From: Eric Weiss (eweiss@gte.net)
Date: Fri Jan 02 1998 - 10:24:27 EST
George Athas wrote:
> Greetings Eric!
>
> Weingreen is correct in his comments about the Hebrew construct. The
> definiteness or possession of the word in construct is determined by
the
> definiteness or possession of the noun in the absolute. However, it
must
> also be born in mind that the construct chain is to be treated as a
> unit. So either the whole thing is definite and/or possessed, or it
> isn't.
>
> So, _elohey y'shu`ati_ means "the God of my salvation" or "my God of
> Salvation". Either meaning would be correct because the possession and
> definiteness belong to both nouns. _y'shuati_ is definite because it
has
> a possessive suffix, so this would also apply to the _elohey_, as
would
> the possessive aspect.
Does the possesiveness apply to the WHOLE passage? (B-Greeks, this is
still a Greek question for which I appreciate your help - thanks Jim
West for your response) My understanding of
Weingreen is that the "my" "his" "your" etc. applies to the first word
(even
though attached to the last/second word, because the construct cannot
take
the possessive suffix) and the second word functions now as an
adjective/attribute of the first word - e.g., "god (construct)-of
salvation (absolute)-of-me" means (in reverse order) "of-me ... saving
...
God" = "my saving (now functioning as an adjective/attribute of) God" -
that's Weingreen's whole point, that due to a lack of adjectives, Hebrew
uses the construct genitive construction to create
attributive/adjectival
phrases.
Let me restate my question: If Weingreen is right, is Moo
misunderstanding this function of the Hebrew construct genitive when he
tries to make his case that DIKAISUNH QEOU does not refer to an
attribute of God.
Thanks!
-- "Eric S. Weiss" http://home1.gte.net/eweiss/index.htm eweiss@gte.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:44 EDT