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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Justin, let me just say that I enjoyed reading your "summary" statements and observations. They were very interesting.
ReplyDeleteI thought that (1) was one that stood out to me as well as I spent more time with the Hebrew. I got the sense of a progression of small unit (individual human) to big unit (nations and other gods, aka idols).
Again, I too had the "nothingness" (4) stand out at me, but for a different reason. I was drawn to creation and moral imagery. I think that the biggest contrast was in the fact that by reducing the nations to nothing, God has essentially undone creation, which is alluded to throughout this passage.
One thing that I do not think that either you or April commented on was that there seems to be an allusion to the Enuma Elis. I thought it was particularly prevalent in 40:17-18. The reference to "nothingness" may be an allusion to the Gen 1 account which plays of the EE. Then the use of )el rather than YHWH or ha)elohim seems to be an oddity, possibly alluding to El, the Canaanite/Mesopotamian chief deity. Then there is the archaizing occurring in this text, e.g. paragogic nun. And finally there is war imagery/language used in these verses recalling the struggle with Tiamat, e.g. ta(arcu.
Regarding (5), the legal language of 40:14 and instructing God, I thought it was interesting that if you don't take it as a construct phrase "man of his counsel"(which you don't) then you can have a very different interpretation of the rest of the verses. I played around with rendering the whole of 40:13b-14 as taking the closes masc. sing. noun as the pronouns antecedent, which would make it man rather than YHWH...something to think about. I'm not sure if the Hebrew allows for that much play, but it was fun to think of the way the text changed.
(Hi Justin this is April)
ReplyDeleteI also want to respond to Justin's comments about the "nothingness" in this passage. The way I understood this theme to be functioning in this text was with the emphasis on YHWH's ability, and not on his recipients. I think the imagery that Second Isaiah conjures up in this passage may have served to awaken (or re-awaken) the imaginations of Second Isaiah's audience about who YHWH is and what he is capable of doing. I don't view this as an un-doing of creation, as Noah has suggested, but more of a highlighting of what YHWH is capable of as Creator in comparison to other dieties.
If the emphasis is on YHWH's ability and not on the "grasshopers" or "locuts" in the text, question and wrestling are still open possibilites but are not the focus. I see SI using man as the subject for comparison poetically. We noted in Isaiah 40:1-11 how much the voice calling out was emphasized, and just past our text in verse 28 there is an emphasis on hearing. In verses 29-31 there is an emphasis on what YHWH will specifically accomplish, or do, for his audience. This seems to indicate that SI wanted to emphasize YHWH's ability to the implied audience and was not emphasizing necessarily their nothingness.
Justin,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading this--lots of observations that made me think in different ways about this pericope. And that underscore my desire to learn Hebrew. Some day...
Anyway, what really stood out for me here was:
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.
I'd agree that the text presupposes the arrogance you write about, but I'm not sure it discourages wrestling. In fact, I'd say that, because of the question format--even though we read the questions as rhetorical--it's easy to conceive of that arrogant audience--precisely because of the arrogance--trying to sputter out an answer.
When I think about your comment about the insignificance of humans as juxtaposed to my similar comment about human insignificance as demonstrating that Yahweh has no need for humans, I come to a contrary conclusion: despite human insignificance, here we all are. Doesn't this imply some desire for relationship? And doesn't that make this particular God all the more mysterious? Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part...
Hi Justin,
ReplyDeleteYou have many interesting comments about this passage. The comment that most resonated with me was number 6, the presupposition that the reader is arrogant about their knowledge of God. I was wondering if this passage meant to counteract skepticism or doubt that existed among exiles who might have believed that Yahweh had not protected them.
I also wondered if some of the exclamations about God's power was a refutation to those - maybe doubters - who though they could determine God's purpose. The passage also seems to be saying that God is so powerful and so beyond the human realm that his purposed cannot be fathomed. Perhaps somewhat similar to the message of Job. I did not select this passage for analysis so I'm doing some thinking out loud here.
Your other comment about the insignificance of humans - "its inhabitants seem like grasshoppers" is interesting. I see others have responded to this also. That idea didn't occur to me but it's an intriguing idea. However, I might be inclined to think it fits in the theme I mentioned above - that God is so above the human realm - humans are like grasshoppers in comparison - that his ways and intentions cannot be interpreted.
In any case, interesting analysis overall.