[b-hebrew] Isaiah 53: In his death?
schmuel at escape.com
Mon May 17 02:51:44 EDT 2004
>Steve showed evidence of translation of "death" or
>"tomb." He did not show evidence of "intensive plurals."
>Best, Liz Fried A2
If you reread the original post, I think you will see a lot of references, most especially from the Hebrew grammar and from the rabbinical expositors, to the "intensive plural" and various other related (non-numerical) plural forms... This included about a half-dozen rabbinical expositors....
The death/tomb question most especially comes up in the DSS, and you had been of special assistance on that one, so I had quoted you when I did the series :-)
>> From: Harold R. Holmyard III [mailto:hholmyard at ont.com]
>> Dear Liz,
>> Steve just posted a great deal of information showing that people
>> down through history have understood an intensive plural meaning
>> death. The fact that translators disagree does not prove them all
>> wrong. If you look at published major translations, you will see few
>> that have "altars" or "sepulchers." They have "death."
>> Harold Holmyard
>> >I think that so many translators see the word bamot
>> >here (translating altars and sepulchars, etc.) suggest
>> >that the plural form doesn't make sense as "deaths."
>> >To translate it as "death of an individual" you have to
>> >emend the text. Now, I don't see any problem in that
>> >myself, since it just means ditching one small (stray?) dot.
>> >To keep the text as it is tho, requires you to read bamot
>> >I would think, altars, temples, or something cultic, maybe
>> >they had mausoleums. This is post Mausolus, after all.
>> >Liz Fried
More information about the b-hebrew