Steven Avery

Jack, I do hope you know the weakness of basing any argument on "Concordance analysis". Without at least checking the lexicon, the context, and the commentaries, including Jewish ones for Tanach.

Very good. And it doesn't mean wounded in verse 3 or 4. Griefs or pains is an excellent translation. To go into it more might be worthwhile. Pusey does a bit in the Driver/Neubauer book.

Majority usage is a terrible type of analysis. What Abarbanel said is very clear, and fits the context well.

This of course is circular. Anyway the context of verse 10 also has to deal with "to bruise him" making it analagous to the Chronicles verse, as pointed out by Abarbanel.

So again, you are back to accusing Abarbanel to translating for Christian distortion ??
Or not knowing Hebrew ? Jack, please.

And Jack, I really don't care at all about the Greek OT in general, or on Isaiah 53. For a variety of reasons (see the Daniel Sapp paper for Isaiah and Floyd Nolen Jones for general) It is of much less significance than the Vulgate and Peshitta and Targum. No I haven't looked them up on these verses, you are welcome to.

And the only Christian Bible that I consider significant is the King James Bible, although of course the Tyndale and Geneva have great historic significance as well, with generally equivalent readings.

I'm likely done with this till after shabbat, but I will be happy to try to get back to it after that.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

This is a typical response: shoot the messenger, not the message. That way you don't really have to understand what's going on.

Quoting people's opinions is a rather worthless response, wouldn't you say?

Oh rubbish. When you have only the corpus to tell you what lexical items mean, you have no other way of analysis. You look at how a word is actually used: you have no other authority here, but the text. To call such a method "terrible" simply says you don't understand linguistic methodology. You see how words such as XLH and its various related forms are actually used. You develop an understanding of its

You seem much more interested in pushing a particular view than ever understanding a text, so you avoid the responsibility of dirtying your hands with what it actually says. You've done this thread after thread.

What Abarbanel said may have been clear, but what did he actually say?

There is nothing circular about context. You look at how a lexical item is used in other contexts, then you compare the context of the present usage with what has already been gleaned of the word's usage. Again, common linguistic method. You seem to offer no means of determining the validity of the readings you are championing: this seems to be because you have no means to do so. If you can't call on the way the language is used at the time of its production then you have nothing to say about the text, do you?

There is nothing about "bruise" in the text.You should read it before relying on an antiquated translation of it. Jack has already pointed out that the verb, DC), means "to crush". Going to the venerable BDB we find out that it is frequently used figuratively, though you may like to face a literal use of "to crush" and suffer from the fact that it is irrelevant to your cause.

Simply wrong. You need fiddle DC), which you have to mistranslate as "bruise". That is not honest. There is no analogy.

Incidentally, what is the exact source for Abarbanel's comment. I've seen him abused before.

Given that that was not the earliest Jewish understanding of the particular text (see Contra Celsus 1,55), nor the mainstream, nor even apparently Abarbanel's own understanding of the text, as he "did not believe in a suffering messiah", what do you think it was?

This seems a rather ironic statement from you, don't you think?

Turning your back on more of the earliest witnesses to the significance of the text does nothing for whatever case you would eventually like to put forward.

It would be more helpful to cite exact references rather than to name drop.

Then, why did you mention them if you are too lazy to do the necessary work? And why your bias against the LXX, when it is an important early witness? You are cutting off your nose to spite your face. Just on the Vulgate, the term used in 53:10, in infirmitate supports the LXX and the normal reading of XLH. I have seen you provide not one jot of evidence for your avid support of an outdated and erroneous translation.

This of course explains your state of error.

You can't afford to rely on translations, especially old ones, for critical significances. And you are supporting your now variant readings not with linguistic evidence, but with old opinions.

Translation, as an art and a skill, improves with more knowledge about the relevant languages and with more scientific linguistic underpinnings. You should temper your zeal for these outdated, though fine, translations (the KJV was a wonderful translation for its time, but even the Jacobean language causes errors in modern interpretation), with fine modern translations such as the new JPS translation or the New RSV.


spin

gregor

spin - good to read your posts again.

spin

Interesting cut and paste here from me. Hopefully, readers will understand that I left off something to the drift of: "(You develop an understanding of its) range of meaning through its usage in various contexts."

And a slight transcription error on my part: the verb "to crush" should have been transliterated DK) -- for some reason I'd put a C instead of a K.These are used for different sounds in transliteration: C usually indicates a tsade (a strong s-like sound) and K indicates a kaf (as in "kick").


Now, once again, off to the ether.


spin