[b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14 - HNH H()LMY
kwrandolph at gmail.com
Fri Jul 27 15:15:46 EDT 2007
On 7/27/07, JoeWallack at aol.com <JoeWallack at aol.com> wrote:
> 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
> probably known)
"Usually" allows enough exceptions to drive a Mack Truck through.
Secondly, HNH can refer to a person, or to an idea and/or action
(which is not tangible), and in this case is the person or idea/action
(with the virgin only incidental) referenced by the prophecy?
> H - The Hebrew Definite Article. [understatement] Usually denotes the
> definite [/understatement] = Yes
> HRH - If Verb - Perfect tense = Yes
Wrong, because Biblical Hebrew does not have tenses, and the
perfective aspect is written HRTH, the imperfective aspect THR. Look
up in a concordance.
> If Adjective - Tense by context = Neutral
> QR)T - Usually 2nd person feminine (you) = Yes
Is this a verb, or in the same form as HRH and YLDT? Context indicates
the latter, making the answer = No.
> (MNW )L - A definite name = Yes
Not necessarily. $M is used in Tanakh to refer to a given name, as
well as to a reputation and/or attribute.
> 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
> Ahaz. Therefore,
> 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
> create contrary
> evidence on the subject.
Ah, we finally get to the crux of the matter. You are trying to prove
that the linguistic markers indicate that the virgin was known to
Ahaz. In order to prove this, you have to have all your ducks lined up
in a row, one missing or out of place can mess up your proof. Notice,
in all but one of your "evidences" above I have listed exceptions that
move your ducks out of the row, and even that one does not necessarily
indicate a person known to Ahaz, therefore your argument is
meaningless. All of your "Textual Markers" are ambiguous at best.
Because all your points have exceptions or even wrong, none can be
used to insist on your reading. You have put a lot of effort into
drilling this well, and it has come up dry.
Furthermore, you ignore one contextual clue that the virgin could very
well not have been known to either Ahaz or Isaiah, namely in verses 13
and 14 Isaiah changes the subject away from Ahaz personally, to the
"House of David" of which Ahaz was one small link in that chain. The
sign was given LKM to you all (plural).
In conclusion, combining all the linguistic and contextual clues, we
have no evidence that the virgin was known to either Ahaz or Isaiah.
> Joseph Wallack
Karl W. Randolph.
More information about the b-hebrew