HH: "My argument was not that the generic use of the article was exactly the same as the usage of it in Gen 14:13, but they are similar. The one could lead to the other. I wrote to Joseph:
See the word "famine" in Isa 29:8. See how it is used with "silver" in Gen 13:2, or with "crimson" in Isa 1:18, or with "blindness" in Gen 19:11. In all these English would use "a/an" or nothing, not "the."
Or look at these cases below, all of which take the definite article in Hebrew, but an indefinite article in English:
like the heart of a lion (2 Sam 17:10)
as a dog laps (Judges 7:5)
as one hunts a partridge (1 Sam 26:20)
as one rends a kid (Judges 14:6)
If Hebrew could consider all these cases, which are clearly indefinite in English, as worthy of a definite article in a generic sense,"
JW:
None of the above are clearly indefinite in English. I've seen English translations with "the" for all but Judges 14:6. More importantly, none even sound awkward with "the".
You do seem here to accept though that there is a reason for use of the Hebrew definite article?
I accept that use of the Hebrew definite article may be used to emphasize a definite quality that would not be emphasized in English and hence the indefinite in English would be appropriate.
" then it is consistent to suppose that in Gen 14:13, where the idea can at first be a generic concept of one who escaped, that the author might use a definite article:
Gen. 14:13 ¶ One who had escaped came and reported this to Abram the Hebrew. Now Abram was living near the great trees of Mamre the Amorite, a brother of Eshcol and Aner, all of whom were allied with Abram."
JW:
I've seen the English "the" for this but this one does sound awkward and I think the English indefinite is preferred here.
Harold Holmyard
"In Gen 16:7 there can be a generic concept of a spring presented first, which receives further specification:
Gen. 16:7 The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur.
I am not saying that it is exactly the same as the generic usage, but it is so close that I can imagine a smooth transition from one to the other in Hebrew thinking. It is the generic put for the specific, which yields a somewhat indefinite idea. The problem, again, is in assuming that Hebrew uses the definite article just as English does. That was Joseph Wallack's basic contention. But it does not, and it is a mistake to assume that it does."
JW:
I do not think that Hebrew uses the definite article exactly the same as English does.
Gen. 41:42 Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck.
In Hebrew it is literally "the gold chain." It is not the whole genera that was put around his neck, and it seems to be begging the question to assume that there was a well-known gold necklace that was bestowed on a person in Joseph's position. We don't know that or know that Joseph's position was even a regular position. Did every king take off his signet ring and put it on the finger of a subordinate? The text speaks of robes of fine linen, but not particular ones. So this may be a specific use of the definite article, as Waltke says, to refer to measured units. [cf. Cant 1:13 (bag); Ex 16:36 (omer)]. This, again, would be similar to the usage in Gen 16:7 and 14:13, where a specific thing is present in the speaker's or writer's mind, but it is an otherwise unidentified specific thing (the one who escaped that I have in mind -- the one who escaped who figures in this story). Such a usage does not betray the basic concept of the definite article, so the effort to undermine an established grammatical category is unnecessary. Of course this is a much smaller category of usage than the regular definite article, for there are only a limited number of instances where the usage would be suitable. But a limited number of occurrences of a usage does not invalidate a usage."
JW:
I have to confess again that here "the" gold chain sounds awkward. I accept that USAGE of the definite article is more prevalent in Biblical Hebrew than in English but I think that is primarily due to the religious context, where there is a preference for the definite due to objectives of certainty and authority. Almost all of these uses of the definite article in Hebrew should or at least can be translated "the" in English. The instances of a preferred translation of "a" in English are relatively rare. By context we seem to lack an example where randomness is clearly defined, such as Moses saying to Pharoah, "Behold, I will now pull A Rabbi out of a Ha", with the Hebrew definite article used. "Normally" is almost as good as "always" in establishing the Likely translation of a word. I think it's clear by now that the Hebrew definite article is normally translated as "the" in English. Therefore, by itself, without considering the surrounding context yet, the use of the definite article at 7:14 means a translation of "the" is likely. Agree or disagree?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.