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