Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Object of "lamo" in Isaiah 53

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Object of "lamo" in Isaiah 53
  • Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:29:49 -0500

Dear Steve,
HH; I don't know about Karl's second point, but on the first one let me
cite John Oswalt's commentary on Isaiah 40-66 (NICOT) as it looks at Isa
53:8 in footnote 16 (p. 390):

MT LeMo would usually be translated "(belonging) to them." But Ps 11:7
and Job 22:2 show that the suffix can be taken as a singular, as the
Syriac and Vulgate have it here. LXX has "he was led to death" (LeMoT?),
on the basis off which many commentators (e.g. Whybray) have adopted "he
was stricken to death." But the LXX reading is made suspect by the
tendency of this version to give creative readings for difficult MT
passages in this composition (as also do the Syr. and Vulg.).

HH: Oswalt translates the verse in literalistic fashion: "From
oppression and from judgment he was taken, and his generation, who has
considered it? For he was cut off from the land of the living, from the
transgressions of my people the blow is his.


[Steve Miller] Thanks Harold. These 2 verses do not show me that the -MW suffix can refer to an
individual.
Ps 11:7 ... The upright will behold His face.
PNYMW refers to the face of God. God can take a plural pronoun (Gen 1:26;
11:7; 3:22; Isa 6:8). This is the only occurrence of PNYMW in the Tanach
(searching for the exact consonant spelling).

HH: Your logic is unconvincing to me because the other references to God in Ps 11:7 are singular. The adjective CDYQ ("righteous") is singular. The verb )HB ("he loves") is singular. Except for special cases (and this does not seem to be one of them), there is agreement between subjects, verbs, and their pronominal references in Hebrew.

None of your verses are good references because all they show is that God sometimes uses the first person plural when he speaks. He might include the angels when he talks this way (including the seraphim in Isa 6:8, for example). You have to distinguish grammatical elements from merely contextual ones. Some other references to God are singular in these verses you cite. I agree that sometimes the word "elohim" does take plural pronouns and verbs, however, even if it is referring to the true God. These are exceptional cases, and the pattern is that if one reference is plural, they will all be. If one reference is singular, they will all be.

Job 22:2 ... For he that is wise is profitable unto himself. (LYMW here does refer to an individual. In Hebrew the 3ms can be the
indefinite pronoun, best translated as "they" in English, (As Matthew did of
Isa 7:14 DSS in Matt 1:23). Job 22:2 could be translated "For they that are
wise are profitable to themselves." (LYMW is used 11 times in the Tanach. None refer to an individual.

HH: The Hebrew 3ms can be translated as the indefinite, but the singular is used for the singular indefinite, and the plural for the plural indefinite. Hebrew uses both the singular and the plural for the indefinite, and although an English Bible or a Greek translation might choose to translate a Hebrew singular with a plural "they," in Hebrew the singular and plural indefinite are distinct.

It is obvious that (LYMW is to be translated in the singular, just like the rest of the verse. GBR ("man") is singular. The verb YSKN is singular twice.

And anyway, you are not translating the verse logically when you offer an alternative translation. Here is the proper translation:

NIV: Job 22:2 “Can a man be of benefit to God? Can even a wise man benefit him?

NRSV: Job 22:2 “Can a mortal be of use to God?
Can even the wisest be of service to him?


HH: Here are other references to the suffix -MW used for the singular. I found these in GKC 103g, footnote 3. The grammar says, "The question whether LMW can also stand for the singular LW . . . must be answered in the affirmative unless we conclude . . . that all the instances concerned are due to corruptions in the text." The grammar goes on to cite Isa 44:15; Job 27:23; 20:23.

The footnote includes the two cases above that Oswalt mentioned, and this is what the grammar says: "in all these places the most extreme exegetical artifices can only be avoided by simply admitting a singular suffix."

Maybe these other references will help convince you.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page