Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Julie Devall" <krena_li_mara AT hotmail.com>]

Vadim,

I'm not first assuming this is prophecy, I'm assuming that this was a 
Vision.

My systematic understanding (a second step, which is somewhat irrelevant to 
this discussion) is that this happened, thus making it a true prophecy.  
Others can make other systematic assumptions about what the Vision "means" 
or the referent.

One can accept assumption one, making the use of qatal easily explainable, 
then construct an interpretation.

Shalom,

Julie :)



> From: b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Reply-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 17, Issue 22
> Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 03:07:22 -0400 (EDT)
>
> Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
>         b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         b-hebrew-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Proverbs 17:8 (Reinier de Blois)
>    2. Bribes, Gifts, and Tribute (David Kimbrough (CLWA))
>    3. Re: Isaiah 53 (UUC)
>    4. Re: Isaiah 53: In his death? (UUC)
>    5. Re: Isaiah 53: pierced? (Lee Roy Martin)
>    6. Re: Isaiah 53: In his death? (Lee Roy Martin)
>    7. Re: Bribes, Gifts, and Tribute (Karl Randolph)
>    8. Significant improvements to the Unicode/XML Tanach
>       (Christopher V. Kimball)
>    9. Re: Re: [b-hebrew] Bribes, Gifts, and Tribute
>       (david.kimbrough AT charter.net)
>   10. Re: Isaiah 53 (Karl Randolph)
>   11. RE: Bribes, Gifts, and Tribute (Karl Randolph)
>   12. RE: Isaiah 53: In his death? (Schmuel)
>   13. Re: Re: [b-hebrew] Bribes, Gifts, and Tribute (Karl Randolph)
>   14. Re: Bribes, Gifts, and Tribute (Yigal Levin)
>   15. Re: Re: Bribes, Gifts, and Tribute (Yigal Levin)
>   16. Isaiah 53: pierced? (UUC)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:22:31 -0400
> From: "Reinier de Blois" <rdeblois AT www.biblesocieties.org>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Proverbs 17:8
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <20040517202231.M73136 AT www.biblesocieties.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Good point, but I still feel that there is not enough evidence in the text 
> to
> warrant a translation with "charm". The only support I have been able to 
> find
> so far is Nahum 3:4 where XEN is somewhat parallel to K$APIYM "sorceries".
> But also there a translation with "beauty" is perfectly possible.
> In all other cases where XEN is preceded by another noun in the construct
> state (at least those I could find) it means "beauty".
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Reinier
>
> >HH: But XN also has the sense of "favor," and a stone that gave favor
> >would be a charm. An interesting point here relative to Liz's
> >question about intensive plurals is that B(L ("owner") is often
> >plural with a singular suffix in a singular meaning. This is the
> >judgment of Brown-Driver-Briggs, which also finds an emphatic plural
> >for the word which has the meaning of "great lord" or "sovereign
> >owner." So it might be possible to translate here "its owner."
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 13:48:57 -0700
> From: "David Kimbrough (CLWA)" <dkimbrough AT clwa.org>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Bribes, Gifts, and Tribute
> To: 'Yigal Levin' <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>,       b-hebrew
>         <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <E6BA5CF79183D5118E5C00065B1960B4288049@SERVER01>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Yigal,
>
> Yes you are correct that in 1Kings 15:19 King Asa gives all of his silver
> and gold to King Benhadad of Syria which Asa calls a "gift" ($oxad).  The
> gift was to get the King of Syria to do something, attack Israel.  However
> this is not a bribe however as there nothing illegal or unethical about it.
> Gifts of cash were routinely given out in order to obtain military alliance
> of one type or another, just as they are today.  King Benhadad was
> committing no crime, just receiving payment for services rendered.  The 
> King
> of Israel may not have been happy about this arrangement, and perhaps even
> many Judeans weren't either, but that does not equal bribery.
>
> The nearly identical relation is reported in 2Kings 16:8.  This time King
> Ahaz is giving a gift the King of Assyria to attach the King of Syria.  
> King
> Tiglathpileser is good to his word and does so.  No bribery, just a Kings
> doing their jobs.  Bribery would to pay a King NOT to do his job.
>
> David Eugene Kimbrough
> Water Quality & Laboratory Supervisor
> Castaic Lake Water Agency
> 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road
> Santa Clarita, CA 91350-2173 USA
> V 661.297.1600
> F 661.297.0414 or .1611
> dkimbrough AT clwa.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigal Levin [mailto:leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il]
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 2:08 PM
> To: b-hebrew
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Proverbs 17:8
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Kimbrough (CLWA)" <dkimbrough AT clwa.org>
> To: "'Yigal Levin'" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>; "b-hebrew"
> <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 9:43 PM
> Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Proverbs 17:8
>
>
> > Hmmm.   Well I have to say that using your translation, I do not see any
> > negative connotations.  It seems like a positive association to me,
> > comparing $oxad to a precious stone, a jewel perhaps.  It is hard for me
> to
> > see how that is negative.
