Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kgraham0938 AT comcast.net]

If you have an NET bible, they go in depth on this issue and argue that 
startled is the better rendering.

Traditionally the verb (yazzeh, a Hiphil stem) has been understood as a 
causative of (nazah, “spurt, spatter”) and translated “sprinkle.” In this 
case the passage pictures the servant as a priest who “sprinkles” (or 
spiritually cleanses) the nations. Though the verb ðÈæÈä does occur in the 
Hiphil with the meaning “sprinkle,” the usual interpretation is problematic. 
In all other instances where the object or person sprinkled is indicated, the 
verb is combined with a preposition. This is not the case in Isaiah 52:15, 
unless one takes the following òÈìÈéå (’alayv, “on him”) with the preceding 
line. But then one would have to emend the verb to a plural, make the nations 
the subject of the verb “sprinkle,” and take the servant as the object. 
Consequently some interpreters doubt the cultic idea of “sprinkling” is 
present here. Some emend the text; others propose a homonymic root meaning 
“spring, leap,” which in the Hiphil could mean “cause to leap, startle” and 
would fit the parallelism 
of the verse nicely. 
--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Bruce Meltzer <bmeltzer1243 AT yahoo.com> 

> Aside from theological presuppositions, what would the linguistic basis be 
> for 
> rendering yazzeh in the song of the suffering servant as sprinkle instead 
> of 
> startle? The act of sprinkling in the Tanach always involves physical 
> matter 
> and the context of Isa. 52:15 would support startle more strongly (i.e. the 
> reaction of the kings). Any arguments for or against? 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------- 
> You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck 
> in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. 
> _______________________________________________ 
> b-hebrew mailing list 
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
>From hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net  Tue Jun 19 11:16:38 2007
Return-Path: <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net
        (elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.68])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E78524C019
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:16:37 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from [68.166.205.4] (helo=[192.168.1.33])
        by elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34)
        id 1I0fRd-0003IU-J9
        for b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:16:37 -0400
Message-ID: <4677F355.6010308 AT earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:16:37 -0500
From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Macintosh/20070509)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
References: <46775159.3050804 AT exemail.com.au> <467753D7.7020507 AT hotmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <467753D7.7020507 AT hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-ELNK-Trace: 
4d8cbcf25a45eb95a7d551d5673cf272239a348a220c2609fa48d8d4c98182f26dff34460220464e3ca473d225a0f487350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 68.166.205.4
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] David's article
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:16:38 -0000

Dear David,
>> It seems to me that it is the capacity of the
>> Hebrew article to express a generic idea for cases
>> where in English we'd use the indefinite that
>> allows for a certain indefiniteness (a generic
>> quality) to these examples treated by Ehrensv=E4rd.
>>    =20
>> Yes, but generic use is still different to actual examples like Gen=20
>> 14:13 and Gen 16:7 etc.
>>    =20

My argument was not that the generic use of the article was exactly the=20
same as the usage of it in Gen 14:13, but they are similar. The one=20
could lead to the other. I wrote to Joseph:

See the word "famine" in Isa 29:8. See how it is used with "silver" in=20
Gen 13:2, or with "crimson" in Isa 1:18, or with "blindness" in Gen=20
19:11. In all these English would use "a/an" or nothing, not "the."

Or look at these cases below, all of which take the definite article in=20
Hebrew, but an indefinite article in English:

like the heart of a lion (2 Sam 17:10)

as a dog laps (Judges 7:5)

as one hunts a partridge (1 Sam 26:20)

as one rends a kid (Judges 14:6)

If Hebrew could consider all these cases, which are clearly indefinite=20
in English, as worthy of a definite article in a generic sense, then it=20
is consistent to suppose that in Gen 14:13, where the idea can at first=20
be a generic concept of one who escaped, that the author might use a=20
definite article:

Gen. 14:13 =B6 One who had escaped came and reported this to Abram the=20
Hebrew. Now Abram was living near the great trees of Mamre the Amorite,=20
a brother of Eshcol and Aner, all of whom were allied with Abram.

In Gen 16:7 there can be a generic concept of a spring presented first,=20
which receives further specification:

Gen. 16:7  The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the=20
desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur.

I am not saying that it is exactly the same as the generic usage, but it =

is so close that I can imagine a smooth transition from one to the other =

in Hebrew thinking. It is the generic put for the specific, which yields =

a somewhat indefinite idea. The problem, again, is in assuming that=20
Hebrew uses the definite article just as English does. That was Joseph=20
Wallack's basic contention. But it does not, and it is a mistake to=20
assume that it does. Here is an interesting case:

Gen. 41:42 Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it=20
on Joseph=92s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gol=
d=20
chain around his neck.

In Hebrew it is literally "the gold chain." It is not the whole genera=20
that was put around his neck, and it seems to be begging the question to =

assume that there was a well-known gold necklace that was bestowed on a=20
person in Joseph's position. We don't know that or know that Joseph's=20
position was even a regular position. Did every king take off his signet =

ring and put it on the finger of a subordinate? The text speaks of robes =

of fine linen, but not particular ones. So this may be a specific use of =

the definite article, as Waltke says, to refer to measured units. [cf.=20
Cant 1:13 (bag); Ex 16:36 (omer)]. This, again, would be similar to the=20
usage in Gen 16:7 and 14:13, where a specific thing is present in the=20
speaker's or writer's mind, but it is an otherwise unidentified specific =

thing (the one who escaped that I have in mind -- the one who escaped=20
who figures in this story). Such a usage does not betray the basic=20
concept of the definite article, so the effort to undermine an=20
established grammatical category is unnecessary. Of course this is a=20
much smaller category of usage than the regular definite article, for=20
there are only a limited number of instances where the usage would be=20
suitable. But a limited number of occurrences of a usage does not=20
invalidate a usage.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard