From: John M. Moe (John.M.Moe-1@tc.umn.edu)
Date: Mon Dec 22 1997 - 10:00:27 EST
Paul S. Dixon wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 97 12:33:12 Ben Crick <ben.crick@argonet.co.uk> writes:
> SNIP
> >
> > The Greek genitive is the nearest available equivalent to the Hebrew
> > (Aramaic) "construct relationship". If we translate EI hUIOS EI TOU
> >QEOU back into Hebrew we get `iM BeN-Ha'eLoHiYM 'aTTaH.
> >/BeN-Ha'eLoHiYM/ is a unit, and is definite; it contains the definite
> article Ha >embedded after the maqqeph (hyphen). This is precisely where
> we find it in the >Greek translation hUIOS... TOU QEOU. There cannot be
> an "extra" definite
> >article with hUOIS, because there cannot be an extra definite article
> with
> >BeN-, as it is a noun in the Construct State, *followed by* the Definite
>
> >Article.
>
NOW PAUL
> It seems your translation back into the Hebrew assumes the definiteness
> of hUIOS. If so, then this is begging the question.
>
If I understand Ben he is not assuming the definiteness of hUIOS, but
assuming hUIOS... TOU QEOU to be a Greek representation of the Hebrew
construct in which both nouns are definite although the the definite article
occurs only on the second, Heb. Ha'eLoHiYM, Gr. TOU QEOU.
John M. Moe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:40 EDT