Again, I list my comments under the verse that I thought of them as a way of being specific about my insights. Like Rick, I am recording my thoughts tabula rasa (I am speaking tongue in cheek, as Rick was). I may modify them later.
54:1 (1) The barren woman theme is redolent of Genesis, if I am remembering Genesis correctly. Is the barren woman simply a metaphor for Israel? Or is it something more? (2) What does the proliferation of sons from the barren woman indicate? How are they more than those of the married woman? (Is a particular married woman from Genesis in mind?)
54:2 The tent metaphor in this verse seems to suggest that the "family" under the "tent" will push a normal "tent" to its limits. But could the metaphor also invoke a sense of hospitality? (Granted, this is further from what I gather is the immediate context.)
54:3 (1) The female subjects of the verbs seem to suggest the barren woman continues to be the subject of this section. (2) What does it mean to "be heirs (or 'take possession of') the nations?" Again, does this suggest hospitality toward the nations? Or does it suggest slavery or destruction of the nations? Do the uninhabited cities in the second part of this verse suggest destruction of the peoples that make up the nations?
54:4 How does widowhood fit into the imagery of a barren woman? These two metaphors seem to conflict with the concept of the barren woman in Genesis. How does a widow bring forth offspring?
54:5 (1) If the barren woman is a widow, does this mean that YHWH died? (2) What does "God of all the earth" suggest? Is this a reference to land or people? The previous imagery seems to be ambiguous, and here the ambiguity continues. Either God is god of all the people that comprise the nations, or God is god of Israel who now dwells in the cities of all the peoples who died. (Is there another option?)
54:6 (1) The placement of spirit (ruah) is a bit ambiguous. I put it with what goes before (she who is hurt in spirit) rather than what comes after (spirit of YHWH). (2) K-B suggests "a wife who was married as a virgin (intact)" instead of "wife of youth." The context, however, does not seem to require the idea of "intactness" within this imagery.
54:7 (1) "I have left you for just a little while"--it was God who left (i.e., initiated the divorce), which makes sense, yet this seems noteworthy. (2) Apparently, after this "divorce," God fell in love again.
54:8 The "perpetual loving-kindness" seems doubtful in light of what YHWH did when his anger flowed. How can the people trust him? How will they know that YHWH will not do this again when his anger flows again?
54:9 Okay, now I am understanding a little better. YHWH is swearing never to be angry again just as he earlier swore to Noah never to flood the earth again. This is a bit strange. It seems easier to swear never to act in a certain way in one's anger than to swear never to be angry. Is YHWH becoming less human at this point?
54:10 The "covenant of my peace," then, must refer to YHWH's swearing never to become angry again.
54:11 (1) What are the precious stones set in? Eye make-up?! Or is this perhaps just something decorative that decorates the setting around the precious stone as eye make-up decorates the area around the eye? (2) I didn't know anything about the rock lapis-lazuli until I read this passage.
54:12 (1) Does shemesh (lit., in the plural, "suns") really refer to battlements (K-B)? Battlements certainly seems to fit the context better than suns, but how can we determine this? (2) There are a lot of precious stones here that seem to be somewhat elusive in the exact mineral they refer to.
54:13 What does it mean to be pupils of YHWH?
54:15 Is the best translation of the end of the verse "he who attacks you will fall on you" or "he who attacks you will fall on account of you?"
54:16 The craftsman plays a different role here than earlier in Deut-Isa, where he made idols.
The small inconsistencies of metaphor (e.g., the barren woman who is also the widow) are fascinating to me. These wrinkles may give us clues concerning the social context of the composition of this text. For example, the barren woman and widow imagery adds a new layer of complexity to the stereotypical barren woman story from Genesis. Not only does the woman lack offspring, but her husband (YHWH?) has also died.
Justin
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Comments on Isaiah 43:1-21
Below are my comments on this passage. I have listed the comments by verse as a way of indicating more specifically when these thoughts came to mind. (Oftentimes, these observations were applicable to more than one verse in the passage.) This is not meant to be a commentary!
Verse 1
כֹּֽה־אָמַ֤ר יְהוָה֙
This is the third occasion of YHWH speaking in Deut-Isa, but in my opinion, this is the most direct set up for a pronouncement thus far.
The creating/forming language seems to stress Israel's obligation to God in return for his creating/forming them. This language seems odd, more reminiscent of the creation accounts than the formation of Israel as a people. Why does the text use this language? Does this language suggest that Israel would not exist (!) without God's initial action? Or does it merely reflect God's prospering the people of Israel? Strange! (Compare verse 7.)
