Biblical Hebrew Forum

["UUC" <unikom AT paco.net>]

Dear Yigal,

To begin with, haburah is a different word from havurah, since otherwise you
cannot account for hatef (ex-kamatz) in havurah.
Now, two common instances of kamatz in this root are, of course, haver (thus
haverah, a wife of the youth) or hevrah (havurah), company or community,
which in this context is the man's sect. cf. Job34:8
But certainly not haburah, which is how many people prefer to read the word
to connect the chapter with the NT.

You may also consider a pattern of haburah usage along with peza, which is
not the case here.

>What do you get
> from "xaverah"?
This is a point. You check the translation against an interpretation.


Sincerely,

Vadim Cherny




> Look at Gen. 4:23 and Prov. 20:30. In both, the u is
> short, but it's still "xaburah" - bruises. Actually, I'd ask why there is
no
> dagesh in the Bet. In any case, your translation is forced. >
> Yigal
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "UUC" <unikom AT paco.net>
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 11:46 AM
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53: bruises?
>
>
> > Oh, no objections to my statement that havurah cannot be haburah, and
> therefore not a reference to bruise? How sad...
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Vadim Cherny
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>