Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Dear Harold:

On 6/3/07, Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net> wrote:
> Dear Joseph,
> > You would agree I assume that the Hebrew definite article always indicates
> > the definite per Hebrew. An English translation of the indefinite would be 
> the
> > exception. If it's unlear what the related English should be than it 
> probably
> >  should be translated as definite. Only providing a general exception to the
> > definite translation does not force an indefinite translation for English
> > where  you think it might aply to a specific passage. You need to 
> demonstrate WHY
> > the  translation should be indefinite in English.
> >
> > "The article may also mark nouns definite in the imagination, designating
> > either a particular person or thing necessarily understood to be present
> > or vividly portraying someone or something whose identity is not
> > otherwise indicated"
> >
> > How do you apply this than to 7:14?
> >
> >
> HH: I would apply it to Isa 7:14 because there is no specific person in
> view. There were many virgins, so unless the context indicates a
> particular one, it seems best to translate the Hebrew as an indefinite.
> The context does not indicate any specific virgin, and one is not really
> needed. The woman could be a nameless person in Israel known to the Lord
> but not to the king and his court. The prophecy about the virgin
> particularly signals the time when the northern coalition will be
> defeated (Isa 7:14-16):
No, it merely states that the child's coming of age will occur after
the defeat, not how long. Centuries later is still after the defeat.

The nature of Hebrew prophecy is that it at times lists events that
from the wording used appear to be consecutive, but when played out
can be separated by centuries.

> Is. 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin
> will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him
> Immanuel.
> Is. 7:15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the
> wrong and choose the right.
> Is. 7:16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose
> the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.
>
> HH: This prophecy gives a more narrow time frame than the one Isaiah had
> mentioned earlier:
No it doesn't. It is still open ended.

> Is. 7:6 "Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among
> ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it."
> Is. 7:7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: "'It will not take
> place, it will not happen,
> Is. 7:8 for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is
> only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be
> a people.
>
> HH: Isaiah says that by the time a virgin/young woman conceives, bears a
> child named Immanuel, and raises him until he is almost old enough to
> judge good from evil, the northern coalition will be defeated. This
> could imply that a marriage would have to intervene. But it is only a
> few years. Isaiah's prophecy also seems hopeful, because the birth of
> the child with the name "God is with us" is linked to the defeat of the
> northern kingdom. Isaiah's linkage of the two events could imply that
> the victory came by God's favor.
Two problems with this interpretation: the use of the word "name" in
Hebrew often referred to concepts where we in English use "name" only
in a figurative sense, e.g. "he made a name for himself", so from the
context you can't assume that the child will have that "name" in the
narrow English sense; secondly a married woman giving birth is not
anything special, so how could it be a sign?

> HH: The NIV Study Bible assumes that the northern coalition attacked
> about 735/734 B.C. Damascus was defeated by Tiglath-Pilesar in 732 B.C.,
> as was Ephraim. The fall of Ephraim was in 722 B.C. So these events were
> all within the reign of Ahaz, which has received varying dates:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahaz
>
> Albright: 735 BC – 715 BC
> Thiele: 732 BC – 716 BC
> Galil: 742 BC – 726 BC
>
> HH: Whatever the exact dates, Isa 7:14-16 is much more accurate than the
> earlier figure in 7:6-8 and describes events that occur prior to the
> Assyrian defeats of Ephraim and Damascus. The hopeful tone of the
> prophecy is really ironic in a number of ways, but specifically because
> God sent Isaiah to dissuade Ahaz from trusting Assyria rather than the
> Lord. This defeat of Ephraim at Assyria's hands would come due to Ahaz's
> disregard for God's words and would lead to catastrophe for the southern
> kingdom as Assyria invaded it. So the woman and her son's name play a
> sort of iconic role. They represent the young life of Israel, its
> families, and its faith in God, and yet doom would ultimately befall
> them because of Ahaz's disobedience.
>
> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard
It looks like you are trying to defend translations again rather than
considering the Hebrew.

True, English reads most smoothly when it is not an exact translation,
but even English uses the definite article when then action is
emphasized, as I understand Hebrew to do: thus "the virgin who gets
pregnant" "the one acting as a spokesman (translator)" "The young man
who ran and reported to Moses" and so forth, but because we are not
translating exactly because of the limits of English language, we
sometimes use the indefinite article where Hebrew uses a definite
article. But in this verse, I think even English supports the use of
the definite article.

Yours,
Karl W. Randolph.