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.
"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.
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.
I'm beginning to fear that at the present rate of discussion the Messiah could actually arrive before we determine his/her identity.
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.
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?
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?
JW:there is
If I understand the category correctly it is something definite to the author that is indefinite to the immediate Hebrew hearer. I don't thinkany such category of Hebrew as the previous sentence has a natural contradiction. If someone did accept such a category than they would havea huge amountof Uncertainty regarding whether any Author meant the Definite orIndefinite.An uncertainty I have Faith you do not possess.
HH: Context could give clarification. If no virgin has been mentioned or is ever mentioned to the reader, he can gather that some other idea is in view than a clearly identified individual.
JW:
Based on your qualifications above, in general I find this logical.
JW:
Well you might want to do a current survey of translations. I believe thatnow the majority of Christian translations have "the".
HH: True, but English allows a somewhat similar idea to the Hebrew use of the article that I learned. The reader can take "the virgin" as generic if he chooses to do so. It is the typical young woman in Israel. She gets pregnant, bears a child, and names him "Immanuel" because of the hope she has in God and his protection of Israel.
JW:
Yes, this is a superior translation because it uses what's written in Hebrew ("the") and you present a possible understanding. But translations should be based on probable and not possible. Same question as before though. Do you think the young woman was known to Isaiah? Do you think the young woman was known to Isaiah's immediate audience? If at least one of your answers is yes, can you avoid "the" being the likely translation?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.