Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jason Hare" <jaihare AT gmail.com>]

Peter:

Indeed. I am surprised that this topic has continued for so long and
with so many mistatements. This is a good summary of the situation,
though. HRH is definitely an adjective in this situation (who
disagrees with this?). I saw someone say that it was a perfective
form, but this obviously isn't true, as you are saying below.

There is no time marker in the text of Isaiah 7:14. The time markers
come afterwards, when the subject of the two enemy kingdoms is again
brought up in relation to the child to be born of the young woman in
question. Her identity doesn't matter. The connection is made between
the fall of the Northern Kingdom along with its ally, Samaria, and the
youth of the child to be born. This places the prophecy in a very
specific time frame, and it moves statements about "virgin births" and
"double fulfilments" into an extra-textual category of argument --
leaving these things to the reader's faith, but finding no basis for
them within the text itself.

Regards,
Jason Hare
Joplin, MO > Rishon LeZion (Israel)

>
> It is not a verb. Two pieces of evidence for this:
>
> 1) This is not the correct form for a verb with a feminine subject,
> which would be /harata(h)/ as in Genesis 16:4,5, contrast Psalm 7:15
> (7:14 in English) where the subject is masculine.
>
> 2) The regular construction after /hinne(h)/ is a verbless clause with
> an adjective or participle. I note that the verb HRH does not seem to
> have a regular participle, but the adjective /hara(h)/ (feminine form
> only attested) seems to function as its participle.
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
> Blog:    http://www.qaya.org/blog/
> Website: http://www.qaya.org/
>