Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Attributive Genitive? (Ex 35:19)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: "C. Stirling Bartholomew" <jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net>
  • Cc: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Attributive Genitive? (Ex 35:19)
  • Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 18:59:56 +0100

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/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page