Stripe or Stripes?

In the May 2004 issue of TBCin the Q&A section, Dave referred to the Hebrew word, chabburah(or chaburah), from Isaiah:53:5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
See All..., noting that although it is translated “stripes” in the KJV, in the Hebrew, the word itself is actually singular. In the September 2004 issue, again in the Q&A section, a reader challenged Dave on this, stating that the word is “unmistakably plural” and demanding a retraction. Dave indicated that he had obtained his information from The MacArthur Study Bible. The Berean Call has received a number of letters from knowledgeable people who stand behind the singular ending. A sampling follows:

From Ret. Gen. Shimon Erem, President of Israel Christian Nexus, and WWII general who served in the Jewish Brigade of the British Army: Re chabburah, you are right: Chabburah is singular and not plural. Every Hebrew teacher (and speaker) will confirm it. (Anyone who denies [it] is not a Hebrew teacher.)

From Richard L. Mayhue, Th.D., ExecutiveVice President, The Master’s College and Seminary:As the managing editor of The MacArthur Study Bible, I was quite interested in the accusation that the note on Isaiah:53:5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
See All... was in error. We certainly would never claim that the notes are infallible. However, when they are correct, we believe it to be our responsibility to stand behind them and alert those who would take issue with them. Let me affirm, for the record, that the Hebrew noun translated “stripes” uses a grammatical singular ending immediately prior to the masculine possessive suffix. This has been validated by the able Old Testament scholars on our faculty….

A pastor sent the following: Even when the convincing word “unmistakably” is used [see Sept. ’04 Q&A], a goodBerean knows better than to submit to such a claim.

From a reader:I just read [your response to the] question in the September newsletter. John MacArthur is indeed correct, the Hebrew word in question is in the singular, not the plural. The following is…from the Westminster Hebrew OT Morphology…: hr'WBx; noun common feminine singular construct, suffix 3rd person masculine singular.

A pastor, citing The Analytical Hebrew Lexicon, stated:The fellow who challenged your Hebrew word chabburah is dead wrong. I teach Hebrew. It is a noun, feminine, singular. Plural would end in “oth” or “ot.” MacArthur is correct.

From a reader who cited the Hebrew/Englishdictionary and confirmed it with an Israeli Orthodox Jew who is a student of the Hebrew Scriptures: The word used in the Hebrew text of Isaiah:53:5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
See All... is a singular word related to chaburah (which means “wound”—singular). The actual form of the Hebrew in this verse is chaburato, which means “his wound.” (If it were “his wounds”—plural—the Hebrew would be, in the plural, chaburatav). The confusion concerning the word (whether it should be singular or plural) lies in the fact that this word is made up of the very same Hebrew letters (chet-bet/vet-vav-raysh-hey) as the word chavurah, which means “group” or “gang” (plural in meaning). Both words (chaburah/chavurah) are in the singular form. The plurals for both have a different ending: “ot”(thus, chaburbot—wounds) and “at” (chavurat—groups). The difference, when reading it in the Hebrew, is in the pronunciation—whether the sound of the letter “b” (bet) or “v” (vet). Both words are represented by the same Hebrew character (see below). The difference in the two is in the marking as to whether it is a “b” sound or a “v” sound. When no markings are present in the Hebrew, the reader would distinguish which word/meaning is being used (“wound” or “group”) simply by context.

Another reader notes: When I looked at the Hebrew text, it appeared to be singular but could easily be mistaken for the plural form. The following references all confirm that it is singular: Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew Lexicon; Davidson’s Analytical Hebrew Lexicon; Englishman’s Hebrew-Chaldee Concordance; The Greek Old Testament Septuagint. By the way, your reply was excellent.

From the person who originated the question in the September 2004 issue: I owe you an apology. Further stretching of my limited ability in Hebrew revealed that the word chabburah…is indeed in the singular construct form rather than the plural….You were right and I was wrong. I was waylaid by the placement of the tau and my own rustiness in that language. I am sorry I troubled you about that particular detail with such dogged vehemence.