Re: Change of formslhynardJanuary 24 2006, 05:30:14 UTC
The verb is conversive/jussive in form, that is, it has the form of a conversive or jussive -- they are identical in this case. Semantically, I would definitely argue for the conversive use in most cases. However, in poetry, these forms can also just be a simply imperfect semantically, not the conversive (perfect-like) form.
So then, the sense of the verb may be imperfect here. This means it could be thought of as future -- as Hebrew does not have tense -- or unspecified time -- perhaps both past, present, and future.
The other three were clearly participles. I agree with your possibility one as being a strong possibility -- emphasis. Your number one is basically a timeless imperfect, whereas, my translation is a future imperfect.
Your option 2 may fit. I would have to check whether the verb can be middle instead of causative. I don't think the verb form allows for that possibility.
So then, yes, I agree it is probably imperfect for poetic reasons. But I was just wondering if the imperfect might be for emphasizing future sense. As participles do not tend to convey future sense, maybe the imperfect was chosen instead. I mentioned the resurrection, wondering if Hebrews thought anything about resurrection occuring at a later time.
So then, the sense of the verb may be imperfect here. This means it could be thought of as future -- as Hebrew does not have tense -- or unspecified time -- perhaps both past, present, and future.
The other three were clearly participles. I agree with your possibility one as being a strong possibility -- emphasis. Your number one is basically a timeless imperfect, whereas, my translation is a future imperfect.
Your option 2 may fit. I would have to check whether the verb can be middle instead of causative. I don't think the verb form allows for that possibility.
So then, yes, I agree it is probably imperfect for poetic reasons. But I was just wondering if the imperfect might be for emphasizing future sense. As participles do not tend to convey future sense, maybe the imperfect was chosen instead. I mentioned the resurrection, wondering if Hebrews thought anything about resurrection occuring at a later time.
Reply
Leave a comment