(textual criticism and the translator, v. 1) jan de waard-a handbook on isaiah-eisenbrauns...

i

A Handbook on Isaiah

ii

Textual Criticism and the TranslatorVolume 1

Edited by Harold P. Scanlin

Published for the United Bible Societies,New York, New York

by Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana

iii

A Handbookon Isaiah

by

Jan de Waard

EisenbraunsWinona Lake, Indiana

1997

iv

Ç

1997 by Eisenbrauns.All rights reserved.Printed in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Waard, Jan deA Handbook on Isaiah / by Jan de Waard.

p. cm. — (Textual criticism and the translator ; v. 1).Includes bibliographical references (p. )ISBN 1-57506-023-X (alk. paper)1. Bible. O.T. Isaiah—Criticism, Textual. 2. Bible. O.T. Isaiah—

Translating. I. Title. II. Series.BS1515.2.W22 1997224

u

.10446—dc21 97-32827CIP

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

†

v

C O N T E N T S

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

ISAIAH 1–10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

ISAIAH 11–20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

ISAIAH 21–30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

ISAIAH 31–40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

ISAIAH 41–50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

ISAIAH 51–60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

ISAIAH 61–66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

vi

Contents

Page vi

Blank Page

vii

P R E F A C E

The United Bible Societies, a global fellowship of 135 national Bible So-cieties, is currently engaged in over 600 Bible translation projects throughoutthe world. It is the Bible Societies’ policy to base their translations on the bestavailable editions of the ancient texts. UBS and its member societies havetaken an active role in producing critical editions by calling upon leading tex-tual scholars, specializing in both Old Testament and New Testament, to pre-pare these editions.

For the New Testament, the American Bible Society, the British and For-eign Bible Society, the Netherlands Bible Society, and the W

ü

rttemberg BibleSociety, under the inspiration and leadership of Dr. Eugene A. Nida, broughttogether an international team of New Testament textual scholars: Kurt Aland,Matthew Black, Bruce Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, later joined by BarbaraAland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, and Carlo Martini. The result was the publi-cation of the United Bible Societies’

Greek New Testament

(1966), now in itsfourth edition (1993), which has served an entire generation of Bible transla-tors. A perusal of the prefaces to most modern Bible translations reveals thatthis edition has formed the basis for their work.

In 1969 the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project was launched, again underthe leadership of Dr. Nida, with Dominique Barth

é

lemy, Alexander R. Hulst,Norbert Loh˜nk, William D. McHardy, H. Peter R

ü

ger, and James A. Sandersserving on the committee. The purpose of the project was thoroughly to ana-lyze about 5,000 textually di¯cult passages in the Masoretic Text with a viewtoward offering translators the insights of these leading textual scholars andproviding proposals for translation of these di¯cult passages. This project pro-duced a ˜ve-volume

Preliminary and Interim Report

, and under the pen of thecommittee’s chairman, Dr. Dominique Barth

é

lemy, the ˜rst three volumes ofthe ˜nal report,

Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament

, have been published.Based in a signi˜cant measure on the groundbreaking work of Barth

é

lemyand the rest of the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, it became clear thatthe time had come to produce a new edition of

Biblia Hebraica

, to supersedethe

Stuttgartensia

edition, which itself was a revision of Kahle’s third editionof

Biblia Hebraica

. It is hoped that the ˜rst fascicle of this new edition,

TheMegillot

, will be published in 1998.

Bibliography

viii

All these publications have taken their place as basic tools for original lan-guage Bible study, text-critical studies, exegesis, and Bible translation. Never-theless, the United Bible Societies felt that it would be important to offerBible translators additional help if they were to make the best use of thesefundamental works. Accordingly, we have launched this series, “Textual Criti-cism and the Translator,” to provide translators with additional help inapplying the results of these textual studies in their work. We are convincedthat many others will bene˜t from these studies, and we are pleased to launchthis series under the publishing auspices of Eisenbrauns, thereby reaching awider audience.

The ˜rst volume in the series is a

Textual Handbook on Isaiah

, produced byDr. Jan de Waard, who combines a high level of competence in Old Testamenttextual studies and experience as a translator and translation consultant for theUnited Bible Societies. Through this special combination of skills, he com-bines careful textual analysis with practical recommendations for exegesis andtranslation.

Future volumes are being planned to offer similar treatments of other OldTestament books, as well as an English edition of the introductions to thethree published Final Report volumes by Dominique Barth

é

lemy. These ex-tensive introductions, totaling over 400 pages in the original French edition,provide a comprehensive guide to the whole subject of Old Testament textualcriticism and its implications for Bible translation. It is hoped that other vol-umes will deal with the text of the New Testament.

This series, which we hope will serve to encourage textual studies by bothBible translators and exegetes, would not have been possible without the vi-sion of Dr. Eugene A. Nida, who recognized the vital importance of sourcetexts based on the best of scholarship. Special appreciation and thanks is alsoexpressed for the monumental work of Dominique Barth

é

lemy which formsthe foundation of the present volume.

Harold P. ScanlinSeries Editor

Preface

ix

L I S T O F A B B R E V I A T I O N S

BDB Brown, Driver, and Briggs,

A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament

BHK

Biblia Hebraica

(ed. R. Kittel; 1937) BHS

Biblia Hebraica Suttgartensia

(4th edition, 1990)BJ La Bible de J

é

rusalem (1973)BP La Bible: Ancien Testament (Biblioth

è

que de la Pl

é

iade, 1956–59)BR M. Buber and F. Rosenzweig,

B

ü

cher der K

ü

ndung

(1985)C De Heilige Schrift, in opdracht van “Petrus Canisius” (1990)CTAT D. Barth

é

lemy,

Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament

E

Ü

Einheits

ü

bersetzung der Heiligen Schrift: Das Alte Testament (1974)

FC La Bible en fran

ç

ais courant (1986)GN Die Gute Nachricht: Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch (1982)GNB Good News Bible (1978)GrN Groot Nieuws Bijbel: Vertaling in omgangstaal (1983)HUB

The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Isaiah

(1975–81)HALAT W. Baumgartner et al.,

Hebr

ä

isches und aram

ä

isches Lexikon zum Alten Testament

KJV The King James VersionL Luther Translation: Biblia germanica (1545)LB The Living Bible (1985)LV De Bijbel naar de Leidse Vertaling (1899–1912)Moffatt James Moffatt,

A New Translation of the Bible

(1935)NAB The New American Bible (1970)NAV Die nuwe Afrikaans Vertaling (1983)NEB The New English Bible: The Old Testament (1970)NFB The New Frisian Bible (1978)NIV The New International Version (1988)NJB The New Jerusalem Bible (1985)NJV The New Jewish Version of the Jewish Publication Society (1985)NRSV The New Revised Standard Version (1989)NV Nieuwe Vertaling (1953)REB The Revised English Bible (1989)

Bibliography

x

RL Revidierter Luther Text (Revised Luther Version; 1984)RSV Revised Standard Version (1952)S Version Segond (1910)SR Nouvelle version Segond r

é

vis

é

e (1978)StV Staten Vertaling (States General Translation; 1618–19)TEV Today’s English Version (= GNB)TILC Traduzione interconfessionale in lingua corrente (1989)TOB Traduction oecum

é

nique de la Bible (1988)TOT Translator’s Old Testament: The Book of Isaiah (1987)W Willibrord Vertaling (1975)Z Z

ü

rcher Bibel (1947)

Abbreviations

xi

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Abel, F. M.

G

é

ographie de la Palestine.

Paris: J. Gabalda, 1967.Abravanel, I.

Commentaries on the Tanach.

Jerusalem: Books Export Enter-prises, 1955–1963.

Aistleitner, J.

W

ö

rterbuch der Ugaritischen Sprache.

Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1974.

Allegro, J. M. “The Meaning of ˆyb

in Isaiah XLIV,4.”

ZAW

63 (1951) 154–56.

Azhar

î

, M.

Tahdh

î

b al-lugha.

Edited by çAbd al-Salem Muhammad Harun. Cairo: al-D

a

r al-Mi

s

riya lil-Talif wal-Tar

g

ama, 1964–67.Bach, R.

Die Auˆorderungen zur Flucht und zum Kampf im alttestamentlichen Prophetenspruch

. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962. Bahbout, S. “Sull’interpretazione dei vv. 10–11 del cap.3 di Isaia.”

AStE

1 (1963–64) 23–26.

Barth, H.

Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit.

Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977.

Barth

é

lemy, D.

Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament 2.

Fribourg:

É

ditions Universitaires / G

ö

ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986.Bauer, H., and P. Leander.

Historische Grammatik der hebr

ä

ischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes.

Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1922.Begrich, J.

Der Psalm des Hiskia.

G

ö

ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926.Ben Hayim.

Biblia Rabbinica.

Edited by Jacob ben Hayim ibn Adoniya. Ven-ice, 1525 / Jerusalem: Makor, 1972.

Ben Yehuda, E.

Thesaurus totius hebraitatis et veteris et recentioris.

Berlin: Sch

ö

neberg, 1908–59.Bergmeier, R. “Das Streben nach Gewinn: Des Volkes ˆwO[;

.”

ZAW

81 (1969) 93–97.

Beuken, W. A. M.

Jesaja IIA, IIIA, IIIB.

Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1986–89.Bonnard, P. E.

Le Second Isa

ï

e: Son disciple et leurs

é

diteurs.

Paris: J. Gabalda, 1972.

B

ö

ttcher, F.

Proben alttestamentlicher Schrifterkl

ä

rung.

Leipzig: Weidmann, 1833.

B

ö

ttcher, F.

Neue exegetisch-kritische Aehrenlese.

Edited by F. M

ü

hlau. Leipzig: J. A. Barth, 1863–65.

Bibliography

xii

Bredenkamp, C. J.

Der Prophet Jesaia erl

ä

utert.

Erlangen: Andreas Deichert, 1887.

Brockington, L. H.

The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament: The Readings Adopted by the Translators of the New English Bible.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973.

Bronznick, N. M. “The Semantics of Root

hls

in Its Branches.”

Leshonenu

41 (1976–77) 161–75.

Brownlee, W. H.

The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible

. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964.

Buber, M. “Bemerkungen zu Jesaja.”

MGWJ

74 (1930) 191–94, 340–44.Burkitt, F. C. “The Waters of Shiloah That Go Softly.”

JTS

12 (1911) 294–95.Calderone, J. “Supplementary Note on HDL-II.”

CBQ

24 (1962) 412–19. Calvin, J.

Commentarii in Isaiam prophetam. . . .

Corpus Reformatorum 64–66. Brunswick: Appelhans, 1887–89.

Cappel, L.

Commentarii et notae criticae in V.T.

Amsterdam: P. & J. Blaeu, 1684.

Carmignac, J. “Six passages d’Isa

ï

e

é

clair

é

s par Qumran.” Pp. 37–46 in

Bibel und Qumran: H. Bardtke

.

Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1968.

Cheyne, T. K.

The Book of the Prophet Isaiah: Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text.

Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899.Clements, R. E. Isaiah 1–39. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1980.Cocceius, J. Lexicon et commentarius sermonis hebraici et chaldaici V.T. Am-

sterdam: ex o¯cinâ J. A. Someren, 1669. Condamin, A. Le livre d ’Isaïe. Paris: V. Lecoffre, 1905.Coste, J. “Le texte grec d’Isaïe 25, 1–5.” RB 61 (1954) 36–66.Dahood, M. “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography IV.” Bib 47 (1966) 403–19.Dalman, G. “P˘ügelänge, Saatstreifen und Erntestreifen in Bibel und

Mischna.” ZDPV 28 (1905) 27–35. David ben Abraham al Fasi. Hebrew-Arabic Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by

S. L. Skoss. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1936–45. Delitzsch, F. Commentar über das Buch Jesaia. Leipzig: Dörf˘ing & Franke,

1889. Dieu, L. de. Critica sacra sive animadversiones . . . editio nova. Amsterdam:

Gerardus Borstius, 1693.Dillmann, A., and R. Kittel. Der Prophet Jesaja erklärt. Leipzig: S. Hirzel,

1898.Donner, H. Israel unter den Völkern. Leiden: Brill, 1964.Donner, H., and W. Röllig. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. Wies-

baden: O. Harrassowitz, 1973–76. Driver, G. R. “Some Hebrew Verbs, Nouns, and Pronouns.” JTS 30 (1929)

371–78.

Bibliography xiii

. “Studies in the Vocabulary of the O.T.” JTS 34 (1933) 33–44.

. “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Isaiah I–XXXIX.” JTS 38 (1937) 36–50.

. “Mistranslations.” PEQ 79 (1947) 123–26.

. “Hebrew Scrolls.” JTS n.s. 2 (1951) 17–30.

. “Notes on Isaiah.” Pp. 42–48 in Von Ugarit nach Qumran. BZAW 77. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1958.

. “On hemah ‘Hot Anger, Fury’ and Also ‘Fiery Wine’.” ThZ 14 (1958) 133–35.

. “ ‘Another Little Drink’: Isaiah 28:1–22.” Pp. 47–67 in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas. Edited by P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968.

Duhm, B. Das Buch Jesaia übersetzt und erklärt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902.

Ehrentreu, H. “Sprachliches und Sachliches aus dem Talmud.” JJLG 8 (1910) 4–8.

Ehrlich, A. B. Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, Vierter Band: Jesaia, Jer-emia. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1968.

Eitan, I. “A Contribution to Isaiah Exegesis.” HUCA 12–13 (1937–38) 55–88.Elliger, K. Deuterojesaja 1. Teilband Jesaja 40,1–45,7. Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Neukirchener Verlag, 1978.Emerton, J. A. “A Textual Problem in Isaiah 25,2.” ZAW 89 (1977) 64–73.

. “Notes on Two Verses in Isaiah.” Pp. 12–25 in Prophecy: Essays Pre-sented to Georg Fohrer on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, 6. September 1980. BZAW 150. Berlin, 1980.

Eusebius. Eusebius Werke IX: Der Jesajakommentar. Edited by J. Ziegler. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1975.

Ewald, H. Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Bundes. Göttingen: Dieterich, 1863.

Feldmann, F. Das Buch Isaias. Münster: Aschendorff, 1925–26. Felix de Prato. Biblia rabbinica: Editio princeps. Venice: D. Bomberg, 1516–

17. Fischer, J. In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor? Giessen:

A. Töpelmann, 1930. Fitzmyer, J. A. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sef îre. Rome: Ponti˜cal Biblical

Institute, 1967.Fohrer, G. Das Buch Jesaja. Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1964–67.Foreiro, F. Iesaiae prophetae vetus et nova ex Hebraico versio, cum commen-

tario. Antwerp, 1566. Gesenius, W. Ausführliches grammatisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebrä-

ischen Sprache. . . . Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1817.. Der Prophet Jesaia neu übersetzt. Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1829.

Bibliographyxiv

Gesenius, W., and F. Buhl. Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. Berlin: Springer, 1949.

Gesenius, W., E. Kautzsch, and A. E. Cowley. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990.

Ginsberg, H. L. “Some Emendations in Isaiah.” JBL 69 (1950) 51–60. Gordon, C. H. Ugaritic Textbook. Rome: Ponti˜cal Biblical Institute, 1965.Graetz, H. Emendationes in plerosque sacrae scripturae V.T. libros. . . . Edited

by W. Bacher. Breslau: Schottlander, 1892–94.Gray, G. B. The Book of Isaiah I–XXVII. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969.Greenberg, M. “The Stabilization of the Text of the Hebrew Bible.” JAOS 76

(1956) 157–67.Grotius, H. Annotationes in Vetus Testamentum, auxerunt G. J. L. Vogel et

J. C. Doederlein. Halle: Apvd. Io. Iac. Cvrt, 1775–76.Guillaume, A. “Some Readings in the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah.” JBL 76

(1957) 40–43.Gunkel, H. “Jesaia 33: Eine prophetische Liturgie.” ZAW 42 (1924) 177–208.Halévy, J. “Le Livre d’Isaïe 1–39.” Pp. 234–851 in Recherches bibliques V.

Paris, 1914.Hatch, E. , and H. A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint. Graz: Aka-

demische Druck U. Verlagsanstalt, 1954.Hitzig, F. Der Prophet Jesaja. Heidelberg: C. F. Winter, 1833.Holladay, W. L. “Isa. 3, 10–11: An Archaic Wisdom Passage.” VT 18 (1968)

481–87.Houbigant, C. F. Biblia Hebraica cum notis criticis et versione latina ad notas

criticas facta. . . . Paris: Apud. A. C. Briasson & L. Durand, 1753. Ibn Ezra, A. The Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah. Edited by M. Fried-

laender. London: Pub. for the Society of Hebrew Literature, 1873–77. Ibn Janah, Abulwalid. Le livre des parterres ˘euris. Edited by J. Derenbourg.

Paris: F. Vieweg, 1886.Irwin, W. H. Isaiah 28–33: Translation with Philological Notes. Rome:

Ponti˜cal Biblical Institute, 1977.Iwry, S. “Massebah and Bamah in 1QIs-a 6,13.” JBL 76 (1957) 225–32.Jacob, E. Esaïe 1–12. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1987. James, F. A Critical Examination of the Text of Isaiah. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Uni-

versity Micro˜lms (Ph.D. Thesis, Boston University), 1959.Jastrow, M. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud . . . and the Midrashic

Literature. New York: Pardes, 1950.Joüon, P. , and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome: Editrice

Ponti˜cio Istituto Biblico, 1993.Judah ben Qoreish. Risâla: Epistula de studii targum utilitate. . . . Edited by

J. J. L. Barges and D. B. Goldberg. Paris, 1857. Kaiser, O. Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja: Kap. 1–12. Göttingen: Vanden-

hoeck & Ruprecht, 1981.

Bibliography xv

. Isaiah 13–39: A Commentary. London, 1987.Kissane, E. J. The Book of Isaiah II. Dublin: Browne and Nolan, 1943. Knobel, A. Der Prophet Jesaia. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1854.Koehler, L. , and W. Baumgartner. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum

Alten Testament. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967–90.König, E. Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache.

Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1881–95.. Historisch-komparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache. Leipzig:

J. C. Hinrichs, 1897.. Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik. Leipzig: T. Weicher, 1900.. Hebräisches und aramäisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament.

Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Sändig Reprints, 1986.Kooij, A. van der. Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches. Freiburg: Univer-

sitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981.Koole, J. L. Jesaja II, Deel I: Jesaja 40 tot en met 48. Kampen: Kok,

1985.. Jesaja II, Deel II: Jesaja 49 tot en met 55. Kampen: Kok, 1990.

Koppe, J. B. R. Lowth’s . . . Jesaias . . . mit Zusätzen und Anmerkungen. Leipzig, 1779–81.

Kutscher, E. Y. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll. Leiden: Brill, 1974.

Laberge, L. La septante d ’Isaïe 28–33. Ottawa: Laberge, 1978.Le Clerc, J. V.T. Prophetae ab Esaia ad Malachiam usque. . . . Amsterdam:

J. Wetstenios and Gul. Smith, 1731.Lemaire, P. , and D. Baldi. Atlas biblique. Louvain: Éditions du Mont César,

1960. Leene, H. De vroegere en de nieuwe dingen bij Deuterojesaja. Amsterdam:

VU Uitgeverij, 1987.Lilienthal, T. C. Commentatio critica sistens duorum codicum manuscrip-

torum . . . notitiam. Leipzig: Regiomonti, 1770.Loewenstamm, S. E. “The Lord Is My Strength and My Glory.” VT 19 (1969)

464–70.Loh˜nk, N. “Isaias 8, 12–14.” BZ n.s. 7 (1963) 98–104. Lowth, R. Isaiah: A New Translation with . . . Notes. London: Printed by

J. Nichols for J. Dodsley, T. Cadell, 1778. Lust, J. A Greek-English Lexikon of the Septuagint, Part I. Stuttgart: Deutsche

Bibelsgesellschaft, 1992.Luzzatto, S. D. Il profeta Isaia volgarizzato e commentato. . . . Padova: Anto-

nio Bianchi, 1855.Marti, K. Das Buch Jesaja. Tübingen: Mohr, 1900.McKenzie, J. L. Second Isaiah. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968.Michaelis, J. D. Orientalische und exegetische Bibliothek 14 (1779) 99–155;

14a (1779) 3–223.

Bibliographyxvi

. Spicilegium geographiae hebraeorum exterae post Bochartum. Gött-ingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1780.

Montfaucon, B. de. Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt. Paris: Ludovicum Guerin, et al., 1769–70.

Morgenstern, J. The Message of Deutero-Isaiah in Its Sequential Unfolding. Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Press, 1961.

Muilenburg, J. The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40–66: Introduction and Exege-sis by J. Muilenburg. Pp. 381–773 in vol. 5 of Interpreter ’s Bible. Nash-ville: Abingdon, 1956.

Musil, A. Arabia Petraea. Vienna: A. Hölder, 1907.Nestle, E. “Miscellen.” ZAW 24 (1904) 122–38. Olshausen, J. Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache. Braunschweig: F. Vieweg

und Sohn, 1861.Oort, H. Textus hebraici emendationes. . . . Edited by H. Oort. Leiden: E. J.

Brill, 1900.. “Kritische aantekeningen op Jez. 40–66.” ThT 25 (1891) 461–77.

Orelli, C. von. Die Propheten Jesaja und Jeremia. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1891.Orlinsky, H. M. “Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll.” JBL 69 (1950) 146–

66.Perles, F. “Notes critiques sur le texte de l’Ecclésiastique.” REJ 35 (1897) 48–

64.. “The Fourteenth Edition of Gesenius-Buhl’s Dictionary.” JQR 18

(1906) 383–90.. Analekten zur Textkritik des Alten Testaments. Munich, 1895. Re-

printed Leipzig: Gustav Engel, 1922. Pinsker, S. Einleitung in das babylonisch-hebräische Punktationssystem

. . . nebst einer Grammatik der hebräischen Zahlwörter von Abraham ben Esra. Vienna: Philipp Bendiner, 1863.

Procksch, O. Jesaia I. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1930.Qimhi, J. Sepher ha-Galuj. Edited by H. J. Mathews. Berlin, 1887.Rabin, C. The Zadokite Documents. Oxford: Clarendon, 1954.Radaq. “Commentary on the Bible.” Miqraot Gedolot Nebiim u-Ketubim. Ed-

ited by J. Levensohn and J. M. Mendelsohn. Warsaw, 1860–66.. “Commentary on Is. 1–20.18.” The Commentary of David Kimhi on

Isaiah. Edited by L. Finkelstein. New York: Columbia University Press, 1926.

Rashi. “Commentary on the Bible.” Miqraot Gedolot Nebiim u-Ketubim. eds. J. Levensohn and J. M. Mendelsohn; Warsaw, 1860–1866.

Reider, J. “Contributions to the Scriptural Text.” HUCA 24 (1952–53) 85–106.

Rignell, L. G. “Isaiah Chapter 1.” StTh 11 (1957) 140–58. Rosenmüller, E. F. C. Jesajae vaticinia. Leipzig: Sumptibus Joh. Ambros.

Barthii, 1829–34.

Bibliographyxvii

Rossi, J. B. de. Variae lectiones veteris testamenti librorum. Parma: Ex Regio Typographeo, 1784–88.

Saadya. Oeuvres complètes III: Version arabe d ’Isaïe. Edited by J. Deren-bourg. Paris: E. Leroux, 1896.

Saebo, M. “Zur Traditionsgeschichte von Jesaia 8,9–10.” ZAW 76 (1964) 132–43.

Schleusner, J. F. Novus Thesaurus philologico-criticus sive lexicon in LXX et reliquos interpretes graecos ac Scriptores apocryphos, VT. Leipzig: Weidmann, 1820–21.

Schoors, A. Jesaja. Roermond: J. J. Romen, 1972. Schultens, A. Opera minora. Leiden: Joh. Le Mair and H. A. de Chalmot,

1769.Schwally, F. “Miscellen.” ZAW 11 (1891) 169–83, 253–60.Scott, R. B.Y. “Isaiah XXI 1–10: The Inside of a Prophet’s Mind.” VT 2 (1952)

278–82. Seeligmann, I. L. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah. Leiden: E. J. Brill,

1948.Selwyn, W. Horae hebraicae. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1848.Simons, J. The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament.

Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959.Slotki, I. W. Isaiah. London: Soncino Press, 1949.Snijders, L. A. Jesaja deel I. Nijkerk, 1985.Sperber, A. The Bible in Aramaic. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959–73.Stenning, J. F. The Targum of Isaiah. Oxford: Clarendon, 1949.Strugnell, J. “Notes en marge du volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean

Desert of Jordan.’ ” RdQ 7 (1970) 163–276.Talmon, S. “Double Readings in the Massoretic Text.” Textus 1 (1960) 144–

84.. “Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of

Qumran Manuscripts.” Textus 4 (1964) 95–132. . “DSIa as a Witness to Ancient Exegesis of the Book of Isaiah.” Pp.

116–26 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by F. M. Cross and S. Talmon. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975.