> >
> > In the OT, this word $oxad is used 23 times.  Most of them are clearly
> > references to bribery (Exd 23:8, Deu 16:19, Deu 27:25, 1Sam 8:3, Job
> 15:34,
> > Psa 15:5, Psa 26:10,  Pro 17:23, Isa 1:23, 5:23, 33:15, 2Ch 19:7, Eze
> 22:12,
> > Mic 3:11, etc).
> >
> > Other do not seem to have any negative association.  1Ki 15:19 and 2Ki
> 16:8
> > the reference is clearly to gifts from king to king, a normal, legal, 
> and
> > positive activity, tokens of good faith and alliance.
>
> No. These are both bribes given by the wak king of Judah to a more powerful
> country, aimed at getting its king to take action.
>
> Yigal
>
>
> >
> > Isa 45:13 seems to be a reference to reward, a gift for doing something
> > ethically good and legal, in this case freeing captives.  I read it as 
> the
> > righteous free captives for goodness alone, without expectation of 
> reward.
> > However it could be read that the righteous free captives without
> expecting
> > ransoms, which the modern reader would have a negative association with.
> It
> > depends if the righteous is the captor, or liberates the captives from a
> 3rd
> > party captor.
> >
> > I think of it this way, if one were to search the laws of say 
> California,
> > one would find references to rules pertaining to gifts and government
> > officials, all with negative connotations, namely with the stated or
> > unstated concern of bribery. This does not mean that in English all 
> gifts
> > are thought of as negative or bribes.  It is just In the context of
> > regulating illegal activity, perversion of justice in particular (a
> subject
> > of great concern in the OT) the word gift is closely associated with
> > bribery.
> >
> > David Eugene Kimbrough
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yigal Levin [mailto:leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il]
> > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 12:06 PM
> > To: b-hebrew
> > Subject: Fw: [b-hebrew] Proverbs 17:8
> >
> >
> >
> >  In all of the places in which $oxad is used, it is always meant
> > negatively -
> > as a bribe. This includes verse 23 in this very chapter. As for verse 8,
> my
> > translation would be: "A bribe is [as preacous] to its owner [as a]
> precous
> > stone".
> >
> >  Yigal
> >
> >  ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "wattswestmaas" <wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>
> > > To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 7:17 PM
> > > Subject: [b-hebrew] Proverbs 17:8
> > >
> > >
> > > > Dear One and All,
> > > >
> > > > Subject: Proverbs 17:8.
> > > >
> > > > The question here centres on the word that is translated as 'gift' 
> and
> > > > 'bribe'; and also on the 'object' of the proverb either as 'the
> person'
> > > who
> > > > is the recipient of the 'gift/bribe' or the 'it' ie the gift/bribe
> > itself.
> > > >
> > > > Personally speaking I favour 'gift' even though this word is often
> > > > translated as bribe elswhere, this is very much linked to the 
> somewhat
> > > > esthetical sense of the word 'stone of grace' and its position in 
> the
> > > > sentence?. Anyway please elucidate me with your grammatical
> intuitions.
> > I
> > > > learn good things from these heated debates.
> > > >
> > > > Much appreciated - Chris from Ireland
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > b-hebrew mailing list
> > > > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 23:57:12 +0300
> From: "UUC" <unikom AT paco.net>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <01ea01c43c53$207be880$ed8372c3@Vadim>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="koi8-r"
>
> Dear Ben,
>
> No it doesn't help. You interpretation hinges on a doctrine which I reject
> out of hand. Sorry
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Vadim
>
>
> > > Both verbs in 52:14 are in the past, clear and simple. Why future?
> > >
> >
> >  Dear Vadim
> >
> >  This passage is a future prophecy so sure of being fulfilled that it is
> >  spoken as if it had already happened. It had already happened in the
> counsel
> >  of the LORD, before the foundation of the earth.
> >
> >  This phenomenon is known as the "Prophetic Perfect".
> >
> >  Hope this helps.
> >
> >  Ben
> > --
> >  Revd Ben Crick, BA CF                                 ZFC Yb
> >  <ben.crick AT NOSPAM.argonet.co.uk>
> >  232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)
> >  Acorn RPC700, RO4.03+Kinetic Card, 126MB, 4.3GB HD, x32CDROM
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 23:58:46 +0300
> From: "UUC" <unikom AT paco.net>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53: In his death?
