[b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14 - HNH H()LMY
hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Fri Jul 27 15:40:00 EDT 2007
> " הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה "
> You agree that " הָרָה " can be either a noun/adjective or verb in BH?
HH: It can be a verb, but I don't think it can be a verb here, because
it would need the feminine form, and that would normally involve another
"heh," as in Gen 16:4. This form functions as an adjective, as we see in
> What would BH require for "Here is the young woman who is/that is pregnant"?
HH: Isaiah 7:14 could say, "Here is the pregnant maiden." Or, perhaps it
could be, "Here is the maiden pregnant and about to bear a son."
> 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've already given you my translation. Remember, I used John
Oswalt's translation in NICOT. But here is another, "Behold, a maiden
will be pregnant and bearing a son." The above issue does not come into
play because the two modifiers use the same future time framework.
> HH: It can be a third person singular as well.
> But usually second person feminine right?
HH: Yes, but from also occurs in Jer 44:23 with a homonym. A man named
Baer, studying early manuscripts, said that the second person feminine
singular is written with a shewa in the final tav, for example in Gen
16:11. In the Qumran Isaiah a text the letters are WQR) or "one shall call."
> 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.
HH: I've already dealt with this. As long as Isaiah's prophecy indicated
that the event was about to happen, the timing would work from the
present and to whatever time period his words demanded. The person did
not have to be known.
More information about the b-hebrew