Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>]

Dear Joseph,
> HH: "My argument was not that the generic use of the article was exactly the  
> same as the usage of it in Gen 14:13, but they are similar. The one  
> 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 
> Gen 13:2, or with "crimson" in  Isa 1:18, or with "blindness" in Gen 
> 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 
> 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 
> in English, as worthy of a definite article in a generic  sense,"
>  
>  
> JW:
> None of the above are clearly indefinite in English. I've seen English  
> translations with "the" for all but 
> Judges 14:6. More importantly, none even sound awkward with "the".

HH: Sorry, but they do sound somewhat awkward to me because English does 
not usually use the generic definite article this way, preferring an 
indefinite article.

>  You do  
> seem here to accept though that there is a reason for use of the Hebrew definite 
>  article?

HH: Of course. I never said there wasn't a reason. I distance myself 
from anyone with that theory.

>  I accept that use of the Hebrew definite article may be used to  
> emphasize a definite quality that would not be emphasized in English and  hence 
> the indefinite in English would be appropriate.

HH: Right, but that is exactly what this category of usage in the 
grammars that you don't like does. It stresses that the person or thing 
is clear in the mind of the person who uses the article (i.e., there is 
a definite quality to the person or thing in the miond of the writer), 
but since his subject is otherwise unknown or unidentified, one can 
legitimately translate it with the indefinite article in English.
>  
>
> " then it 
> is consistent to suppose that in Gen 14:13, where the  idea can at first 
> be a generic concept of one who escaped, that the author  might use a 
> definite article:
>
> Gen. 14:13 ¶ One who had escaped came  and reported this to Abram the 
> Hebrew. Now Abram was living near the great  trees of Mamre the Amorite, 
> a brother of Eshcol and Aner, all of whom were  allied with Abram."
>  
> JW:
> I've seen the English "the" for this but this one does sound awkward and I  
> think the English indefinite is preferred here.

HH: Thanks.
>  
>  
> Harold Holmyard
> "In Gen 16:7 there can be a generic concept of a spring presented first,  
> which receives further specification:
>
> Gen. 16:7  The angel of  the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the 
> 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 
> Hebrew uses the definite article just as English does. That  was Joseph 
> Wallack's basic contention. But it does not, and it is a mistake  to 
> assume that it does."
>  
> JW:
> I do not think that Hebrew uses the definite article exactly the same as  
> English does.

HH: O.K., I see. You were generalizing on the basis of what is normally 
the case.

> Gen. 41:42 Then Pharaoh took his  signet ring from his finger and put it 
> on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in  robes of fine linen and put a gold 
> chain around his neck.
>
> In Hebrew  it is literally "the gold chain." It is not the whole genera 
> 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 
> person in  Joseph's position. We don't know that or know that Joseph's 
> 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. 
> Cant 1:13 (bag); Ex 16:36  (omer)]. This, again, would be similar to the 
> usage in Gen 16:7 and 14:13,  where a specific thing is present in the 
> 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 
> who figures in this story). Such a usage does  not betray the basic 
> concept of the definite article, so the effort to  undermine an 
> established grammatical category is unnecessary. Of course this  is a 
> much smaller category of usage than the regular definite article, for  
> there are only a limited number of instances where the usage would be  
> suitable. But a limited number of occurrences of a usage does not  
> invalidate a usage."
>  
> JW:
> I have to confess again that here "the" gold chain sounds awkward. I accept  
> that USAGE of the definite article is more prevalent in Biblical Hebrew than 
> in  English but I think that is primarily due to the religious context, where 
> there  is a preference for the definite due to objectives of certainty and 
> authority.  Almost all of these uses of the definite article in Hebrew should or 
> at least  can be translated "the" in English. The instances of a preferred 
> translation of  "a" in English are relatively rare. By context we seem to lack an 
> example where  randomness is clearly defined, such as Moses saying to Pharoah, 
> "Behold, I will  now pull A Rabbi out of a Ha", with the Hebrew definite 
> article used. 
>  
> "Normally" is almost as good as "always" in establishing the Likely  
> translation of a word. I think it's clear by now that the Hebrew definite  article is 
> normally translated as "the" in English. Therefore, by itself,  without 
> considering the surrounding context yet, the use of the definite article  at 7:14 
> means a translation of "the" is likely. Agree or disagree?
>   

HH: David Kummerow shared with some of us an article written by a man 
named Ehrensvärd. It claimed to undermine the category of the definite 
article that you don't like. I went through only about a dozen of his 
examples. He was trying to undermine the force of 67 examples.  Some 
examples seemed implausible for the definite meaning that he tried to 
attribute to them. The strongest case of implausibility for me was with 
his example 11. This was the author's argument:

(11) He found him sitting under the oak tree [H)LH] (1 Kgs 13,14)
A known oak tree.

HH: In example 11, a prophet of God traveled from Judah to Bethel and 
was heading back to Judah, The sons of a man show their father the road 
that the man of God was taking back to Judah. The father followed the 
prophet and found him sitting under "the oak tree." There was evidently 
more than one road the man of God could have taken; otherwise the sons 
would not have had to show their father the road. If the readers don't 
even know the precise road, how can they know the well-known oak tree on it?

David thought it was too presumptuous of me to draw such a conclusion on 
the basis of my limited knowledge of the biblical situation, but the 
case is so weak in example 11 that it loses credibility, and there are 
several a bit like that. The reason I bring this author up is that he is 
trying to shoot holes in an established grammatical category found in 
numerous Hebrew grammars. It is related to several other categories of 
usage of the Hebrew article that are similar but different from English 
usage. These are grammarians from different centuries. It is not just 
these grammarians, for the translators of the King James Version drew 
similar conclusions back in the 1600's. And translators across a wide 
spectrum of beliefs  confirm the grammarians' judgment by likewise 
translating with the indefinite article where the Hebrew has the 
definite article.

Since the easier path is to translate with the definite article, there 
is a sense of judgment, based on the context, that has led this 
wide-ranging collection of scholars over centuries to prefer an 
indefinite-article translation in numerous instances in Scripture that 
have the definite article. So rather than point out the obvious, that 
the Hebrew definite article is normally translated with an English 
definite article, it is more incumbent on us to try to understand why 
this body of students has gone against the grain of common usage in 
these many cases and has even defined categories of usage to account for 
these exceptions to the rule.

That is what Ehrensvärd tried to do, coming up with various explanations 
for why there should be a definite article translation in cases where 
people have felt that the indefinite article was better. I found 
Ehrensvärd  unconvincing to the point that I did not see a need to read 
further in his article.

If one is honest with the context in Isaiah 7, there is no real reason 
to assume that there was any particular woman that the term in question 
pointed to. There is no other woman mentioned in the context except 
Isaiah's wife, who was not a virgin and seems to have had grown sons (so 
was not a young woman either). Good writers don't use totally obscure 
references, and I believe God inspired the biblical writers.

There is a plausible understanding for a translation that uses the 
indefinite article, and there are a host of other examples of such usage.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard  

>  
>