Hebrew 11:1
Clwinbery at aol.com
Clwinbery at aol.com
Tue Jul 23 10:56:46 EDT 2002
In a message dated 7/23/02 7:28:04 AM, clo at telcordia.com writes:
>Hebrew 11:1
>
> ESTIN DE PISTIS ELPIZOMENWN hUPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGXOS OU
>BLEPOMENWN
>
>If the adjective participle ELPIZOMENWN ( neuter pl) , "being hoped
>for"
> describes hUPOSTASIS ( fem, sigl ) do they match in number and
>gender ?
>
>should it use MH instead of OU, because BLEPOMENWN is a
>participle and not in indicative mood.
>
>
> C.H. Lo
Dear C.H.,
The second question first. The general "rule" given in most lexicons for OU
is that it is used with the indicative and MH with all others. However, these
same lexicons give dozens of exceptions. In BDAG the relevant paragraph is on
p. 733,
"a. to negative a single concept: PRAGMATA OU BLEPOMENA "things not seen"
Hb 11:1. OUC hO TUCWN "extraordinary Ac 19:11; 28:2 (cp. Com. Att. Fgm III
442 no. 178 OUDE TOIS TUCOUSI). QLIBOMENOI AJLL', OU STENOCWROUMENOI 2 Cor
4:8; cp. vs. 9.
ESTIN DE PISTIS ELPIZOMENWN hUPOSTASIS In this clause PISTIS is the
subject of a clause with a linking verb. The nouns joined by the verb are
PISTIS and hUPOSTASIS. hUPOSTASIS is modified by the participle
(substantival ptc.) ELPIZOMENWN. As a substantive it modifies by being in the
genitive (the case of discription). In that situation the substantive can
modify a noun without being in the same case. In fact the genitive case is
that which indicates the function of modifying. Adjective modifiers used
attributively have to agree with the substantives they modify in case,
gender, and number but not substantives that modify by being in the genitive
relationship to another noun.
Carlton Winbery
Louisiana College
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list