Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 05/09/2004 16:25, C. Stirling Bartholomew wrote:

> 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? :-)))
>
>  
Well, since you invite comments from others...

It seems to me that Bryan is making the error we discussed not long ago 
of trying to classify "genitive" relationships. Or perhaps rather that 
he is only allowing a single classification.

_bigdey hassrad_ and _bigdey haqqodesh_ are syntactically both based on 
"genitive" relationships; or it would be better to say that they are 
based on construct relationships, as there is no morphological genitive 
in Hebrew. But this single relationship has many possible semantic 
functions. The precise function in each case is not signalled by the 
syntax or morphology, but is derived from the context - the reader 
selecting the interpretation which is most "relevant", according to one 
analysis.

So the syntactic parallelism between _bigdey hassrad_ and _bigdey 
haqqodesh_ should not be taken as implying that there must be a semantic 
parallelism. There may be; but on the traditional understanding of this 
verse there is not, and I see no good reason for finding a different 
understanding.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/