Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JoeWallack AT aol.com]

In a message dated 7/18/2007 5:46:05 PM Central Daylight Time,  
if AT math.bu.edu writes:

Joseph,


1. I agree  with Harold that HINEH does not require physical  presence.

JW:
I agree too.
 

2. The  Hebrew "definite article" does not require the defined to be 
mentioned earlier  in the discourse if he is known otherwise.  

JW:
Agreed. The DA can create reasonable grounds all by itself. It's what it  
does. 
 

3. Virgin  is a theological code word that has no correspondence in the 
Hebrew bible, and  hence the discussion (ALMAH/virgin is vain. 

JW:
I have purposely avoided ThAlmah and BetaLouise here as it just distracts  
from the Definite Article issue.
 
 
IF:
4. Things would look and sound  much better if you replace "definite article" 
by "non-arbitrary  article".
 
JW:
Your point is that arbitrary/random is the more common usage and therefore  
should be the standard for definitions?
 
 
IF:
5. The fact that the prophet  said HA-(ALMAH [like saying HA-MALKAH] implies 
that he was referring to a known  person. The rest is theology.
 
JW:
While I agree and am interested in your opinion I'm not  that interested in 
unsupported assertions and I have Faith that those on the  other side here 
are 
even less interested in unsupported assertions. On the other  hand, I have to 
confess that until relatively recently, translation issues with  polemical 
context like this one, have traditionally been determined by how many  hold a 
certain position and how loudly they do so, as opposed to solely  
intellectual 
considerations.
 
 
 
Joseph Wallack
 
 
 

 
 



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