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <01eb01c43c53$22188180$ed8372c3@Vadim>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="koi8-r"
>
> Dear Ben,
>
> Using be as "when" is more than highly unusual.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Vadim
>
> >  B:MoTaYW in Isaiah 53:9 is a common use of the prefix B: to mean "when"
> >  something happened or will happen. "In his death" means "when he dies" 
> or
> >  "at the time of his death". Methuselah M:TuW$aLaX can be construed to
> mean
> >  "when I die it will happen" (namely, the Flood happened the year the
> oldest of
> >  all died). His father Enoch was a prophet (Jude 1:14).
> >
> >  This in Isaiah 53:9 is a prophecy of the donation of a new grave by
> Joseph of
> >  Arimathaea in Matthew 27:57-60. The meaning of Isaiah 53:9 remained an
> enigma
> >  until Matthew 27 explained it. At the time of the death of the 
> Suffering
> >  Servant, a rich man laid him in his own very expensive tomb.
> WaYYiTTeN...
> >  QiB:RoW means "one made his grave...". This is the impersonal "one"
> meaning
> >  "someone or other". That someone was Joseph of Arimathaea.
> >
> >  One cannot expect Jews who still reject Jesus of Nazareth as their
> Messiah to
> >  accept this interpretation.
> >
> >  Ben
> > --
> >  Revd Ben Crick, BA CF                                 ZFC Yb
> >  <ben.crick AT NOSPAM.argonet.co.uk>
> >  232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)
> >  Acorn RPC700, RO4.03+Kinetic Card, 126MB, 4.3GB HD, x32CDROM
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 17:39:23 -0400
> From: Lee Roy Martin <lmartin AT vol.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53: pierced?
> To: "UUC" <unikom AT paco.net>
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <A9738EC6-A84A-11D8-BD75-000A95DBE564 AT vol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> Shalom,
> No, it is not "quite another word".  It is the same word, used as a
> participle because of the fronting of the pronoun.
> I have read your discussion and I find it unconvincing.
>
> LRM
>
>
>
> On May 17, 2004, at 5:13 PM, UUC wrote:
>
> > Dear Lee,
> >
> > hll actually never means "pierced." Wounded or killed - yes, sure, no
> > argument about that.
> > However, we have here quite another word, a very unusual meholal.
> > Would you
> > recall any instances of it as "killed"? Hardly so. Below is my
> > discussion on
> > this issue.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 17:56:18 -0400
> From: Lee Roy Martin <lmartin AT vol.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53: In his death?
> To: "UUC" <unikom AT paco.net>
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <0682BF9A-A84D-11D8-BD75-000A95DBE564 AT vol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> Dear Vadim,
> I see no problem in a wicked/rich parallel. Cf. the connection between
> evil and riches in Proverbs 28:22; Jer. 5:26-27; and Psalm 37:16.
> Micah,  Amos and other prophets frequently ascribe great wickedness to
> the wealthy.
> LRM
>
>
>
> On May 17, 2004, at 5:05 PM, UUC wrote:
>
> > Dear Lee,
> >
> > I doubt about the parallelism in this verse, since rich are not
> > normally
> > paralleled to wicked in ancient literature.
> > Anyway, "altars" is just the closest approximation of bamah. "Shrine"
> > is
> > another possibility, I agree with you. It's not only the burial
> > places, but
> > also sacrificial places, thus could be in plural, no problem.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Vadim
> >
> >
> > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53: In his death?
> >
> >
> >> Vadim,
> >> Given your concern for the literal, if you insist on rejecting bemotav
> >> as "death" then you should translate it as "his high places," not "his
> >> altars".  The word bamah means "back", or  "high place".  If a high
> >> place is used for worship it may include an altar or a shrine, but the
> >> Isaiah 53 text does include the words altar or house, both of which
> >> are
> >> occur in other texts along with the word bamah.
> >> If the high place is  a cultic place of burial, as it seems to be in
> >> Ezek. 4:7, then you still have the problem of the plural form= "his
> >> burial places".
> >> In light of the parallelism of the verse, I would either translate as
> >> "his death" or "his burial", and accept the plural as intensive.
> >> Lee R. Martin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On May 15, 2004, at 2:46 AM, unikom AT paco.net wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well, since the argument started to deviate into a messianic debate,
> >>> may I
> >>> suggest to concentrate, to begin with, on a single word:
> >>>
> >>> bemotav
> >>>
> >>> It is uniformly translated as
> >>>
> >>> in his death.