Thenius, O. Die Bücher der Könige. Leipzig: Weidmann, 1849.Thomas, W. “The Root hnv = yns in Hebrew.” ZAW 52 (1934) 236–38; 55

(1937) 174–76. Torczyner [Tur-Sinai], H. “Dunkle Bibelstellen.” Pp. 274–80 in Vom Alten

Testament: Karl Marti zum siebzigsten Geburtstage. . . . BZAW 41. Ber-lin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1925.

A. Trommius. Concordantiae graecae versionis vulgo dictae LXX interpretum. . . . Amsterdam: Sumptibus Societatis, 1718.

Tur-Sinai, N. H. “A Contribution to the Understanding of Isaiah I–XII.” ScrHie 8 (1961) 154–88.

Bibliographyxviii

Vitringa, C. Commentarius in librum prophetiarum Jesaie. Basel: J. Rodolphi, 1732.

Waard, J. de. A Comparative Study of the Old Testament Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965.

. “The Interim and Final HOTTP Reports and the Translator: A Prelim-inary Investigation.” Pp. 277–84 in Tradition of the Text: Studies Oˆered to Dominique Barthélemy. Edited by G. J. Norton and S. Pisano. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991.

Warzsawski, L. Die Peschitta zu Jesaja (Kap. 1–39). Berlin, 1897. Weisz, H. Die Peshitta zu Deuterojesaia. Thesis, Halle–Wittenberg. Halle,

1893. Wellhausen, J. Die Kleinen Propheten übersetzt, mit Noten. Berlin: G. Reimer,

1892. Whybray, R. N. Isaiah 40–66. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1990.Wildberger, H. Jesaja. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965–82.Ziegler, J. Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias. Münster:

Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1934.. “Die Vorlage der Isaias-Septuaginta (LXX) und die erste Isaias-Rolle

von Qumrân (1QIs-a).” JBL 78 (1959) 34–59.. Isaias. Septuaginta 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967.

1

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Since 1979 translators of Isaiah have at their disposal the fourth volume ofthe

Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project

(New York: United Bible Societies), pp. 1–173 of which deal with the textualproblems of Isaiah. And since 1986 they have access to the ñal report in thesecond volume (OBO 50/2) of Dominique Barth

é

lemy,

Critique textuelle del’Ancien Testament

(Fribourg, Switzerland:

É

ditions universitaires, and G

ö

tt-ingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht) which on pp. 1–465 provides in remarkabledetail the evaluations and justi˜cations of the committee. Both publicationspresent a powerful instrument to solve a number of basic complexities of theHebrew text to translators who normally are no specialists in the ˜eld of textualcriticism and who cannot be but at a loss when faced with the contradictoryevidence of modern translations. The considerable e¯ciency of the two texts ismainly due to two factors: (1) the translational divergencies were the basicprinciple of the selection of the textual problems, and (2) the treatment of eachcase ends with a suggested translation.

Nevertheless, the e¯ciency has its limitations, and these in turn perhapsjustify the present publication. First of all, the committee consisted of textualcritics trying to ascertain what is most likely to have been the form or formsof the “second phase” of the Hebrew Old Testament text development. Nomember of the committee was a translation specialist. The suggested transla-tions, at least in the preliminary report, were therefore rather literal and pre-sented without the context necessary for understanding. Practical experiencehas shown that such a presentation is often not su¯cient to assist translators intheir search for an adequate gloss which would render the solution proposedby the committee. In the ñal report the paraphrasing of the interpretationsacts as a stimulus for translators, helping them to ñd a solution in their ownlanguage.

Second, although translations in major European languages were used forthe selection and illustration of textual problems, showing the mainstream ofdiêrent textual and interpretational traditions, the majority of them belongedto the types of literal or philological translations. Translators of other types oftranslation such as interlinear or communicative translations did not alwaysñd the help they were looking for. Moreover, although some of the versions

Introduction


2

cited were interconfessional, no major Jewish publication in any Western lan-guage was consulted.

Last, but not least, the major discussion of the problems is to be found inthe ñal report, and their are two main obstacles to its accessibility: its lan-guage and the level of the discussion. A translation and adaptation into Englishof the ñal reports had been projected and, for at least part of the material, ˜rstdrafts of such a translation were made. Now it seems that plans for this projecthave been abandoned, although it is still hoped to publish an English editionof the valuable introductions.

The aim of the present publication is to give translators a better insight intothe viewpoint of the textual critic and to help them to ñd a good base for theirtranslation. Occasionally, the treatment of a textual problem treated in

CTAT

isomitted when the problem is judged to be translationally irrelevant or of littlerelevance especially in cases of textual divergencies concerning pronominalissues. These ask in all types of modern translation, with the exception of theinterlinear type, for assimilation. Some problems, more of an interpretationalthan of a textual nature, are treated nevertheless because of the di¯culties theypresent to translators.

Since several new translations have been published after the two reports,a new selection of translations has been made for this study. The main diêr-ence with the selection for the HOTTP is that the present selection embracesdiêrent types of translation in a greater number of languages and that it in-cludes three major Jewish publications in English, French and German. The em-phasis remains on English versions and non-English versions are only quotedwhen the issue in question cannot be illustrated with any recent or older Englishtranslation. An English gloss is provided with every citation of a non-Englishversion. The new selection occasionally has some bearing upon the treatmentor non-treatment of a textual problem. In the reports a number of textual prob-lems has been selected on the base of a translational deviation found only inNEB. In the cases, however, where these deviations have been corrected inREB the textual problem has been omitted. The same rule has been appliedwhen all translations according to the new selection follow the proposal of thecommittee.

Readability and intelligibility of text have been a constant concern. It ishoped that the consistent threefold division of the treatment, the regular trans-lation of all foreign language data into English, and the care not to leave outsteps in the explanation, will help the reader to see the point. Limitations areunavoidable and the subject is so complex that at least some knowledge, es-pecially of Hebrew, has to be presupposed.

Although the main target audience consists of translators, students andscholars interested in textual criticism may also ñd the present publicationuseful as it provides in English and in a nutshell data, arguments and ratingsby the HOTTP committee.

page run half pica long

Introduction

3

The present writer would like to express gratitude to Harold P. Scanlin andthe staff of the New York o¯ce of the United Bible Societies for having care-fully checked the quotations and the bibliography items and for having cor-rected the English wherever appropriate.

January 1995 Jan de Waard

4

1

I S A I A H 1 – 1 0

1.7

Textual Decisions

An A rating has been given to the

second

occurrence of μyrIz:

, “strangers,”in the Hebrew text. There are several reasons for such a rating: (1) the readingμyrIz:

is generally attested, whereas the proposed reading μdos]

, “Sodom,” is onlya conjecture; (2) the conjecture μdos]

can be explained as having arisen from aconfusion between textual criticism and traditional interpretation of the expres-sion “overthrow” (namely of Sodom); (3) a reading μdos]

would be incompletesince in the standard expression “Gomorrah” is always associated with “So-dom” (compare 1.9 and 1.10); (4) μyrIz:

is the reading of the most primitive, at-tested text; and (5) Isaiah shows preference for an emphatic repetition of thesame word.

Evaluation of Problems

In spite of the high probability rating translators will note that many com-mentators (Gray, Wildberger, Clements) express themselves in favor of the con-jecture μdos]

. It is therefore no wonder that this reading, which in addition, hasbeen “commanded” in BHS, has been adopted in a number of new translationssuch as E

Ü

, FC, GrN, and REB: “it (your land) is as desolate as Sodom afterits overthrow.” Nevertheless, translators should not comply with these sugges-tions and resist the temptation to compose unacceptable notes mentioning“probable” readings.

The translator who does not become a victim of confusion between tex-tual criticism and traditional interpretation, however, still has to ask the ques-tion about the meaning of the Hebrew expression μyrIz:

tk'Peh]m'K]

. There can beno doubt that all recent translations which take the Hebrew as their base, con-sider the construction as a subjective genitive: “as overthrown by foreigners

Isaiah 1–10

Isaiah 1–10

51.12

(strangers)” (NIV, NRSV), or, after passive-active transformation: “foreignerstake over your land” (GNB), “

als h

ä

tten wilde Horden bei euch gehaust

”

(GN).In this they agree with G and V among the ancient versions. There are, how-ever, strong indications that the construction should be interpreted as an ob-jective genitive: “defeat (overthrow) experienced by foreigners.” As has beenpointed out (Hitzig): when the Hebrew verb is used to express a catastrophe,the agent is always God, never man. God is therefore the implicit agent alsohere. And he will treat his children who have alienated themselves (1.4) in thesame way as he has treated foreigners outside the covenant.

Proposals of Translation

The only existing translation which re˘ects this insight and which there-fore could be used as a model is BR: “

(Starrnis) wie nach jenem Umsturz, dereinst den Fremden geschah!

,”

“(desolation) as after the overthrow which oncehappened to foreigners.” If the translator wants to make the agent explicit, hecould render the Hebrew as follows: “(desolation) as after the defeat whichGod in˘icted upon foreigners.” The allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah was evi-dent to the Hebrew hearer and reader, but it may not be evident at all to ahearer or reader of a modern translation. Therefore, the translator may, in ad-dition, want to inform his readers in a footnote that the allusion is to Sodomand Gomorrah, referring especially to Deut. 29. 22 and Jer. 49. 18.

1.12

Textual Decisions

A C rating has been given to the

qal

vocalization twOar“li

, “to see (my face)”instead of the

niphal

vocalization twOar:le

, “to be seen (before my face).” The con-siderable doubt expressed in the rating is technically related with the fact thatsuch a vocalization is only supported by S

yyp|a azjml

and that there aresome hesitations with regard to the weight of this version. There are, however,strong additional reasons to believe that an original phrase “to see the face ofGod” has been corrected and revocalized as “to appear before God,” the majorone being theological. Moreover, a terminological reminiscence of the originalexpression can be detected at the beginning of the Christian era in the termhY:air“h;

, “the seeing,” (namely of the face of God during the three pilgrim fes-tivals) in the Mishnah tractate Zabim I 1 and II 2.


The translator will have become aware of the problem by reading the stan-dard commentaries which are along with BHS all in favor of a more originalreading in the sense of “to see my face.” As far as translations are concerned,


6 1.17

she/he may only have been alerted by some older translations of a formal equiv-alence type, such as Z “

Wenn ihr kommt, mein Angesicht zu schauen

”

or LV“

als gij komt om mijn aangezicht te zien.

”

Or the translator may have comeacross a footnote in a more recent translation. NEB in its 1970 publication ofthe Old Testament translates “to enter my presence” and observes in a footnote:“

Lit

. to see my face,” although this footnote is absent from the 1970 edition ofthe complete Bible! Only NRSV, although preferring to put the transmitted text“when you come to appear before me” into the text of the translation, never-theless provides a footnote: “Or ‘see my face’,” containing the variant reading.In many instances, however, in which a more speci˜c cultic terminology hasbeen used in translating, it is hardly possible to know what the exact Hebrew

Vorlage

has been, as

e.g.

in GNB: “. . . when you come to worship me” or inGN: “

Wenn ihr zu meinem Tempel kommt.

”


Most frequently, the necessary transformations of the idiomatic phrase “tosee my face” in the receptor language will no longer show traces of the textualdiscussion. The translator, because of the degree of transformation, may noteven consider it to be appropriate to provide any kind of note. In some projectswith Jewish participation such transformations may even be recommended inorder to avoid certain theological discussions. The advice, given in the reports,to introduce the original reading into the text and the corrected one into a foot-note, is therefore only valid in the case of literal or philological translations. Ininterconfessional projects of this nature which include Jewish participation, itmay be considered to keep the transmitted text in the translation, in agreementwith Jewish practice (see BR: “

Wenn ihr kommt, vor meinem Antlitz euch se-hen zu lassen

”)

1.17

Textual Decisions

An A rating has been attributed to the vocalized form ≈wOmj;,,

, “oppressor” /“oppressed” (?), over against a presupposed vocalization ≈Wmj;

, “oppressed,”which would have been read by all the ancient versions. The reason for sucha decision is the strong conviction that in fact no textual problem exists, andthat the diˆerent meanings and translational glosses can all be derived fromone and the same Hebrew form. In other words, the problems would only beexegetical.

Isaiah 1–10

71.17


The vocalized form ≈wOmj;

could carry three diêrent meanings: (1) as an in-transitive adjective of the type

qat ≥

ô

l

it would have the meaning of a passiveparticiple “oppressed” (Luzzatto, Rignell, 1957, 151); (2) as a transitive adjec-tive (derived from a perfect with

qames ≥

) it would bear the meaning of an activeparticiple “oppressor” (Gesenius, Ewald, 1863, par. 152b and K

ö

nig, 1895, II,124); and (3) as an inñitive absolute it would convey the meaning of a noun“violence” (David ben Abraham I, 560, 73).

All these options are present in modern translations, although there seemsto be a tendency within one and the same language to particularly favor oneinterpretation. Almost all English versions follow option (1): “oppressed” (NIV,NRSV, REB, GNB) with the exception of RSV, which favors option (3): “op-pression.” The majority of French translations (BP: “

le violateur

”

; SR: “

l’op-presseur

”), some German (GN: “

die Gewaltt

ä

tigen

”) and Dutch versions (GrN:“

uitbuiters

”) clearly prefer option (2).As already has been remarked, however (Wildberger), the choice of the

translator will clearly be conditioned by the way in which the preceding He-brew verb WrV]a'

will be rendered. When a meaning “to lead” is selected, option(1) becomes unavoidable, although this meaning may still be rendered in diêr-ent ways as our translations show: “guide” (REB), “

lenket

”

(BR), “help” (GNB,E

Ü

), “rescue” (NRSV), “encourage” (NIV). Option (2), on the other hand, ne-cessitates the selection of a meaning “restrain,” “keep within bounds,” “cor-rect” (RSV), “

haltet

. . .

in Schranken

”

(GN), “

mettez au pas

”

(BP), “

houd

. . .

in toom” (GrN).


In the ñal report option (2) has been considered to be the most probableone. This would implicitly mean that a sense “restrain” be selected for the He-brew verb. No translation, however, is oêred in the ñal report and it is notentirely clear how the proposed French and English translations of the prelimi-nary report, “faites marcher droit l’exploiteur // make the exploitioner do whatis right,” relate to the possible meanings of rva.

It is not the purpose of this handbook to prescribe interpretational choices.The choice is left to translators, and they will certainly pay attention to thewider context as well, especially to the structure of the immediate context inwhich ˜gure “orphans” and “widows.”

Translators may want to provide variant translations in addition like inNIV where “encourage the oppressed” is read in the text and “reprove the op-pressor” in a note. They are certainly not advised to put textual footnotes (likein TOB and FC).

A Handbook on Isaiah8 1.20

1.20

Textual Decisions

An evaluation B has been given to the form WlK]auT] br<j,, “(by) the swordyou shall be devoured.” The main reason for this is the syntactical insight thata verb which in its active voice governs a double accusative, is in its passivevoice only accompanied by one of these two, the other one becoming gram-matical subject (Gesenius, 1817, 821). The little doubt expressed in the B rat-ing is uniquely caused by the fact that the passive form of the verb in relationwith “sword” only occurs in this text. The attested form brjb, “through thesword,” found in 1Q-a is therefore considered to be a syntactical facilitation,and the active reading of G: mavcaira uJma'ı katevdetai, “a sword shall devouryou,” a translational operation.


Unique is the rendering of NEB without any comment: “locust-beans shallbe your only food.” Such a translation presupposes a diêrent vocalization:Wlk]aTo broj} based on an exegetical play upon words as already found in earlymidrashim. It may be interesting to mention this technique, the so-called al-tiqre, but it will be clear that this reading cannot be taken into account as aserious textual base. REB has therefore abandoned this reading and replaced itby the probably translationally based active formulation: “the sword will de-vour you,” a model also followed in other translations like TOB and EÜ “wirddas Schwert euch vernichten.” Most translations, however, prefer a renderingalong the lines of NRSV: “you shall be devoured by the sword.”

A slight problem is raised by a discrepancy between the two reports. Inthe preliminary one the translator is advised to render “you will be devouredby the sword.” In the ñal one, however, such a rendering is said not to be ap-propriate, because it would re˘ect a niphal form. One has to respect the pualform as a passive of the piel and to translate: “you will be delivered as food tothe sword.”


In a case like this, translators are very much dependent upon the genius ofthe receptor language. If a passive voice is lacking, or if a passive translationwould be stylistically awkward, they will have to act in the same way as theOld Greek translator. It may also be possible to use the active transformationof the pual form suggested in the ñal report, by reading: “I will deliver youas food to the sword.” This may be a good solution since verses 18–20 presenta continuous discourse of Yahweh. Otherwise, special idiomatic solutions may

Isaiah 1–10 91.21

be found like in FC: “vous serez la proie de l’épée,” “you will be the prey ofthe sword.”

On the other hand, if a passive voice can be used, the translational pro-posal of the ñal report should be preferred. It may, however, not always bepossible to express the ñe nuances of the Hebrew, in which case the transla-tor will have to fall back on the traditional rendering. Since translation is notmerely a matter of words, the translator may want to keep in his rendering themaximum of repetitions and contrasts, present in the Hebrew of 19–20.

1.21

Textual Decisions

The Old Greek has literally: “How has she become a harlot, the faithfulcity Sion, full of judgment,” presenting the extra information “Sion,” absentfrom the Hebrew tradition and lacking in all ancient versions. To this absenceof the word “Sion” a B rating has been given. The reason for this decision isthe clearly secondary character of the reading “Sion.” Such a reading may evenhave entered the Hebrew Vorlage of G. A Hebrew copyist who would havebeen no longer aware of the poetic value of the construct state “i” in ytia}lem],“full,” could have read ytiaLemi, “I have ˜lled,” and, since “I have ˜lled with jus-tice” needs a second accusative, could have added “Sion.” The reading “Sion”in G could also come from 1.27 and 33.5 or could simply be a technical op-eration of translation to provide necessary information.


There can be no doubt that the identi˜cation “Sion” in G is correct. How-ever, with the exception of the daughter versions of G and their more recentdescendants, most translations faithfully follow the Hebrew. On the contrary,BJ adopts the reading of G, justifying it in a textual footnote. Without such anote, Moâtt does the same: “Sion once so full of justice,” and, amongst morerecent functional equivalence translations, the same example is followed byGrN: “Ach Jeruzalem, die eens zo trouwe stad.”

The advice given to translators in the ñal report is to avoid such explic-itness of information, for the good reason that the implicit information in-creases the dramatic tension and impact. The Greek gloss “Sion” could at theutmost be mentioned in a footnote.


The advice given above should be taken seriously. It should be noted thattranslators also have other means of hinting at the identity of the city. Verse 21starts a new section of the discourse which therefore may need a preceding


heading. See, for example, BJ: “Lamentation sur Jerusalem.” In translations inwhich headings are more sparely used, the need may be felt to give the explicitinformation either in the text or in a footnote. In translation projects withOrthodox involvement it may be wise to follow G on translational grounds.

1.29

Textual Decisions

The ˜rst verb in the Hebrew is in the third person plural, whereas the threefollowing verbs in the same verse have a second person plural, “For they willbe ashamed of the oaks in which you delighted . . . .” In a harmonizing way,G, S and V read third person plurals throughout the whole verse or ˜rst line (inthe case of V), whereas T adopts a second person plural for the ˜rst verb. Arating B has been attributed to the Hebrew for two reasons: textually the read-ing is strongly supported by 1Q-a, whereas the two Hebrew manuscripts infavor of the second person plural for the ˜rst verb are without textual value.And the fact that the ancient versions assimilate into two diˆerent directionsindirectly proves the primitive heterogeneous character of the Hebrew.


The syntactical harmonization of the ancient versions is a general transla-tional phenomenon. In this case it is the universal tendency of translations toread a second person plural in the ˜rst verb as well. This is frequently done incomplete unawareness of the existence of any problem. And it is done withgreat facility since such a reading is simply “commanded” in the apparatus ofBHS and since the Hebrew form in most commentaries is simply disregardedas an obvious error (Gray, Wildberger).

Although the need for assimilation is generally comprehensible, each caseshould be analyzed in particular. Here the Hebrew third person plural could beinterpreted as an impersonal third person: “one will be ashamed.” Or the rapidshift from exclamation to reproach might be considered as a rhetorical ˜gure(König, 1900, 239), focusing attention on the addressees and their conditions.


Translators are advised not to follow the vast majority of assimilating trans-lations, but to render the text along the lines indicated above. For the imper-sonal pronoun rendering BJ could serve as a model: “Oui, on aura honte destérébinthes qui font vos délices,” but also BP: “C’est que l’on sera confus àcause des térébinthes que vous appréciez” or BR: “Ja, zuschanden wird manan den Gotteichen.”

Isaiah 1–10 111.31

If the translator, however, wants to match the function of the rhetorical˜gure in the receptor language, he may have to do some restructuring of thetext. For example, after a statement of the idolatrous practices, GN puts thefocus on the condition of the hearers in the following way: “Es wird eine bit-tere Enttäuschung für euch werden!,” “It will be a bitter deception for you”(compare also GrN).

1.31

Textual Decisions

Two distinct textual problems are combined in this case: (1) all ancientversions have the ˜rst noun of the second half line of 31a understood to mean“his work.” According to some scholars such a meaning would presuppose achange of vocalization into wOl[’p;W , since the attested wOl[}poW should be read as anactive participle with the meaning “his maker,” (2) distinct from the Hebrew,the words ˆsoj;h,, “the strong,” and wOl[}poW have received second person pluralpossessive su¯xes or pronouns in 1Q-a and V and third person plural posses-sives in G, S and T, which sheds some doubt on the Hebrew forms. A majorityrating B has been given to the reading wOl[}poW for the good reason that an inter-pretation “his work” does not need a change of vocalization. In fact, the problemis interpretational and not textual. The same rating has been attributed to thereadings ˆsoj;h, and wOl[}poW , for the diˆerent su¯xes of the versions are due to con-textual assimilations. The fact that 1Q-a has even kept the de˜nite article in thecase of ˆsoj;h, clearly shows the secondary character of the su¯x.


No translation seems to provide a textual note, and only some present avariant translation or interpretation in a footnote. NRSV renders the text asfollows: “The strong shall become like tinder, and their work like a spark” andprovides the variant translation “its makers” in a note on “their work.” But itremains unclear to which item “its” refers back. NEB is better with its inter-pretation of 31 as the continuation of 30 and its rendering: “the strongest treeshall become like tow, and what is made of it shall go up in sparks.” Varianttranslations are given in a footnote: “the strong man” for “the strongest tree”and “what he makes” for “what is made of it.” REB keeps the rendering ofNEB with minor stylistic changes, but regards the footnotes as super˘uous.Nearly all modern translations consider wOl[}poW to mean “his work.” The only ex-ception is GrN which follows the majority of translations of the 16th centuryinterpreting the word as “worker” along the lines of Jewish exegesis. ˆsjh istaken to mean “˘ax” and the total sense is: the ˘ax will become tow and itsworker (i.e. God) becomes a spark. (A. Schoors, 1972, 35 and Tsevat, 1967,


261–263). In the restructured translation, God becomes the agent of “break-ing” and “kindling.” It has been noted in the past (Ehrentreu, 6–8) that even ifˆsj is taken to mean “strong,” a play upon words between ˆsoj; and ˆs,jo, “strong”and “˘ax” was certainly intended.


When the interpretation “strong” and “his work” is chosen, the translatorshould show the close relationship with the immediate preceding context asin NEB/REB or GN: Wer glaubte, stark zu werden, ist dann wie trockenerZunder, und was er getan hat, wird zum zündenden Funken,” “He who thoughtto become strong will then be like dry tinder, and what he has done will be-come a kindling spark.” Such a relationship will also be established in a trans-lation along the lines of Moâtt: “Strong men shall become like tow, their idolslike a spark” (so also Kimchi). It may be useful to give the variant translationin a well-conceived note (GrN). This could certainly be done in a Study Bibleor in a translation with Jewish participation. The pun too could have an appro-priate place in such a footnote.

2.6

Textual Decisions

According to many scholars, the Hebrew sentence μd<Q,mi Wal]m; yKi, “they arefull from the Orient,” does not make su¯cient sense and several correctionshave been proposed. A few centuries ago, Lowth had already suggested thatoriginally the word μs;qmi, “divination,” preceded the word μd<Q,mi, but that it haddisappeared from all witnesses through a kind of haplography. More recentlyDriver has conjectured on the base of Arabic and Syriac that the Hebrew formshould be vocalized μyDIq'm] in order to obtain a meaning “traders” or “hawk-ers.” In spite of all this, a B rating has been given to the form μd<Q,mi for mainlythree reasons: (1) 1Q-a and Sym strongly support the Hebrew; (2) all the otherancient versions do presuppose the same form or a slightly diêrent one: μdqmk;and (3) the diêrences in meaning can be explained translationally.


