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: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14
  • Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:11:10 -0400

Harold,

Just a brief remark. HA-RA(EB of Isaiah 29:8 is "he who is famished". Notice that this translation does not contain one single "the".

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jun 24, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Harold Holmyard wrote:

Dear Joseph,
HH: "My argument was not that the generic use of the article was exactly the
same as the usage of it in Gen 14:13, but they are similar. The one
could lead to the other. I wrote to Joseph:

See the word "famine" in Isa 29:8. See how it is used with "silver" in
Gen 13:2, or with "crimson" in Isa 1:18, or with "blindness" in Gen
19:11. In all these English would use "a/an" or nothing, not "the."

Or look at these cases below, all of which take the definite article in
Hebrew, but an indefinite article in English:

like the heart of a lion (2 Sam 17:10)

as a dog laps (Judges 7:5)

as one hunts a partridge (1 Sam 26:20)

as one rends a kid (Judges 14:6)

If Hebrew could consider all these cases, which are clearly indefinite
in English, as worthy of a definite article in a generic sense,"


JW:
None of the above are clearly indefinite in English. I've seen English
translations with "the" for all but
Judges 14:6. More importantly, none even sound awkward with "the".

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.

You do
seem here to accept though that there is a reason for use of the Hebrew definite
article?

HH: Of course. I never said there wasn't a reason. I distance myself
from anyone with that theory.

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.


" then it
is consistent to suppose that in Gen 14:13, where the idea can at first
be a generic concept of one who escaped, that the author might use a
definite article:

Gen. 14:13 ¶ One who had escaped came and reported this to Abram the
Hebrew. Now Abram was living near the great trees of Mamre the Amorite,
a brother of Eshcol and Aner, all of whom were allied with Abram."

JW:
I've seen the English "the" for this but this one does sound awkward and I
think the English indefinite is preferred here.

HH: Thanks.


Harold Holmyard
"In Gen 16:7 there can be a generic concept of a spring presented first,
which receives further specification:

Gen. 16:7 The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the
desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur.

I am not saying that it is exactly the same as the generic usage, but it
is so close that I can imagine a smooth transition from one to the other
in Hebrew thinking. It is the generic put for the specific, which yields
a somewhat indefinite idea. The problem, again, is in assuming that
Hebrew uses the definite article just as English does. That was Joseph
Wallack's basic contention. But it does not, and it is a mistake to
assume that it does."

JW:
I do not think that Hebrew uses the definite article exactly the same as
English does.

HH: O.K., I see. You were generalizing on the basis of what is normally
the case.

Gen. 41:42 Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it
on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold
chain around his neck.

In Hebrew it is literally "the gold chain." It is not the whole genera
that was put around his neck, and it seems to be begging the question to
assume that there was a well-known gold necklace that was bestowed on a
person in Joseph's position. We don't know that or know that Joseph's
position was even a regular position. Did every king take off his signet
ring and put it on the finger of a subordinate? The text speaks of robes
of fine linen, but not particular ones. So this may be a specific use of
the definite article, as Waltke says, to refer to measured units. [cf.
Cant 1:13 (bag); Ex 16:36 (omer)]. This, again, would be similar to the
usage in Gen 16:7 and 14:13, where a specific thing is present in the
speaker's or writer's mind, but it is an otherwise unidentified specific
thing (the one who escaped that I have in mind -- the one who escaped
who figures in this story). Such a usage does not betray the basic
concept of the definite article, so the effort to undermine an
established grammatical category is unnecessary. Of course this is a
much smaller category of usage than the regular definite article, for
there are only a limited number of instances where the usage would be
suitable. But a limited number of occurrences of a usage does not
invalidate a usage."

JW:
I have to confess again that here "the" gold chain sounds awkward. I accept
that USAGE of the definite article is more prevalent in Biblical Hebrew than
in English but I think that is primarily due to the religious context, where
there is a preference for the definite due to objectives of certainty and
authority. Almost all of these uses of the definite article in Hebrew should or
at least can be translated "the" in English. The instances of a preferred
translation of "a" in English are relatively rare. By context we seem to lack an
example where randomness is clearly defined, such as Moses saying to Pharoah,
"Behold, I will now pull A Rabbi out of a Ha", with the Hebrew definite
article used.

"Normally" is almost as good as "always" in establishing the Likely
translation of a word. I think it's clear by now that the Hebrew definite article is
normally translated as "the" in English. Therefore, by itself, without
considering the surrounding context yet, the use of the definite article at 7:14
means a translation of "the" is likely. Agree or disagree?


HH: David Kummerow shared with some of us an article written by a man
named Ehrensvärd. It claimed to undermine the category of the definite
article that you don't like. I went through only about a dozen of his
examples. He was trying to undermine the force of 67 examples. Some
examples seemed implausible for the definite meaning that he tried to
attribute to them. The strongest case of implausibility for me was with
his example 11. This was the author's argument:

(11) He found him sitting under the oak tree [H)LH] (1 Kgs 13,14)
A known oak tree.

HH: In example 11, a prophet of God traveled from Judah to Bethel and
was heading back to Judah, The sons of a man show their father the road
that the man of God was taking back to Judah. The father followed the
prophet and found him sitting under "the oak tree." There was evidently
more than one road the man of God could have taken; otherwise the sons
would not have had to show their father the road. If the readers don't
even know the precise road, how can they know the well-known oak tree on it?

David thought it was too presumptuous of me to draw such a conclusion on
the basis of my limited knowledge of the biblical situation, but the
case is so weak in example 11 that it loses credibility, and there are
several a bit like that. The reason I bring this author up is that he is
trying to shoot holes in an established grammatical category found in
numerous Hebrew grammars. It is related to several other categories of
usage of the Hebrew article that are similar but different from English
usage. These are grammarians from different centuries. It is not just
these grammarians, for the translators of the King James Version drew
similar conclusions back in the 1600's. And translators across a wide
spectrum of beliefs confirm the grammarians' judgment by likewise
translating with the indefinite article where the Hebrew has the
definite article.

Since the easier path is to translate with the definite article, there
is a sense of judgment, based on the context, that has led this
wide-ranging collection of scholars over centuries to prefer an
indefinite-article translation in numerous instances in Scripture that
have the definite article. So rather than point out the obvious, that
the Hebrew definite article is normally translated with an English
definite article, it is more incumbent on us to try to understand why
this body of students has gone against the grain of common usage in
these many cases and has even defined categories of usage to account for
these exceptions to the rule.

That is what Ehrensvärd tried to do, coming up with various explanations
for why there should be a definite article translation in cases where
people have felt that the indefinite article was better. I found
Ehrensvärd unconvincing to the point that I did not see a need to read
further in his article.

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.

There is a plausible understanding for a translation that uses the
indefinite article, and there are a host of other examples of such usage.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard





_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page