Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

On 9/5/04 6:11 AM, "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com> wrote:

> Sorry, I'll explain.  In Ex 35:19 we have two <noun-noun> chains, _bigdey
> hassrad_ and _bigdey haqqodesh_ (actually, I think there is a third chain in
> the verse, but I'll ignore it for now).  When I say for the first chain that
> the genitive _hassrad_ cannot be attributive, I mean that the genitive
> cannot signify that the garments are "servant-like."  Servant-like garments
> are incomprehensible.  Rather, _hassrad_ signifies that the garments are for
> the purpose of serving.  I suggest, for the second chain, the same
> relationship between the elements--not that the garments are holy (even
> though holy garments may be comprehensible or traditional), but that they
> have the purpose of consecrating the priesthood.
> 
> To me the difference between the interpretations seems important.

Bryan,

It may be an important difference but the reason you are running into
problems with the standard grammars (Waltke/O'Conner, GKC) seems to be that
you have defined the term "attributive" in a much more restrictive manner
than in is normally employed. I don't think Waltke/O'Conner are using
"attributive" in the restricted way you are defining it.

I looked again at TDNT 1:89-90 where qd$ is defined as a "state" and in
semantic terminology one difference between a state and an attribute is
relative permanence. An attribute is fixed characteristic of something where
as states can change. So in a one sense qd$ is not an attribute.

I now see where you are going, have some mild reservations about it but I
wonder why no one on the list is commenting on this? Has everyone gone to
Florida to go surfing? :-)))


greetings,
Clay Bartholomew