[b-hebrew] Isaiah 53

UUC unikom at paco.net
Tue May 18 15:54:33 EDT 2004


Dear Jason,

Would you clarify your point? wayiten with the same vowelization is found in
Gen1:17, etc

>I thought that the wacons (vav-consecutive) form of NTN נתן was pointed
differently: vayiten (with a penultimate stress and a segol in the ultima).
So, I would take the text as it is as a future tense because the vowel
quality is not shifted for the wacons.<


Sincerely,

Vadim Cherny


> Karl,
>
> Is there an encoding problem? Your Hebrew is coming across as numeric code
> rather than as the letters. Should I set my system differently to read it?
>
> > I read this as an idiomatic phrase. It reminds me of one that was used
in
> the U.S. in the late 1800s, where when person A "laid" person B "in the
> grave", it meant that person A killed person B. I read it as a passive
form,
> "He was given his grave with the wicked" &#1493;&#1497;&#1514;&#1503;
> &#1488;&#1514; &#1512;&#1513;&#1506;&#1497;&#1501;
> &#1511;&#1489;&#1512;&#1493; which, when the idiomatic phrase is taken
into
> account, has the meaning of dying with the wicked, followed by being in a
> state of death with the rich.
> >
>
> ויתן את רשעים קרבו
> WYTN )T R$(YM QRBW
> vayitein et-resha`yim kirvo
>
> At first I thought that this was a pi`el form, but at second look, the nun
> of the root (נתן) has assymiliated and is represented by the dagesh.
>
> I thought that the wacons (vav-consecutive) form of NTN נתן was pointed
> differently: vayiten (with a penultimate stress and a segol in the
ultima).
> So, I would take the text as it is as a future tense because the vowel
> quality is not shifted for the wacons.
>
> However, I don't know that a qal form of NTN נתן should be regarded as
> passive. Is that really what we have to do to get this text to make sense?
>
> Why doesn't it make sense as it has traditionally been understood?
>
> And he shall make - ויתן
> with the wicked - את רשעים
> his grave - קרבו
>
> That looks pretty natural as far as reading goes. I don't know why the
> confusion with this verse. Apparently, it is just in that the )T is a
> preposition rather than an object marker.
>
> Jason
>
> P.S. This is not a justification for any messianic claims. I am not
> messianic, so don't think I'm defending a viewpoint. This just seems more
> natural to me.
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list