Biblical Hebrew Forum

["atombomb AT sirius.com" <atombomb AT sirius.com>]

Christ is risen! [traditional Orthodox greeting....]

Lewis Reich wrote:
> 
> On 16 Apr 99, at 20:50, Ken Litwak wrote:
> 
> >     If you look in a good lexicon for Min, you'll find that MiN has as
> > an exceedingly wide range of meaning, as many prepositions in many
> > languages do. Whomever Isaiah had in mind (and I don't think it has
> > anything to do with the exiles), it is perfectly fine, as JIm West
> > noted, to render this as "because of", i.e., "for the sake of".
>
> Although "MiN" (and its abbreviated prefix form) has a variety of
> meanings, I have to agree with George that there is a significant
> difference in meaning between the suggested conjunctions.  "From"
> implies that it was the sins that directly caused the wounding, and I
> think it is this meaning that most fits the context.  "Because of"
> seems to me to imply that it was something or someone else that
> did the wounding because of the fact of the sins.  

Has this already been pointed out?-- The traditional English
translation, "for", is likely to have an eye on both the LXX and the
Vulgate. 

The LXX gives "autos de etraumatisqh dia tas anomias hmwn"; 
"dia"+acc. is causal: "thanks to, by aid of, by reason of, on account
of, for", generally expressing cause, occasion, or purpose.

"Because of" would follow the Vulgate, "ipse autem vulneratus est
propter iniquitates nostras"; "propter" is quite simply "on account
of" or "because of"; again, causal.

Both "on account of" and "for" in a causal sense are legitimate 
translations of "min", which sometimes expresses causality (see 
BDB) and both follow the sense of the LXX and of V.  But as far 
as this goes--

> "For the sake of"
> implies that the wounding's purpose was atonement.  I do not think
> that one can progress quite so easily from "MiN" as "for" to "for the
> sake of".  If the latter meaning had been clearly intended , it seems
> to me likely that another locution, perhaps (L, would have been
> used.

I would *almost* agree.  However, "for the sake of" just seems like
the 
wrong translation altogether-- "for the sake of", as you point out,
 indicates purpose-- I do something "for the sake of" some purpose.
The purpose is expressed in the word to which the preposition is 
attached.  In this passage, that word is not "atonement", but *sin*.  
So, "he was wounded for the sake of our sins" would mean, "so that 
we might sin"-- ??!  

Unless I am mistaken about what "for the sake of" means in English, 
it just can't be!

Indeed he is risen!
John Burnett, m.a.


[Lewis:  apologies for sending this to you off list also-- not paying
attention to my browser's automatic addressing function.]