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
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.