From: Carl W. Conrad (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Aug 23 1999 - 14:24:26 EDT
<x-rich>At 1:44 PM -0400 8/23/99, Dan Ebert wrote:
Sorry about the name thing, I believe I have corrected it.
You have indeed; thank you.
<excerpt>Further question concerning Genesis 1:16, I am finding that
when "arche" is followed by a genitive phrase, the "arche" is part of
that which is signified in the genitive. Could that in any way be
considered true in this occurence?
I think I see what you mean. In our text:
KAI EPOIHSEN hO QEOS TOUS DUO FWSTHRAAS TOUS MEGALOUS TON FWSTHRA TON
MEGAN EIS ARCAS THS hHMERAS KAI TON FWSTHRA TON ELASSW EIS ARCAS THS
NUKTOS KAI TOUS ASTERAS
the phrase EIS ARCAS is followed,in the first instance by the genitive
THS hHMERAS and in the second instance by THS NUKTOS. Unquestionably
these genitives are dependent on the first and second instance of ARCAS
respectively. And now let me note that your question originally raised
for me the further question why the LXX reads EIS ARCAS with an
accusative plural for the Hebrew L'MeMSHeLeth, where the construct-noun
seems rather to be singular. Could the LXX translator have interpreted
the Hebrew text and conveyed it as EIS ARCAS as "for beginnings of day"
and "for beginnings of night"?
I'm not sure what the right answer to this question is and I'd like to
see other opinions: why is ARCAS plural and does the plural imply a
plurality of "principalities" or "governances"?
At any rate, these genitives do indeed depend upon ARCAS. If, on the
one hand, ARCAS is taken to mean "beginnings," then THS hHMERAS and THS
NUKTOS will be ordinary adnominal genitives, but if taken to mean
"governances," then they will have to be "objective" genitives
dependent upon the verbal notion (ARCEIN) in the noun ARCAS.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:36 EDT