[b-hebrew] Isaiah 53: In his death?

Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Sat May 15 12:10:59 EDT 2004


Dear Vadim,

>Please consider:
>
>Ez28:10 is really simple, mentioning "deaths of the uncircumcized." Both
>words are in plural, of course.

HH: But Ezekiel is addressing an individual, who can die only one death.

>Ez28:8: They would bring you down to Sheol, and you would die, emptied by
>[the] deaths, in [the] heart of [the] seas
>"You" here refers not to a single man, like in Isaiah 53, but to the
>nation, thus "deaths" in plural is only appropriate.

HH: Ezekiel is addressing the king of Tyre in the second person 
singular. Chapter 27 concerns Tyre. While the prophecy in Ezekiel 28 
has obvious implications for the entire nation, it is addressed to an 
individual.

>The collective plural
>is very common in Hebrew (e.g., lamo). Job33:22 employs the word memotei
>in exactly the same way: their lives to those who bring deaths.

HH: Job 33:22 is a different case, since LMMTYM involves a verb form. 
I don't really see your point.

>Another possible problem with "deaths" is the preposition be. I don't
>remember encountering bemot in Tanakh (don't have a concordance at hand).
>Do you?

HH: Gen. 21:16
Lev. 11:31
Lev. 11:32
Num. 6:7
Num. 19:11
Num. 19:13
Num. 19:16
Num. 19:18
Num. 26:10
Num. 33:39
Deut. 34:7
Judg. 2:19
Judg. 16:30
2Sam. 1:23
1Kings 13:31
Is. 53:9
Ezek. 18:32
Ezek. 33:11
Psa. 6:6
Psa. 49:18
Psa. 88:6
Job 27:15
Prov. 11:7
Prov. 14:32
Esth. 2:7
2Chr. 24:15
2Chr. 32:33

>Still another problem with "death" is that the translation "he was given"
>is, of course, incorrect: it is "he gave." Obviously, it cannot be said,
>"he gave in his death[s]."

HH: The verb at the beginning of Isa 53:9 is an impersonal verb: "one 
gave." This kind of verb is often translated in English in the 
passive. "He was given" can have the same force as "one gave."

				Yours,
				Harold Holmyard



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list