Verse 2
Are the flames and water(s) in this verse metaphorical or indicative of something concrete in Israel's (putative) past? When I first translated this, I translated the futures in a future sense, and the perfects with a past sense, but I am by all means open to other possibilities. Is this passing over/through a (supposedly) future event or a reference to past events?
Verse 3
How does this sort of redemption work? What does it mean to give Cush or Saba in exchange for Israel? How would the mechanics of such an exchange work? (Despite my "mechanical" question, I'm trying to understand the imagery.) Does this exchange refer to "captivity" (or something like it)?
Verse 4
וְאֶתֵּ֤ן אָדָם֙ תַּחְתֶּ֔יךָ
The second word of this phrase, which I translate "humankind," seems as though it should be plural (Koehler-Baumgartner, ad loc.).
Verses 5 and 6
The directional phrases of this verse (and the following verse) suggest that the vision of the "bringing in" that the prophet envisions here is much more encompassing than Babylon. This depends in part on where the speaker is speaking from, which is perhaps still up for grabs in terms of the historical construction we are contriving (I don't mean this pejoratively) in class.
Verse 11
The speaker emphatically (I, I . . . ) identifies him- (its?-) self. Why? Is there confusion regarding who the speaker is? Or is this a way of proclaiming that YHWH is the highest (or only [!]) god?
Verse 12
YHWH identifies himself as (an?) אֵֽל.
Verse 14
Is this what it means to have a nation take the place of Israel? What does this say about the nature of redemption for Deut-Isa?
Verse 16
How many different Hebrew words are there for way/path?!
Verse 18
Why not remember/mention the former things?
Verse 21
If YHWH has created these people for himself, what does this mean about the other peoples? Are they created for other gods? Or are they not created but rather just exist?
CONCLUSION
I am still taken aback by the creation language concerning Israel, in part because I do not understand why the text would attempt to make such a move. Does this language extend beyond the normal calling language because the audience this text was addressed to may have no longer considered themselves "called"? Or did YHWH no longer exist for them? Thus the author pushed the obligation of Israel to YHWH back to the creation of this people rather than the covenant made with them? I don't know the answer to these questions, but I would love to hear your thoughts!
ADDENDUM
I (following Blenkinsopp) don't see a need to understand the "former things" in verse 18 as merely those things that have preceded "Deut-Isa." Having said this, I'm not really sure what "the former things" refers to. I'm not sure what the text is saying here, so I would like to explore this more in class.
The prophet(s) of Deut-Isa is certainly different from what I know of other major (and minor) prophets, as Weinfeld points out. The prophet of Deut-Isa may well resemble other ANE prophets. This is an interesting possibility, although I don't wish to make too much of it. I'm sure there is more to it than I know, but I feel at the moment like the ANE background is a bit of a "parellelomania" game. My question is, where does it get me to discover that the prophet may have been part of an ANE prophetic tradition rather than merely an Israelite tradition? I'm sure there is a good answer, but I'm having difficulty finding it at the moment.
Justin
Verse 1
כֹּֽה־אָמַ֤ר יְהוָה֙
This is the third occasion of YHWH speaking in Deut-Isa, but in my opinion, this is the most direct set up for a pronouncement thus far.
The creating/forming language seems to stress Israel's obligation to God in return for his creating/forming them. This language seems odd, more reminiscent of the creation accounts than the formation of Israel as a people. Why does the text use this language? Does this language suggest that Israel would not exist (!) without God's initial action? Or does it merely reflect God's prospering the people of Israel? Strange! (Compare verse 7.)
Verse 2
Are the flames and water(s) in this verse metaphorical or indicative of something concrete in Israel's (putative) past? When I first translated this, I translated the futures in a future sense, and the perfects with a past sense, but I am by all means open to other possibilities. Is this passing over/through a (supposedly) future event or a reference to past events?
Verse 3
How does this sort of redemption work? What does it mean to give Cush or Saba in exchange for Israel? How would the mechanics of such an exchange work? (Despite my "mechanical" question, I'm trying to understand the imagery.) Does this exchange refer to "captivity" (or something like it)?
Verse 4
וְאֶתֵּ֤ן אָדָם֙ תַּחְתֶּ֔יךָ
The second word of this phrase, which I translate "humankind," seems as though it should be plural (Koehler-Baumgartner, ad loc.).
