From: Moon-Ryul Jung (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed May 05 1999 - 12:29:52 EDT
On 05/05/99, ""Carl W. Conrad" <email@example.com>" wrote:
> I don't think the absence of an article makes a "substantive" difference
> here, but it does leave open the possibility that the participles
> ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN should be understood as predicative rather
> than attributive. I don't really think this has a signficant bearing on the
> fundamental sense of the proposition, but observe how seeing the
> participles as predicative slightly alters how the whole is perceived (or
> how I, at any rate, perceive it)--my paraphrase: "Faith is the basis of
> happenings while we are anticipating them, the touchstone of happenings
> when we do not see them."
It seems that three grammatical approaches are suggested for interpreting
the participles in Heb 11.1.
1) predicates (Carl)
2) attributive (Jim): "Faith is substantive hopefulness and conviction
without aid of sight".
3) the genitives of substantives (Kevin):
"Now faith is of
>things hoped for a confident assurance, a conviction of things not seen".
To some people including me, the options 1) and 2) might be quite
If 2) is right, why are the participles in the genitive case? I would
them in the nominative case.
If they were used as predicates, I would guess,
they are supposed to describe something
about PRAGMATWN (genitive), because the participles are also
in the genitive case, not about "us".
But I know that my questions might have been raised because of my
about the usage of the genitive case of participles.
Dept of Computer Science
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:27 EDT