n̷t̷i̷a̷l̷ ̷v̷e̷r̷b̷)̷ ̷w̷h̷e̷n̷ ̷u̷n̷d̷e̷r̷s̷t̷a̷n̷d̷i̷n̷g̷ ̷P̷a̷u̷l̷'̷s̷ ̷s̷t̷a̷t̷e̷m̷e̷n̷t̷ ̷a̷f̷f̷e̷c̷t̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷o̷l̷o̷g̷i̷c̷a̷l̷ ̷u̷n̷d̷e̷r̷s̷t̷a̷n̷d̷i̷n̷g̷ ̷o̷f̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷v̷e̷r̷s̷e̷?̷
It seems to me that a̷l̷l̷o̷w̷i̷n̷g̷ reading this as the emphatic ἔστιν (existential verb) t̷o̷ ̷o̷c̷c̷u̷r̷ ̷n̷o̷n̷-̷i̷n̷i̷t̷i̷a̷l̷l̷y̷ allows for the interpretation that any (human) law is not against the virtues (ie "There is no law (in any legal system) that is contrary to (virtues) such as these"), but n̷e̷c̷e̷s̷s̷a̷r̷i̷l̷y̷ ̷c̷a̷t̷e̷g̷o̷r̷i̷s̷i̷n̷g̷ if one were to read this as non-emphatic (the copula) b̷y̷ ̷a̷p̷p̷l̷y̷i̷n̷g̷ ̷t̷h̷e̷ ̷n̷a̷r̷r̷o̷w̷ ̷i̷n̷i̷t̷i̷a̷l̷)̷ ̷p̷o̷s̷i̷t̷i̷o̷n̷a̷l̷ ̷s̷y̷n̷t̷a̷c̷t̷i̷c̷a̷l̷ ̷l̷a̷w̷ ̷t̷h̷a̷t̷ ̷M̷a̷s̷t̷r̷o̷n̷a̷r̷d̷e̷ ̷f̷o̷r̷m̷u̷l̷a̷t̷e̷s̷ then that allows for the understanding that νόμος in that verse (only?) refers to the Jewish law (ie "The Torah is not contrary to (virtues) such as those").
Are my interpretations reasonable? Are they significant?