Steven R. Lo Vullo
doulos at appleisp.net
Wed Sep 5 01:57:38 EDT 2001
on 9/5/01 12:09 AM, Stephen C. Carlson at scarlson at mindspring.com wrote:
> Matthew Black (1967: 86) condemned Westcott & Hort's suggestion
> as "both clumsy and unnatural" and it is easy to see why.
> There is already a dative in the clause (PISTEI, by faith),
> and the person AUTHi SARRAi allegedly accompanies is implied
> in ELABE's inflection. Black prefers to view KAI AUTH SARRA
> STEIRA as a paratactic circumstantial clause ("By faith, even
> though Sarah herself was barren, he received ..."), which is a
> Semitic construction attested in elsewhere in Hebrews, e.g.
> at 1:5. It may not be necessary to go the Semitic route,
> though, the expression KAI AUTH SARRA STEIRA could function
> as a parenthesis: "By faith (and Sarah herself was sterile)
> he received the power to impregnate ..."
But if parenthetic, wouldn't it have been more natural to express this in a
genitive absolute clause with OUSHS as the participle, in order to
distinguish SARRA from the subject of the main clause? May this be one of
the reasons some have taken the Semitic route? I haven't been able to read
the reasons given for the Semitic proposition, so I'm not sure what the
arguments for it are.
Steve Lo Vullo
More information about the B-Greek