[b-hebrew] Isaiah 53
unikom at paco.net
unikom at paco.net
Fri May 14 12:29:58 EDT 2004
>The absence of a noun phrase starting with BE in Is 53:12 does not make
Well, it contradicts every other usage of the pga root in the meaning of
"to intercede." It also contradicts pretty strong Hebrew grammatical
convention of referring only to explicitly mentioned objects, not to
someone presupposed in the absent be. Put it another way, in a politically
neutral case without prejudice, would you translate hifgia as intercess,
even while there is not a single entry of intercess without be in the
Although the hifil is certainly not always a causative of kal, as you
correctly say, this argument works against you. If you agree to equalize
paal and hifil, consider Joshua 19:11, 22 - exactly the place where paga
is employed with le, but without be.
Certainly, to clash and to attach are semantical opposites. Consider the
causation: the man was attached to something (a circle of criminals), and
so they clashed with him. Certain imagination, sure, but this meaning is
borne out by Joshua, too.
The absence of a noun phrase starting with BE in Is 53:12 does not make
much difference. In this context the party that is made intercession to
does not need to be specified because it has already been defined by the
context. The hifil is not necessarily a causative of the qal. Look at
Is.59:16, for example, there the hifil also means "to intercede".
By the way, to my opinion "to clash" and "to attach oneself" are
semantically opposite in meaning.
>Your example of Gen23:8 confirms to the pattern of paga usage in the
meaning of to intercede: it is always employed with preposition be,
> meaning to intercede before someone. This is not the case in Isaiah
53. Also, don't forget that Is53:12 employs hifil. Taking paga for
> intercede, hifgia means making someone to intercede. This reading is
meaningless in the context. Returning to the more common
> sense of paga, to clash, we have, to make someone to clash, or too
attach oneself. This is how the word is employed in Joshua.
> Please let me know if this does not look persuasive.
> > Verse 12, lapsheim ifgia, usually translated as interceded for
> criminals Interceded is always
> > encountered in Tanakh with preposition be, meaning before someone,
> > and
> with a clear definition
> > of the goal of intercession, such as not to burn the scroll.
> Preposition le, when employed
> > with ifgia, means attached to. Therefore, he was attached to
> criminals, or, regarded as
> > one of the criminals.
> I just finished working on PG( for our dictionary project and I found
> at least one case that contradicts your last statement. Take Genesis
> 23:8, where Abraham asks some people to make a request to Ephron "for
> him", which is LIY in Hebrew. So if that phrase is correct I don't see
> any reason why LP$(YM YPGIY( couldn't mean "pray for criminals".
> By the way, PG( is not exclusively found with the preposition BE, but
> also with 'ET (Exodus 5:20)or without direct object marker (Exodus
> 23:4), though I admit that BE is by far the most common. In Isaiah
> 53:12, however, BE is not needed because the phrase stating to whom
> the intercession was directed is not in the text.
> Best wishes,
> Reinier de Blois
More information about the b-hebrew