> >>>
> >>> How so? The word is in plural in every mss, even in Qumran.
> >>>
> >>> So, it is either,
> >>>
> >>> in his deathS,
> >>>
> >>> or, from boma,
> >>>
> >>> his altars
> >>>
> >>> I would love to read any arguments to the contrary.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sincerely,
> >>>
> >>> Vadim Cherny
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> b-hebrew mailing list
> >>> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 18:19:08 -0500
> From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Bribes, Gifts, and Tribute
> To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <20040517231908.46BBD1D7239 AT ws3-3.us4.outblaze.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> David:
>
> What is at stake here is not the legality of the action, as we understand 
> it, rather the action. This is giving something of value to get the 
> recipient to do something that he normally may not do. In that way, a king 
> can bribe another king.
>
> An example of a “legal” bribe is in U.S. politics, where a large donation 
> is given to a politician’s re-election campaign so that the politician will 
> do certain things that the “donor” wishes.
>
> Usually, however, bribes are recognized as a way to pervert justice.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Kimbrough (CLWA)" <dkimbrough AT clwa.org>
> > Yigal,
> >
> > Yes you are correct that in 1Kings 15:19 King Asa gives all of his 
> silver
> > and gold to King Benhadad of Syria which Asa calls a "gift" ($oxad).  
> The
> > gift was to get the King of Syria to do something, attack Israel.  
> However
> > this is not a bribe however as there nothing illegal or unethical about 
> it.
> > Gifts of cash were routinely given out in order to obtain military 
> alliance
> > of one type or another, just as they are today.  King Benhadad was
> > committing no crime, just receiving payment for services rendered.  The 
> King
> > of Israel may not have been happy about this arrangement, and perhaps 
> even
> > many Judeans weren't either, but that does not equal bribery.
> >
> > The nearly identical relation is reported in 2Kings 16:8.  This time 
> King
> > Ahaz is giving a gift the King of Assyria to attach the King of Syria.  
> King
> > Tiglathpileser is good to his word and does so.  No bribery, just a 
> Kings
> > doing their jobs.  Bribery would to pay a King NOT to do his job.
> >
> > David Eugene Kimbrough
> > Water Quality & Laboratory Supervisor
> > Castaic Lake Water Agency
> > 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road
> > Santa Clarita, CA 91350-2173 USA
> > V 661.297.1600
> > F 661.297.0414 or .1611
> > dkimbrough AT clwa.org
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 21:05:21 -0400
> From: "Christopher V. Kimball" <kimball AT ntplx.net>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Significant improvements to the Unicode/XML Tanach
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org, "Christopher V. Kimball"
>         <kimball AT ntplx.net>
> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040517205457.04678eb8 AT mail.ntplx.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>
> The Unicode/XML Tanach is now transcribed from the Westminister Leningrad
> Codex (WLC) maintained by the Westminister Hebrew Institute.  The WLC has
> approximately 1500 improvements over the 1987 Oxford Text Archive (OTA)
> text from which previous versions of the Unicode/XML Tanach were
> transcribed.  Further, the WLC is actively maintained by scholars at the
> Westminister Hebrew Institute.
>
> Excerpts from a book can now be displayed. See the "Syntax" link on each
> book's page to learn how to specify an excerpt.
>
> The Unicode/XML Tanach is available at:
>
> http://users.ntplx.net/~kimball/Tanach/Tanach.xml .
>
> It is free and may be freely distributed for non-commercial purposes.
>
>
> Chris Kimball
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 2:56:55 +0000
> From: <david.kimbrough AT charter.net>
> Subject: Re: Re: [b-hebrew] Bribes, Gifts, and Tribute
> To: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>,     "Hebrew"
>         <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <200405180256.i4I2utZ7054822 AT mxsf13.cluster1.charter.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Karl,
>
> If I ask a carpenter to build me a house he may not be
> inclined to do so.  If I offer to pay him he will probably
> become so inclined.  Similarly if I have a case before a
> judge, he may not be inclined to find in my favor.  I offer
> to pay him; he may well be come so inclined in my favor.
> The former is legal and is not considered bribery while the
> latter is not and is considered bribery.
>
> In the case of the two kings, in each case, the king of
> Judea made payments to some foreign king (Syrian and
> Assyrian) to attack his enemy (Israel and Syria).  This
> sort of arrangement was legal and normal. Notably, the
> author of 1 and 2 Kings do not condemn either Ahaz or Asa
> for these payments.  Indeed why should there be any
> condemnation when in each case the payments had the desired
> effect, the enemy attacking Judea was defeated Judea was
> rescued.  Asa?s ?heart was perfect with the LORD all his
> days?.
