Immanuel (one word/name)

Raymond de Hoop rdehoop at
Fri Mar 9 17:32:18 EST 2001

On 09-03-2001 22:57 Eduardo M. Acuna <eacuna at> wrote:

> 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 

CL has a maqqef at the bottom.

> 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.

How can you than maintain that it are two words, if they did not had a rule
to measure distances?
>> 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
>> name? 
>> 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".

So, LXX read one word; Qumran read one word; CL is undecided; the Masoretes
read one word in 7:14 and 8:8 according to the accentuation.
You cannot provide the "original Hebrew", because we're working with MSS.

You are reasoning in circles. One of my arguments was that the text itself
indicates that we're dealing with a name here . You do not answer that
question (even to the contrary:
> 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"". 
Neither do you solve the problem of the accentuation of these two elements.
I will not allaborate my point any further untill you provide us with real



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list