The type of correction suggested by Lowth has been taken over by RSV,NRSV, “they are full of diviners from the east” and GNB, “the land is full ofmagic practices from the East.” The ˜rst two translations state in a footnote thata correction is made and that Hebrew lacks “of diviners,” the last one identi˜esin a note its translation with the “probable” text, stating that “the Hebrew is un-clear.” Other translations like BP and EÜ do not follow the haplography thesis,but simply replace μdqm, “Orient,” by μsqm, “divination,” stating the correction

Isaiah 1–10 132.9

in a footnote. As to the Driver conjecture, it is followed in combination withthe haplography thesis in the rendering of REB: “Their towns are ˜lled withtraders from the east.” No footnote is given. The Driver conjecture as such isrendered by Moâtt and NEB. The last states: “for they are crowded with trad-ers” and gives in a footnote the pseudo-variant translation “hawkers.” BJ hasunderstood μd<Q,mi in a temporal and not in a local sense: “car il regorge depuislongtemps de magiciens.” This rendering, however, presupposes another cor-rection, namely the suppression of the waw in μynIn“[ow“ ,” “soothsayers.” This sup-pression is meticulously mentioned in a footnote.


The Hebrew text does not need any correction and textual notes are super-˘uous. It can be rendered as follows: “they are full of what comes from the Ori-ent.” It contains the implicit information of “superstition” and “divination,” or,more generally, of “customs.” In some languages it may be possible to keep theimplicit reference. See TOB: “Ils sont submergés par l’Orient.” In others itmay be necessary to make some explicit statement like in NIV: “They are fullof superstitions from the East.”

2.9

Textual Decisions

Instead of the second person singular imperative of the Hebrew ac;Ti la'w“ ,“do not forgive,” many witnesses must have read the negation aolw“ , “and not,”followed by a future tense of the verb. In S and T the second person sg. of theHebrew verb has been maintained, in 4Q-a it has been changed into a thirdperson plural, and in G into a ˜rst person singular. This case is only discussedin the ñal report and no committee rating has been attributed to any text.Nevertheless, the Hebrew has been preferred for two reasons: (1) it is sup-ported by Aq, Sym and V and (2) the other readings seem to be softening andfacilitating, since they want to avoid the impression that the prophet wouldhave summoned God not to forgive.


NEB has the deviating rendering “and how can they raise themselves?,”called the “probable reading” in a footnote. This translation is indirectly basedupon Duhm’s proposal to read μh,l; taec] ˆyaew“, “and no rise for them.” This con-jecture, however, which presupposes a metathesis açt÷taç is not very convinc-ing, and it has been abandoned in REB. But REB does not render 9b at all, basingitself for this omission on 1Q-a according to the footnote. Before Qumran dis-coveries Moâtt had already done the same.


Most modern translations keep the Hebrew imperative. EÜ, probably in˘u-enced by Wildberger, tells the reader in a footnote that the contextual meaningof the short sentence is not entirely clear. BJ connects 9b more meaningfullywith its preceding context by rendering: “ne les relève pas.” FC does the same:Et toi, Seigneur, ne les relève surtout pas,” but it gives the variant translation“ne leur pardonne pas” in a footnote.


No conjectures should be followed and the information of 9b should notbe omitted in the translation. Although translations like BJ and FC ingeniouslylink 9b with 9a, they choose a clearly secondary meaning of the Hebrew verb,better to be mentioned in a footnote. The primary meaning “to forgive” or itsreceptor equivalent should be used in the text. In some cases, stylistic reasonsmay impose a softening translation (compare TOB: “tu ne saurais leur par-donner”), but wherever possible, an imperative should be preferred. Translatorsmay want to make the adressee explicit as in GNB: “Do not forgive them, Lord.”

2.10

Textual Decisions

G has the additional information o{tan ajnasth≥' qrau'sai th;n gh'n, “whenhe shall rise to shatter the earth,” at the end of the verse. As to other Hebrewevidence, verses 9b and 10 are lacking in 1Q-a and it is di¯cult to evaluatethis absence correctly. 4Q-b supports the shorter Hebrew and the only Hebrewmanuscript in favor of the longer text (Kennicot 96) is late and its evidencecan be neglected. All the other versions agree with the shorter Hebrew text.Moreover G can easily be explained by an assimilation with the two other oc-currences of the same refrain (verses 19 and 21) in which the additional sen-tence of verse 10 is also present in the Hebrew. For that reason a B rating hasbeen given to the shorter text.


The only modern translation which follows G is BJ, “quand il se lèverapour faire trembler la terre.” It should, however, be noted that G is also presentin a number of its daughter versions which are used as base texts for moderntranslations. In the case of Orthodox projects, or interconfessional projects inOrthodox majority situations, it may therefore be necessary to adopt the longertext. As the reasons of G to give additional information may have been stylistic(harmonization of refrain) and not textual, there are no objections to adoptinghere the Orthodox tradition. Nevertheless, the shorter Hebrew text (which is tobe preferred!) should be mentioned in a footnote.

Isaiah 1–10 152.12

2.12

Textual Decisions

Half of the committee has given a C rating to M lpev;w“ aC;nIAlK; l['w“, “andagainst everything which is exalted, but which will be humbled,” the other halfhas equally given a C rating to the reading of 1Q-a: lpçw açnw , “and exalted,but it will be humbled.”

The longer text of G presents not only, as in the Hebrew, two synonyms inthe ˜rst half line of the verse, but in the second half as well: kai; ejpi; pavntauJyhlo;n kai; metevwron kai; tapeinwqhvsontai, “and upon everyone that is highand towering, and they shall be brought down.” This longer text should, how-ever, be considered as secondary, since the synonym may render a literary con-cern of the translator and the verb which re˘ects the Hebrew is attested by thetotal Greek manuscript tradition.


The English Bible translation is remarkably united in the rendering “againstall that is lifted up and high” (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB). The only exception isNIV which renders the Hebrew “and they will be humbled,” but places it withinparentheses. Most translations honestly state in a footnote that this reading isobtained through correction and they invite the readers to compare theirtranslation with G. This probably means that G is supposed to have read orig-inally H'boG:w“, “and towering,” instead of lpev;w“ and that the Greek reading kai;tapeinwqhvsontai, “and they shall be brought down,” is a late adaptation to theHebrew. Such a conception has been presented by Lagarde and most moderncommentators, and it can be reconstructed from the apparatus in BHS. Con-trary to this English tradition, translations in French and German are uniformlybased on the Hebrew.


In the ˜nal report translators are advised to translate either M or 1Q-a andto put the rendering which has not been chosen in the text in a footnote. Sincethe diˆerences between the translations of the two texts are rather subtle, it maynot always be possible to follow this advice. One may render both indistinctlywithout making a textual note, as has been done in GNB: “On that day the LordAlmighty will humble everyone who is powerful, everyone who is proud andconceited.” In languages without passive voice such a rendering becomes evenobligatory. Corrections should be avoided and certainly no comparison with Gshould be suggested in a footnote as G stays rather close to M.


2.19

Textual Decisions

An evaluation A has been assigned to the Hebrew verbal form Wab;W , “andthey shall go,” although one often proposed to change its vocalization in sucha way that a plural imperative WaboW , “go!,” is obtained. Reason for this proposalis the parallel form in the same refrain of verse 10: awOB which has been inter-preted by many scholars as a singular imperative “go.” The Hebrew form Wab;Wwas nevertheless preferred for three reasons: (1) this form is supported by V,S and T; (2) G has a peculiar reading eijsenevgkanteı, “carry into,” “And theyshall hide all idols made with hands, having carried them into the caves.” Thisrendering is closely connected with the particular interpretation G gives ofverse 18. One can say, however, that the Greek translator has made an active-causative transformation of the same verb and that the indicative mood of theverb is presupposed; (3) it is far from certain that awOB in verse 10 should beinterpreted as an imperative form. It can also and better be read as an absoluteinñitive: “It is a matter of going into . . . ,” “da wird es gelten” (Ehrlich, 11).


When dealing with 2.19, it may be useful to check the translation of 2.10at the same time. A number of translations follow the conjectural imperativevocalization in verse 19 without signaling this in a footnote. The tendency toharmonize is sometimes strong, e.g. NEB: “Get you into the rocks” (2.10),“Get you into caves in the rocks” (2.19). The vast majority of translations fol-low the Hebrew in verse 19, but they render awOB in verse 10 as an imperative.So e.g. NIV: “Go into the rocks” (2.10), “Men will ˘ee to caves in the rocks”(2.19). Very few translations render awOB in 2.10 as an absolute inñitive. Thereare two outstanding examples of such a rendering: BR “Da kommt man in dieFelskluft” (2.10), “da man kommt in die Höhlen der Felsen” (2.19) and GNB:“They will hide in caves in the rocky hills” (2.10), “People will hide in cavesin the rocky hills” (2.19).


Translators should not give in to the conjectural vocalization in verse 19.They are even urged not to render the form in verse 10 as an imperative andto prefer the interpretation of the form as an absolute inñitive. It may be dif-˜cult, however, to start a new paragraph in verse 10 with the information: “Itwill be a matter of going into . . . .” In such a case, and in order to guaranteea smooth transition with the preceding paragraph, an indicative could be usedas in GNB.

Isaiah 1–10 173.1

3.1

Textual Decisions

Commentators have generally felt that the last sentence of the verse fol-lowing the expression hn:[ev]m'W ˆ[ev]m', “stay (= support) and staˆ,” “the wholestay of bread, and the whole stay of water,” is a later editorial gloss. Thisexplanatory gloss would connect the prophecy with a state of famine broughtabout by the siege of Jerusalem. “Stay and staˆ” are metaphors of militaryand political powers, described in verses 2–3, and the sentence about “breadand water” disturbs this connection. It would therefore have to be omitted. Inthis case (only presented in the ˜nal report and not submitted to a vote of thecommittee) several arguments plead against such an omission: (1) none of theancient versions omitted the sentence, which was therefore part of the canoni-cally received Isaiah text; (2) the “editorial gloss” is particular to Isaiah, as acomparison with 25.6 shows; (3) the word for “bread” reoccurs in verse 7 andis a formal feature of inclusion.


This problem is not an isolated one and the type of problem will continu-ally present itself to translators. The principles of each translation will there-fore have to de˜ne whether the translation will uniquely re˘ect the canonicalshape of the text, or whether it will take into account the prehistory of the textand/or its hermeneutical post history as well. It is only on the base of suchprinciples that correct proposals of translation can be made.


For translations based on the canonical shape of the text, M should betranslated and no note should be made. If the translator feels that the sentenceunder discussion disturbs the progression of the discourse, he could put it setoˆ with dashes as in BJ “—toute réserve de pain et toute réserve d ’eau—.”

When the principles of a translation admit an annotation regarding the pre-history of the text, and when the translator is convinced of the gloss characterof the sentence, two ways can be followed: (1) the sentence can be put into thetext between brackets and a note can be provided as in EÜ “Späterer Zusatz,der im Gegensatz zu den Versen 2 und 3 steht” or (2) the sentence can be omit-ted from the text and given in a footnote as in NEB and REB.


3.10

Textual Decisions

A majority rating B has been attributed to the reading of M Wrm]ai, “tell,” sothat the sentence literally runs: “tell the righteous that it shall be well withthem.” The main reason for this vote is the solid support given to this readingby 1Q-a and all the other ancient witnesses. It is di¯cult to trace back the He-brew Vorlage of G which reads: kaqΔ eJautw'n eijpovnte" dhvswmen to;n divkaion,o{ti duvscrhsto" hJmi'n ejstin, “saying against themselves, let us bind the just,for he is burdensome to us.” This presupposes the existence of a doublet Wrm]aiWrS]ai, “tell/saying, bind,” as was seen by Cappel (1684, 493). The expressionWrS]ai, “bind,” forced the Greek translator to change bwOf, “good/well,” frequentlyrendered in G by crhstov",” into its antonym duvscrhsto".

BHS goes still further and proposes to read yrEv]a', “happy,” which results in:“Happy the righteous! All goes well with them.” But the ˜rst half of the dou-blet Wrmai, “tell,” of which kaqΔ eJautw'n eijpovnte", “saying,” may be the transla-tion, has been omitted in this proposal. Moreover, to arrive at a conjecture yrEv]a',“happy,” one has to presuppose a series of misunderstandings: rsa > rca > yrva.


Many of the older and some of the more recent commentaries (Wildberger)pronounce themselves in favor of the conjectural reading “happy.” Such a read-ing is also imposed by the critical apparatus of BHS. Therefore, it is no wonderthat some modern translations follow the advice: NEB, REB, GNB, EÜ, RLetc., normally with a note showing the correction of the Hebrew. If, however,as is recommended, M is followed in translating, an interpretational problemmay be involved. The prophet is supposed to be the speaker of verse 10, butwho is the adressee of the imperative “say”? According to Bahbout (24–25) thejudges are addressed by the prophet and they are asked to declare that the righ-teous are good. This would be a reaction against those who declare the evilgood and the good evil (5.20) and it would prepare the statement of 3.12. Thisinterpretation would need more explicit information in translation. On the otherhand, the Hebrew verb can simply be taken as a verb of “re˘ection,” and notof “saying,” and this would certainly be in agreement with the typical wisdomcontext of 10–11. The prophet will then continue to address the same audience.


If the last (and easiest) solution is adopted, GrN or GN may be taken as akind of model: “Denkt daran: Wer Gott gehorcht, um den ist es gut bestellt,”“think of this (take into consideration) all goes well with him who obeys God.”

Isaiah 1–10 193.12

3.12

Textual Decisions

The textual problem in this case is a matter of vocalization. One shouldeither read with M (and Sym, V and S) μyvin:, “women,” in which case the mean-ing of the sentence is “and women rule over them,” or, one should read withG, Aq, Th and T μyvinO “usurers,” in which case the meaning is: “and usurers ruleover them.” The last reading is the preferred one, although it only received aC rating. Any textual decision will be dependent upon how the preceding par-allel half line, and in particular the word llewO[m], a noun for “children” or theparticiple of “to strip bare” is understood. Consequently: “My people, its rulersare children,” or, “my people, its rulers are stripping it bare.” Backed up by allthe ancient versions, the committee judged it preferable to attribute to llewO[m] themetaphorical meaning of “stripping bare,” which makes a meaning “usurers”more probable in the second half line than a meaning “women.”


In this case one is faced with a strong interdependence of a textual (μyvn)and an interpretational (llewO[m]) problem. Solutions will be largely conditionedby the starting point of the argument. If the vocalization of M with the impliedmeaning “women” is taken as a starting point, “children” will be the condi-tioned parallel meaning. One may even want to quote an Arabic proverb insupport: “I am ˘ying to God from the dominion of youngsters and from thegovernment of women.” (Delitzsch, 87, note 1). The whole will result in areading like NIV: “Youths oppress my people, women rule over them.” If, onthe other hand, llewO[m] is taken as point of departure, and if it is taken to meanspeci˜cally “to strip bare” (literally “to glean,” i.e. even after the vintage therulers come back again and again to see whether something is left to be taken),or, in vaguer terms, “to do evil to,” “usurers” will be the conditioned parallelmeaning in the second half line and a revocalization μyvinO imposes itself. Theresult will be a translation like FC: “Mon peuple, dit le Seigneur, ceux quidominent sur toi sont des rapaces; ce sont des gens avides qui excercent lepouvoir.” A third possibility of interpretation, which is closely related to themeaning “child”: llewO[m] has still to be mentioned. It is derived from an other-wise unattested verb ll'[; with the meaning “acting the child.” (BDB) This seemsto be the interpretation behind BR: “Mein Volk, spielerisch ist seiner Treiberein jeder Weiber walten ihm ob,” “My people, each one of its oppressors playsthe child, women play the lord over it.”



In agreement with the textual decision, preference should be given to arendering like GN: “‘Du mein Volk,’ sagt der Herr, ‘Ausbeuter herrschen überdich, Wucherer saugen dich aus’” (compare also GNB). The variant transla-tion, however, should be given as a whole in a footnote. “My people—childrenare their oppressors, and women rule over them,” because the possibility of adouble entendre exists. Reference may even be made to 3.4: “And I will makeboys their princes, and babes shall rule over them,” and to the following section3.16–4.1 in which “women are the central theme” (Marti, 40).

3.13

Textual Decisions

M, followed by 1Q-a, V and T, reads μyMi[', “peoples,” “he stands to judgethe peoples,” whereas G, followed by S, renders to;n lao;n aujtou', “his people,”“he enters into judgment with his people.” M has received a B evaluation, sinceit clearly is the most di¯cult reading, whereas G, and also S, can both be ex-plained through assimilation to the immediate context, especially that of verse14 where the reading wOM[', “his people,” is found.


Most commentators simply follow G under contextual constraints: threetimes “my people” in 12 and 15, once “his people” in 14. Reading wOM[' “hispeople,” with G in 13 as well would even produce a nice chiasm! Most moderntranslators feel the same obligations. Some commentators have tried to savethe reading of M by giving the plural “peoples” the contextual meaning of the“tribes” of Israel. This seems to be rather far-fetched. The more di¯cult mean-ing of M, however, makes excellent sense. After the description of the univer-sal judgment of all peoples, God’s people is mentioned speci˜cally and amongthis people its leaders (Delitzsch, 88).


The particular rhetoric device which helps to provide a surprise focus onthe people of God may be very well kept in many translations. See e.g. NRSV:“The Lord rises to argue his case; he stands to judge the peoples.” Translatorswho feel that they have to respect certain contextual constraints can act likeG and render: “The Lord is ready to state his case; he is ready to judge hispeople” like GNB. They should not develop textual notes like in GNB, FC,GN, etc. In fact, they act translationally like G and they should not presupposea diˆerent Vorlage of M, in spite of the vague clavis of the ˜nal report.

Isaiah 1–10 213.24

3.24

Textual Decisions

In this case the textual problem has been provoked by an interpretationalone. If Hebrew yKi in the last half line of the verse is taken to be a noun withthe meaning “(mark of) branding,” one obtains a balanced sentence reading “amark of branding instead of beauty.” If, on the other hand, yKi is considered tobe the usual conjunction, one either gets an incomplete sentence, “for insteadof beauty,” or an abbreviated one, “yes, instead of beauty,” depending upon themeaning one wants to give to the conjunction. The copyist of 1Q-a, who wasnot aware of a substantival meaning of yKi, took it to be the conjunction andcompleted the incomplete sentence by adding tvb, “shame,” “instead of beauty,shame.” G only kept the word for “beauty” and combined it with the next sen-tence in a free rendering: “and your most beautiful son whom you love, shallfall by the sword.” V and T took similar options. On the other hand, the He-brew consonantal text is strongly supported by Aq, Sym, and S as well as bythe Greek Antioch tradition. It is, therefore, no wonder that M as more di¯cultreading has been preferred and that a majority rating B has been given to it.


The ancient versions which took yKi as a conjunction and which connected24b with 25, did not have many adherents. The ancient tradition, on the otherhand, which glossed yKi as “this” or “all this” and which made an independent,abbreviated, sentence of a concluding nature out of 24b, had somewhat moresuccess. It is even re˘ected in Luther 1545: “Solchs alles an stat deiner schöne,”“all this instead of your beauty.” The interpretation of yKi as a noun has, however,become most popular, although it is not entirely unproblematic (Wildberger,136). The oldest interpretation of yKi as a noun with the meaning “burning” canonly be found in the Talmud Babli (Shabbat 62b) where the Babylonian Amor-ite Raba (˜rst half of 4th cent. AD) observes that Is. 3.24b resembles the prov-erb which said: “instead of beauty burning.” Even then it must be said that theeditions of the Talmud read: “instead of beauty ab;yKe, “ulcers,” and that, in orderto obtain the meaning “burning,” one has to follow the reading ha;w:k] given byRadaq and adopted by Kimchi. Positively, it can be said that a root hwk with ameaning “to burn” exists in Biblical Hebrew and is even attested in Is. (43.2).

For translational reasons it is certainly important to know what the causeor purpose of a “mark of branding” was. The two most important of the ex-planations which have been given are: (1) the marks of branding were stigmatacaused by a therapeutical application against certain illnesses, and (2) they weremarks on the forehead of slaves. The last explanation seems to be the mostprobable.



In recent translations a tendency exists to prefer the reading of 1Q-a, “in-stead of beauty, shame,” either with a footnote, as in RSV, NRSV and FC, orwithout, as in GNB and EÜ. From the preceding discussion it will have becomeclear that there is no reason to follow this trend. Translators are encouraged torender yKi as a noun in the sense of “mark of branding,” although certain rela-tionships in the sentence may need more explicitness in translation. One mayhave to say “instead of beauty the shame of a mark of branding.” One may evenwant to put some cultural note like in NIV: “Captives were treated like cattle.They were led away by ropes and sometimes branded.”

4.5

Textual Decisions

The textual problem of this verse, which has been the despair of genera-tions of commentators, is in fact a syntactical, and therefore an interpretationalproblem.

One of the syntactical divisions would yield as translation: “for over allthe glory there will be a covering,” the other one: “for glory will be a coveringover all.” Main issue therefore is whether there is a semantic discontinuationafter lk, “all,” or not.

For M there is not and its syntactic division is supported by 4Q-a, G, V and S.1Q-a is indecisive in this respect because of a lacuna. The blank is due to

a mistake of the scribe who jumped by accident from μm;wOy, “by day,” in verse5 to the same word in verse 6.

On the other hand, the Alexandrian group of manuscripts of the LXX hasfelt the necessity to qualify “the glory” as “the glory of the Lord.”

T does the same in choosing the other syntactic option: “for with greaterglory than that which he promised to bring upon it (i.e. the sanctuary) shall theShekinah be protecting it as with a canopy” (Stenning 14).

Both the external and the internal evidence in favor of the syntactical di-vision of M are very strong and it is therefore no wonder that a B rating hasbeen attributed to it.


Many of the modern translations seem to opt for what the committee con-sidered the wrong syntactical construction. The semantic implication of such anoption is that the “glory” can only be the “glory of the Lord” and this implicitinformation has to be made explicit in some way. So in REB: “for his glorywill be a canopy over all,” or, with even more explicitness, in GNB: “God’sglory will cover and protect the whole city.” One can ask whether these trans-

Isaiah 1–10 235.9

lations do not only testify to a wrong syntax, but also to a wrong grammar.Especially when Rosenmüller is right with his statement that dwObK;, “glory,” with-out the de˜nite article never refers to the glory of God. If this is true, the glorycan only be the glory, or the glorious condition, of Jerusalem which will befurther protected (Delitzsch, 101).


The syntactic division and implied interpretation of M are behind transla-tions like NRSV, “Indeed over all the glory there will be a canopy” and SR,“Car tout ce qui est glorieux sera mis à couvert,” which can therefore be usedas a literal model. Translators may, however, want to make explicit that the“glory” is the glory of Jerusalem, as in NFB: “want al dy hearlikheid sil ôfsketwurde mei in tintkleed en tûken,” “for all your glory (i.e. of Sion) will be pro-tected with a baldaquin.”

5.9

Textual Decisions

M has a very concise text: twOab;x] hw:hy“ yn:z“a;B] in my ears, Lord of Hosts,” andancient versions as G, S and T already felt the need to make a verb “hear,” ex-plicit in the translation or to provide at least a minimal gloss: “sunt haec,” “arethese,” like V.

Especially G has drawn the attention, and it has been suggested that Greekhjkouvsqh, “were heard,” was the result of a misreading of an original Hebrew[B'v]nI, “he has sworn,” as [m'v]nI, “was heard.” This conjecture, ˜rst launched byMarti, has been taken over by many recent commentators. The committee hasnevertheless given a B rating to M for two main reasons: (1) the strong supportit receives from 1Q-a and (2) the fact that all versions had to provide someform of explicit information on translational grounds.


The only interpretational problem is whether the possessive su¯x in theHebrew for “my ears” refers to the Lord or to the prophet. For G the ˜rst is thecase: hjkouvsqh ga;r eij" ta; w\ta kurivou sabawq tau'ta, “For these things havereached the ears of the Lord of Hosts.” Such an interpretation and translationare not impossible. They have, however, received little modern support sinceLuther 1545: “Es ist für den Ohren des HERRN Zebaoth.” In the light of theparallel text 22.14 it is more probable that the possessive su¯x refers to theprophet and that, in view of the following oath formula, a verb “to swear” hasbeen left implicit as self-evident.



In modern translations explicit information will likewise have to be pro-vided, not on textual, but on translational grounds. In interconfessional projectswith Orthodox participation it should be considered whether G and its adapta-tion to the prophetic discourse of 8–10 can be taken as a model. OtherwiseNRSV can be taken as an example, “the Lord of Hosts has sworn in my hear-ing,” or REB, “In my hearing the Lord of Hosts made this solemn oath: . . . .”On a common language level it can simply be stated: “I have heard the oath ofthe Lord of the universe,” or, more neutrally, “I have heard the Lord Almightysay” (GNB).

5.13

Textual Decisions

In M “the nobles” in verse 5.13 become b[;r: ytem], literally “men of hunger,”whereas two Hebrew manuscripts, G, Sym, V, S and T seem to have followeda diˆerent vocalization b[;r: yteme, “dying of hunger.” In spite of majority evi-dence for the last vocalization, a B rating has been attributed to M for mainlytwo reasons: (1) in view of the relationship between “hunger” and “dying” thevocalization yteme is clearly facilitating and (2) as 1Q-a has the same orthographyas M, this should be interpreted as a support. For everywhere else in Is whereM has tme in the singular or plural, 1Q-a has a scriptio plena with yod, tyme. Onthe other hand, the quotation in the commentary on Isaiah, found in Qumrancave 4 (4Q162), does not permit any conclusion because of its generally de-fective writing.


