Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Raymond de Hoop <rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl>]

On 08-03-2001 21:17 Eduardo M. Acuna <eacuna AT mail.giga.com> wrote:

> <snip>
> There are other good examples of very well preserved mss. and amulets
> regarding magic.

We were not discussing magic, but the question whether 1QIsa^a might provide
evidence in this case.

>> So, even if you are right with regard to Qumran (which I really doubt), you
>> skip the problem with regard to this reading much to easy.
>> 
>> <Hebr> (MNW )L <endHebr> is written as two words indeed in e.g. BHS or
>> Snaith. However, the Codex Leningradensis itself does not show a clear 
>> space
>> between the two elements.
>> 
> And not only there but the whole text of CL. So, applying this fact only
> to Isaiah 7:14 and 8:8 is misleading.

No, it is not misleading. It just demonstrates that if you want to separate
these elements, you have to provide much better evidence than a
bible-edition. Now, your only evidence is the interpretation of an editor.

> Also, we have the fact that BHS is based on CL, so it is your opinion that
> all the specialists

Isaiah in BHS was edited by one specialist: D.W. Thomas; BHK by R. Kittel;
Snaith by himself(?). "All the specialist" are just three scholars.

> that worked on BHK and BHS are wrong and that they
> should write
> one word?

Yes. Isaiah 7:14 provides a theophoric name, which is generally written as
one name. 
Moreover, D.W. Thomas etc. may be wrong too. It occurs that the editors --
in case he took the Masoretic accentuation of the text in consideration --
erred with regard to the first element (MNW . In BHS, BHK and Snaith this
element is marked with the conjunctive accent Merka (curved to the left),
while CL reads in Isaiah 7:14 (and probably also in 8:8) a Metheg (or Ga`ya;
curved to the right). Because this sign is not an accent, it does not mark
independent words, but indicates only additional musical or phonetic motifs,
it is clear that CL did read one word.

I have to admit here that I base my observation solely on CL and that other
MSS might provide a different interpretation. Yet there is no reason to read
two words here from a morphological, grammatical or syntactical point of
view.
 
>> In Isaiah 7:14 it only could be; in Isaiah 8:8
>> there is certainly no space between the two elements and we read <Hebr>
>> (MNW)L <endHebr>. You have thus the testimony of CL and 1QIsa^a against 
>> your
>> statement. 
>> 
> See above. Only 1QIsa^a stands against my statement.

No, because 1QIsa^a has also the continuing script, which puts it on one par
with CL. And you have to provide an argument why you want to separate these
two elements of this theophoric name.

>However, dont you
> think that in 8:8 it is grammatically wrong to write it as a name?

No, I don't think so, why should I?

>> So, you're assumption was simply wrong.

But even, when you would be right to read two words here instead of one, I
still did not had an answer why you are talking about incarnation. The child
that will be born, "his NAME is called/will be called God with us". It is
just a way of naming a child.

Regards,
Raymond