1Enoch 106:1
c stirling bartholomew
cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Tue Jun 18 01:23:27 EDT 2002
Hello Mark,
on 6/17/02 4:35 PM, Mark DelCogliano wrote:
> I think that your assumption about the agent (or subject) is correct: it is
> Enoch who speaks. But I think LAMBANW TINI GUNAIKA is perfectly acceptable
> Greek; see BDAG LAMBANW 3: thus "I procured/acquired a wife for my son M."
OK, i can accept that.
>
> What interests me is the placement of the indeclinable proper name *before*
> the 'explicative' nominal phrase (in the present case TWi hUIWi MOU). It
> threw me off at first but then I noticed a similar thing happening
> elsewhere: 106:13 IARED TOU PATROS MOU, 107:2 LAMECH TWi hUIWi SOU, 107:3
> ENWCH TOU PATROS AUTOU, etc. Does anyone know if such placement of
> indeclinable names is normitive?
Assuming that we have a Semitic original (not Ethiopic) the construction
found here is used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew pattern:
lamed+proper-name ben+SUFFIX first masculine singular
Similar patterns (mostly 3rd person suffix) are not hard to find. See 1Chr.
28:11.
This might explain the initial position of the proper name.
I don't know how this would work in Aramaic.
greetings,
Clay
--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list