Probably in˘uenced by the imperative “read” in the apparatus of BHS,translations generally tend to follow the ancient versions. Interestingly, thereis a diˆerent tendency among commentators. Since the last century (Hitzig,Roorda, Ewald, Böttcher, Delitzsch, Duhm) up till very recently (Wildberger,Clements) the emendation yzEm], “exhausted,” has been proposed on the base ofDeut. 32.24, “exhausted from hunger,” as a better parallel with “parched withthirst” in the second half line of 13b. This purely conjectural reading has notbeen taken into account because of lack of textual evidence. Ehrlich refers toGen. 34.30 where he remarks (1908, 176) that μytim] always has a pejorativemeaning of “poor devil” and thinks (1912, 21) that M should not be changed.

Isaiah 1–10 255.17


Translations, as said above, tend to follow the ancient versions in such ren-derings as “die of hunger” (NIV, NRSV) and “starve to death” (GNB, REB).The correctness of such translations is largely dependent on the degree of ˜gu-rativeness verbs as “to die” or “to starve” have in the context. Since exter-mination through hunger was not the aim of the exile, any literalness shouldbe avoided. Compare the idiomatic rendering in GrN: “de adel zal vergaanvan honger.” “Vergaan” is literally “to die,” but the expression “vergaan vanhonger” only means “to be very hungry.” Sometimes it may be better to avoidambiguity and render the text along the lines of GN: “Die Angesehenen müssenHunger leiden,” “the nobles will suˆer from hunger.” If a possibility exists toexpress the negative associate meaning indicated by Ehrlich, it should beseized. Compare Barthélemy (34): “sa glorieuse élite: des pauvres aˆamés.”

The conjectural reading should be avoided. Only older translations haveoccasionally followed it.

5.17

Textual Decisions

In this verse there are two important textual problems which, at the sametime, are problems of interpretation. A literal rendering of M would yield the fol-lowing text: “And sheep will graze as in their (own) μr:b]d:K], pasture, and the ruinsof the prosperous μyrIG: , strangers, will eat.” The only really deviating ancientversion is G with its reading: “And they that were spoiled (oiJ dihrpasmevnoi =? μyviBuK] for M μycib;k]) will be fed as bulls (wJ" tau'roi = ? μyrIyBia'K;) and lambs(a[rne" = ? μyId:G“) will feed on the waste places of them that are taken away.” Asbecomes already clear from the above translation, it is very di¯cult to guesswhat G has understood from the Hebrew. The majority B rating given to M istherefore no surprise. M is in fact fully supported by Aq, Sym, V and S. 4Q-b,although it is full of lacunae, supports at least the reading μyrg , and 1Q-a sup-ports only in one case through its full writing μyçwbk what could have been thebase of G.


There does not seem to be any particular problem of interpretation in the˜rst half line. In the second half line, on the contrary, there are two main prob-lems. The ˜rst is whether μyjime, “fatt,” is the genitive of the preceding nountwObr“j;w“ , “ruins,” in which case it will have to be taken in a metaphorical senseas “ruins of the prosperous,” or whether it should be taken as a qualifying ad-jective with the next word μyrIG: in the sense of “transhumant fatlings” or “fat-lings on the move.” They would then “eat the ruins,” i.e. the abandoned orchards


and vineyards, the fences of which are broken down. Herewith also the secondproblem is touched upon. M does not necessarily mean “strangers”; it can inthe light of 11.6, also have the meaning of “transhumant ˘ock.” Procksch (94–95) has drawn the attention to the fact that 17 has a chiastic structure and thatin this structure μyvib;k] and μyrIG: correspond with each other. If structure can bedecisive, the ˜rst interpretation of the ˜rst problem should be preferred andμyrIG: should be taken to mean “transhumant ˘ock.” It is less likely that μyrIG:would stand for “wandering shepherds.” This preferred interpretation of thepreliminary report is no longer mentioned in the ñal one.


Both NEB and REB presuppose too many arbitrary changes in the text tobe acceptable. NIV comes close to the ˜rst interpretation “Then sheep willgraze as in their own pasture; lambs will feed among the ruins of the rich” andgives a textual note, which can be considered as super˘uous. GN is not farfrom the chosen interpretation: “Zwischen den Trümmern der Stadt weiden dieSchafe, und was die Reichen in ihren Ruinen zurücklassen mußten, das essen dieumherziehenden Hirten auf,” “Among the remains of the city the sheep graze,and what the rich had to abandon in their ruins, the wandering shepherds eat.”Nevertheless the word “Hirten,” “shepherds,” has to be changed into “Herden,”“˘ock,” to obtain a usuable translation model.

5.18

Textual Decisions

The ñal report, in contrast with the preliminary one, signals two diêrenttextual problems, the ˜rst one being on a syntactical, the second one on wordlevel. The ˜rst problem is that M, followed by 1Q-a, 4Q-a, 4Q-b, V, T and pos-sibly Aq, reads one metaphor: “with cords of deceit” and one comparison: “as(with) a cart rope,” showing an alternation of the prepositions b], “with,” and k],“as.” G, S and Sym, on the other hand, have read a comparison twice and˜fteen manuscripts (Kennicot and de Rossi) have read both times a metaphor.In both instances a harmonizing and facilitating reading of twice the samepreposition is concerned and therefore a B evaluation has been given to thereading of M.

The second problem, far more interpretational than textual, concerns thevocalization and interpretation of M hlg[h which only G seems to have readhl;g“[,h;, with the meaning “heifer”: damavlew". In spite of some confusions, bothS and T seem to prefer a meaning “chariot,” in agreement with M, Sym and V.Moreover the association of a rope with a cart seems more natural than the

Isaiah 1–10 275.26

association rope / heifer, and therefore a B evaluation was given to M in thiscase as well.


In the light of these decisions, it seems rather problematic to follow G byintroducing the “heifer” into the translation. It seems even more problematicto give the “heifer” the company of a “sheep” by emending the last word ofthe ˜rst half line as has been done in NEB: “Shame on you! you who dragwickedness along like a tethered sheep and sin like a heifer on a rope.” SinceEhrlich (22) such an emendation has hardly been defended in scholarship, andit is therefore strange to see that the changes in REB are only syntactical.

In the ˜nal report it is repeatedly stressed that the meaning of M twOb[} issingular (a rope) and that the plural translation of many translators is the resultof a lack of attention. The plural rendering may nevertheless have been in-spired by stylistic arguments, and this discussion therefore does not seem tooimportant. The distinction between metaphor and comparison, however, is es-sential, especially when Mowinckel (1921, 51) and Wildberger (193) are rightin their presupposition that “cord of deceit” refers to the knotted strands of acord used in Babylonian magical ritual to attract evil.


A literal translation could follow NIV as its model: “Woe to those whodraw sin along with cords of deceit, and wickedness as with cart ropes.” In astudy edition of the Bible it may be good to cite, as NIV does, the contrastiveparallel of Hosea 11.4: “I led them with cords of human kindness” and to referto the Babylonian practice mentioned above. Functional equivalence transla-tions may have some problems with the metaphor and comparison. Eliminationof both along the lines of TEV, “You are doomed! You are unable to break freefrom your sins,” should, however, be avoided in order to prevent serious lossof impact. In some languages, the metaphor may have to be changed into anidiom and the comparison kept. In others the comparison may have to bespelled out.

5.26

Textual Decisions

M presents a syntactical problem: the noun μyIwOG , “nations,” has a pluralform, but these same “nations” are twice referred to in the singular in the sameverse, “he whistles for it” and “it comes.” Therefore, it has generally been pro-posed that the plural should be changed into a more “original” singular ywOG, “na-tion.” Two possible explanations have been given for the “wrong” reading of


M: since the following word qwOjr:me, “distant,” starts with a mem, a copyistcould have been victim of so-called dittography, or a copyist could have madea wrong word division and the original text would have read qj;r“M,mi ywOG , “a na-tion from far away.” The last explanation has almost universally been acceptedsince Roorda, especially since the same expression reoccurs in Jer. 5.15.

In spite of all this, a B evaluation has been given to M because it is thelectio di¯cilior which is, in addition, supported by 1Q-a, V and T. In fact, bothG and S present facilitating readings, since they harmonize by using every-where the plural (not the singular!).


It is possible, indeed, to explain the shift from plural to singular in Mthrough a change of focus. In the following verses the nations now presentthemselves as the unique army, as a coherent body of inde˜nite shape (Del-itzsch, 118). The problem, however, is that not all languages are able to makesuch a shift. Translators may even have to be alerted as to the existence of aproblem! For almost all modern translations have made the harmonization bychanging the Hebrew plural noun into a singular one without informing thereader in a footnote about the existence of a textual problem. Only TEV andGN tell their readers that they have followed a diˆerent and more “probable”Hebrew text, whereas the footnote of FC refers to Jer. 5.15 so that (only!) theinsider knows that the Roorda reading has been followed.


When the receptor language requires a harmonization, G and S should beused as a model and plurals should be used throughout. NIV is one of the raretranslations having done this and it could therefore serve as a model in En-glish: “He lifts up a banner for the distant nations, he whistles for those at theends of the earth. Here they come, swiftly and speedily!” Such a harmoniza-tion has, of course, the advantage of making any textual note super˘uous.

6.10

Textual Decisions

Instead of the Hebrew series of imperatives: “Make the mind of this peo-ple dull, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes,” G has read forms of the aoristindicative: “For the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears aredull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed.” Since Cappel (1684, 496) ithas been noted that G may have vocalized the ˜rst Hebrew form as a hophalˆm'v]h;. But this seems unlikely as the hophal indicative of this verb does notoccur (de Waard, 1965, 6–8). G is supported by Sym, S and, very indirectly,

Isaiah 1–10 296.13

by 1Q-a, whereas V and T follow M. M has received a mixed B/C rating forthe following reasons: (1) even if G would have read a hophal form of the ˜rstverb, it could not have done so in the case of the two remaining verbs, whichare in the singular, whereas Hebrew syntax would require a plural with the twodual forms for “ears” and “eyes”; (2) G and 1Q-a only have in common the factthat they have avoided a statement according to which God would have orderedthe prophet to make the mind of the people dull, etc. In other words, one faceshere a modi˜cation for theological reasons. (3) If G would be original, it couldhardly be understood how the more di¯cult reading of M came into being.


Translators may not be aware of the existence of this problem, since it ismostly ignored by commentators and since it does not ˜gure in the apparatusof our Hebrew Bibles. To our knowledge, NEB has been the ˜rst modern trans-lation to reintroduce the indicative mood: “This people’s wits are dulled, theirears are deafened and their eyes blinded.” The translators did not ñd it nec-essary to give any justi˜cation of this version in a footnote. REB adapted thisto a slightly more “common” language and proposed M as an alternative read-ing in a footnote. All other translations render the Hebrew imperatives althoughoccasionally the harshness implied in the direct speech may have been takenaway. See BR: “Zu verfetten ist das Herz dieses Volks, seine Ohren zu ver-stumpfen, seine Augen zu verkleben.”


It cannot be the task of the translator to eliminate consciously or uncon-sciously a theological problem in his translation. Nor is it his task to chargehimself with all the responsibilities of the exegete. He will therefore have torender the imperatives of M, paying above all attention to the correct render-ing of the Hebrew idioms. In Study Bibles and in interconfessional transla-tions with Orthodox participation, a note highlighting the theological factorsmay be necessary.

6.13

Textual Decisions

This very di¯cult verse presents two main problems: (a) which text shouldbe read and (b) the interpretation of this text. The ˜rst problem will be dealtwith here, the second will be discussed in the next section.

The imagination of researchers has especially been excited by the diêr-ent readings of 1Q-a: tklçm for M tk,L,v'B] and hmb for M μB;. These diêr-ences have inspired Iwry (1957, 225–232) to an entirely new interpretation:


30 6.13

“Like a terebinth, or an oak, or an Asherah, when ˘ung down from the sacredcolumn of a high place,” an interpretation, which with minor modi˜cations,can be found back only in NEB.

The last words of the verse HT;b]X'm'

vd<qo

[r"z<

often rendered in English as“holy seed is its stump,” are lacking in G and S, and for that reason many trans-lations put this part of the verse between brackets (Moâtt, NAB, TEV, E

Ü

).Some even do not translate it at all (LV).

M nevertheless received a C evaluation in both textual problems. For in1Q-a an important space separates hmb

from tbxm

, and since such spaces havea semantic function in this manuscript, hmb

can only be taken with the follow-ing, and not with the preceding information. Iwry’s interpretation is therefore tobe excluded and hmb

should probably be considered to be a full spelling of μb

. As to G, it is not a witness of an older and more authentic text, but the trans-

lator must have jumped from tbxm

to htbxm

and omitted words by “

homoio-arcton

,”

an identical beginning of words.


The interpretation of this text is very di¯cult. It is not clear, for example,whether there is a relationship between 13a and 13bc, or between the informa-tion preceding the comparison and the comparison itself. The last item of 13ar[eb;l]

can be interpreted in diêrent ways: (a) as derived from r[b

I in whichcase it would mean “to be burned up” (Moâtt); (b) as coming from r[b

II inwhich case either a speci˜c meaning “to be grazed” (FC, GN) or a genericmeaning “to be destroyed” (REB) could be obtained. The meaning chosen will,however, largely be dependent upon the deñition of relationship between 13aand 13bc as well as upon certain interpretations of 13bc.

The two main problems of the comparison are the interpretations of twolexical items: tk,L,v'B]

and tb,X,m'

. The ˜rst one has been interpreted in four diêrent ways: (a) as a proper

name “Shallecheth,” name of a gate of Jerusalem, west of the temple (1 Chron.26. 16); (b) as “the falling of the leaves” (T: “like a terebinth and like an oakwhich appear to be dried up when their leaves fall”; Luther: “

welche denStamm haben obwohl ihre Bl

ä

tter abgestossen werden

”; KJ: “whose substanceis in them, when they cast their leaves”); (c) as the pruning (of the trees), soAbravanel; (d) as the cutting down of the trees (all modern translations).

The second lexical item has frequently been interpreted as “rootstock,” or“stump,” a meaning which becomes contextually obligatory when the trees are“cut down.” There are, however, considerable doubts as to such a meaning oftbxm

(Baumgartner, Holladay, Wildberger). Another meaning given to the wordis that of “bare trunk,” a meaning which contextually would ˜t into the contextof a bush ˜re or “the pruning of trees.” Cazelles (1975) has even been thinkingof the “Djed pillar” of Egyptian ritual which has the form of a bare trunk. In

Isaiah 1–10

316.13

that case Isaiah would have been alluding to the “dynastic stone” and the con-tinuity of the Davidic dynasty. Finally, Tur-Sinai (169) comparing the Aramaicroot bxn

and the translation of S, has proposed a meaning “new planting”: “Thenew growth to come forth after the trees have been entirely denuded of foliageand fruit.” (as cited by Wildberger, GN).


A number of statements can be made:

(1) An imaginative interpretation of 1Q-a along the lines of NEB should beavoided. It is noteworthy that REB has already followed this advice.

(2) There is no reason to put a translation of 13c between square brackets.

(3) Diêrent interpretations seem to be possible and no translation can there-fore be considered as compulsory.

(4) Depending upon the type of translation and the particular audience, variantinterpretations could be provided in a footnote.


The two reports give preference to the interpretation of “Shallechet” as aproper noun. In the ñal report the following translation is proposed: “And ifstill a tenth remains, it will be given to the ˜re, as the oak and the terebinth atShallechet of which only a trunk remains. This trunk is a holy seed.” The prob-lem with this proposal is that it is only based upon the oldest Jewish interpre-tation history (Saadya, Ibn Ezra etc.). Such a translation is still mentioned asa second possibility in the Geneva Bible of 1588, but it is no longer consideredin modern interpretation history, Jewish interpretation included.

It seems therefore preferable to stay with the closely related interpretationof the “bare trunk” as a result of burning or pruning, since such an interpre-tation seems to agree most with the ñdings of modern scholarship. BJ is oneof the rare examples of this interpretation: “

Et s’il en reste un dixi

è

me, denouveau il sera d

é

pouill

é

, comme le t

é

r

é

binthe et comme le ch

ê

ne qui une fois

é

mond

é

s n’ont plus qu’un tronc; leur tronc est une semence sainte

,” “And if atenth of them remains, it will be despoiled again, as the terebinth and the oakwhich, once pruned, only have a trunk; their trunk will be a holy seed.”

Less probable, but still possible, is the interpretation of the bare tree afterthe falling of the leaves which is still re˘ected in Luther, KJ and StV.

Still less probable is the interpretation of the felling of the trees whichdoes not seem to have any ancient support, but which seems to have becomeprevalent in modern translations.


32 7.1

7.1

Textual Decisions

Although the Hebrew sentence has two subjects (Rezin, king of Aram

and

Pekah, king of Israel) the last ˜nite verb of the sentence is nevertheless in thesingular lkoy:

aolw“

, “and he could not.” Only T is following M in this. 1Q-a, G,V and S all have the verb in the plural. In spite of these many and diversewitnesses of the plural, an A evaluation has been given to the singular of Mbecause the plural is seen as an assimilation to the plural in the parallel text 2Kings 16. 5, and the committee judged that the speci˜c literary character ofeach of the parallel texts should be maintained.


In languages in which, unlike English, no grammatical ambiguity exists inthe surface form of the text, the plural form of the verb will not necessarily bethe result of inner Hebrew assimilation. More likely it will be conditioned bythe requirements of the syntactical grammar of the receptor language, espe-cially when also the ˜rst singular verb of the Hebrew sentence has been ren-dered with a plural. The only question of importance therefore is whether thereis a particular meaning connected with the singular in M. It seems that throughthe use of the singular the initiative of the king of Aram is brought into focuswhereas the activities of the king of Israel become entirely secondary. The nextverse (7.2) underlines the correctness of such a view.


It seems therefore appropriate to translate the verse in such a way that thefocus on Rezin is maintained. For some languages REB could serve as a model:“When Ahaz son of Jotham and grandson of Uzziah was ruler of Judah, KingRezin of Aram

with

Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jeru-salem, but was unable to reduce it” (so also GrN, BJ, Chouraqui).

7.11

Textual Decisions

The problem in this verse concerns the vocalization and meaning of theform hl;a;v]

. This form could either be interpreted as an imperative “ask,” or asa noun with the meaning “Sheol,” “underworld” + direction, or, + locative.Among the ancient versions, T, although it presents a paraphrase, seems tohave read the verb: “Ask for you a sign from the Lord your God,

ask

that amiracle be accomplished for you on the earth, or that a sign may be shown to

Isaiah 1–10

337.11

you in the heavens.” S certainly has done the same, whereas nothing can beconcluded from 1Q-a because of its defective form. It is also di¯cult to inducesomething from G because it presents the information of the verse in a verycompact way. On the other hand, Th, Aq, Sym and V have read the Hebrewform as a noun for “Sheol.”

Four B votes have been given to the vocalization hl;a;v]

of M and themeaning “sheol” on the basis of the following arguments: the vocalization ofM is a deliberate rhetoric device to permit a more successful assonance withthe following hl;[]m;l]

as defended by Vitringa and Ewald, or the vocalization ofM can be considered as a pausal form of hl;aov]

, as defended by Delitzsch (140).Two members of the committee, however, thought that the M vocalization im-plies a meaning “to ask,” that both vocalization and meaning are the result ofa theological correction, and that the original would have read hl;aov]

. Accord-ing to them, the text should be corrected in this sense and they gave a C eval-uation to this corrected form.


If a correction has taken place on the text of M, it certainly is of a theo-logical nature. The correction ensures that God will not be asked to perform acriminal act as the one carried out by the medium of Endor. Moreover, theidentical interpretation of the hexaplaric witnesses and V clearly shows that theinterpretation “Sheol” was the predominant one in the proto-Massoretic periodand, most probably, the original meaning of the text. If necessary, one can addimpressive arguments from the discourse structure. As several commentatorshave remarked, a repetition of the verb “to ask” would not only be weak, butit would mutilate the antithetic parallelism of the last clauses. (Gray, 122).


In the Preliminary Report both possibilities of translation are given, in the˜nal report only the rendering “Sheol” is correctly retained for the text. Thisis in agreement with the practice of the quasi totality of modern translations.Compare TEV; “Ask the Lord your God to give you a sign. It can be fromdeep in the world of the dead or from high up in heaven.” TOB is one of theextremely rare translations which presents the other interpretation of the text:“

Demande un signe pour toi au Seigneur ton Dieu, demande-le au plus pro-fond ou sur les sommets, l

à

-haut.

”

Although it gives the variant rendering in afootnote, it should not be followed.


34 8.2

8.2

Textual Decisions

According to M, the verbal form hd:y[ia;w“

has to be understood as a ˜rst per-son singular of the future: “I will take as witnesses.” M is supported in this by4Q-e. However, V seems to have vocalized the Hebrew consonants as follows:hd:y[ia;w:

in order to obtain a ˜rst person singular of the past: “I took as wit-nesses” (

et adhibui

. . .

testes

)

.

G and S follow 1Q-a by reading an imperative form d[eh;w“

“and take us wit-nesses.” A majority of the committee has given a C rating to M since it con-sidered the past tense reading as an assimilation to verse 3 and the imperativereading as an assimilation to verse 1.


The textual problem can only be analyzed and solved through an analysisof the total discourse 8.1–4.

In the case of the future tense, God is still the agent of verse 2. But this cre-ates a di¯culty since Isaiah is the one who has to take reliable witnesses. Thiscan be resolved by reading an imperative and by introducing a third order givenby God to the prophet. However, this solution creates new problems: this ordershould logically precede the second one (Kaiser), and, what is even more im-portant, the text should then have to read “take for you” instead of “take forme,” because the so-called

dativus commodi

has to agree with the verbal form(Ehrlich, 33; Feldmann, 99).

The other solution of reading a past tense creates less problems and onecan therefore understand that it is deeply rooted in the tradition.

The only way to understand M correctly is through the maximal perspec-tive reduction indicated by Delitzsch (151): God tells what he wants to do andthe prophet does not need an explicit message to know that he will be the in-strument through which this will be realized. Translationally, this can be ex-pressed through the rendering of a particular aspect of the verb: “I intend totake as witnesses.”


NIV is one of the rare translations following M: “And I will call in Uriahthe priest and Zechariah . . . as reliable witnesses for me.” It also presents thecontinuous speech of God as a discourse unit. This translation, or the aspecttranslation presented above, can serve as a model in case the translator couldbe sure that not too much discourse comprehension is lost.

Otherwise he should preferably shift to the past tense with the tradition:KJ, RSV, Luther, E

Ü

, GN, FC, etc.

Isaiah 1–10

358.6

Discourse ties may have to be strengthened in the translation. See FC: “

Jemontrai alors la tablette

à

deux t

é

moins

. . .”

or GrN. This has also been donerecently in REB: “I had it witnessed for me by . . . as reliable witnesses,” butthe way it is done creates the wrong impression that a passive meaning is givento the Hebrew verb.

When the imperative is read (NEB, TEV) care should be taken that thedi¯culties of the Hebrew are not simply smoothed over. In that case (and un-like NEB and TEV) a textual note will be necessary. NRSV should certainlynot be followed as a model here, for (a) its translation “and have it attested forme” creates the same wrong impression as in REB and (b) its note is wrong.In fact, M cannot be translated as “and I caused to be attested.” No textual noteis required when a past tense is read for translational reasons.

8.6

Textual Decisions

This verse does not seem to contain any real textual variant apart from thereading çyçmw

in 1Q-a for M cwOcm]W

, “and rejoicing.” Although 1Q-a clearly dis-tinguishes between

waw

and yod, it seems to have had an archetype in whichboth characters were frequently confused. Probably one of the copyists of 1Q-ahas opted for a facilitating hiphil participle vocalization. However, no semanticdiˆerences are implied. In fact, all witnesses (1Q-a, 4Q-f, G, V, S, T) supportthe reading and interpretation of M expressing either “joy” or “preference.”For that reason a B evaluation has been attributed to M.


There is, however, a whole series of interpretational problems connectedwith this item, which do directly concern translation. First of all, the constructnoun cwOcm] followed by an accusative, “rejoicing Rezin,” has been considered asa syntactically awkward construction. Even if this problem is solved by takingwith Genesius (725c) cwOcm] as a verbal noun substituted for a verb, the problemof meaning still remains: how can “this people” rejoice over Rezin? Burkittand BHS, avoiding this problem, have proposed to vocalize the Hebrew formas cwOcm;W which they consider to be identical with swOsm;W . Taking up this proposal,NEB and REB have given to this form the meaning “and gently” which theythen connected with the “soft ˘owing waters.” Since the following informationabout “Rezin and the son of Remaliah” does not make sense anymore, it sim-ply is deleted: “Because this nation has rejected the waters of Shiloah, which˘ow softly and gently.” Such a translation, having no textual base, is not ac-ceptable. Others keep the end of the verse and give to the same form a diˆer-ent meaning, “lose courage,” an interpretation followed by the large majority


of English versions (comp. NRSV: “and melt in fear before Rezin and the sonof Remaliah”). Such a meaning is, however, di¯cult to admit, since in such acase the Hebrew would use a preposition, the metaphor of the heart, and adiˆerent conjugation! The easiest solution remains to maintain the traditionalmeaning and to see in “this people” the people of the Northern Kingdom and/or the pro-Syro-Ephraimite lobby in Jerusalem (Delitzsch, 154).


