Biblical Hebrew Forum

["C. Stirling Bartholomew" <jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net>]

On 9/3/04 1:41 PM, "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com> wrote:

>> Ex 29:29
>> ubigdey haqqodesh
>> holy garments
>> 
>> I think the understanding is incorrect.  I think the reference is to "the
>> garments of the holiness."  In other words, the plain understanding is 
>> *not*
>> that the garments were holy or sacred.  Rather, the garments marked the
>> holiness or the seperation of the priesthood.  Syntactically speaking,
>> doesn't the fact that qodesh is a noun with the definite article attached
>> fight against the idea that the genitive is attributive?  When both
>> syntax/morphology *and* context give a plain reading, why do we get to make
>> this sort of leap to "genitive of attribution?"

Brian,

I looked at hqd$ and qd$ in Exodus and Leviticus specifically as it relates
to equipment (e.g.. clothing) used in worship and I find myself in
disagreement with your position on this. I also read the articles on qd$ in
TWOT, TDNT 1:88ff. The consensus seems to be that the equipment itself was
sanctified. It was set apart for the purpose of worship and not to be used
in a secular/profane context.

This appears to be a probable reading of texts like:

Ex. 29:21 ... wqd$ hw) wbgdyw wbnyw wbgdy bnyw )tw

Ex. 35:19 )t-bgdy h&rd l$rt bqd$ )t-bgdy hqd$ l)hrN hkhN w)t-bgdy bnyw lkhN

Ex. 35:19 could possibly be construed in the way you suggest but the bulk of
the evidence is against it.

If we accept your reading then it would also to apply to "The Holy Place"
hqd$ which seems improbable given the elaborate rules and prohibitions that
guard against profaning hqd$.

 >>Syntactically speaking,
>> doesn't the fact that qodesh is a noun with the definite article attached
>> fight against the idea that the genitive is attributive?

The semantic constraints on hqd$ in Ex 29:29 seem to be at odds with this.


greetings,
Clay Bartholomew