>
> It is only the modern reader who detects something wrong or
> immoral in this arrangement, even it is a practice that is
> stilled used today.  Ancient readers did not detect and
> moral problem, especially since it seemed to work quite
> well.
>
>
>
> >
> > From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
> > Date: 2004/05/17 Mon PM 11:19:08 GMT
> > To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Bribes, Gifts, and Tribute
> >
> > David:
> >
> > What is at stake here is not the legality of the action,
> as we understand it, rather the action. This is giving
> something of value to get the recipient to do something
> that he normally may not do. In that way, a king can bribe
> another king.
> >
> > An example of a ?legal? bribe is in U.S. politics, where
> a large donation is given to a politician?s re-election
> campaign so that the politician will do certain things that
> the ?donor? wishes.
> >
> > Usually, however, bribes are recognized as a way to
> pervert justice.
> >
> > Karl W. Randolph.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Kimbrough (CLWA)" <dkimbrough AT clwa.org>
> > > Yigal,
> > >
> > > Yes you are correct that in 1Kings 15:19 King Asa gives
> all of his silver
> > > and gold to King Benhadad of Syria which Asa calls a
> "gift" ($oxad).  The
> > > gift was to get the King of Syria to do something,
> attack Israel.  However
> > > this is not a bribe however as there nothing illegal or
> unethical about it.
> > > Gifts of cash were routinely given out in order to
> obtain military alliance
> > > of one type or another, just as they are today.  King
> Benhadad was
> > > committing no crime, just receiving payment for
> services rendered.  The King
> > > of Israel may not have been happy about this
> arrangement, and perhaps even
> > > many Judeans weren't either, but that does not equal
> bribery.
> > >
> > > The nearly identical relation is reported in 2Kings
> 16:8.  This time King
> > > Ahaz is giving a gift the King of Assyria to attach the
> King of Syria.  King
> > > Tiglathpileser is good to his word and does so.  No
> bribery, just a Kings
> > > doing their jobs.  Bribery would to pay a King NOT to
> do his job.
> > >
> > > David Eugene Kimbrough
> > > Water Quality & Laboratory Supervisor
> > > Castaic Lake Water Agency
> > > 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road
> > > Santa Clarita, CA 91350-2173 USA
> > > V 661.297.1600
> > > F 661.297.0414 or .1611
> > > dkimbrough AT clwa.org
> > --
> >
> ___________________________________________________________
> > Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> > http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
>
> David Kimbrough
> San Gabriel
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 00:06:10 -0500
> From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53
> To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <20040518050610.9F85C1D7239 AT ws3-3.us4.outblaze.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Vadim:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "UUC" <unikom AT paco.net>
>
> > Dear Karl,
> >
> > To answer your doubts, I know both biblical and modern Hebrew. There are 
> not
> > much differences between the two in writing, actually.
>
> I expected so. There are major differences between Biblical to modern 
> Hebrew. There are differences in grammar, idioms, vocabulary (even some of 
> the same words have different meanings in ancient and modern Hebrew). I 
> suspected that you are using modern Hebrew definitions to back up some of 
> your translations, which is why I find parts of your translation -- wierd.
> >
> > >I read it as a passive form, "He was given his grave with the wicked" <
> > What we know of ancient Hebrew comes to us mostly from Tanakh. 
> Therefore, if
> > you would find anywhere in the book a phrase like this, that someone was
> > given his grave, you would have an argument. I do not recall such 
> phrase,
> > however. And if there is none in a corpus so huge, that means it's not 
> an
> > idiom.
> > Besides, with this reading, you have a problem with the next word, which 
> you
> > would probably translate "tomb" (in order to poetically correlate with
> > "grave"). Even the intense plural your colleagues imagine in this case 
> is
> > never applied to mot as "tomb." So, "tombs."
> > What is "a state of death with the rich," eludes my comprehension, and 
> such
> > reasoning could be hardly attributed to an ancient author. It's forced,
> > isn't it?
> > And, uh,  how did you make waiyaten into "he was given"? Maximum, it's
> > "someone gave." "He" is not there, if you prefer to read this verb as
> > impersonal.
>
> Almost everything we know about Biblical Hebrew is from Tanakh, and that 
> isn’t that much. For example, even a document as tiny as the Gezer calendar 
> has at least one lexeme that is not found in Tanakh. For your claim to hold 
> water, we would need 10 times or more written examples from Biblical times, 
> and we don’t have that. How many terms are used only once in Tanakh? Why 
> not idioms only once?
> >
> > >PG( ôâò has no equivalent in modern English.<
>
> > How so? It's easily translated in Joshua as attached. Why not here?