Verses 5 and 6
The directional phrases of this verse (and the following verse) suggest that the vision of the "bringing in" that the prophet envisions here is much more encompassing than Babylon. This depends in part on where the speaker is speaking from, which is perhaps still up for grabs in terms of the historical construction we are contriving (I don't mean this pejoratively) in class.
Verse 11
The speaker emphatically (I, I . . . ) identifies him- (its?-) self. Why? Is there confusion regarding who the speaker is? Or is this a way of proclaiming that YHWH is the highest (or only [!]) god?
Verse 12
YHWH identifies himself as (an?) אֵֽל.
Verse 14
Is this what it means to have a nation take the place of Israel? What does this say about the nature of redemption for Deut-Isa?
Verse 16
How many different Hebrew words are there for way/path?!
Verse 18
Why not remember/mention the former things?
Verse 21
If YHWH has created these people for himself, what does this mean about the other peoples? Are they created for other gods? Or are they not created but rather just exist?
CONCLUSION
I am still taken aback by the creation language concerning Israel, in part because I do not understand why the text would attempt to make such a move. Does this language extend beyond the normal calling language because the audience this text was addressed to may have no longer considered themselves "called"? Or did YHWH no longer exist for them? Thus the author pushed the obligation of Israel to YHWH back to the creation of this people rather than the covenant made with them? I don't know the answer to these questions, but I would love to hear your thoughts!
ADDENDUM
I (following Blenkinsopp) don't see a need to understand the "former things" in verse 18 as merely those things that have preceded "Deut-Isa." Having said this, I'm not really sure what "the former things" refers to. I'm not sure what the text is saying here, so I would like to explore this more in class.
The prophet(s) of Deut-Isa is certainly different from what I know of other major (and minor) prophets, as Weinfeld points out. The prophet of Deut-Isa may well resemble other ANE prophets. This is an interesting possibility, although I don't wish to make too much of it. I'm sure there is more to it than I know, but I feel at the moment like the ANE background is a bit of a "parellelomania" game. My question is, where does it get me to discover that the prophet may have been part of an ANE prophetic tradition rather than merely an Israelite tradition? I'm sure there is a good answer, but I'm having difficulty finding it at the moment.
Justin
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Isaiah 40:12-26: Some Findings and Insights
I may add one or two things to this if I get the chance to do this before Monday.
Before I begin, I should note that I have included a preliminary translation (not required, but I'd love any input) with specific comments on the Hebrew in my first post (see below). I have added the present post in order to supplement those comments with broader observations.
1. The first three verses (40:12-14) in this "pericope" begin with the some form of the interrogative מִֽי ("who?"). The implication is that no one can fulfill the role that the text describes in these three verses. Verse 15 gives two הֵ֤ן clauses, the first of which glorifies God's (YHWH's?) abilities while simultaneously utterly demeaning the [significance?] of humankind in the eyes of God (YHWH?). The following verses continue the theme of extolling God at the expense of humankind. (For example, verse 22 argues that we human beings are but locusts.)
2. The text creates imagery (e.g., tent imagery) that makes the utter superiority of YHWH supervene upon the concerns of humankind (verse 23).
3. There is a subtle element of rulers being appointed by God (40:24?) as God's servants who do his bidding, which seems entirely appropriate for Deutero-Isaiah. If nothing else, at least the obverse of this is true: God brings rulers to nothing (40:23).
4. The "nothingness" theme causes one to wonder why YHWH might be concerned at all with humankind; in fact, for me, the nothingness language subtly undermines the text. Why would God care what human beings think about God? I really don't care what locusts think of me.
5. The legal language used in 40:14 is intriguing. Why would God need instruction in the legal process? Does this nullify the complaints against God?
6. This pericope seems to presuppose an arrogance on the part of the reader. The implied reader seems to believe that he or she knows a lot about God. Moreover, this pericope seems to discourage "wrestling with God" (!) because human beings are too insignificant. This seems contrary to what I would expect.
7. Numerous Hebrew words (blogger is preventing me from including the Hebrew here) present difficulties in this pericope. Here are the English tranlsations that reflect my decisions: "one-third" (verse 12), "bound-together things" (verse 19), "the one who sets up an image of wood" (verse 20), and "gauze" (verse 22). I am presently wondering how best to deal with these words and phrases.
I think the tendency for scholars is to offer speculative translations for these words (frequently based on shoddy linguistic practices), a practice which ends up misleading readers (whatever their reading level). I often wonder if indicating our lack of knowledge within the text (and not in a footnote, where the speculative translation might really belong) would better serve the reader. At any rate, this is only an important consideration for translating a work (which is what we are doing, in part, I gather). If we were merely reading the Hebrew without translating, this consideration would be irrelevant.
