[B-Greek] Habbakuk 2:4b - objective genitive?

Brian Abasciano bvabasciano at gmail.com
Fri Dec 18 16:04:42 EST 2009


But I thought this was about the grammar, what the grammar can be construed 
as. Moreover, I thought Eric has been talking not so much about how he 
himself construes the passage, but what the possibilities are for construing 
it from the grammar, and therefore how the Apostle Paul *might* have 
construed the passage in the LXX based on the grammar (i.e., what the 
possibilities are for how he might have construed it).

God bless,

Brian Abasciano

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George F Somsel" <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
To: "Eric S. Weiss" <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>; "Brian Abasciano" 
<bvabasciano at gmail.com>; <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Habbakuk 2:4b - objective genitive?


You may translate / interpret it in any fashion you desire. You would not be 
the first nor the last to misconstrue a passage.

george
gfsomsel


… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.


- Jan Hus
_________




________________________________
From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>
To: Brian Abasciano <bvabasciano at gmail.com>; b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org; 
George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
Sent: Fri, December 18, 2009 1:44:15 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Habbakuk 2:4b - objective genitive?


George:

I think you continue to misunderstand or misconstrue my question(s) and my 
reason(s) for
asking it/them. But I'll try again:

1. Can the phrase EK PISTEWS MOU in Habbakuk 2:4b be translated/interpreted 
as an
objective genitive for MOU? (I know that's two separate questions. I.e.., 
while a person
might say that it "can" be translated that way, someone might still object 
that the context
and original Hebrew text don't allow it to be interpreted that way - though 
I would argue that
what a reader is "allowed" to interpret this phrase here in the LXX as 
meaning is not set
in stone.)

2. Granted that it "can" be translated that way - and I think that fact has 
been affirmed by
some of the responders (i.e., that it "can" grammatically be an objective 
genitive) - then I
would suggest that it's probably not right to rule out of hand (even by 
appealing to the
Hebrew) such a possible interpretation/exegesis of Habbakuk 2:4b by Paul 
(even though
he omits the MOU) for understanding what he might mean by the terms PISTIS 
and
PISTEUW here and elsewhere in Romans. I.e., since Habbakuk 2:4 is a key 
prooftext for
Paul, I think one should consider the possible ways he could have understood 
and used it,
including the less probable (but not impossible) ones.

- - -
Eric S. Weiss

- - -
Eric S. Weiss





More information about the B-Greek mailing list