> > My Greek is dusty, so I can't really weight your analogy, but surely 
> many
> > words have broad meaning. That's not the issue. The issue is be. 
> Wherever
> > ifgia is used as intercessed, it is with be. Find one example to the
> > contrary, and I accept your view.
> > pga root meaning is to clash, that simple. Intercede is a possible 
> meaning.
> > But before someone and with a concrete aim. None is mentioned in the
> > chapter.
> > Come on, prefix le does not make pga into "to intercede." In Joshua,
> > attached is also with le.
>
> Which verse?
> >
> > I take your mention of your dictionary work as a call for my 
> credentials. A
> > book on Hebrew grammar and an 800-page book on the NT would suffice?
>
> No.
> >
> >
> > BTW, I don't see your pga definition here as either short or terse.
> > Steinberg is short; he writes "to clash" and derives other meanings from 
> it.
>
> Of the 46 times it appears in Tanakh, I don’t see a single time that it 
> means “clash”. I don’t see where that definition comes from.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Vadim Cherny
> >
> The most serious aspect of your claims is that you have decided for reasons 
> other than linguistics to rule out certain readings.
>
> Years ago, I was in an online debate where the claim was made that 
> Christians mistranslate Isaiah 52:13–53:12. So I wrote my own translation, 
> then challanged all in that debate to show me where I mistranslated it. I 
> insisted that their critique had to be on linguistic grounds, not theology. 
> So now when I see you ruling out certain translations based on theological 
> grounds, I think that is out of place for this forum.
>
> Yours, Karl W. Randolph.
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 00:29:15 -0500
> From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
> Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Bribes, Gifts, and Tribute
> To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <20040518052915.D32981D7239 AT ws3-3.us4.outblaze.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >David:
> > >
> > >What is at stake here is not the legality of the action, as we
> > >understand it, rather the action. This is giving something of
> > >value to get the recipient to do something that he normally may
> > >not do. In that way, a king can bribe another king.
> > >
> > >An example of a “legal” bribe is in U.S. politics, where a large
> > >donation is given to a politician’s re-election campaign so that
> > >the politician will do certain things that the “donor” wishes.
> > >
> > >Usually, however, bribes are recognized as a way to pervert justice.
> > >
> > >Karl W. Randolph.
> > >
> > >
> > Or, in many parts of the world, a gift is still a normal part of any
> > transaction.  It is usually seen as a way to establish/strengthen a
> > relationship which will then lead to the desired result.  For those of 
> us
> > brought up to believe that public servants, etc should do their work
> > impartially without regard to the person they are dealing with, this can 
> be
> > a very frustrating part of dealing with other cultures.
> >
> > Kevin Riley
> >
> And most of the reports I read about those gifts call them “bribes”.
> :-)
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 01:29:11 -0400
> From: Schmuel <schmuel AT escape.com>
> Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53: In his death?
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040518012124.041e3ec0 AT pop.escape.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi b-hebrew
>
> Harold,
> >> > 2) The form )eT that appears twice in Isa 53:9 is the normal form for
> >>> the preposition "with" when it is preceded by a maqqeph. (snip)
>
> Liz
> >>Yes, but why then does that not come across in the Greek? (snip)
>
> Harold,
> >HH: I don't think the LXX translators did a good job on the first line of 
> Isa 53:9. (snip)
>
> Generally, the lens of the Septuagint is a poor one through which to 
> analyze the Hebrew -AramaicText.
> In regards to Isaiah 53, there is a fascinating article on this regard ...
>
> "The LXX, 1 QIsa, and Mt Versions of Isaiah 53 and the Christian Doctrine 
> of Atonement".
> by  Daniel Sapp -
> In the book - "Jesus and the Suffering Servant - Isaiah 53 and Christian 
> Origins"
>
> Daniel Sapp discusses how the LXX differs radically from the Masoretic Text 
> and from the DSS ...
>
> Shalom,
> Steven Avery
> Queens, NY
>
>
> Schmuel AT escape.com
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MessianicScriptures
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 00:46:16 -0500
> From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: [b-hebrew] Bribes, Gifts, and Tribute
> To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <20040518054618.212641D7239 AT ws3-3.us4.outblaze.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
> David:
>
> Biblical Hebrew does make a difference between hiring %KR ùëø and bribing 
> $XD ùçã . What the kings did was called a bribe.
