Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JoeWallack AT aol.com
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14
  • Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:25:29 EDT

In a message dated 7/10/2007 2:52:30 PM Central Daylight Time,
hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net writes:

Dear Joseph,
> HH: I should have been clearer. If the context lacked a specific person
> that the hearer could identify, he might have been able to understand
> that the reference was generic and indefinite.
>
> JW:
> Genesis 14:13 is Narrative, not Dialogue.

HH: What difference does that make to the discussion one way or the other?
JW:
Because 7:14 is Dialogue and in Dialogue there is a clear Hearer. A better
question for you is why is it so hard to find an example of a speaker in
Dialogue using the definite article and the Hebrew Hearer not knowing the
identity?


>JW: "If the context" lacked a specific
> person
> that the hearer could identify". The most likely explanation is that the
> identity is known to the speaker and not the hearer and the hearer
understands
> this.

HH: It would be good if you identified exactly what you meant by the
terms "speaker" and "hearer" because there is no direct speech in Gen
14:13. The speaker could be the narrator; the hearer could be the one
who hears the words read.

JW:
I'm using Hebrew Hearer in connection with Explicit Dialogue.


> JW: You want the possibility that the identity is known to the Speaker
and
> the Hearer does not know that the identity is known to the speaker. Even
if
> this is possible, isn't it unlikely? And considering that the same Author
is
> writing the part for Speaker and Hearer isn't it more than unlikely that
there
> would be this type of misunderstanding? Still waiting for an example of
this
> in the Hebrew Bible.
>

HH: If I accept that the escapee is the speaker and Abraham is the
hearer in Gen 14:13, since the author is writing the part for them, what
difference does it make whether or not Abraham the hearer knows the
identity of the person speaking, beyond the fact that he is an escapee?
And of course, the escapee knew his own identity as the speaker. And
Abraham would know that the speaker knew his own identity. I think I am
misunderstanding what you are saying. Are you perhaps ambiguously giving
two different meanings to the term speaker (narrator and escapee).

JW:
My point (remains) is that 14:13 is not very relevant to our issue of 7:14.
In addition to its lack of
Dialogue, you youself have pointed out that the Speaker (escapee) is not
identifying any third party.

When I say "Narrator" I mean author.


>
>JW: I'm beginning to fear that at the present rate of discussion the
Messiah
> could actually arrive before we determine his/her identity.

HH: Are you trying to identify whether the person in Isa 7:14 is or is
not the Messiah? I think you can have it both ways, given the structure
of the Book of Isaiah and the possibility for a double use of the words.
I believe Isaiah uses Immanuel to speak about near events and also about
far events. His appearance in chapter 8 (8:8, 10), a transition chapter
between 7 and 9, points in this direction to me, since the historical
Immanuel is an otherwise unknown person, yet the Immanuel in chapter 8
may be an important person, like the child in chapter 9. There is a lot
of reuse of elements from 7:14 in 9:6, which also suggests a relation
between the two children.

JW:
Peter, this is Exegesis.


>JW: In order to try and
> avoid this contingency let me try to speed things up here. Regarding the
> offending word of 7:14 and with Apologies to Isaac Fried, you and I agree
that
> the Hebrew Definite article is used. My position is that for starters this

> indicates a defnite and therefore, known person to the Hebrew speaker,
Isaiah.

HH: But you haven't proved that the definite article implies that the
person is known to Isaiah in the sense that he knows the name of the
person.

JW:
If the person is known to Isaiah this Implies that Isaiah knows the name.


HH:
Isaiah could simply know the person as a woman within God's
prophecy. Even if the definite article clearly indicates definiteness,
there is no requirement that Isaiah personally knew or could identify
the person when he conveyed a prophecy that had a general application.

JW:
The definite article Implies (as opposed to "proves") that Isaiah knows the
who and the name.


>JW: At
> this point, whether or not this known person is known to the Hebrew
hearer, I
> say that "the" is the likely English translation. I'm guessing that your
> current position is that you agree with me that this known person is
likely
> known to Isaiah. Yes or no?

HH: This is a complex question, especially because this prophecy seems
to involve a double fulfillment. I believe it had a fulfillment in
Isaiah's time, and I don't think he knew what virgin he was speaking
about there, since the term "the virgin" could be generic, one who is in
the status of virginity.

JW:
Do you think Isaiah knew it was a double prophecy?


HH:
The generic use could become more specific as
details pile up. Or it could have been a specific woman God informed him
about in prophecy without his having any idea who in particular it was:
someone in Israel. I think Isaiah associated Immanuel with the child
described in chapter 9. However, how much Isaiah knew or did not know
about the mother of the child in chapter 9 is unclear. All mothers are
virgins at some point in their lives. The virgin in Isa 7:14 did not
have to give birth while she was still a virgin. The understood verbs
could be future: one who is a virgin (now) will in the future be
pregnant and will be bearing a child.

JW:
You keep answering "possible" when I ask "probable". When you do that are
you refusing to give a "probable" or conceding my "probable"?


> JW: I understand you think it possible that this person
> is unknown to the Hebrew hearer. Do you think that likely? Finally, if
you
> agree that the person is known to Isaiah but think this person is unknown
to the
> Hebrew hearer, do you think "a" is a possible translation or should be
> probable?
>

HH: If by hearer you mean the person Isaiah was speaking to, of course I
think it is possible that the virgin was unknown to him.

JW:
You again answer a question I didn't ask.

HH: No woman is
mentioned in the context. It would probably be poor writing to speak so
significantly about a specific person in the context and not even
identify the person or even indicate that she was in the context. It is
a bit doubtful that there was some particular person identified to all
Israel as "the virgin." But this book was written for the nation of
Israel. Not only that, it was written for future generations, as Isaiah
elsewhere speaks of events in the future and of people who will live in
the future. He addresses generations that go into exile to Babylon and
later return to Israel.

JW:
See my previous comment.

HH: If you believe in the NT, then it was written
for future generations for many centuries to come (1 Pet 1:10-12). So it
would seem to be poor writing, if the woman was well-known, not to
identify her for all these people, who were not there in Isaiah's time
and would perhaps not otherwise know who he was talking about,

JW:
Now you are using 1 Pet 1:10-12 to help translate 7:14?



HH: I can only go by what the text says, and there is no indication in
the text that Isaiah knew the person he was talking about or that the
readers did. The generic use of the definite article seems to make
assumptions about Isaiah or his audience knowing the person unnecessary.

JW:
"I can only go by what the text says". First consider what preceded. Raymond
Brown would
find your "no indication" above "fantastic". Is your position now that the
definite article in
7:14 is probably used generically?



Joseph Wallack





************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page