From: Mary L B Pendergraft (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Aug 26 1997 - 10:04:56 EDT
At 04:14 PM 8/25/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Observe these three tranlations:
(cited in original)
>I'm concerned with the adjectives "sure" asphalh, "steadfast" bebaion,
>and the adj. ptc. "entering" eiserchomenhn. Do they modify "hope"
>(picked up from v.15) or "anchor"? The KJV leaves the question open;
>the NAB attaches them to "hope;" and the NRS applies "sure" and
>"steadfast" to "anchor," but applies "entering" to "hope."
>Both "elpis" "agkura" are feminine, so there is no help there.
>IMO, "sure and steadfast" definitely apply to "anchor." They fit
>semantically as well as positionally in the sentence. Further, I see no
>reason to carry the ptc. all the way back to v. 15. I would suggest
>that the anchor is sure, steadfast, and secured within the inner
>shrine. As a real anchor enters the water and attaches to the bottom,
>our hope is an anchor which enters through the veil and attaches to God
>What do you think?
>Lee R. Martin
>Adjunct Faculty in Old Testament and Hebrew
>Church of God Theological Seminary / Cleveland, TN 37311
>Pastor, Prospect Church of God
>Web pages http://www.vol.com/~lmartin/
I think that there is no reason not to understand that the series of three
modifiers apply to the same noun, and that the noun in their clause is
_agkura_, so that your understanding is absolutely reasonable.
Associate Professor of Classical Languages
Wake Forest University
Winston-Salem NC 27109 910-759-5331 email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:26 EDT