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: Tory Thorpe <torythrp AT yahoo.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14
  • Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:33:20 -0400

This is becoming offensive. Citing it is one thing, but I cannot see how it is even remotely list-appropriate to actually quote from a Christian commentary on the significance of the definite article in Isa. vii 14.

Tory Thorpe


On Jul 15, 2007, at 2:12 AM, Bryant J. Williams III wrote:

Dear Joe,

See the following quote from Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, Volume II, Job- Isaiah,
Jer.-Mal., page 586:

"a virgin - from the root, to lie hid, virgins being closely kept from men's
gaze in their parent's custody in the East. The Hebrew [ha'almah] and the
LXX. here, and the Greek [hH PARQENOS], Matt. i.23, have the article, 'the'
virgin, some definite one known to the speaker and his hearers; primarily,
the woman, then a virgin, about immediately to become the prophet's second
wife,, and to bear a child, whose attainment of the age of discrimination
(about three years) should be preceded by the deliverance of Judah from its
two invaders. The term 'ha'mah' denotes 'a girl of marriageable age,' but
not married, and therefore a 'virgin' by implication. Bethulah is the term
more directly expressing virginity of a bride or betrothed wife (Joel 1.8).
Its fullest significancy is realized in " 'the' woman (Gen. iii.15) whose
'seed should bruise the serpent's head,' and deliver captive man (Jer.
xxxi.21,22, "O virgin of Israel, turn again...for the Lord hath created a
new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man;" ..."

It should be noted that the discussion is not the meaning of "virgin" which
has been covered in previous sessions (see archives on B-Hebrew and B-Greek
and respective passages), but on the use of the article being definite. It
appears that way in Genesis 3:15, "THE woman," et al. It is clear that God,
through Isaiah, wants to make it quite clear to Ahaz that a "definite
virgin" is clearly in mind and is known. Who that "virgin" is or whether I
agree with the above quote that it refers to "Isaiah's second wife" is not
the issue. That is a speculative thought, albeit may fit the context of
8:1ff. What is the issue is that the "article" is definite regardless
whether it refers to Isaiah's wife/betrothed or another's wife/ betrothed who
is a virgin, of marriageable age and presumed to be a virgin unless
otherwise indicated. It is not used in a generic and indefinite sense in
this passage.

Furthermore, the actual sign given to Ahaz is prove to him, even in his
unbelief as a descendant of David that the promise of II Samuel 7 is an
unconditional promise to have a descendant on the throne of David regardless
of the two kings who were trying to force is hand. Therefore, the article is
used to point in that direction.

En Xristwi,

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
----- Original Message -----
From: <JoeWallack AT aol.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14


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
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy
of Com-Pair Services!



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.6/900 - Release Date: 7/14/07
3:36 PM




For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services!

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page