>
> A couple of times mercenaries were hired, but for some reason sending a 
> gift to the king asking him to act constituted a “bribe”.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <david.kimbrough AT charter.net>
> > Karl,
> >
> > If I ask a carpenter to build me a house he may not be
> > inclined to do so.  If I offer to pay him he will probably
> > become so inclined.  Similarly if I have a case before a
> > judge, he may not be inclined to find in my favor.  I offer
> > to pay him; he may well be come so inclined in my favor.
> > The former is legal and is not considered bribery while the
> > latter is not and is considered bribery.
> >
> > In the case of the two kings, in each case, the king of
> > Judea made payments to some foreign king (Syrian and
> > Assyrian) to attack his enemy (Israel and Syria).  This
> > sort of arrangement was legal and normal. Notably, the
> > author of 1 and 2 Kings do not condemn either Ahaz or Asa
> > for these payments.  Indeed why should there be any
> > condemnation when in each case the payments had the desired
> > effect, the enemy attacking Judea was defeated Judea was
> > rescued.  Asa?s ?heart was perfect with the LORD all his
> > days?.
> >
> > It is only the modern reader who detects something wrong or
> > immoral in this arrangement, even it is a practice that is
> > stilled used today.  Ancient readers did not detect and
> > moral problem, especially since it seemed to work quite
> > well.
> >
> >
> >
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:20:00 +0200
> From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Re: Bribes, Gifts, and Tribute
> To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <002801c43ca8$a2ee3930$50664684@levin>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> David,
>
> I think that the very reason that the writer(s) of these two pericopes used
> the word $oxad (in stead of, say "minxah" or "matanah") is exactly because
> he wished to emphasize that this was a "pay-off" which was at least morally
> not kosher. Notice that the word is not used in any other such situation in
> the Tanakh.
>
> Yigal
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Kimbrough (CLWA)" <dkimbrough AT clwa.org>
> To: "'Yigal Levin'" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>; "b-hebrew"
> <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 10:48 PM
> Subject: Bribes, Gifts, and Tribute
>
>
> > Yigal,
> >
> > Yes you are correct that in 1Kings 15:19 King Asa gives all of his 
> silver
> > and gold to King Benhadad of Syria which Asa calls a "gift" ($oxad).  
> The
> > gift was to get the King of Syria to do something, attack Israel.  
> However
> > this is not a bribe however as there nothing illegal or unethical about
> it.
> > Gifts of cash were routinely given out in order to obtain military
> alliance
> > of one type or another, just as they are today.  King Benhadad was
> > committing no crime, just receiving payment for services rendered.  The
> King
> > of Israel may not have been happy about this arrangement, and perhaps 
> even
> > many Judeans weren't either, but that does not equal bribery.
> >
> > The nearly identical relation is reported in 2Kings 16:8.  This time 
> King
> > Ahaz is giving a gift the King of Assyria to attach the King of Syria.
> King
> > Tiglathpileser is good to his word and does so.  No bribery, just a 
> Kings
> > doing their jobs.  Bribery would to pay a King NOT to do his job.
> >
> > David Eugene Kimbrough
> > Water Quality & Laboratory Supervisor
> > Castaic Lake Water Agency
> > 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road
> > Santa Clarita, CA 91350-2173 USA
> > V 661.297.1600
> > F 661.297.0414 or .1611
> > dkimbrough AT clwa.org
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yigal Levin [mailto:leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il]
> > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 2:08 PM
> > To: b-hebrew
> > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Proverbs 17:8
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Kimbrough (CLWA)" <dkimbrough AT clwa.org>
> > To: "'Yigal Levin'" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>; "b-hebrew"
> > <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 9:43 PM
> > Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Proverbs 17:8
> >
> >
> > > Hmmm.   Well I have to say that using your translation, I do not see 
> any
> > > negative connotations.  It seems like a positive association to me,
> > > comparing $oxad to a precious stone, a jewel perhaps.  It is hard for 
> me
> > to
> > > see how that is negative.
> > >
> > > In the OT, this word $oxad is used 23 times.  Most of them are clearly
> > > references to bribery (Exd 23:8, Deu 16:19, Deu 27:25, 1Sam 8:3, Job
> > 15:34,
> > > Psa 15:5, Psa 26:10,  Pro 17:23, Isa 1:23, 5:23, 33:15, 2Ch 19:7, Eze
> > 22:12,
> > > Mic 3:11, etc).
> > >
> > > Other do not seem to have any negative association.  1Ki 15:19 and 2Ki
> > 16:8
> > > the reference is clearly to gifts from king to king, a normal, legal,
> and
> > > positive activity, tokens of good faith and alliance.
> >
> > No. These are both bribes given by the wak king of Judah to a more
> powerful
> > country, aimed at getting its king to take action.
