>What factors would argue for seeing DOXHS as a modifier of EPAINON
>rather than THS CARITOS?
At 9:25 AM -0500 1/24/97, Randy Leedy responded, quoting one of his earlier
posts:
>The key to this use of the genitive is the fact that the genitive
>word in question is semantically an abstraction that can be taken as
>attributing a quality to the pre-genitive, and the second genitive
>can also be construed with the original pre-genitive. When the first
>genitive (the abstraction) is anarthrous, which is not always the
>case, then the reasons for construing the grammar this way are all
>the more convincing.
My question was meant to ask WHY we should see it as "all the more
convincing" to view the relationships in this way. Why should the first
genitive being anarthrous lead us to construe it in the way you propose?
Again, I am NOT saying that your reading seems wrong to me. In fact, it
seems quite natural. Still, taking DOXHIS as a modifier of EPAINON also
seems like a natural reading to me. What factors can we infer from usage
elsewhere which would argue in favor of one reading over the other, or is
this simply a matter which must be resolved on the basis of the available
context?
Randy's comments about Hebrews 1:3 are helpful in this regard. They do
offer an argument from the semantic relationships which hold in a similar
passage in another context.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micheal W. Palmer
Religion & Philosophy
Meredith College
mwpalmer@earthlink.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------