Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Tory Thorpe <torythrp AT yahoo.com>]

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