Translators may need some encouragement to go against the majorityopinion of commentaries and translations. In the English language domain inparticular, they will have to jump from KJ to NIV in order to ˜nd a suitablemodel: “Because this people has rejected the gently ˘owing waters of Shiloahand rejoices over Rezin and the son of Remaliah.” Compare also the para-phrase of LB: “. . . and are enthusiastic about asking . . . to come and aid them,”and the rendering of GN: “they prefer Rezin and the son of Remaliah to theirown king,” “und zieht . . . seinem eigenen König vor.” Because of the many di-vergencies in translation, an interpretational note (as in GN) may be necessary.

8.8

Textual Decisions

The last words of this verse in M are as follows: lae WnM;[i Úx]r“a', “your land,Immanuel.” It has been proposed (Duhm, Marti, Gray) to read instead of thislae WnM;[i yKi ≈r<a,, “the land, for God is with us.” The corrected reading wouldfunction as a kind of refrain which is repeated at the end of verse 10. However,all witnesses, 1Q-a, 4Q-e and 4Q163 included, seem to support M. Only onesubgroup of the hexaplaric recension, 88 and Syh, and one subgroup of theLucianic recension plus a few manuscripts which underwent the in˘uence ofthese recensions, have omitted the possessive pronoun in th'ı cwvraı sou,“your land.” The comparison with Syh, as suggested in BHS, cannot be made,because o{ti (yKi) of verse 10 has not been added to the reading of these sub-groups in verse 8. In the light of this M could only receive an A evaluation.


The main problems are of an interpretational character. One of them is atthe discourse level. Does verse 8b start a new discourse unit and verse 8a there-fore close the section 8.1–8? Or should verse 8 as a whole be considered as theclosing part of the section?

The other main problem consists of the interpretation of the “outspreadwings” as either protective or aggressive.

Isaiah 1–10 378.9

The discourse structure has received little attention in commentaries. Onlyoccasionally it has been defended that 8b starts a new section (Marti, 84). Mostmodern commentators interpret the image of the wings in a protective sense.But also the aggressive meaning has been defended on the base of the parallelimage in Jer. 48.40 and 49.22 (Yefet ben Ely, Rashi, Delitzsch, Jacob). Trans-lational decisions will largely depend upon the interpretational options whichare chosen.


According to Brockington NEB (now also REB) has followed the Duhmconjecture: “With his outspread wings the whole expanse of the land will be˜lled, for God is with us.” (REB). In fact, Moˆatt did the same, but in a clearerway: “But the Lord’s wings outstretched, shall cover the country from side toside; for ‘God is with us.’ ” Such translations are only acceptable when basedon translational and not on textual decisions. If the aggressive interpretation ofM is followed, “Immanuel” can be considered as a vocative, in which case theproper name cannot be translated: “Its outspread wings will cover the breadthof your land, O Immanuel” (NIV). It seems, however, wise to present withTEV one interpretation in the text: “God is with us! His outspread wings pro-tect the land,” and one in a footnote: “They will spread out over the land. Godbe with us!”

8.9

Textual Decisions

M, followed in this by 1Q-a, Th, Aq, Sym, V, S, T, has read a Hebrew formW[ro, frequently translated as “be broken,” whereas G by rendering gnw'te,“know,” seems to have read in Hebrew W[D“. The same may be true for the read-ing ejpakouvsete in g and for the reading ajkouvsete in Syp. The ˜rst letter ofthe Hebrew form in 4Q-e is unreadable and in 4Q-f it cannot clearly beidenti˜ed. Although G has been adopted by many commentators (Lowth, Gray,Procksch, Bentzen, Kissane, Kaiser, Fohrer, Driver), the committee has never-theless given a B evaluation to M for the following reasons: (a) G is the onlywitness against M; (b) its reading can be understood on the base of a frequent“resh-dalet” confusion, therefore as a graphical error; (c) G has also been in-duced to its reading by taking the ˜rst imperative of 9a as a parallel to the sec-ond one, “give ear,” whereas the real parallel in M is the repeated imperativeof 9b.



The main problem is a lexicological and interpretational one and it con-cerns the meaning to be given to the Hebrew form of M. Depending upon theverbal root from which the imperative form is derived, several diˆerent mean-ings have been proposed. Most frequently a meaning “to break” has been de-fended, either as a transitive form “break,” or as an intransitive: “be broken.”Another meaning which has been proposed, particularly by German exegetes,is “toben,” “to rage.” Closely related to this is the occasionally suggested mean-ing “to tremble.” The classical interpretation is the one followed already jointlyby Sym, V and T: “associate yourselves,” whereas most recently a meaning“raise the war cry” has been proposed (Saebø, 1964. 143). None of these pro-posals is entirely without problems: both forms of “to break” imply muchanticipatory information, “rage” is a very questionable translation, a meaning“associate” is not easy to arrive at when the M vocalization is respected, anda meaning “raise the war cry” is typical of the causative form of the verb [wr,not of a qal form which nowhere exists. However, in the light of the immediatecontext with its parallelism, the last two meanings are the most appropriateones and a preference should be given to the meaning of “association.” (Wild-berger, 329).


NEB follows G in its rendering “Take note” without saying so in a foot-note. REB also follows G in providing the same translation, but justi˜es its ren-dering by noting: “so Gk; Heb. unintelligible.” Neither such a translation norsuch a footnote can be recommended to translators (see also Gordon and NAB).

In the light of what has been said about the meanings of M, no particularpreference should be given to such translations as “Be broken” (RSV), “Rageaway” (Moˆatt), and “Do your worst” (LB). NRSV should be used as a model“Band together, you peoples . . . .” TEV also renders the idea of association:“Gather together in fear,” but making at the same time the conditions of as-sociating explicit. This creates the impression of a wrong combination of twodistinct meanings “to associate” and “to tremble.”

In view of the many interpretations even within one language, it seemswise to provide a footnote with alternative interpretations as in FC.

8.11

Textual Decisions

The Hebrew vocalization of the verb in verse 11b M: ynIrES]yIw“ is even ac-cording to the most fervent defenders of M, quite unsatisfactory (Judah ibnBalaam, Radaq). As it stands, the verbal form should be analyzed as a qal im-

Isaiah 1–10 398.11

perfect of the root rsy, “to teach,” but contextually the imperfect form has tobe excluded. The qal perfect of the same verb would require a patach underthe resh instead of a tsere, and if a perfect of the piel is read (Elias Levita), thetsere has to be considered as irregular. A same derivation and a same meaning“to instruct” are only shared by T and V which must have come to such an un-derstanding via a vocalization ynIr"S]yI (w“).

The Qumran evidence has frequently been presented in a somewhat dis-torted way: ynrysyw (BHS, Wildberger). 1Q-a reads in fact wnrysy. One can say that1Q-a, Th, Aq, Sym and also G and S have read a form of the root rws, “to turn(from).” The committee judged that the Hebrew vocalization ynIrEysiy“w", presup-posed by Sym’s translation kai; ajpevsthsev me, “and he removed me,” takes anintermediate position between the vocalization of M on the one, and of 1Q-aand G on the other side. Therefore, a C evaluation was given to the correctedvocalization implied in the translation of Sym.


With the evaluation mentioned above, one of the “imperatives” of BHS isfollowed and at the same time a suggestion which goes back as far as Foreiro(1565) and Michaelis (1779). Among older commentators only Gray (151) pro-posed such a reading as variant reading, “and withdrew me from going,” andamong the most recent commentators Wildberger (334) proposed it as the bet-ter reading. Moreover, the proposal does more justice to the discourse structureof the verse.

Those who accentuated M did put an atnach under the word preceding theverbal form under discussion which indicates that they considered the verb asa parallel to the ˜rst verb of saying rm'a; and not as a continuation of the pre-ceding inñitive construction “when he took me by the hand.”

When the Hebrew form as read by Sym is followed, however, the verbcontinues the event expressed in the preceding inñitive: “when he took meby the hand and turned me (from following the ways of his people).” Thisseems to be a less forced solution, grammatically as well, since the prepositionˆmi frequently follows the verb rws, but never the verb rsy.


Translators comparing modern versions will normally not be reminded ofthe existence of a textual problem. Nor will they easily ñd translations inagreement with the proposals of both reports. The only exception is EÜ: “Alsdie Hand des Herrn mich packte und er mich davon abhielt, auf dem Wegdieses Volkes zu gehen, hat er zu mir gesagt,” “when the hand of the Lord tookme and withheld me from going on the way of this people, he said to me.”

A Handbook on Isaiah40 8.13–14

The only English translations which oêr a reading “and he turned mefrom following” as variant reading are NEB and REB. All other translationshave “and (he) warned me.” It is true, of course, that the two metaphors haveto be handled correctly and that such an operation may lead to diêrent solu-tions. Nevertheless, translators should be encouraged to follow the proposal ofthe reports or, if they are for any reason not willing to do so, to present at leasta variant reading in a footnote.

8.13–14

Textual Decisions

M reads in these two verses two derivations from the root çdq.(13) WvyDIq]t',you shall regard as holy (the Lord Almighty),” and (14) vD:q]mil], “(he will be)a sanctuary.” Several commentators have proposed to correct (13) into Wryviq]T',“you shall make your conspirator (the Lord Almighty) and (14) into ryviq]m' orrv;q]mi, “(he will become) a conspiracy.” Reason for the proposed corrections isthe twofold occurrence of the noun rv,q,, “conspiracy” in verse 12. Moreoverit has been observed that the original idea of making the Lord a conspiratorwas felt as oênsive and later changed into the dogmatically acceptable ideaof regarding the Lord as holy.

It has also been proposed to correct vD:q]mil] into vqewOml] “(he will become) asnare.” (Duhm, 59). Since these corrections presuppose a contextual harmoni-zation, it is not astonishing that the opposite harmonization has been proposedas well: to change the twofold rv,q, of verse 12 into a twofold vdoq;, “(do notcall) holy . . .” (Secker, Lowth, Ehrlich, Tur Sinai).

There seems, however, not to exist any textual base justifying any correc-tion whatsoever. M is supported in both verses by 1Q-a, G, Sym, V and S. In13 the three ˜rst letters of the verbal form are con˜rmed by 4Q-h (which is es-sential) and additional support is given by T. In 14 Aq provides such a supportwhereas T ˆ[;r“Wpl], “(his Memra shall be amongst you) for vengeance” can onlybe considered as a paraphrase of M. All these considerations could only leadto an A evaluation of M.


Although the image of God-conspirator may be rather interesting, it lacksany textual base (Jacob, 127). Moreover the proposed corrections are not with-out di¯culty since they introduce non-attested forms and uncertain meanings,whereas M is not unintelligible (Clements, 99). One of the main argumentsagainst M in verse 14 has been that God cannot be at the same time a sanctuaryand a stumbling stone (Duhm), but the atnach under the debated words showsthat two contrasting possibilities are concerned. The same contrast is present

Isaiah 1–10 418.21

in the next combination of “rock” and “one stumbles over” (Loh˜nk, 103). Themeaning of M therefore seems to be that God, if not regarded as holy by Israeland Judah, will become to them a stumblingstone instead of a refuge. Thetranslation should clearly mark both potentialities.


In the light of what has been said, a translation like NEB “It is the Lordof Hosts whom you must count ‘hard ’ . . . He shall become your ‘hardship,’ ”cannot be recommended. REB has come back to the traditional rendering in13: “It is the Lord of Hosts whom you should hold sacred,” but in 14 the con-jectural reading vqewOml] has been followed: “he will become a snare,” a practicewhich cannot be advised. NJV, giving the traditional translation in the text, pro-vides the emendations and their results in footnotes. Such footnotes, althoughpro˜table perhaps for certain audiences, should normally be avoided since aclear explanation can hardly be provided in little space. Some of the commonlanguage translations cannot be followed as a model because of correction andunacceptable paraphrase (FC) or because of the incorrectness of the interpre-tation: “Because of my awesome holiness I am like a stone . . .” (GNB). Trans-lations should therefore render the traditional understanding of M (RSV, NRSV,NIV), but preferably in such a way that the alternatives are clearly made ex-plicit, as in GN: “Ich bin der heilige Zu˘uchtsort, aber ich bin auch der Stein,an dem man sich stößt,” “I am a holy refuge, but I am also a stone one strikesagainst.”

8.21

Textual Decisions

The ˜rst two words of M: HB; rb'[;w“, “and he will pass through her,” presenta problem because it is di¯cult to see to which item in the preceding contextthe expression “through her” can refer back. The preposition plus femininesu¯x third person singular of M is supported by V: transibit per eam, whichshould refer back to matutina lux, “morning light,” of verse 20! It is likewisesupported by Sym: ejx aujtou', for the masculine Greek form is conditioned trans-lationally by the masculine gender of its Greek antecedent novmo", “law.” M iseven indirectly attested by T: “(And destruction shall pass) through the land,”because the feminine su¯x has been taken to refer to the absent feminine noun≈r<a,. As to 1Q-a and S, it cannot be decided whether a feminine or masculinesu¯x has been read. G by reading “and famine shall come sorely upon you(ejfΔ uJma'"),” has taken b[er ;w“ hv,q]nI as subject of the verb rb'[; and by renderingHb; with ejfΔ uJma'" has made an assimilation to the second person plural verbal

A Handbook on Isaiah42 9.2 (3)

su¯xes in the translation of verse 19. Because of the certain support of Sym,V and T, the committee has given a B evaluation to M.


NEB and REB “So despondency and fear will come over them” have takenthe same syntactical decisions as G. Only, “over them” presupposes a vocal-ization hBo and “fear” suggests that they followed Guillaume’s proposal (1964,289) to read for Hebrew b[er:, “hungry,” the Arabic cognate raçîb, “frightened.”Most commentators and translators, however, adopt the traditional syntacticaland lexicographical meanings and they consider—depending upon their dis-course conception—the feminine su¯x either as referring back to a noun ≈r<a,,“land,” which was mentioned in a preceding, lost, line or as referring implicitlyto such a noun which has not yet been presented. As Knobel has pointed out(1854) with regard to 1.6, the last phenomenon is rather frequent. The otherpossible implicit reference may be the one to Jerusalem (Barth, 1977, 153).


“Roam through the land” (NIV), “pass through the land” (NRSV), “wan-der through the land” (GNB) are all possible translations. Since normal, ex-plicit information is provided for translational reasons, textual notes (as in RSV,NRSV) should be avoided. The way in which the agent of “roaming” etc. isexpressed will largely depend upon discourse decisions. If a new discourse unitis started with verse 21, the grammatical subject may have to be stated explic-itly as “the people” (GNB) or impersonally as “one” (FC). In a continuous dis-course the reference will be to the preceding subject “they” (NRSV) or “he”(NJV). An interpretational note with the reading of G may be useful in inter-confessional projects involving Orthodox participation.

9.2 (3)

Textual Decisions

The ketiv reading of M is: aOl ywOGh', “the nation, not,” which, if the negationparticle is taken with the following information, would yield the KJ under-standing: “Thou hast multiplied the nation and not increased the joy.” Thesame reading and understanding are supported by Sym and V. The qere read-ing of M has wOl ywOGh', which leads to the NJV understanding of the verse: “Youhave magni˜ed that nation, / Have given it great joy.” This qere is supportedby T: “You have increased the people, even the house of Israel, to them (ˆwhl)you have increased the joy,” and S. It is di¯cult to conclude anything from G:to; plei'ston tou' laou', o} kathvgage" ejn eujfrosuvnh≥ sou, “the greatest part ofthe people which you have brought down in your joy.” Cappel (1684, 500) has

Isaiah 1–10 439.2 (3)

reconstructed T;l]G"rhi wOl as Vorlage of oJ kathvgageı. Anyway, in view of theabsence of a negation marker in all witnesses of the Old Greek, G may be anindirect witness of the qere. The spelling awl in 1Q-a is entirely ambiguous per-mitting both readings. It is not impossible that such ambiguous spellings are atthe origin of such types of ketiv / kere. A majority vote C has been given to theqere wOl, which means that a majority considered the ketiv as an error originat-ing in the kind of spelling found in Qumran.


The real problem for translators is that most commentators since Selwyn(1848) have adopted a conjecture hl;yGIh', “joy,” for M aOl ywOGh' and that manymodern translations (NEB, REB, GNB, TOB, FC, GN) have followed it. Inspite of Jewish hermeneutics, it has even been taken over by BR! Curiouslyenough, Christian exegesis remained attached to the unsatisfactory ketiv read-ing which was promulgated in dominant translations as V, Luther and KJ andconsidered the Jewish preference for the qere as untrustworthy. This may his-torically explain the relative success of the conjecture. It is also true, of course,that the conjecture provides an excellent parallelism between 2aa and 2bb.

Nevertheless, the proposed conjecture also presents many di¯culties. Itpresupposes a text which no early witness did know and which was very proba-bly even unknown to the author of Is. 26.15 who quotes this text according toM! (admitted even by Duhm, 63). In addition, as observed by Ehrlich (36), hl;yGIbelongs to the post-exile language and both lyGI and hl;yGI never occur with a de-˜nite article. It will be clear that, whatever its value may be, the conjecture can-not be discussed under the heading of textual analysis.


In line with the textual decisions, preference should be given to a transla-tion of the qere as in RSV, NRSV, NIV and NJV: “You have enlarged (multi-plied, magni˜ed) the nation, and increased their joy.” Such a preference shouldeven be stressed in interconfessional projects with Jewish participation.

In the case of Orthodox participation, the deviations of G may have to bementioned in a footnote.

In projects, the principles of which allow the adoption of conjectures ofthe type described above, GNB could be used as a model: “You have giventhem great joy.” Footnotes should be given containing correct information, andavoiding the characterization of the conjecture as “probable text” and of theHebrew as “not very clear.”


9.10 (11)

Textual Decisions

The reading ˆyxir“ yrEx;, “the adversaries of Rezin,” in M has generally beencorrected into a reading wyr:x;, “his (i.e. the Lord’s) adversaries,” since the im-mediate context, which speaks of the Syrians, requires an identi˜cation of “theadversaries” with Rezin. M is however strongly supported by 1Q-a, V, S andT. It is true that 22 Hebrew manuscripts read yrEc; “chiefs (of Rezin),” a readingwhich tries to solve the problem, but, as is clearly shown by the Hebrew Uni-versity Bible, the classical Tiberian manuscripts support the reading yrEx;. G bytranslating tou;ı ejpanistanomevnouı ejpΔ o[roı Siwn, “those that rise up againsthim on mount Sion,” must have read in Hebrew something like ˆyOxi rh' yrEx;, butwhy he did so will forever remain unclear (Seeligmann, 81). Some more re-cent Targum manuscripts read “the enemy of Israel, Rezin,” a facilitating so-lution. M remains the more di¯cult reading and presents a textual form whichis clearly at the base of all other textual forms. For that reason, M has receiveda B evaluation.


Among modern English translations only NIV and NJV render M, consid-ering that “the enemies of Rezin” were the Assyrians and those Arameans whotook the side of the invaders. They presuppose that Isaiah uses this particularperiphrasis in order to remind the Ephraimites of the failure of their alliancewith Rezin.

If it is judged that such an explanation is putting too much strain on textand context, the only solution is that of textual correction. This means that ac-cording to the opinion of the translator the di¯culties of the text can no longerbe solved on the level of textual analysis, but only on that of literary analysis.The easiest solution then is to presume that a reader somewhere in the pre-history of the text had made a marginal note identifying one such adversary:Rezin; a note which became at a later stage part of the text (Clements, Jacob,Wildberger).


If M is followed: “The Lord has raised the enemies of Rezin against them,”an interpretational note, explaining the periphrasis and its reasons, should beadded. In projects with Orthodox involvement it may be worthwhile to note thedeviating reading of G. It can in no way be recommended to follow the minor-ity reading of some Hebrew manuscripts as has been done in BR: “Er wiegeltRzins Unterfürsten gegen es auf,” “He stirs up Rezin’s o¯cers against him.” Ifthe translator has recourse to literary analysis, and to correction both the text

Isaiah 1–10 459.16 (17)

“So the Lord raised adversaries against them” and the note “Correction. Heb.‘the adversaries of Rezin’ ” of NRSV can serve as a model.

9.16 (17)

Textual Decisions

M, followed in this by G and V and some Targum editions, reads jm'c]yI,“take pleasure”: “Therefore the Lord will take no pleasure in the young men.”In order to avoid such an anthropomorphism, S and T clearly have vocalizedthe Hebrew form as jM'c'y“, “give pleasure.” “Therefore the Lord will not givepleasure to the young men.” 1Q-a, however, reads lwmjy, “show pity,” “there-fore the Lord will not show mercy to the young men,” which presupposes adiˆerent reading jm'v]yI. This presupposed and corrected reading received a ma-jority C rating since it can explain on the one side the modernizing reading of1Q-a, which substitutes a synonym at a time when the meaning of jm'v]yI was nolonger understood, and on the other side the facilitating punctuation of M outof lexicographical ignorance.


All corrections, proposed in the course of history, ˜nd their origin in thefact that M does not present a satisfactory parallel to the verb of the secondmember μjer"y“, “he will pity,” “nor will he pity the fatherless and widows.” Thecorrection jcpy (= jspy), “he will spare,” ˜rst proposed by Lagarde and fol-lowed by many others, should no longer be considered. Grätz, followed byEhrlich, made the proposal to read lmjy, an attractive suggestion now that thisreading has been con˜rmed by 1Q-a. But Perles (Notes, 63) was no doubt rightwith his conjecture jmvy with the same meaning as the Arabic cognate samu-cha, “be merciful,” “be good.” Although unique in Hebrew, this verb and thismeaning have now become an entry in modern dictionaries. As has been seenin the textual decisions, 1Q-a has become an indirect witness of the conjectureproposed by Perles (Wildberger, 206).


Translators are advised to use a translation such as REB as a model: “Thatis why the Lord showed no mercy to their youths,” or any other English versionadopting the same interpretation, like NEB, NRSV or NJV. A footnote can berecommended, but it should not justify the translation by calling attention to1Q-a (NRSV, GN) which is only an indirect witness. It should give, however,the reading shared by M, G and V: “Therefore the Lord will take no pleasurein the young men.” An added comparison with 1Q-a is, of course, alwayspossible.


9.19 (20)

Textual Decisions

M has “each devours the ˘esh of his arm (wO[roz“).” The reading wO[roz“ is for-mally supported by the full spelling w[wrz in 1Q-a. 4Q-e by reading wy[rz can onlybe considered as a facilitating variant, for the plural is a simple adaptation to thefact that each person has two arms. The reading can in no way be connectedwith [r"z< , “posterity,” which in Hebrew always is a collective singular. V and Salso con˜rm M and the same should be said of the Old Greek. The much quotedvariant of some manuscripts of the Alexandrian group tou' ajdelfou' aujtou', “ofhis brother” is not part of the ancient Greek tradition. T has given the follow-ing paraphrase: “they shall plunder everyone the goods of his neighbor” whichpresupposes a Hebrew reading wh[r for w[rz. The same should be true for Sym.Although Sym has only been preserved in Armenian, Ziegler has reconstructedthe Greek original as ta;ı savrkaı tou' plhsivou aujtou', “the ˘esh of his neigh-bor.” Both these readings can, however, easily be explained as assimilations toJer. 19.9 “and each one shall eat the ˘esh of his neighbor.” Therefore, and inview of the strong support it receives, M has been given a B evaluation.


In order to complicate things even more, there exists an old al-tiqre whichhas been proposed in the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 33a), namely to read wO[r“z",“his own posterity.” This homiletical tradition and the one of M are combinedby R. Joh ≥annan in Talmud Babli Taanit 5a, in which it is said that during a fam-ine of seven years one eats the ˘esh of his children in the sixth year and the˘esh of one’s own arms in the last. For Talmon (1964, 127) this al-tiqre is basedon an ancient textual variant.

This al-tiqre has strongly in˘uenced English translations: “each feeds onhis own children’s ˘esh” (NEB, REB), “Each will feed on the ˘esh of his ownoˆspring” (NIV), “They even eat their own children” (GNB). It can also bedetected in the more general rendering “own kindred” of NJV and NRSV. If theal-tiqre is not followed, English translations tend to adopt the reading of T asin RSV and NAB: “each devours the ˘esh of his neighbor.” KJ is the only sup-porter of M!

It should, however, be noted that wO[roz“ of M only makes sense when it is nottaken in a literal sense, but, like in Arabic and Syriac, as a metonomy in whichthe instrument stands for the act: “help,” “helper” (König, Dictionary, 94). But“helper” would certainly refer to children and the extended family, so that thediˆerences between the various readings become minimal (Delitzsch, 176).

Isaiah 1–10 4710.4


In view of the strong support of M translators are advised to render M andthe problematic “arm” in a ˜gurative sense. The verb for “to eat” may also haveto be rendered according to a ˜gurative meaning. In the absense of any Englishversion which could serve as an example, GN could be followed as a generalmodel: “Jeder vernichtet den, der ihm beistehen könnte,” “Everybody destroysthose who could help him.”