Before I begin, I should note that I have included a preliminary translation (not required, but I'd love any input) with specific comments on the Hebrew in my first post (see below). I have added the present post in order to supplement those comments with broader observations.
1. The first three verses (40:12-14) in this "pericope" begin with the some form of the interrogative מִֽי ("who?"). The implication is that no one can fulfill the role that the text describes in these three verses. Verse 15 gives two הֵ֤ן clauses, the first of which glorifies God's (YHWH's?) abilities while simultaneously utterly demeaning the [significance?] of humankind in the eyes of God (YHWH?). The following verses continue the theme of extolling God at the expense of humankind. (For example, verse 22 argues that we human beings are but locusts.)
2. The text creates imagery (e.g., tent imagery) that makes the utter superiority of YHWH supervene upon the concerns of humankind (verse 23).
3. There is a subtle element of rulers being appointed by God (40:24?) as God's servants who do his bidding, which seems entirely appropriate for Deutero-Isaiah. If nothing else, at least the obverse of this is true: God brings rulers to nothing (40:23).
4. The "nothingness" theme causes one to wonder why YHWH might be concerned at all with humankind; in fact, for me, the nothingness language subtly undermines the text. Why would God care what human beings think about God? I really don't care what locusts think of me.
5. The legal language used in 40:14 is intriguing. Why would God need instruction in the legal process? Does this nullify the complaints against God?
6. This pericope seems to presuppose an arrogance on the part of the reader. The implied reader seems to believe that he or she knows a lot about God. Moreover, this pericope seems to discourage "wrestling with God" (!) because human beings are too insignificant. This seems contrary to what I would expect.
7. Numerous Hebrew words (blogger is preventing me from including the Hebrew here) present difficulties in this pericope. Here are the English tranlsations that reflect my decisions: "one-third" (verse 12), "bound-together things" (verse 19), "the one who sets up an image of wood" (verse 20), and "gauze" (verse 22). I am presently wondering how best to deal with these words and phrases.
I think the tendency for scholars is to offer speculative translations for these words (frequently based on shoddy linguistic practices), a practice which ends up misleading readers (whatever their reading level). I often wonder if indicating our lack of knowledge within the text (and not in a footnote, where the speculative translation might really belong) would better serve the reader. At any rate, this is only an important consideration for translating a work (which is what we are doing, in part, I gather). If we were merely reading the Hebrew without translating, this consideration would be irrelevant.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
A Preliminary Translation of Isaiah 40:12-26 with Notes
Translation (I used HALOT where necessary):
40:12 Who measures with the hollow of his hand [the] water(s) and measures up the skies with the span [of his hand] and comprehends [the] dust of the earth with one-third* and weighs out with scales** the mountains and the hills with balances?
40:13 Who assesses*** the spirit of YHWH and lets a man know his advice?****
40:14 Together with whom does he consult, and [who?]***** will make him understand and will instruct him in [the] legal process (lit. 'path of a case') and will teach him knowledge and will let him know the way of understanding?
40:15 Behold, [the] people are like a speck from a bucket, and they are regarded as a layer of dust [on the] balances; behold, he will weigh the (distant) islands as a fine [thin covering].
40:16 Lebanon does not suffice for kindling [a fire?], and her animals do not suffice for a sacrifice which is wholly burned.
40:17 All the nations are as nothing in his opinion (lit. 'opposite to him'); they are regarded as from nothingness and nothing by+ him.
40:18 To whom shall you compare god, and what likeness will you compare him to?
40:19 A craftsman pours the divine image (from metal) and, smelting it with gold, will beat it out, and the bound-together things****** smelted with silver.
40:20 The one who sets up an image******* [of] wood [that] will not rot, he will choose; a skillful craftsman will find for himself [a way] to prepare a divine image; he will not be made to totter. [???????]
40:21 You (will) know, don't you? You have heard (will hear), haven't you? He has become known for your sake from the beginning: you have understood the foundations of the earth, have you not?
40:22 Sitting above [the] circle of the earth and those who inhabit it as locusts, spreading out [the] heavens as gauze,******** and he spreads them as a tent to be inhabited.
40:23 The one brings dignitaries to nothing, rulers of the earth he makes as nothing.
40:24 They have never yet been transplanted, never yet been sown, never yet has their shoot taken root in the earth; and he has also blown upon them, and they will whither, and a high wind will take them away as straw stubble.