> >
> > Yigal
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Isa 45:13 seems to be a reference to reward, a gift for doing 
> something
> > > ethically good and legal, in this case freeing captives.  I read it as
> the
> > > righteous free captives for goodness alone, without expectation of
> reward.
> > > However it could be read that the righteous free captives without
> > expecting
> > > ransoms, which the modern reader would have a negative association 
> with.
> > It
> > > depends if the righteous is the captor, or liberates the captives from 
> a
> > 3rd
> > > party captor.
> > >
> > > I think of it this way, if one were to search the laws of say
> California,
> > > one would find references to rules pertaining to gifts and government
> > > officials, all with negative connotations, namely with the stated or
> > > unstated concern of bribery. This does not mean that in English all
> gifts
> > > are thought of as negative or bribes.  It is just In the context of
> > > regulating illegal activity, perversion of justice in particular (a
> > subject
> > > of great concern in the OT) the word gift is closely associated with
> > > bribery.
> > >
> > > David Eugene Kimbrough
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Yigal Levin [mailto:leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il]
> > > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 12:06 PM
> > > To: b-hebrew
> > > Subject: Fw: [b-hebrew] Proverbs 17:8
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  In all of the places in which $oxad is used, it is always meant
> > > negatively -
> > > as a bribe. This includes verse 23 in this very chapter. As for verse 
> 8,
> > my
> > > translation would be: "A bribe is [as preacous] to its owner [as a]
> > precous
> > > stone".
> > >
> > >  Yigal
> > >
> > >  ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "wattswestmaas" <wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>
> > > > To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > > > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 7:17 PM
> > > > Subject: [b-hebrew] Proverbs 17:8
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Dear One and All,
> > > > >
> > > > > Subject: Proverbs 17:8.
> > > > >
> > > > > The question here centres on the word that is translated as 'gift'
> and
> > > > > 'bribe'; and also on the 'object' of the proverb either as 'the
> > person'
> > > > who
> > > > > is the recipient of the 'gift/bribe' or the 'it' ie the gift/bribe
> > > itself.
> > > > >
> > > > > Personally speaking I favour 'gift' even though this word is often
> > > > > translated as bribe elswhere, this is very much linked to the
> somewhat
> > > > > esthetical sense of the word 'stone of grace' and its position in
> the
> > > > > sentence?. Anyway please elucidate me with your grammatical
> > intuitions.
> > > I
> > > > > learn good things from these heated debates.
> > > > >
> > > > > Much appreciated - Chris from Ireland
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > b-hebrew mailing list
> > > > > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > b-hebrew mailing list
> > > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:58:51 +0200
> From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Bribes, Gifts, and Tribute
> To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <002601c43cae$0f100260$4f664684@levin>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> > > > Isa 45:13 seems to be a reference to reward, a gift for doing
> something
> > > > ethically good and legal, in this case freeing captives.  I read it 
> as
> the
> > > > righteous free captives for goodness alone, without expectation of
> reward.
> > > > However it could be read that the righteous free captives without
> > > expecting ransoms, which the modern reader would have a negative
> association with. It depends if the righteous is the captor, or liberates
> the captives from a
> > > 3rd party captor.
> > > >
>
> Since Isaiah 45:13 is about Cyrus, who is expected to "build my city and
> free my exiles, not for a price and not for $oxad", but simply because he 
> is
> rightous - "the Lord's annointed". So $oxad is what a rightous king would
> NOT take - meaning that an evil one would.
>
> Yigal
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:58:53 +0300
> From: "UUC" <unikom AT paco.net>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53: pierced?
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <017201c43ca6$31304060$641ea8c0@Vadim>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="koi8-r"
>
> Dear Lee,
>
> Do you mean hll and mhll are the same word?
> These are different binyans, with different semantics. What it has to do
> with a pronoun? I don't understand your idea.
> mem with shva is employed only in piel. So the binyan is surely different
> from you examples. Say, Is22 halalaih - their is hataf, so the original was
> kamatz, so paal. You doesn't seem to be right here.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Vadim
>
> > It is the same word, used as a participle because of the fronting of the
> pronoun.
>
>
> > I have read your discussion and I find it unconvincing.
> >
> > LRM
> >
> >
> >
> > On May 17, 2004, at 5:13 PM, UUC wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Lee,
> > >
> > > hll actually never means "pierced." Wounded or killed - yes, sure, no
> > > argument about that.
> > > However, we have here quite another word, a very unusual meholal.
> > > Would you
> > > recall any instances of it as "killed"? Hardly so. Below is my
> > > discussion on
> > > this issue.
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> End of b-hebrew Digest, Vol 17, Issue 22
> ****************************************

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/