10.4

Textual Decisions

The main textual issue is whether one should vocalize (with M) rySia',“(among) the prisoners” and μygIWrh}, “(among) the slain,” or rwOsa;, “(under) thegoaler” and μygIr“ho, “(under) the executioner.” As to the reading μygIWrh', all ver-sions support the passive participle “the slain” with the exception of G whichhas a lacuna here. With regard to rySia;, it should be noted that 1Q-a reads rwsa,but as Kutscher suggests (366–367) this could be a simple modernization. It istherefore most probable that 1Q-a should be read as rWsa; which means that itcon˜rms the meaning of M. It is also most likely that G has read the readingof M. Th, Sym and V must have read rWsae, “captivity,” but the interpretationof these versions, as well as that of S and T seems to be based on a text likeM. For all these reasons, a B evaluation has been given to M.


Translators will have little di¯culty with such a textual decision. In fact,the only translation following the vocalization deviating from M is NEB: “sothat they do not cower before the gaoler or fall by the executioner’s hand?” REBfound it necessary to revise NEB according to the majority understanding.

The only interesting conjecture has come from Lagarde (1877, 105) who hasproposed to read the ˜rst four words in the following way: rysiao tj' t['r"ko yTil]Be,“Beltis is crouching, Osiris is shattered.” This proposal has been rather enthu-siastically accepted by a great number of commentators, from Duhm till Fohrer,but it never convinced translators. When one looks at the arguments developedby Wildberger (179–180), one can only say that the translators were correct.

The main problem for translators seems to be a syntactical one. One canconsider the two Hebrew phrases of verse 4a as coordinate constructions: “therewill be nothing left than to crouch among the prisoners or fall among the slain.”One can also take the ˜rst phrase as subordinate to the second and principalone: “unless one bows down as prisoner, one will fall under the slain.” Thesecond interpretation may even have to be preferred.



Translations normally follow M and render verse 4a as two coordinate sen-tences. Translators wanting to express the preferred subordinate relationshipsbetween the two sentences, can only use one German translation as model, BR:“Wer dem Kauern am Platz der Gefangenschaft entgehn will, an dem Platz derErschlagnen müssen die niederfallen!,” “Those who want to avoid couching incaptivity, will have to fall at the place of the slain.”

10.12

Textual Decisions

In M the verb of the independent sentence has a ˜rst person singular: dqøp]a,,“I will punish,” whereas the reading of G ejpavxei, “he will lay on,” seems topresuppose a third person singular dqopyI. Since M is supported by 1Q-a, Sym,V, S and T, and since G can easily be understood as a contextual harmonization,necessary for translational reasons, M has received a C evaluation.


Abrupt changes from the third person singular to the ˜rst person singularin a direct discourse are rather frequent, as translators will realize. König (1900,19–22) has enumerated seventeen cases of these in Isaiah, many of them en-tirely unmarked. What may have facilitated the unmarked shift here is the lackof ambiguity, since the Hebrew verb can only have the Lord as subject. In otherlanguages, however, ambiguity will exist and translators will therefore have tomark the shift to direct discourse explicitly, or they will have to adopt pronounsfor translational reasons as in G.


NIV is a good model for translators who want to mark the change ex-plicitly: “When the Lord has ñished all his work . . . , he will say, ‘I willpunish . . . .’ ” Stylistically, it may sometimes be preferable to start the directdiscourse right at the beginning as in GNB: “But the Lord says, ‘When I ñishwhat I am doing . . . I will punish . . .’ ” (so also GN, GrN). In that case, the thirdperson singular of the ˜rst verb of the sentence has, of course, to be adapted.When translators prefer the indirect discourse as an overall feature, they willhave to change pronouns as in RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, NJV and NJB. How-ever, unlike these versions, they should not make textual notes suggesting thatG has been followed. In fact, no diêrent Hebrew text is presupposed. Moderntranslators will have to make the same contextual harmonizations as G fortranslational, and not for textual reasons.

Isaiah 1–10 4910.25

10.25

Textual Decisions

The last sentence of M has μt;ylib]T'Al[' yPia'w“ , “and my anger will be directedto their destruction.” Four Hebrew manuscripts read the last word with a kaph:μt;ylik]T' but this does not imply a notable diêrence of meaning. The readingwith beth is strongly supported by 1Q-a, V and T. As to the reading of G, oJ de;qumovı mou ejpi; th;n boulh;n aujtw'n, “but my anger shall be against their coun-cil,” if anything can be concluded from the Greek translation of 32.7, G shouldmost probably have read a kaph. This, and the fact that the form in M is ahapax sheds some doubt on the originality of M. Nevertheless, M got a Cevaluation because the form with kaph which occurs ˜ve times in the OT canbe considered a facilitating reading.


This case has only interest for translators because of two conjectures whichhave been made. Luzzatto (1855) has proposed to divide the Hebrew consonanttext μtylbt into two words with the following vocalization and meaning lbeTeμToyI, “(my anger against) the world will stop.” This conjecture, which has theadvantage of reading the Hebrew text as a chiastic structure, has been acceptedby Grätz, Perles, Marti, Oort and Procksch and it has been adopted in at leastone translation (LV). Wildberger’s (417) argument that the anger is not againstthe “world,” is not entirely valid, since the conjecture can also be rendered withProcksch (173): “my anger on the earth will stop.” Driver (1937, 39) adopts theLuzzatto conjecture, but he corrects the ˜rst word into lk,T, which, together withthe preceding word l[', should mean something like “entirely.” This conjecturehas been taken over by NEB: “and my wrath will all be spent,” in a slightlydiêrent way by REB: “and my anger will be ñally spent,” and by FC: “macolère complètement ñie”; “my anger all over.” One should, however, notethat the word lk,T, is not attested in Hebrew and that the verb μmt never occursin combination with words for “anger” (Ehrlich, 44).

Even with the traditional reading of M, two diêrent interpretations exist:(a) “and my anger will bring about their destruction (i.e. the destruction of theAssyrians)” and (b) “and my anger will turn against their crime.” The ˜rst mean-ing remains the most probable one.


Since the conjectures involve too many problems, translators are rather ad-vised to follow M and its above preferred interpretation. NJB presents a simpleand e¯cient model here: “and my anger will destroy them,” especially since in


the context of NJB it is very clear that “them” refers back to the Assyrians. Forcertain audiences a note may mention one (so NJV) or both conjectures.

10.27

Textual Decisions

The last sentence of verse 27 runs as follows in M: ˆm,v; ynEP]mi l[O lB'juw“ , “andthe yoke will be broken because of fatness,” a sentence which is rather incom-prehensible and therefore, untranslatable. M is, however, strongly supported by1Q-a, V and, if the reading of Ephrem according to the Roman edition (ajçm)is taken as the original one, by S as well. T has a midrash here: “and the nationsshall be destroyed from before the Anointed One” and this midrash not onlycon˜rms the syntax, but also the presence of the di¯cult last word of M. Greads: “and the yoke shall be destroyed from oˆ your shoulders” and has there-fore used the preceding ˚;m,k]vi by way of al tiqre to interpret the di¯cult ˆm,v;.In spite of its problematic character, M received a C evaluation, since neither Tnor G have su¯cient weight to justify a correction of M.


It is very di¯cult to get any acceptable meaning out of this voted text. Sim-pli˜cation of language structure as in NIV, “the yoke will be broken becauseyou have grown so fat” does not really help. For the pressure of the yoke mightas well wear out the fat. Taking “fat” as a metaphor for “prosperity” (Jacob,154) is, apart from oˆering no solution, problematic since the only attested ˜g-urative meaning of the Hebrew noun is “something slippery” in Prov. 27.16 (deWaard, 1991, 279). Remains the possibility to take the expression as a wholein a proverbial sense (Buber, 1930, 193). Only a few translations have tried thisemergency solution: BR, “Und dann heißts: Am Nackenfett kann ein Joch zer-mürben” and GrN, “Daarom zegt men: ‘Op een sterke nek slijt zelfs een jukdoor’,” “This is why it is said: ‘On a strong neck even a yoke is worn through.’ ”This solution is not less problematic since such a proverb is nowhere else at-tested, the technique of implicit quotation not very well developed in Isaiahand a proverb not to be expected at the end of the rhetorical unit 20–27.

It is therefore not amazing that many scholars corrected the text by readingthe verb as lD:j]y< taking it with the preceding information and by seeing in thelast three words the beginning of the itinerary of the invader: ynEP]mi hl;[; followedby a place name: “He came up from Jeshimon” (NJV, note), “He has gone upfrom Rimmon” (NRSV, NEB, REB), “L’ennemi monte à Samarie” (FC).

Isaiah 1–10 5110.30


The most honest proposal is a proposal of non-translation! This means thatGNB with its note “Hebrew has three additional words, the meaning of whichis unclear” or the notes of GN or NJB can be taken as correct models.

If a translation should be provided, and if conjectures are allowed accord-ing to the principles of a project, it can be recommended to follow the vonOrelli variant (1904) which proposed to read Samaria as the place name. Thisvariant has become the majority reading of modern commentators. There is astrong possibility that this conjecture re˘ects a very early state of the text. There-fore, even if M is rendered or no translation is given, it will be good to providethe conjecture in a footnote, as has been done in NJB. This may even be donein projects which use G as base text.

10.30

Textual Decisions

As is shown by the vocalization and position in the sentence, hY:nI[} in Mshould be taken as the predicate of a noun phrase, the subject of which is thefollowing place name “Anathoth,” “miserable is Anathoth.” On the other hand,S, by translating yn[w , seems to have understood the Hebrew as h;ynI[}, “answer her,Anathoth.” 1Q-a has the same consonant text as M and it cannot be used inthis case of vocalization. T presents a paraphrase: “(Listen) you that dwell inAniyah Anathoth,” or: “(Listen) you that dwell in poor Anathoth.” It is not im-possible that this paraphrase is based on a double translation, especially whenh;ynI[} should not be understood as “answer her,” but as “take up the cry” (NJV;Ehrlich, 45). G has certainly understood hyn[ to come from the verb hn[, “an-swer,” but the translation of this verb has been assimilated to the rendering ofthe preceding verb: ejpakouvsetai Laisa, ejpakouvsetai Anaqwq, “Laisa shallhear, Anathoth shall hear.” Only V, by its rendering “paupercula Anathoth,”clearly supports M.

The committee, judging that the support of S for a correction was tooweak, preferred to retain M, be it with a C evaluation.


Christian translations normally do not render the vocalization of M. TOBand NIV, with “Poor Anathoth” are notable exceptions. SR also, although onehas to consider its translation “Anathème sur toi, Anatoth!” which has the meritof trying to preserve the Hebrew play upon words, an illegal paraphrase. EvenJewish translations, with the sole exception of Chouraqui, who translates: “Soisattentive, Laïsh, Anatot, l’humiliée,” do not respect the vocalization of M. Thetranslation “answer her,” ˜rst proposed by Lowth in 1778 on the base of S, has


been generally taken over by all commentators and by all translators. In fact,one may even say that in view of the indirect support of G and maybe T, S hasslightly more weight than the committee wanted to admit. Arguments from thediscourse structure can hardly be decisive in this case. It is true that the edito-rial division of BHS “Anathoth is miserable, Madmenah is wandering around”would yield good parallels, but the same is true for both half verses of 31:“Madmenah is in ˘ight, the inhabitants of Gebim ˘ee for safety.”


Translators are therefore encouraged to adopt the diêrent vocalizationwhich is at the base of S. It can also be recommended to take for the whole ofverse 30 NJV as a model: “Give a shrill cry, O Bath-gallim! Hearken, Laishah!Take up the cry, Anathoth.” No textual note is needed when the principles ofa project admit diêrent vocalizations of the same consonant text without foot-noting. When it is stipulated that deviations from HOTTP reports should befootnoted, a textual note will have to be provided stating that the translationfollows S over against M which has “poor.”

10.34

Textual Decisions

In the second half of the verse M reads ryDIa'B] which could mean “by amighty one,” “Lebanon will fall by a mighty one” or “in (its) majesty.” On thebase of G: oJ de; Livbanoı su;n toi'ı uJyhloi'ı pesei`tai, “and Lebanon shall fallwith its lofty ones,” Cheyne (96) proposed to correct the Hebrew into wyrydaband to see a reference here to the cedar trees of Lebanon. 1Q-a however, isidentical with M and in the lemma of the commentary found in 4Q–161 thereading rydab is con˜rmed. In the case of G, in verses 33b and 34 the word oiJuJyhloi; is found four times, but as a translation of four diêrent Hebrew lexicalitems. Such a translational procedure weakens considerably any textual argu-ment. V only copies G in this case and from the midrash found in T it can onlybe concluded that ryda has been taken to refer to the land of Israel. S largelytranslates M and its translation “in its glory” shows that it understood the prep-osition b as a beth essentiae. Because of the strong support, especially fromQumran, it was decided to give a B appreciation to the reading of M.


The problems in this case are not really textual, but interpretational. Theexegetical tradition has normally interpreted the preposition b as instrumental:“and the Lebanon falls to the blows of a Mighty One” (so NJB, but also NIVand EÜ). Capital letters clearly indicate that the Mighty One is considered to

Isaiah 1–10 5310.34

be the Lord who is the principal agent since verse 33. It has, however, also beenproposed to read in rydab an instrument, parallel to lz<r“B'B', “with an axe,” ofthe ˜rst half verse (Ehrlich, Cheyne, Procksch, Tur-Sinai). This cannot be donewithout changing M. Minimal change is involved in Tur-Sinai’s proposal toread with metathesis drab, “by the bronze,” connecting the reconstructed He-brew with Akkadian “arudu.” This proposal got occasionally into the notes ofa Bible translation (NJV).

It should, however, be observed that the syntactic position of ryDIa'B] be-tween subject and verb as well as the grammatical absence of the article favoran interpretation of the preposition b as beth essentiae: “and the Lebanon, withall its majesty, will fall.” “Majesty,” may, of course, indirectly be understoodas a reference to the cedar trees.


In line with these arguments, translators can be advised to take a transla-tion like NAB as a model: “and Lebanon in its splendor falls.” If translatorswant to identify the “splendor” with the cedars, several English translationscan be taken as an example: “and Lebanon with its noble trees will fall” (REB),“as even the ˜nest trees of Lebanon fall” (GNB). Such a translation is, how-ever, based upon translational considerations, not on textual ones. Therefore, notextual note should be given. It may be useful, however, to give an alternativeinterpretation / translation like the rendering of NJB or NIV in a footnote.

54

2

I S A I A H 1 1 – 2 0

11.4

Textual Decisions

In verse 4ba M reads ≈r<a,, “earth” or “land,” “he shall strike the earth withthe rod of his mouth.” In order to obtain a better parallelism with the “wicked”in 4bb, it has been proposed to correct the Hebrew form into ≈yrI[;, “ruthless.”All witnesses, however, support M, the only slight variation being the additionof the article in 1Q-a: ≈rah. Since the addition is facilitating, the committeeassigned a B evaluation to M.


The correction has ˜rst been proposed by Gesenius (1821) who, for therest, did not insist upon its obligatory character. Interestingly enough, the cor-rection has been endorsed by the quasi totality of commentators, Delitzsch andJacob being the rare exceptions. This probably is the reason why the conjectureentered into at least some of our modern translations such as EÜ, NAB, NEBand REB, “like a rod his verdict will strike the ruthless.” It is not to be ex-cluded, however, that the correction has been inspired by a number of misun-derstandings. Noting the chiastic relationship between ≈r<a, and the preceding≈r<a;AywEn“['l], “the humblest in the land,” ≈r<a, must designate, as Luzzatto hasseen, the total population of the land (see GNB, “the people”). Another mis-understanding at the base of the correction is that “striking with the rod of themouth” and “killing with the breath of the lips” should be parallel and synony-mous expressions. But “striking with the rod” is a current educational termi-nology and the addition of “the mouth” makes the presence of an educationalcomponent of meaning even more likely. Moreover, in Prov. 23.13 it is said inconnection with children that “if you beat them with a rod, they will not die”For all these reasons, the reading and interpretation of M should be reinforced.

Isaiah 11–20

Isaiah 11–20 5511.6


Translators should not be encouraged therefore to adopt the conjecture asmany older and recent English versions (Moâtt, Smith-Goodspeed, NAB, NEB,REB) have done. The main problem faced by translators is the rendering of the˜gurative language. Sometimes, the metaphor may have to be changed into asimile: “like a rod, his word will strike the people” (compare FC). In othercases the text may have to be demetaphorized as in GNB: “At his command thepeople will be punished” (see also König, Dictionary, 478: “Strafsentenz”). Iftranslators, in addition to demetaphorization, want to make the component of“education” explicit, GN may be used as a model: “Seine Befehle halten dasLand in Zucht,” “His commands discipline the land.”

11.6

Textual Decisions

In 6b following the two nouns for “calf” and “lion” M has a third one:ayrIm]W , “and the fatling.” For structural reasons, Kittel, following an earlier pro-posal by Perles (1906, 385), had already proposed in BH3 to correct the nouninto a qal verbal form War“m]yI, “will feed,” “the calf and the lion will feed to-gether.” As has been pointed out by Greenberg (1956, 164), Brownlee (1964,217) and Talmon (1975, 123–124), this proposal has received strong supportfrom 1Q-a which reads wrmy. It is true, that an elision of the aleph has takenplace in this spelling, but there are twenty instances of such an elision (Kut-scher, 505). Both G and S have a con˘ate reading based on a double translationof noun and verb. M is supported by 4Q-c and T and also by V which makesa verbal form “morabuntur,” “will stay (together)” explicit. A verb arm withthe meaning “to grow fat” would only occur here in the Hebrew Bible, but itis current in Ugaritic (Aistleitner, par. 1663). The hapax character of the verbcould explain why M substituted it with the more frequent noun ayrm. Since acorrected reading War“m]yI, “will feed” is indirectly attested by the diêrent read-ings, the committee decided to give it a C evaluation.


In verse 6a two pairs of nouns for animals are the grammatical subject oftwo diêrent verbs in a chiastic sentence position. Since Houbigant (1753)scholars tried to ñd a parallel situation of two animal nouns governing a verbin the ˜rst part of verse 6b. Several proposals have been made, but only thecorrection which was retained by the committee remains close to the form ofM (Wildberger, 438). It should also be noted that both verbs of verse 6b takeexactly the same slot within the verse and this provides an additional structural


argument for the justi˜cation of the correction. The reading of the verb shouldtherefore be retained by translators.


A good model for translators is provided by GNB: “Calves and lion cubswill feed together” or by NEB: “the calf and the young lion shall grow up to-gether.” If the HOTTP reports are taken as normative, a textual note is super-˘uous. If the textual position is de˜ned in relation to M, it may be necessaryto give a justi˜cation in a footnote. In that case not only “ancient versions,” butalso 1Q-a should be quoted in favor of the translation. Many English transla-tions still follow M (RSV, NRSV, NJB, NJV, NIV), and they only give occa-sionally the evidence from 1Q-a and/or G in a footnote (NJV, NIV). In spite ofthis practice, translators are encouraged to follow the corrected text and, if theyare inclined to insert a footnote, to put the reading of M in there.

11.11

Textual Decisions

M reads tynIve, “a second time,” “The Lord will do again his hand.” SincetynIve has been considered as super˘uous after πysiwOy, “do again “and since a verbof movement with regard to the hand is lacking in this sentence, it has beenproposed to correct tynIve into taec], “raise.” M is clearly supported by 1Q-a, Th,Aq, V and T. It is true that Strugnell (199) identi˜es a reading taç in an un-classi˜ed fragment of text which he thinks belongs to 4Q165, a commentaryon Isaiah. But this fragment is too mutilated and its identi˜cation too uncer-tain to be used as a textual argument. G seems to have rendered tynIve πysiwOy byone word, prosqhvsei, and to have stated explicitly the movement of the handby tou' dei`xai, “to show” (Schleusner, 1820 II, 56). S also seems to have ap-plied a speci˜c translation technique. The variants having been considered asfacilitating, M received a C evaluation.


The correction taec], “to raise,” ˜rst proposed by Marti (114), has foundmost adherents among commentators. Closer to M remains the proposal madeby Thomas in BHS to vocalize the Hebrew form as twONv' and to analyze thisform as a piel in˜nitive with the meaning of Arabic saniya, “to be high.” Thisproposal should explain the translation of NEB: “the Lord will make his powermore glorious.” Since such a meaning cannot be proven, REB has rightly aban-doned such a rendering.

It seems, however, much more correct to take the verb πsy in the meaning“to act again,” and to see in the expression wOdy: πysiwOy stylistically a so-called

Isaiah 11–20 5711.15

brachylogy or concise expression in which a verb has been omitted (Feldmann,158). In fact, the author purposefully did not want to insert another action be-tween tynIve, which de˜nes more precisely πysiwOy and twOnq]li, “to redeem,” to whichverb tynIve also refers. The full understanding of the sentence therefore is: “theLord will apply his hand again to redeeming a second time the remnant of hispeople.” Since such a brachylogy is not possible in all languages, translatorsmay have to supply another explicit verb for translational and not for textualreasons.


If the metaphor “his hand” can be kept in the translation, NIV can be takenas a model: “the Lord will reach out his hand a second time.” If, on the otherhand, demetaphorization is obligatory, one can render like GNB: “the Lord willonce again use his power and bring back home,” or like REB: “the Lord will ex-ert his power a second time.” Textual notes like in FC are misleading and shouldnot be provided.

11.15

Textual Decisions

M reads μyrIj‘h,w“, “he will utterly destroy,” “And the Lord will utterly destroythe tongue of the sea of Egypt,” and it is supported in its reading by 1Q-a andThAqSym. On the other hand, G, V, S and T by reading verbs with a meaning“to dry up” seem to presuppose a reading byrIj‘h≤w“. In spite of this at ˜rst sightstrong evidence, the committee nevertheless attributed a B evaluation to M formainly four reasons: (1) the strong support given by 1Q-a to M; (2) the fact thatG ejrhmwvsei presents a phonological translation of M (Loh˜nk, Jacob), whichindirectly con˜rms M; (3) the fact that the roots μrj and brj share a numberof components of meaning which makes it di¯cult to decide which root hasbeen translated and (4) the high probability that the reading of the versions alsore˘ect an assimilation to Ex. 14.21.


This is one of the cases in which the vast majority of commentators followthe correction ˜rst proposed by Cappel (1775, 782). Such a feature is of con-sequence for translation as is testi˜ed by a number of English versions like NJB,NJV, NIV and GNB of which only NJB states in a footnote that it follows ver-sional evidence. So one may perhaps conclude that the translators of the othermodern versions were motivated by translational, and not by textual reasons.These reasons not being compelling, such a rendering should be avoided. EvenBHS commands the translation of M.


It has still to be decided, however, how to render M. Since the Jewish-Arabiclexicographers a comparison with an Arabic cognate root has been made and ameaning “to divide” has been attributed to Hebrew μrj. In fact, a root μrj IIwith such a meaning has now entered into modern Hebrew dictionairies as wellas into some translations such as NEB and REB: “The Lord will divide thetongue of the Egyptian Sea.”

On the other hand, as has been pointed out by Loh˜nk (ThWAT III 194),a meaning “to destroy utterly” provides an excellent parallel with “raise thehand against” in the second half verse.


NRSV could serve as a model for translators: “And the Lord will utterlydestroy the tongue of the sea of Egypt.” “Tongue” is used here for a tongue-shaped piece of water and it refers to the Red Sea and the passage during theexodus. If the utter destruction of “water” presents a problem to the receptorlanguage one may have to follow GN as a model: “Der Herr wird die Meeres-zunge östlich von Ägypten für immer zum Verschwinden bringen,” “The Lordwill let the tongue of the sea of Egypt disappear for ever.” However, a trans-lation “to divide,” “to split” as in NEB, REB and GrN is certainly possible, andif such a rendering is not entered into the text, it could certainly be providedas an alternative translation in a footnote.

12.2

Textual Decisions

In the ˜rst half verse of 2b M reads: hw:hy“ Hy: tr:m]zIw“ , “and a song is Yah, theLord.” It has been proposed to read instead hw:hy“ ytir:m]zIw“ , “and my song is theLord.” M is supported by the hexaplaric versions, the Vulgate and, most proba-bly, the second hand of 1Q-a; the proposed correction by 1Q-a, G and S. Thecommittee considered M as certainly authentic and attributed even an A eval-uation to it for the following reasons: (1) scribes were accustomed to omittinga last character when the ˜rst character of the next word was the same (Luz-zatto, 1876, 77–78), (2) this graphic particularity is extremely old (Torczyner,1938, 54); (3) the qamets under the resh instead of the expected patach is in-tentional and should avoid an interpretation of the word according to a con-struct state; (4) the reduplication of the divine name is also found elsewhere inIsaiah (26.4 and 38.11) and it can therefore be considered as a literary char-acteristic of the book; (5) it is only on the base of M that one can understandthe explicit reading ytrmzw in the Hebrew manuscript 355, the omission of hyin 1Q-a, G, S and of hwhy in 8 Hebrew manuscripts of Kennicott and 12 of

Isaiah 11–20 5913.2

de Rossi, and the translational treatment in T which presupposes a reduplica-tion of the divine name.


