Immanuel (was: The Linkage Between Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6)
Eduardo M. Acuna
eacuna at mail.giga.com
Fri Mar 9 16:57:33 EST 2001
> On 09-03-2001 18:03 Eduardo M. Acuna <eacuna at mail.giga.com> wrote:
> > The very same CL has the evidence: Jeremiah 46:16. It is written as one
> > word <Hebr> )L(MNW <endHbr> with no separation, in fact the Lamed and the
> > ayin are joined. I checked the CL from the facsimile edition by freedman
> > published by Eerdmans.
> > Contrary to your statement, <Hebr> (MNW )L in Isaiah 7:14, 8:8 and 8:10 does
> > show a separation as compared with Jeremiah 46:16.
> We are working with the same edition of CL, so that helps the discussion.
> Your comparison with Jer. 46:16 does not work, because you will find
> sometimes words that are obvious two words joined in a similar way.
The Jewish editors of the Tanakh and the editors of the BHS seems to
disagree with you, since they joined with a maqqep the words <Hebr> )L (MNW <endHebr> in
Jeremiah 46:16 and maintained separated as two words <Hebr> (MNW )L <endHebr> in Isaiah
7:14, 8:8 and 8:10.
> you have to check and compare the immidiate context of the texts under
> discussion. The distance between the two elements (MNW and )L is less as 1mm
> in 7:14, in the others it is even lesser.
I doubt that the Scribe had a rule to measure distances between letters.
> The same distance you may find occasionally within other (one) words, where a > Waw or Yod is used. So, I consider CL to read the elements as one word.
> Moreover, this was only part of my argument:
> You have to deal with the problem of the accentuation of the text, which
> indicates that the words (in Isaiah 7:14 and 8:8; in Isaiah 8:10 it is not a
> name) were not regarded as two, but as one word.
> Moreover, it is said in Isaiah 7:14 itself that we are dealing with a name.
> Everywhere we read something like "the name is/will be called", it is
> followed by a name; even in Matthew 1:23! Why do you refuse to see it as a
> So, you're kindly asked to provide us with some arguments.
The LXX joined the two words and therefore the translators explained that
fact with a footnote saying: "which means, with us God". Matthew 1:23 is
quoting the translation. The original hebrew does not have one word, and
for that reason there is no name and no need to explain what the name
means, because there is no name. It is prophesizing that the child´s name
will mean "With us God".
More information about the b-hebrew