40:25 And to whom shall you compare me that********* I am equal with (him or her)?" says the holy one.
40:26 Lift upward your eyes and see who created these? The one who bring out their numbered star[s]; for he appoints by name all of them; from the wealth of physical power and strong power, nobody is missing.
Notes:
* The Old Greek and the Vulgate suggest that the Hebrew word for "one-third" refers to another measurement taken by the hand.
** The Hebrew is singular, but the concept, I think, is plural.
*** I chose this translation because the exact same form of the word occurs in the previous verse. The proximity of these two occurences of the same word seems to suggest the meaning should be somewhat consistent, unless there is a play on words (and I don't think there is).
**** I know this differs from the English translations, but my translation reflects the use of the verb in the previous verse, where וְ plus a noun begins a verbal clause: וְשָׁמַ֙יִם֙ בַּזֶּ֣רֶת תִּכֵּ֔ן.
+ This is a lamed of relation (Juoun, 132f).
***** The interrogative particle with the preposition is not strictly parallel to the second verbal clause.
****** This is a hapax legomenon that presents some difficulty. I went with the Ugaritic slant.
******* The meaning of this phrase is elusive. Here I follow the Old Greek.
******** The meaning of this word is elusive (a hapax).
********* The vav expresses subordination here (see ad loc. HALOT 21).
40:12 Who measures with the hollow of his hand [the] water(s) and measures up the skies with the span [of his hand] and comprehends [the] dust of the earth with one-third* and weighs out with scales** the mountains and the hills with balances?
40:13 Who assesses*** the spirit of YHWH and lets a man know his advice?****
40:14 Together with whom does he consult, and [who?]***** will make him understand and will instruct him in [the] legal process (lit. 'path of a case') and will teach him knowledge and will let him know the way of understanding?
40:15 Behold, [the] people are like a speck from a bucket, and they are regarded as a layer of dust [on the] balances; behold, he will weigh the (distant) islands as a fine [thin covering].
40:16 Lebanon does not suffice for kindling [a fire?], and her animals do not suffice for a sacrifice which is wholly burned.
40:17 All the nations are as nothing in his opinion (lit. 'opposite to him'); they are regarded as from nothingness and nothing by+ him.
40:18 To whom shall you compare god, and what likeness will you compare him to?
40:19 A craftsman pours the divine image (from metal) and, smelting it with gold, will beat it out, and the bound-together things****** smelted with silver.
40:20 The one who sets up an image******* [of] wood [that] will not rot, he will choose; a skillful craftsman will find for himself [a way] to prepare a divine image; he will not be made to totter. [???????]
40:21 You (will) know, don't you? You have heard (will hear), haven't you? He has become known for your sake from the beginning: you have understood the foundations of the earth, have you not?
40:22 Sitting above [the] circle of the earth and those who inhabit it as locusts, spreading out [the] heavens as gauze,******** and he spreads them as a tent to be inhabited.
40:23 The one brings dignitaries to nothing, rulers of the earth he makes as nothing.
40:24 They have never yet been transplanted, never yet been sown, never yet has their shoot taken root in the earth; and he has also blown upon them, and they will whither, and a high wind will take them away as straw stubble.
40:25 And to whom shall you compare me that********* I am equal with (him or her)?" says the holy one.
40:26 Lift upward your eyes and see who created these? The one who bring out their numbered star[s]; for he appoints by name all of them; from the wealth of physical power and strong power, nobody is missing.
Notes:
* The Old Greek and the Vulgate suggest that the Hebrew word for "one-third" refers to another measurement taken by the hand.
** The Hebrew is singular, but the concept, I think, is plural.
*** I chose this translation because the exact same form of the word occurs in the previous verse. The proximity of these two occurences of the same word seems to suggest the meaning should be somewhat consistent, unless there is a play on words (and I don't think there is).
**** I know this differs from the English translations, but my translation reflects the use of the verb in the previous verse, where וְ plus a noun begins a verbal clause: וְשָׁמַ֙יִם֙ בַּזֶּ֣רֶת תִּכֵּ֔ן.
+ This is a lamed of relation (Juoun, 132f).
***** The interrogative particle with the preposition is not strictly parallel to the second verbal clause.
****** This is a hapax legomenon that presents some difficulty. I went with the Ugaritic slant.
******* The meaning of this phrase is elusive. Here I follow the Old Greek.
******** The meaning of this word is elusive (a hapax).
********* The vav expresses subordination here (see ad loc. HALOT 21).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)