This textual case is of minor importance to translators. For in spite of thereading tr:m]zI, the vocalizators, as has been universally recognized, had an in-terpretation ytir:m]zI, “my song,” in mind, and this is the way in which all trans-lators will have to render it. And whether the divine name is reduplicated inone way or another (see NRSV: “the Lord God,” footnote: “Hebrew for Yah,the Lord”) or not, could be a textual question (NJB with note and NEB andREB without), but it could also relate to the way in which generally speakingdivine names are treated in translation (GNB, GrN, GN, FC).

The only real problem for translators therefore is an interpretational one:whether tr:m“zI has to be derived from hr:m]zI II, which would have the meaning“strength” like in Arabic (so NRSV, NJB, NJV, GNB and NEB, REB: “defence”)or from hr:m]zI I which would have the meaning “song” like Ugaritic “dmr” (NIV,GN, Moâtt). Although modern commentators tend to go for the Arabic mean-ing (Clements, 128–129); Wildberger, 478), it should be noted that the Arabicroot probably comes from Syriac and that already Ugaritic has a verb “dmr”with the meaning “to play on a stringed instrument.” (Loewenstamm, 465). Aderivation from rmz I should therefore be preferred.


A literal rendering “the Lord is . . . my song” (NIV) cannot easily be fol-lowed as a model. The Hebrew means to say: “the Lord is the object of mysong,” which can be more clearly expressed as in Moâtt, by “the Eternal . . . ,of him I sing.” GN can also serve as a good model: “den Herrn will ich rühmenmit meinem Lied,” “I will praise the Lord with my song.”

13.2

Textual Decisions

M reads at the end of the verse a plural noun yjet]Pi, “gates,” “and enter thegates of the nobles.” G, on the other hand, seems to presuppose a reading ofthe verbal imperative Wjt]Pi when translating ajnoivxate, oiJ a[rconte", “open (thegates), you rulers.” M is strongly supported by 1Q-a, 4Q-a and Aq. Sym, V, Sand T all make diêrent kinds of syntactical facilitations, but they all concurin reading the noun. G is isolated in its reading of an imperative, a readingwhich is part of a reinterpretation of the verse and an assimilation with Is. 40.9.Therefore a B evaluation has been attributed to M.


60 13.13


Procksch (185) has proposed to read the imperative “open” with G, but notto take with G “the gates” as implicit object, but, as in Ezek. 21.33 and Ps. 37.14“the sword,” “open (unsheathe) the sword.” This suggestion has been taken overby Kissane (160), Bach (58) and Clements (133) and it entered as a “command”into BHS. The only modern translation to obey this order is NEB: “draw yourswords, you nobles,” but REB wisely changed the text back to “the Nobles’Gate.” All translators can only be recommended to keep the transmitted text(Wildberger, 501) and not to surrender to the strange mixture of textual andinterpretational arguments contained in Procksch’ s proposal.

It is less clear which component of meaning of μybiydIn“

has to be made ex-plicit in translation. One could think of “volunteers” in relation with Judges 5.2and 5.9. So NAB: “the gates of the volunteers” and FC. It is more likely, how-ever, that the component of “noble” has to be chosen as a mocking referenceto the civilisation of Babel. So GNB: “the gates of the proud city,” or as a sim-ple reference to Babylon itself (so GrN).


Preferably the component of “noble” should be rendered as in NJB: “tothe Nobles’ Gate.”

If nevertheless the component of “volunteer” is chosen, a translation suchas GN could serve as a model: “

Ruft die Freiwilligen auf, winkt sie herbei, siesollen sich bei den Stadttoren melden

,”

“Shout for the volunteers, beckon tothem, they should gather at the gates of the city.”

13.13

Textual Decisions

In 13aa

M reads zyGIr“a'

, “I will make tremble (the heavens)” whereas G oJga;r

oujrano;ı

qumwqhvsetai

, “for the heaven shall be enraged,” at ˜rst sight pre-supposes a reading WzG“r“yI

. M, however, is strongly supported by 1Q-a, 4Q-a.b,Th, Aq, Sym, V, S and T. And G should be considered as due to a translationtechnical operation of transformation, since the same technique has been ap-plied in the immediate context, in verse 12 where ryqiwOawO

, “I will make (men)rare” has been rendered with kai;

e[sontai

oiJ

kataleleimmevnoi

, “and they thatare left shall be (more precious).” Therefore M received a B evaluation.


Since only the ̃ rst words of verse 13 are divine speech, already Duhm (87)suggested to follow G. His suggestion has been taken over by Marti, Gray,

Isaiah 11–20

6113.22

Procksch, Fohrer, Kaiser, Wildberger, and has so found its way into moderntranslations like FC, Moâtt, “So shall the skies be trembling,” and NEB, “Thenthe heavens shall shudder.” It seems, however, rather arbitrary to select oneisolated element from G in order to smooth Hebrew syntax. There are manyplaces in the Hebrew Bible, however, where the Lord ˜rst appears as agent andgrammatical subject and in which afterwards the divine name is presented inthe third person in order to produce a certain emphasis. If this rhetorical devicecannot be copied in translation, an adaptation to the structures of the receptorlanguage will be necessary.


One of the adaptations is given in NJV: “Therefore shall heaven be shaken.”The fact that is stated in a footnote “literally ‘I will shake heaven’ ” shows thatthe translation is not based on G, but on translational considerations of Englishsyntax. Another adaptation is presented by GNB: “I will make the heavenstremble, and the earth will be shaken out of its place on the day when I, theLord Almighty, show my anger.” The last adaptation does more justice to theemphasis of M.

13.22

Textual Decisions

M reads wyt;wOnml]a'B]

, a noun which normally has the meaning of “widows,”but which in this connection can only be understood to have the meaning ofwyt;wOnm]r“a"B]

, “in its castles”: “hyenas will cry in its castles.” 1Q-a gives a graphicsupport to M. V, S and T, all have understood the Hebrew to mean “palaces”or “mansions,” but it is impossible to know whether they have read a

lamed

ora

resh.

The same can be said of G which has a simple locative reference ejkei'

,“there,” an assimilation to the threefold ejkei'

of the preceding verse. This casehas only been dealt with in the ñal report. As it has not been submitted to thecommittee, no evaluation has been made.


This case could have been omitted if some modern versions had not madea textual problem out of it. So NEB by translating “jackals shall occupy hermansions” and suggesting in a footnote that Hebrew has “her widows.” NJB af-ter rendering “Hyenas will howl in its towers” suggests the same in a footnote,creating in addition the impression that its own translation is based upon theVulgate! In fact, there is no textual problem at all. There is a case of free ˘uc-tuation of

lamed

and

resh

with no diêrence of meaning implied like in As-syrian

almattu

(Delitzsch, 208). It is, however, possible that by choosing this


62 14.2

phonetic realization a deliberate pun was made and a component of “desolation”suggested.


In view of the absence of a textual problem, no textual notes should bemade. If the translator is convinced of the presence of a pun, he may want toshow this feature in his translation. GrN is the only model which can be sug-gested in this respect: “Hyena’s huilen in de verlaten burchten,” “Hyenas howlin the desolate fortresses.” In addition, in study Bibles, translators may want togive a brief explanation of the pun.

14.2

Textual Decisions

M reads μyMi['

, “peoples,” “And the peoples will take them and bring themto their place,” whereas 1Q-a has the reading μybr

μym[

, “many peoples.” As hasalready been noted by James (68), no manuscript of M and none of the versionssupport 1Q-a. The reading of 1Q-a can be explained in several ways. Kutscher(545) has shown that μybr

μym[

occurs several times in Isaiah: 2.3,4 and 17.2which may explain its presence in 1Q-a in 14.2. More likely, however, the am-pli˜cation in 1Q-a is due to stylistic reasons. It is therefore understandable thatthe committee was divided between an A and a B vote in favor of M.


Already Duhm (89) spoke about the “barbarian style” of M. Marti (122)and mentioned its awkward syntax, and Ehrlich (53) tried to save the style bychanging μyMi['

into μM…[i

, “with them.” The reading of 1Q-a presents, however,another and more acceptable solution. Only two modern English translationshave the reading “many nations”: NEB and GNB. None of them has a textualnote. It is, however, clear from Brockington that NEB is textually based upon1Q-a. The rendering of GNB may have been inspired by translational reasons.In fact, many languages may require a quali˜cation of “nations” for syntacti-cal and stylistical reasons. Such a quali˜cation should preferably be given insuch a way that textual and translational issues are not confused.


For translators who feel the need for a further quali˜cation, two models ex-ist: FC: “Les peuples

é

trangers,” “foreign nations” and GN: “Andere V

ö

lker,”“other nations.”

Isaiah 11–20

6314.4

14.4

Textual Decisions

M has the reading hb;hed“m'

, a word which does not occur anywhere else inthe Hebrew Bible and the meaning of which is uncertain. On the other hand,1Q-a reads hbhrm

, “assault,” “the assault has ceased.” None of the versionscan be quoted in support of M. According to Jerome Aq has read “fames,” “in-digence,” which could go back to a Hebrew

Vorlage hb;[er“m'

and therefore to a

Vorlage

with

resh.

All the other versions have given to the Hebrew a meaningparallel to the interpretation they had given to the participle cgEnO

, “oppressor,”of the ˜rst half verse. The committee considered that one is faced here with asimple case of

resh-dalet

confusion and, in view of the fact that the roots cgn

and bhr

also occur in a parallel position in Is. 3.5, it applied a mixed B/Crating to the reading of 1Q-a.


Is 14.4 appears twice in a transposition in 1QH 3.25 and 12.18. Both timesthe form of M hbhdm

is quoted and the contextual meaning of the Hebrew formshould be something like “persecution,” “oppression.” It seems nevertheless thatthe biblical

hapax

was repeated in a learned way and that it has been inter-preted in a new way according to a certain context.

In the early days of lexicography the Hebrew form was derived from bhd

which, on the basis of the interrelationships between

dalet

and

zayin

was con-sidered as an Aramaism for “gold.” “Gold” was then interpreted as a tribute ingold to be paid by the kingdoms to Babylon (so still Luther: “

und der Zins hatein ende

,”

“and the tribute has ceased”) or as a quality of the city of Babylon(so KJV: “the golden city ceased!”).

Already in 1779 Michaelis has shown that such paraphrases are hardly pos-sible. He was also the ˜rst to propose a reading hbhrm

, a reading now con˜rmedby 1Q-a and generally taken over. The underlying Hebrew root would permitsuch meanings as “insolence,” “arrogance,” “oppression” and “fury.”


Modern English versions either choose a meaning “insolence”/“arrogance”(NRSV, NJB) or a meaning “fury”/“frenzy” (NIV, NEB). Sometimes trans-lators seem to feel obliged to combine two components of meaning: “ragingarrogance” (REB), “insolent fury” (RSV). More rarely a generic term is usedsuch as “oppression” (NJV, FC, GrN: “tyranny,” GN: “

Schreckensherrschaft

”)

.

All these solutions are permissible. If a textual note is made, it should state that1Q-a is followed and it can for once justi˜ably maintain that M is obscure.


64 14.12

14.12

Textual Decisions

In M the word for “nations” is preceded by the preposition l['

. On theother hand, G reads pavnta ta; e[qnh, “all the nations.” Since the verb in the sen-tence normally does not govern a preposition, it has been suggested that G rep-resents a more original Hebrew construction μyIwOGAlK;. M is, though, supportedby 1Q-a, Th and Sym and indirectly, in spite of diˆerent translational treat-ments, by V, S and T. The rendering of 14.2 in G is subject to a considerabledegree of Hellenization (Seeligman, 100) and the rendering oJ ajpostevllwnpro;ı pavnta ta; e[qnh, “he that sent orders to all the nations,” shows that theGreek translator applied a metathesis by changing the verb vlj in M into jlv.Since it is therefore more probable that pavnta, “all,” re˘ects an ampli˜cation,a B evaluation was attributed to M.


Translators should disregard the proposals made by Duhm (92) and Wild-berger (535), repeated in the form of a suggestion in BHS, to follow G. Apartfrom earlier editions of BJ, only RL adopted G.

This minor textual problem is of less importance for the translator than thequestion of how to render the whole sentence μyIwOGAl[' vlewOj. Hebrew vlj has anintransitive meaning “be enfeebled,” “disappear” and a transitive one “defeat.”These meanings can be attributed to two diˆerent homonymous roots (Baum-gartner, Holladay) or to one and the same (König).

An intransitive meaning has been selected in NEB: “sprawling helplessacross the nations” and also in REB: “prostrate among the nations.”

The great majority of translations opts nevertheless for a transitive mean-ing. Such a meaning has to be preferred since the basic signi˜cation of vljseems to be “beheading (the nations),” i.e. “killing and deporting their kingsand nobles.” (Bronznick, 1976).


Several English translations could serve as an example: NJB: “conquerorof nations,” NJV: “vanquisher of nations.”

14.19

Textual Decisions

M reads rx,nEK], “like a shoot,” “you are cast out, away from your grave, likea loathsome shoot.” According to Jerome, Aq has the reading ijcwvr, “putrifac-

Isaiah 11–20 6514.21

tion (of corpses)” which would correspond to Hebrew lx,nE, “a corpse which isdissolving” (Jastrow, 929b). Both Sym, e[ktrwma, and T, fj'y"K], have words de-noting “untimely birth” and these words could re˘ect a Hebrew reading lp,nE ,“abortion.” G remains in the same semantic domain with its reading wJı nekro;",“as a corpse.” The committee nevertheless attributed a C evaluation to M for thefollowing reasons: (1) M is strongly supported by 1Q-a, Th, V and S; (2) rxnmay have been chosen in Hebrew because this word corresponds to the ˜nalconsonants of the name Nebuchadnezzar; (3) uncertainty exists as to the precisereading of Aq, and if lx,nE is taken as a base, it could be explained as a graphicalerror; (4) both Sym and T may go back to a rabbinic interpretation of M and(5) the rendering of G may have been inspired by rg<p,K], “like a corpse” in 19bwhich remains untranslated in G.


It was Nestle (127 ˆ.) who suggested for the ˜rst time that lx,nE , “dissolvingcorpse” is at the base of Aq, G and Jerome. His suggestion entered in an in-formative mood into the apparatuses of BH2 and BH3. This suggested readingwas afterwards taken over by the majority of English versions: “like (a) loath-some carrion.” So basically REB, NRSV and NJV with textual note and NEBwithout. On the other hand, Schwally (1891, 258) adopted the correction lp,nE ,“abortion” which was taken over by many translators such as RSV, “untimelybirth” and FC, “un enfant mort-né.” If translators want to endorse the last trans-lation, they should not do so on textual grounds, but, as is most probably thecase in Sym, T and Saadya, on interpretational grounds. But since the lexico-graphical base of the interpretation is not very solid, translators are advised tostay with the traditional reading and understanding of M.


The best English language model probably is NIV: “like a rejected branch.”It seems rather necessary to provide at least a footnote like in NJB: “ ‘branch,’in Hebr. netzer, alluding to the name Nebuchadnezzar.” Since the Hebrew rx,nEnormally has a ˜gurative meaning only, EÜ renders unambiguously with “einverachteter Bastard,” “a despised bastard.” It certainly follows here Fohrer’sinterpretation of a “rejected member of the family.” Such a translation is pos-sible and may be supported by texts like Eccles. 40.15.

14.21

Textual Decisions

M has the reading μyrI[;, “cities,” “˜ll the faces of the world with cities,”whereas G reads polevmwn, “wars,” “˜ll the earth with wars.” In addition, T ren-


ders: “˜ll the face of the world with enemies,” bbd yl[b. It is almost certain thatT simply read a homophone with the meaning “enemies” so that it joins 1Q-a,some Greek manuscripts, Th, Aq, Sym and V in their support of M. The samecould be true of the free rendering “wars” of G, but, more likely, polevmwn isan internal corruption of povlewn (Montfaucon, 114b; Seeligmann, 14), a cor-ruption which has been taken over by S. M, being at the origin of the whole texttradition, therefore received an A evaluation.


Many conjectures have been proposed with regard to the word μyrI[;. Hereonly those are mentioned which in˘uenced translations. Duhm (95) and Marti(127) suggested deleting the word, a suggestion which still ˜gures as a prob-ability in the apparatus of BHS. Moˆatt adopted apparently this proposal:“and multiply on all the earth!” Ewald recommended to change M into μyxiyrI[;,“tyrants,” a reading which entered into NAB, “and ˜ll the breadth of the worldwith tyrants.” Another change was proposed by Hitzig, μyYI[i, “ruins,” a conjec-ture which was adopted in LV, RL, and, more recently, in EÜ, “und die Welterobern und mit Trümmern erfüllen,” “and conquer the world and ˜ll it withruins.”

In view of the textual decisions taken above, translators should render M.Most probably, the vocalizators of M already took M to mean “enemies” on thebasis of a homonymous noun. A translation along this line is possible. It is nota surprise that especially Jewish translations like BR and Chouraqui render inthis sense. Recent Christian translations rarely do so. SR: “Et remplir le monded’hostilités,” “and ˜ll the world with hostilities,” is an exception. It should,however, be noted that historically speaking nearly all German, French and En-glish translations switched from the interpretation “enemies” to that of “towns.”This interpretation should be preferred in the light of verse 17 “and overthrewits (i.e. of the world) cities.” The fears expressed in verse 21 are those of apowerfully structured empire.


A translation such as REB: “or cover the world with their cities” or trans-lations like GNB and NIV could easily be taken as models. In projects withJewish and/or Orthodox participation “enemies” may nevertheless be preferred,or it may be necessary to provide an interpretational note.

Isaiah 11–20 6714.30A

14.30A

Textual Decisions

Verse 30 aa reads as follows: μyLid" yrEwOkB] W[r:w“ , “and the ˜rst-born of thepoor will feed.” In view of the di¯cult expression “˜rst-born,” several changesin the vocalizations of yrwkb have been proposed such as a change into yr"k;B], “inmy meadows,” “the poor will graze their ˘ocks in my meadows.” According tothe apparatus of BHS, a few Hebrew manuscripts, ˜ve according to Kennicot,read yrkb which would be equal to yr"k;B]. But three of these manuscripts whichcould be checked have the normal vocalization of M! Moreover, 1Q-a has thefull spelling of the classical Tiberian text, which is also clearly rendered by Aq,Sym, V and S. The only real variant is oˆered by G: diΔ aujtou`, “by him.” Gclearly wants to emphasize that God saves the poor of his people. In view ofthe parallel position of yrwkb and jf'b,l;, “in safety,” the translator wanted to ex-press the agent of safety, or the “˜rst-born” understood as the “˜rst-born ofGod” brought him to the divine agent. In the light of such purely translationalvariants the B evaluation of M is understandable.


The correction of M into yr"k;B], “ in my meadows” has been followed in anumber of translations. Some take thereby the Hebrew verb as transitive: “thepoor will graze their ˘ocks in my meadows” (NEB, REB), others as intransi-tive: “In my pastures the poor shall eat” (NAB, BR). Another proposal to readμyrIk;K], “like lambs” (Begrich, 72) was also occasionally adopted in translation.(FC). Yet translators are advised to render M. It is true that a rather literal ren-dering such as “the ˜rstborn of the poor will graze” (so with minor variantsRSV, NRSV, NJB and NJV) is not very enlightening and may even create mis-understanding. The best solution seems to be to consider μyLid" yrEwO kB] as a super-lative of μyLid" ynEB], “those who belong to the poor” (Delitzsch, 217; König, 1900,33–36).


A good model of translation is NIV: “The poorest of the poor will ˜ndpasture.” GN can also be used: “Die Ärmsten in Israel werden genug zu essenhaben,” “The poorest in Israel will have enough to eat.”

A Handbook on Isaiah68 14.30B

14.30B

Textual Decisions

In 30b M presents a di¯culty in that its ˜rst verb has a ˜rst person singu-lar “I will kill” and its second verb a third person singular “he will slay.” M isonly supported in this by a minority of Targum manuscripts, including codexReuchlinianus. All other versions witness to some kind of facilitation. S readsthe second verb as a niphal with a passive meaning “will be killed,” 1Q-a andV have ˜rst persons in both verbs, and G and T third persons in both. All theseassimilations into diêrent directions indirectly con˜rm the discordance of Mwhich therefore received a B evalution.


It is not surprising that the same assimilations also occur in modern trans-lations. Preference is thereby given to the assimilation to the ˜rst person sin-gular (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, NJB), no doubt because this could be done ona textual base with more weight: 1Q-a. Assimilation to the third person singu-lar is rare in translation (FC). The same is true for the passive interpretation(TOB).

Assimilations are, however, in this case not justi˜ed since the change ofperson in M is not, as very often, a rhetorical device. In fact, diêrent agents areintended. Since Le Clerc (1731) the masculine b[;r:, “hunger,” has frequentlybeen taken as the grammatical subject of the second verb and this interpretationentered into some modern translations like NAB, NJV, NIV and GNB: “and it(i.e. the famine) will not leave any of you alive.” It seems nevertheless to bemore correct to take the “˘ying serpent” of verse 29b as subject. (Delitzsch,217; Ehrlich, 57). This is at least the majority exegesis since Jerome.


In spite of a slight ambiguity, this majority exegesis is still re˘ected in BRand in two recent versions: GN and GrN. GN could in its necessary explicitnessserve as an example: “Euch aber wird Gott vor Hunger umkommen lassen, undwas von euch noch übrigbleibt, das wird der Drache umbringen,” “God will letyou die of famine, und the dragon will kill any of you who will be left over.”The decisions in GrN are basically the same. The only diêrences are that Godcontinues to be the speaker (I will let you die of famine) and that the dragonhas been identi˜ed as Assur. Depending upon discourse decisions, this may alsobe a useful approach in other languages.

Isaiah 11–20 6915.2

15.2

Textual Decisions

Verse 2aa reads in M as follows: ˆboydIw“ tyIB'h' hl;[;, literally, “has gone up thehouse (or the people) and Dibon” which has generally been considered as un-intelligible. Therefore, it has frequently been suggested to correct the Hebrewtext as follows: ˆboyDIAtb' ht;l][;, “has gone up the daughter of Dibon.” M never-theless received a B evaluation for the following reasons: (1) M is supportedby 1Q-a and V; (2) for that reason, it is unlikely that S and T would have reada diêrent Vorlage. The fact that in their reading “they have gone up to thehouses of Dibon” they omitted the conjunction w is probably due to a syntacticalfacilitation; (3) the rendering of G: ejfΔ eJautoi`", ajpolei`tai ga;r Lebhdwn,“(grieve) for yourselves, for Lebedon shall be destroyed,” shows that the trans-lator ˜rst read the proposition l[ and that he replaced the problematic tybh bya verb already present twice in the preceding verse, thus making an assimilation.


The correction mentioned above (The daughter of Dibon has gone up) was˜rst proposed by Duhm (99). Since it is based on a parallel in Jer. 48.18 it israther tempting. The correction may re˘ect a very ancient state of the text andits adoption in a number of modern translations is therefore not surprising (inone form or another RSV, NEB, REB, NAB, NJB). Other translations such asNIV and GNB, although diêring in their exegetical and translational approach,seem to have omitted the conjunction before Dibon.

Since nonetheless one cannot be sure about the correctness of Duhm’s con-jecture, it may be wise to render a possible meaning of M. In view of the factthat two place names are mentioned in the preceding verse and that two placenames follow in the next line, it is probable that two place names can be foundin 2aa as well: Habayit and Dibon. In this case Habayit may refer to Beth-gamul(Jer. 48.23), a town in the Dibon area (Schoors, Clements).

If one is not attracted by an otherwise unknown place name, it remainspossible to render M as follows: “Dibon also (w) has gone up to the temple onthe heights to weep.”


Only a few translations read two diêrent place names: BR, GrN and SR,the last of which has a deviating syntactical interpretation. GrN can best beused as a model: “De bevolking van Baït en Dibon gaat naar de oêrhoog-ten . . . ,” “The population of Bait and Dibon goes up to the hill-shrines . . . .”


15.3

Textual Decisions

Verse 3ab in M (on the roofs) looks like a verbless sentence. But G readskai; kovptesqe, “and lament.” It has therefore been suggested that originally aHebrew verbal form such as Wdp]s; ˜gured in the sentence. In view of the Greekstandard expression perizwvsasqe savkkouı kai; kovptesqe, “gird yourselves withsackcloth and lament” (2 Sam. 3.31; Jer. 4.8 and 49.3), it seems neverthelessmore likely that in G an assimilation with one of the occurrences of this ex-pression has taken place. The comma after kovptesqe in Ziegler’s edition clearlyunderlines this view. Since M is, in addition, supported by 1Q-a, V, S and T,it received a B evaluation.


Since Duhm (99) till Clements (152) and Wildberger (591) the originalpresence of a Hebrew verb has been suggested. Only the proposed verb dif-fered. So Driver (1947, 124) advanced a nowhere attested “Hebrew” verbalform W[q; since haplography of each of the two consonants could explain its dis-appearance. Unfortunately, the Syriac verb designates war cries and not laments!Driver’s proposal nevertheless entered into NEB, “they cry out on the roofs”and was con˜rmed by REB.

