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: I'm beginning to fear that at the present rate of discussion theMessiahcould 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 agreethatthe Hebrew Definite article is used. My position is that for starters thisindicates 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 Hebrewhearer, Isay that "the" is the likely English translation. I'm guessing that your current position is that you agree with me that this known person islikelyknown 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, ifyouagree that the person is known to Isaiah but think this person is unknownto theHebrew 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?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.