On 9/5/04 6:11 AM, "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com> wrote:Well, since you invite comments from others...
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? :-)))
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.