[b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14 - HNH H()LMY
JoeWallack at aol.com
JoeWallack at aol.com
Fri Jul 27 12:47:01 EDT 2007
In a message dated 7/24/2007 1:33:54 PM Central Daylight Time,
hholmyard3 at earthlink.net writes:
>> " הָרָה " = "is pregnant"
>> This is the perfect tense.
> HH: It is not the perfect tense.
> הָרָה HRH is not even a verb but an adjective. The verb has to be
> and could be either present or future (or past).
" הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה "
You agree that " הָרָה " can be either a noun/adjective or verb in BH?
> First, do you agree that BH has perfect and imperfect distinction?
HH: Sure, that's what the grammars teach.
In the words of Inspector Clouseau, "Now we are getting somewhere!"
> HH: Here is another issue with your thought process. If you put these
> together, you would have:
> "Here is the virgin is pregnant." That makes no sense. So you better
> stick with "Behold" for your theory.
> You are being remarkably restrictive for such a compact language.
HH: It is a compact language.
What would BH require for "Here is the young woman who is/that is pregnant"?
> "Here is
> the young woman that is pregnant". "Here is the pregnant young woman". No
> As Kohan said in the classic, "The Wrath of Kohan", your translation
> be "far worse". What is your translation here again?
> Actually "Behold" & "Look" have a connotation of pysical presence anyway,
> don't they.
HH: I was granting that "behold" could possibly support your theory, I
have more difficulty with "here is" but in either case one has to supply
the verb for two ideas, pregnancy (adjective) and birth (participle).
The word HNH goes with both since the participle depends on the earlier
noun "young woman" to supply the subject of the participle. The verb to
be supplied with the birth is evidently future, so I find it hard to
think that the reader or hearer is expected to supply a different verb
for the adjective. If there were such a differentiation, I would expect
the speaker to provide the verbs. But since both concepts flow from HNH,
I expect that if one calls for a future verb, so will the other. Could
you say, "Here is the young woman pregnant and giving birth to a son,
and she will call his name Immanuel." Yes, you could say that, but it
would be a strange way to talk since no mention of a young woman being
pregnant and giving birth to a son has been previously introduced. Do
we want to say that this idea is supposed to be understood, just as we
are assuming the presence of a known young woman in the group?
What exactly is your translation and why is the above not a problem for it?
HH: I have given quite a bit of reasoning in support of my position. I
have an online article on the passage if you want to look at it.
As George Costanza said to Jerry Signfeld after Jerry told him to stop
giving him a hard time because he wouldn't be able to go through with it
with the two young woman either, "I know."
HH: It's not exactly on this issue of the definite article though.
> I point out what is most common and you respond in part with "carries no
> argumentative weight for Isa 7:14, at least for me." Further response from
> me would involve primarily commenting on the relationship of the evidence
> to your conclusion which distracts from my primary purpose of the
> relationship of the evidence to THE conclusion.
HH: I am trying to come to the place where my conclusion is THE
conclusion, that is, the way Isaiah intended the words to be understood.
I'll remember this.
> Suffice it to say that at this point with:
> there is nothing which favors your translation.
HH: My posts have given a great deal of evidence from grammarians and
translations. You are free to hold your own view since I am not dogmatic
about this. You would be free even if I were dogmatic.
I appreciate your charity in granting me my position. Unfortunately, I lack
the Grace to grant you yours.
> יד לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה
> הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ,
> אֵל. 14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the
> young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name
> " וְקָרָאת " = and you will call
> This is second person feminine right?
HH: It can be a third person singular as well.
But usually second person feminine right?
> As in "you" referring to a present
> female. Yes, I know, "Does not necessarily", "it could". But it's
> support for a present female or neutral for your desired translation
> whatever that may currently be.
HH: The possibility that the verb could be second person singular is a
fact. It does not affect the issue because a third person interpretation
is also possible. See #GKC #74g. Actually, the lexicons parse it as
third person singular, both HALOT and BDB.
Of course it effects the issue. If Isaiah used a word that usually means
2nd person feminine, it is direct evidence of physical presence. I concede
though that most translations generally use 3rd person here.
יד לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה
הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ,
אֵל. 14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the
woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Since this part of the prophecy predicts that a son will be born and called
"Immanuel" the BH Hearer of the prophecy would need to know the
specific woman in order to determine prophecy fulfillment. The Implication
is that the BH Hearer knows the specific identity at this point since no
other information is provided that would subsequently identify the woman
or child to the BH Hearer.
In summary, to this point, the BH question is was the young woman of
7:14 known to Ahaz? We have the following Textual Markers:
HNH - Usually denotes a physical presence = Yes (the young woman was
H - The Hebrew Definite Article. [understatement] Usually denotes the
definite [/understatement] = Yes
HRH - If Verb - Perfect tense = Yes
If Adjective - Tense by context = Neutral
QR)T - Usually 2nd person feminine (you) = Yes
(MNW )L - A definite name = Yes
Every Textual Marker either indicates that the young woman was known to Ahaz
or is Neutral.
There is no Textual Marker indicating that the young woman was not known to
Context can not overturn the evidence of the Textual Markers and indicate it
likely that the
young woman was not known to Ahaz. The most context could do would be to
evidence on the subject.
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
More information about the b-hebrew