Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14
  • Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:57:16 -0500

Dear Joe,
HH: Sorry, but they do sound somewhat awkward to me because English does not usually use the generic definite article this way, preferring an indefinite article.

JW:
Here I think there is something of a Usage vs. Translation issue. If the emphasis is on the specific type of animal than "the" should be used for English. If the emphasis is on the indefinite animal within a type, than "a" should be used for English. Maybe the Hebrew is emphasizing the type here where English would not. If so, a more literal translation would use "the" and a "dynamic equivalent" translation would use "a", trying to present as if it was composed in English. It seems to me that the "proper" translation would be more dependent on the objective of the Translator (relative) rather than "right and wrong" (absolute).

HH: I was talking about standard English usage. That's what we're talking about, how to translate into normal English.
JW: I accept that use of the Hebrew definite article may be used to emphasize a definite quality that would not be emphasized in English and
hence
the indefinite in English would be appropriate.

HH: Right, but that is exactly what this category of usage in the grammars that you don't like does. It stresses that the person or thing is clear in the mind of the person who uses the article (i.e., there is a definite quality to the person or thing in the miond of the writer), but since his subject is otherwise unknown or unidentified, one can legitimately translate it with the indefinite article in English.

JW:
Whoa Nelliphim! The general example above of Hebrew having a different emphasis is an INTER language issue. Theoretically all Hebrew Bible speakers would be on the same page, so to speak. Your example in the preceding paragraph is an INTRA language issue. The subject is definite to the Hebrew Bible speaker and indefinite to the Hebrew Bible hearer. The default position is that what is definite to the Hebrew Bible speaker would be definite to the Hebrew Bible hearer. What specific examples of this do you claim (other than 7:14 of course)?

HH: It can serve most of the examples we've discussed, theoretically all of them, since it is a category of usage for which these examples are cited. And the thought could be the same in the reader's mind as in the writer's. It does not have to be, as you suggest, definite for one and indefinite for the other. It is equally definite and generic for both. The one who escapes, if we provisionally accept that idea for Gen 14:13, would be, in both writer and hearer, a genus: "the one who escaped," used specifically of an otherwise unidentified person who came to Abraham with news of Sodom.
HH:
If one is honest with the context in Isaiah 7, there is no real reason to assume that there was any particular woman that the term in question pointed to. There is no other woman mentioned in the context except Isaiah's wife, who was not a virgin and seems to have had grown sons (so was not a young woman either). Good writers don't use totally obscure references, and I believe God inspired the biblical writers.


JW:
As far as using the observation that there is no other woman mentioned in the context, if your meaning above is that this by itself forces a conclusion of indefinite, that is proof-texting. If I, in return, pointed out one consideration as proof of definite I have Faith that you would likewise be unimpressed.

HH: Here's the rub. I have only a limited amount of time to devote to this subject. There is a great deal of support for this category of usage by grammarians and translators. So I have no predisposition to reject it. Numerous examples are given of the usage. Focusing on the particular case in view, Isa 7:14, there seem to be good reasons to support it. Having looked at arguments presented to overthrow about a dozen of the supposed cases of the usage, I found the counter-arguments weak or unconvincing. So I, for the time being, have no motivation to go into this further.

HH: From my perspective, it is wise to go along with grammars and other scholars unless there is strong reason to reject what their wisdom over the centuries has accumulated. Since I have nothing that weighs heavily against their view so far, I look at the few who have reservations as people who bear the burden of proving the accepted category to be wrong. I have seen nothing that does this so far. David suggests that if I read the whole article that he provided, I might change my mind. If I have time, I will read further in it.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page