Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>]

Dear Joe,
> 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.
>
> JW:
> Here I think there is something of a Usage vs. Translation issue. If the  
> emphasis is on the specific type of animal than "the" should be used for  
> English. If the emphasis is on the indefinite animal within a type, than "a"  should 
> be used for English. Maybe the Hebrew is emphasizing the type here where  
> English would not. If so, a more literal translation would use "the" and a  
> "dynamic equivalent" translation would use "a", trying to present as if it was  
> composed in English. It seems to me that the "proper" translation would be more  
> dependent on the objective of the Translator (relative) rather than "right and  
> wrong" (absolute).

HH: I was talking about standard English usage. That's what we're 
talking about, how to translate into normal English.
> > JW: 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.
>
> JW:
> Whoa Nelliphim! The general example above of Hebrew having a different  
> emphasis is an INTER language issue. Theoretically all Hebrew Bible  speakers would 
> be on the same page, so to speak. Your example in the preceding  paragraph is 
> an INTRA language issue. The subject is definite to the Hebrew  Bible speaker 
> and indefinite to the Hebrew Bible hearer. The default position is  that what 
> is definite to the Hebrew Bible speaker would be definite to the  Hebrew 
> Bible hearer. What specific examples of this do you claim (other than  7:14 of 
> course)?
>   

HH: It can serve most of the examples we've discussed, theoretically all 
of them, since it is a category of usage for which these examples are 
cited. And the thought could be the same in the reader's mind as in the 
writer's. It does not have to be, as you suggest, definite for one and 
indefinite for the other. It is equally definite and generic for both. 
The one who escapes, if we provisionally accept that idea for Gen 14:13, 
would be, in both writer and hearer, a genus: "the one who escaped," 
used specifically of an otherwise unidentified person who came to 
Abraham with news of Sodom.
>  
>  
>   
> > HH:
> > 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.
> >     
>
>
> JW:
> As far as using the observation that there is no other woman mentioned in  
> the context, if your meaning above is that this by itself forces a conclusion of 
>  indefinite, that is proof-texting. If I, in return, pointed out one  
> consideration as proof of definite I have Faith that you would likewise be  
> unimpressed.
>   

HH: Here's the rub. I have only a limited amount of time to devote to 
this subject. There is a great deal of support for this category of 
usage by grammarians and translators. So I have no predisposition to 
reject it. Numerous examples are given of the usage. Focusing on the 
particular case in view, Isa 7:14, there seem to be good reasons to 
support it. Having looked at arguments presented to overthrow about a 
dozen of the supposed cases of the usage, I found the counter-arguments 
weak or unconvincing. So I, for the time being, have no motivation to go 
into this further.

HH: From my perspective, it is wise to go along with grammars and other 
scholars unless there is strong reason to reject what their wisdom over 
the centuries has accumulated. Since I have nothing that weighs heavily 
against their view so far, I look at the few who have reservations as 
people who bear the burden of proving the accepted category to be wrong. 
I have seen nothing that does this so far. David suggests that if I read 
the whole article that he provided, I might change my mind. If I have 
time, I will read further in it.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard