[b-hebrew] Isaiah 53: in his death?
kwrandolph at email.com
Fri May 21 03:21:25 EDT 2004
And your reading that there three Isaiahs
and two Jeremiahs and so forth is not
A couple of months ago I got called to
the carpet for postulating a different
scenario, which led to me noticing a
pattern of linguistic development that
your scenario will obscure. That was in a
message that acknowledged that there is a
difference of opinion. And now you insist
that only your reading is valid? Is that
not out of line for this group?
I acknowledge that your view exists and
that many people share it. However, it
appears to me to be more based on
eisegesis than mine.
Concerning verb tenses, I was taught
that one of the features of the Qatal
binyan was that it referred to a one time
event while the Yiqtol to a repeating or
continuing event. Hence a Qatal future
would refer to an event that would happen
only once. Thats in addition to its
usual referral to completed action while
the Yiqtol to incompleted action. But I
havent followed up on this, has anyone
Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried at umich.edu>
> Dear Harold,
> We don't have the same view of biblical origins.
> There is no point in discussing this.
> I just want to call attention to the fact that one's suppositions
> color one's translations. People think they are being objective,
> but when they turn perfective voice into imperfective out of a
> desire to see the text as prophetic, then what can I say?
> It is eisegesis, not exegesis.
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
More information about the b-hebrew