M does not present any particular translation problem and there is no reasonwhy the “roofs” and the “squares” could not be taken together as the locationsof the wailing of verse 3ba.


Almost any English translation, apart from NEB, REB, could be used asan example. So e.g. GNB: “in the city squares and on the rooftops people mournand cry.”

15.5

Textual Decisions

Verse 5aa reads in M as follows: qa;z“yI ba;wOml] yBili, “My heart cries out forMoab,” a reading which is con˜rmed by V and S. On the other hand 1Q-a andmost probably also 1Q-b read wbl, “his heart.” G must go back to such a Vor-lage in view of its translation hJ kardiva th`ı Mwabivtidoı boa`/ ejn eJauth`/, “theheart of the region of Moab cries within her.” The same is true for T: “In theirhearts the Moabites say.”

Isaiah 11–20 7115.9

The committee nevertheless has given a C evaluation to M for mainly tworeasons: (a) wbl can be understood as an assimilation to the third person suf-˜xes of the preceding sentence: wOL h[;r“y: wOvp]n", “his soul trembles” and (b) cer-tain scribes may not have appreciated the fact that the prophet would care forthe destiny of an enemy and they may have failed to understand the possiblesarcastic undertone of the Hebrew expression.


Duhm (100), Marti (134) and many others have pronounced themselves infavor of the third person singular. Marti’s main argument has been that the in-terference of the prophet would be out of place in the midst of the Moabites’complaints. This view has had, however, very little in˘uence upon translators,maybe because the variant was mentioned and rejected in BH3 and no longermentioned at all in BHS. Only a few translations like NJB “His heart cries outin distress for Moab” and NAB “The heart of Moab cries out” adopted it.

Wildberger (591) has drawn attention to the fact that in 16.9 and 11 theauthor expresses his sentiments in the same way. And Ehrlich (58) had alreadynoted that the reading wbl produces a rather awkward Hebrew syntax. Trans-lators are for all these reasons advised to stay with M.


Most English translations simply have: “My heart cries out for Moab!” Inlanguages in which the aim of “crying for” has to be made explicit, it shouldbe noted that in Hebrew the cry is implicitly a cry for help. Compare GN:“ich . . . schreie um Hilfe für Moab.”

15.9

Textual Decisions

M has both in 9aa and 9ab a place name “Dimon.” In the ˜rst case M issupported by 1Q-b, T and V, in the second instance by the annotation to; ÔEb-rai>kon of the codex Marchalianus of G, Th, Aq, Sym and T.

G reads in both cases Remmwn which testi˜es to a dalet / resh deformationinspired by the well-known place name Rimmon.

However, 1Q-a and S read the place name throughout as “Dibon.” Most interesting is the evidence of V which, according to the critical edi-

tion of San Girolamo, reads “Dimon” in 9aa and “Dibon” in 9ab, a distinctionunderlined by Jerome in his commentary.

For the committee this ˜rm distinction could be original since in the caseof Jerome it was not based on topographical conclusions, “Dimon” and “Dibon”being for him the same place and since this distinction is acceptable to modern


geographers. The committee therefore gave originally a B evaluation to M inthe ˜rst case and a C evaluation to the corrected reading “Dibon” in the secondone. Later, it reconsidered its decision, mainly for contextual reasons. Half ofthe members maintained their decision whereas the other half gave a C eval-uation to M in the second case as well.


The essential question is whether one has to do with one and the sameplace or with two diêrent places. It has been admitted during a long time that“Dimon” simply could be a dialectal variant of “Dibon,” which had been pre-ferred in 9aa in order to create an assonance with μd:, “blood.” The referenceto one and the same place would also be in agreement with the similar patternof verse 6 where only one location is mentioned.

On the other hand, Musil (I 157), Abel (II 372), Simons (par 1261) andLemaire / Baldi (285) all identify “Dimon” with Khirbet Dimneh, 12 km northof Kerak, whereas Lemaire / Baldi identi˜es “Dibon” with “Diban,” 6 km northof the Arnon.


No translation opts for Jerome’s alternation. In view of the context it seemswiser to see in verse 9 a reference to one and the same place. Since the asso-nance of the source text is anyway lost in translation, there is no reason tomaintain two diêrent forms. Nevertheless, the form chosen should not be“Dibon” (RSV, NRSV, REB, GNB, EÜ, TOB), but “Dimon” (NAB, NJB, NEB,NJV, GN, FC), this in spite of “Dibon” in verse 2. For the rare place name “Di-mon” has certainly been assimilated to the more frequently occurring “Dibon.”A footnote should be provided as in NJB or the NIV Study Bible.

15.9B

Textual Decisions

In 15ba M reads hyEr“a', “lion,” “a lion for those of Moab who escape.” Onthe other hand, 1Q-a clearly has hwra, “I will inundate,” “I will ˘ood the fu-gitives of Moab.” M is supported by Aq, Sym and V and, indirectly by T, forits midrash “against the escaped of Moab shall a king and his armies go up”surely is based upon an identi˜cation of “lion” and “king.” Even S although itreads anraw, “and I will think,” does not presuppose a text diêrent from M,since it should be explained by the frequent yod / nun confusion in Syriac writ-ing (Warszawski). It is more di¯cult to evaluate the reading of G: kai; ajrw' tospevrma Mwab kai; Arihl, “and I will take away the seed of Moab and Ariel.”Most probably G represents a double phonological translation, hyra having been

Isaiah 11–20 7315.9C

rendered by Arihl under the in˘uence of 2 Sam. 23.20 (two Ariels of Moab)and hwra by ajrw' (Halévy, 478). It is very di¯cult to judge whether a graphicalerror has been made in M or in 1Q-a. For that reason a C evaluation has beenattributed to M and a D evaluation to 1Q-a. The diˆerence expresses the factthat the committee retained another cumbersome lion in Is. 21.8.


Already Houbigant (notes edition 1753, not retained in reedition of 1777)was embarrassed by the lion in this context and, without proposing a correc-tion, he interpreted M from a verb hwr, translating: “inundabo eos, qui de Moabfugerint,” “I will inundate the fugitives of Moab.” This reading has now beencon˜rmed by 1Q-a. It seems, however, to have been disregarded by modernscholarship and, therefore, by translators. Only NJV reads “I drench it” withoutany textual justi˜cation in a footnote. The only other modern translation with-out “lion” is NEB: “for I have a vision of the survivors of Moab.” It is basedupon Hoˆmann’s (104) emendation ha,r“a, which is unacceptable and which hasrightly been abandoned in REB.


If translators want to follow M the following translations could serve as amodel: “The waters of Dimon are ˜lled with blood, but I will bring still moreupon Dimon: Lions for those who are ˘eeing from Moab” (NAV), or: “I willlet lions loose on those who ˘ee . . . from Moab” (Moˆatt).

If, on the other hand, they want to take 1Q-a as their base text, a transla-tion could run as follows: “The waters of Dimon are ˜lled with blood, but Iwill bring still more (disaster) upon Dibon: I will ˘ood the fugitives of Moab.”

In both cases the reading not retained should be presented in a footnote.

15.9C

Textual Decisions

In 9bb M reads hm;d:a}, “the land,” “the remnant of the land,” whereas G ren-ders to; katavloipon Adama, “the remnant of Adama,” reading the place nameAdama. M is supported by Th, Aq, Sym, V, S and T. No conclusion, of course,can be drawn in this matter of vocalization from 1Q-a and 1Q-b. The commit-tee considered G to be due to a vocalization error and it attributed a C evalu-ation to M for the following reasons: (a) the masorah parva of the manuscriptsof Cairo, Aleppo and Leningrad, in order to avoid the confusion of G, indicatethat one has here to do with one of the seven occurrences of the common noun;(b) the expression “survivors of Admah” can hardly indicate the descendantsof the emigrants from Sodom; (c) only Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in


Isaiah (1.9 and 13.19); (d) in poetry, the presence of the de˜nite article beforethe common noun is not required.


Cocceius (1669) was according to Vitringa the ˜rst to have read in M thetown of Admah. He has since then been followed by many other commenta-tors such as Duhm, Fohrer and Kaiser. Of modern translations NEB and REBwith “and for the remnant of Admah” and EÜ did adopt such a reading. Themany other conjectures without any textual base, mentioned in the critical ap-paratus of BHS never entered into any modern translation.

Translators are advised to render M, preferably in such a way that the con-trast between the fugitives on the one hand and those who stayed in the landon the other, be brought out. Vitringa, who was well aware of the diˆerencesin spelling between the common noun and the proper name, may have beenright in suggesting that M makes a word play on the name of the town whichwas overthrown when Sodom was destroyed. Translators may therefore advancesuch a pun in a footnote.


Both NIV “upon the fugitives of Moab and upon those who remain in theland” and NAV “for those who are ˘eeing from Moab and for those who re-main in the land” provide useful models of translation.

16.1

Textual Decisions

There are two major textual problems in the ˜rst line of this verse: (1) thequestion whether one should read the plural imperative Wjl]vi, “send,” “sendlambs to the ruler of the land,” or the third person plural perfect Wjl]v;, “theyhave sent,” “they have sent lambs to the ruler of the land,” and (2) how the con-sonants of the words following the verbal form should be combined.

As to problem (1), nothing can, of course, be deduced from 1Q-a and 1Q-bin this matter of vocalization. The reading of G ajpostelw', “I will send,” canonly be understood as an assimilation to the two preceding ˜rst person verbalforms of 15.9. Contrary to what is said in Wildberger (592), the third personplural perfect is only found in the edition of the Biblia Soncinensia of 1488 andin the paraphrase of T: “they shall bring tribute to the Messiah.” On the otherhand, the imperative vocalization is supported by Th and Jerome and it there-fore received a C evaluation.

As to problem (2): M reads ≈r<a,Alvemo rk', “lambs ruler of the land.” 1Q-adoes not have any space between the two ˜rst words and the reading of G wJı

Isaiah 11–20 7516.4

eJrpeta; ejpi; th;n gh'n, “as reptiles on the land,” presupposes a division çmrk≈ral. Since both divisions are diêrent, they are probably due to a graphicalerror. The division of M seems, however, to be supported by 1Q-b and it cer-tainly is by V, reasons why a C evaluation was attributed to M in this case.


Very few exegetes and translators have been attracted by the diêrent worddivision of G. The only notable exception is NAB: “Send them forth, huggingthe earth like reptiles.” NEB and REB insist upon reading the perfect and tak-ing the ruler of the land as grammatical subject: “The rulers of the land senda present of lambs,” which is hardly acceptable. RSV originally had: “They havesent lambs to the ruler of the land,” but NRSV correctly changed the translationinto “Send lambs to the ruler of the land.” Most probably the genitive con-struction in Hebrew has the meaning of “tribute of lambs due to the sovereignof the land” (Qimchi, Galuy, 30 and 108) and this has been made explicit insome translations like NIV: “Send lambs as tribute to the ruler of the land” andGNB: “. . . a lamb as a present.” Whether more explicit information is neededor not will depend upon the discourse divisions made by the translator. Themedieval chapter inventors started a new division here and this is still followedby many modern translations. This does not correspond to any division in Qum-ran or in the Masoretic tradition and other modern translations do realize this(NRSV, NIV, GN, GrN).


A translation like NIV (see above) can be taken as model. If, in combi-nation with the imperative, an explicit addressee is needed, “Moab” should beaddressed as in GrN. In translations which are traditionally in˘uenced by theLXX as base text, at least a footnote should explain the reason of the importantsemantic diêrences.

16.4

Textual Decisions

M reads in 4a ba;wOm yj'D:nI , “my refugees, Moab” and it is supported in thisreading only by V. The reading of G oiJ fugavdeı Mwab, “the refugees ofMoab” as well as the readings of S and of some of the Targum editions (Felixde Prato, Ben Hayim and London polyglot) seem to presuppose a vocalizationaccording to the construct state yjeD“nI. Contrary to the statement in BHS, none ofthe Masoretic witnesses supports such a vocalization. Finally, the polyglot ofAntwerp and some of the Targum manuscripts by rendering “let the outcastsdwell with you, O kingdom of Moab” seem to be based upon a reading μyjiD:nI.


The committee, considering the variant as syntactically facilitating, gave a Cevaluation to the more di¯cult reading of M.


Translators, looking at the vast majority of English translations with theirapparently unproblematic renderings “let the outcasts (homeless people, exiles,those driven out) of Moab settle among (ñd refuge with, ñd a home with,come and live with) you,” may not even be aware of the existence of a textualproblem. They will only become aware of a problem when they turn to KJ: “Letmine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab” or when they cast a look into NJV which,though translating “Moab’s outcasts,” footnotes: “Heb. ‘my outcasts, Moab.’ ”

If the discourse in its ñal redaction is taken seriously, the vocative doesnot make any sense (Ehrlich, 60) since the fugitives are Moabites and Moab isnot addressed. M should therefore be understood in a diêrent way. With Ge-senius (1817, 734–735) it is possible to consider the use of the ˜rst person sin-gular su¯x as pleonastic: “Let my outcasts-mine, Moab, dwell . . . .” The otherpossibility is to consider with Delitzsch (226) Moab as a casus pendens: “Letmy refugees dwell with you. The Moabites, be a refuge to them.”


Translators have three diêrent possibilities to render M. First of all, they may want to keep the pleonastic use of the possessive in

their translation for reasons of clearness. BR: “in dir mögen gasten meine, Mo-abs, Ge˘üchtete,” “let my, Moab’s, refugees ñd a home with you” and Chour-aqui: “Qu’ils résident en toi, mes bannis, ceux de Moab,” “May they dwell withyou, my outcasts, those of Moab,” can serve as models in that case.

Secondly, they may not want to express themselves pleonastically in thereceptor language, in which case they can for linguistic reasons follow the vastmajority of English translations without making a textual comment, or, when“Moab” would be pleonastic, they could render as in GNB: “Let us stay in yourland.”

Finally, they might want to follow the possible text devision made by Del-itzsch. So does Moâtt: “let our outcasts live within your land, shelter Moabfrom the ravagers.”

16.7

Textual Decisions

In M in the second part of verse 7 the collective third person singular ofverse 7a changes into a second person plural: WGh]T,, “you will mourn.” T readsa third person plural here and G a second person singular. This means that T

Isaiah 11–20 7716.10

assimilates the verb to the third person plural verb of 7a, “the Moabites howl,”of its translation, whereas G continues to use the second person singular whichit had already introduced in 6. Both readings are therefore facilitating. On theother hand, the more di¯cult reading of M has the support of 1Q-a, Aq, Sym,V and S. All these considerations resulted in a B evaluation of M.


NEB renders in 7b “he shall mourn,” conjecturing still another original formhG<h]y<. REB, by translating “they will mourn” and by providing a textual note,seems to have returned to the more common conjecture WGh]y<. The textual basefor doing so is, however, insu¯cient. The change from description to interpel-lation can be seen as a rather frequent rhetorical device which creates a morevivid style. It frequently occurs in Isaiah (3.12; 17.10) and even, as Feldmann(204) has remarked, in 16.9.


In many receptor languages a literal translation of M would cause confu-sion and not vividness of style. Therefore, translators may have to proceed toan assimilation similar to that of T: “They will all weep . . .” (GNB). The op-eration will nevertheless uniquely be based upon the syntactical grammar ofthe target language, and not on textual decisions. It will therefore be transla-tional, and no textual notes should be provided. If, on the other hand, the shiftof person in a language would enhance the receptor style, it may be necessaryto make the addressee explicit as in LB: “Yes, Moab, you will mourn . . . .”

16.10

Textual Decisions

The last verb of the verse in M reads yTiB'v]hi, “I have hushed,” I have hushedthe vintage-shout,” whereas G by reading pevpautai, “is hushed,” seems to pre-suppose the third person singular passive tB;v]h;. M is strongly supported by1Q-a, Sym, V, S and T. G can be explained as a translational transformation inview of the unclearness of the grammatical subject. Therefore, a majority of thecommittee attributed a C evaluation to M.


Commentators (Ehrlich, 64. Wildberger, 594) generally deny the presenceof any divine subject in this oracle concerning Moab. If they do not, theycon˜rm at least the high degree of identi˜cation of the prophet with the divinemessage (Delitzsch, 229) which contributes to the ambiguity of the partici-


pants. No wonder therefore that, with the notable exception of NEB, REB andNIV, the vast majority of modern Jewish and Christian translators opt for a pas-sive or intransitive verbal form. Some of them (RSV, NRSV, GNB, GN) declarein a footnote to follow G. Translators should not base themselves on G, butthey should apply the same translation technique as G by focusing upon theresult of the event (de Waard, 1991, 281).


Any modern translation can serve as a model, e.g. GNB: “the shouts of joyare ended.” But textual notes should be avoided. If translators feel obliged toprovide a footnote, the example of NJV is very enlightening. After having trans-lated “the shouts have been silenced,” the translator explains in a footnote: “lit.‘I have silenced.’ ”

16.14

Textual Decisions

M has vocalized the form raçw as a noun ra;v]W , “and a remnant” and it issupported in this by T. G in view of its rendering kai; kataleifqhvsetai, “andhe shall be left,” clearly vocalized the form as a verb ra'v;w“ and it is followed inthis by Sym, V and S. 1Q-a is, of course, useless in this matter of vocalization.The committee considered it to be more likely that G also read a noun whichit changed into a verb for translational reasons since the expected Hebrewverbal form would be a niphal: ra'v]nIw“. Therefore, M received a B evaluation.


The noun phrase of M, similar to the one found in 10.19, clearly has thepreference of commentators (Ehrlich, 64: Wildberger, 595). Translators, on theother hand, should be led by the genius of the receptor language as to the choicebetween noun- and verbal phrase. Their decision should be translational andnot textually based and they should not look for a textual justi˜cation as Brock-ington does in the case of the NEB reading “(a handful) shall be left.”


According to the syntactical and stylistic options of the target language,such diverse translations as “and her survivors will be very few” (NIV), “an in-signi˜cant remnant” (NJB), “only a few will survive” (GNB) and “those whoare left will be few” are possible.

Isaiah 11–20 7917.2

17.2

Textual Decisions

M reads r[ero[} yrE[;, “cities of Aroer,” “the cities of Aroer are deserted” andthis reading is entirely supported by V and S (if the Roman edition of Ephremis taken to represent the original form of S) and partly by Th, Aq, Sym ac-cording to ms. Q of G. The spelling wr[rw[ in 1Q-a seems to be based upon amodernization of the place-name (Kutscher, 114). The same graphic formcould explain the rendering Wbr:j;, “demolished” in T as a pulpal of r[er“[æ. G byrendering kataleleimmevnh eijı to;n aijw'na, “abandoned for ever,” seems to haveread d[w d[ yd[ on the base of a resh-daleth confusion: r[wr[ yr[. The readingof M is no doubt the more di¯cult one and, directly and indirectly, the best sup-ported one. Therefore, a C evalution has been attributed to it.


Most modern translations (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, GNB, NJB etc.) fol-low to a certain extent G as suggested by a majority of commentators and byBH 2, 3, S. The reasons for doing this are not purely text critical. In fact, threeAroers are known, one in Judah (1 Sam 30.28), one in Moab (Numb 32.34)and one in Ammon (Judg 11.26, 33), but none in Aram. Several solutions havebeen proposed in order to solve this problem: (1) Aroer is used because itevokes r[;r“['h; (Ps 102.18), “the destituted one,” so that the meaning would be:“deserted are the cities of the destituted one,” referring to Damascus and theneighbouring towns (Snijders, 190); (2) one (Barthélemy, 128) of the Aroersmentioned above or both (Delitzsch, 233) are intended; (3) verse 2 belongedto one of the chapters concerning Moab (Wildberger, 635).


The few translations rendering M opt in translation or footnote for one ofthe solutions mentioned above. BR: “verlassen die Städte der Blossstatt,” “de-serted the cities of the destituted place,” chooses solution (1); NIV by noting“Aroer. About 14 miles east of the Dead Sea on the Arnon river. It marked thesouthern boundery of Aram’s sphere of control (see 2 Ki 10: 32–33)” favorssolution (2) and GN by footnoting that none of the three towns of this name issituated in the surroundings of Damascus, so that the verse perhaps belongs tochapter 16, seems to prefer option (3). Translators are advised to adopt one ofthese solutions and to make the corresponding footnote.


17.9

Textual Decisions

M has the di¯cult expression rymia;h;w“ vr<joh', which could mean somethinglike “branches and tops of trees.” It is supported in this by 1Q-a, Th, Sym, Vand S. For the reading of Aq, Jerome uses the word “testa,” “a piece of bakedearthen-ware,” which implies a punctuation error: cr<j,h' in stead of vr<joh'. Tmakes a contextual assimilation and rymia;h; inspired the targumist to renderrM'j't]ai, “transformed into a pile of ruins.” The important variant reading is pro-vided by G: oiJ jAmorrai'oi kai; oiJ Eujai'oi, “the Amorites and the Hivites.” Thechange of order has been used as an argument both against the originality ofG (Delitzsch, 235) and in favor of it (Duhm, 106). The committee, however,gave a C rating to M for the following reasons: (1) 1Q-a is already substantiallyidentical with M; (2) Th already gave a simple transcription of the words be-cause of lack of understanding: “ars” and “emir”; (3) it is therefore more likelythat G gives a midrashic interpretation (see also Seeligmann, 60).


Translators are advised to render M against the majority of modern ver-sions (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, GNB, RL, EÜ, FC). Unfortunately, the mean-ing of the two Hebrew words is problematic. Several possibilities exist: (1) theexpressions might be rendered with “woods and mountain tops” (Delitzsch,235); (2) they could be analyzed as proper names: “the Horesh and the Amir”;(3) the two words could be rendered with “branches and tops of trees,” beingpart of an idiomatic expression: “like the leaving behind of branches and treetops.” Such an idiom would have found its origin in the practice of woodcuttersand it would mean: “leaving behind what is useless,” especially during a mi-gration (Barthélemy, 133); (4) in a translation “woods and mountain tops”“woods” could evoke the Hittites as inhabitants of the low land, and “mountaintops” the Amorites as inhabitants of the mountain area (Ewald). Such an evo-cation would ultimately lead to the rendering of G.


These diˆerent possibilities are re˘ected in several modern translations:(1) a literal translation is given in Chouraqui: “comme le bocage et la cime,”and with a diˆerent interpretation of the second lexical item in JB: “woods andheaths” and NIV: “thickets and undergrowth”; (2) proper names are given inNJV “which the Horesh and the Amir abandoned”; (3) no translation has in-terpreted the expression as idiomatic; (4) LB tried to combine the literal trans-lation with a partly evocative rendering along the lines of G.

Isaiah 11–20 8117.12 and 13

Since the existence of an idiomatic expression unfortunately cannot beproven, a rendering like in GN could be recommended to translators: “Zu derZeit werden die befestigten Städte Israels so verlassen sein wie die Wälder undBerggipfel damals bei der Ankunft der Israeliten . . . ,” “At that time the strongcities of Israel will be abandoned as the woods and mountain tops at the arrivalof the Israelites . . . .” In projects with Orthodox participation translators maywant to mention the reading of G and its relation to M in a footnote.

17.12 and 13

Textual Decisions

M, after having ended verse 12 as follows: μyrIyBiK' μyIm' ˆwOav]Ki μyMiaul] ˆwOav]WˆWaV;yI: “ah, the roar of nations, like the roaring of mighty waters they roar!,”starts verse 13 in this way; ˆWaV;yi μyBir" μyIm' ˆwOav]Ki μyMiaul], “The nations, like theroaring of many waters, they roar.” Two manuscripts of Kennicott omit the ˜rstelement and ˜ve the second element of the repetition. The ˜ve last words ofverse 12 are also lacking in S. However, both verses are present in 1Q-a and in4Q-a (as, in spite of the fragmentary character of the text, is shown by thelength of the lines) as well as in G, V and T. Verse 13 is also present in S.Because of this strong support and because of the fact that the omissions caneasily be explained by homoioarcton or homoioteleuton (a same beginning ora same ending), a B evaluation was given to M.


Many commentators considered verse 13a as a dittography and some recenttranslations have taken the same position. They simply omit verse 13a withoutany comment (so NEB, Moˆatt, GrN) or with comment (REB, NAB) or theyput this verse between parentheses marking it as a gloss (BJ). Translators areadvised not to follow such a practice, but to pay attention to the stylistic vari-ations within the repetition: μyrIyBiK' // μyBir" with chiastic change of beth and resh(Hitzig; Clements, 162) and to the chiastic position of the two ˜rst vocabularyitems of 12 and 13.


Translators should try to match the rhetorical function of these stylisticvariations in the target language.


18.4

Textual Decisions

At the end of the verse M reads ryxiq; μjoB], “in the heat of the harvest,” areading which has the support of both 1Q-a and T. On the other hand, twelvemanuscripts of M read ryxiiq; μwOyB], “on the day of harvest” and this reading isclearly followed by G, V and S. The reading of the classical Tiberian text ofM can easily be identi˜ed thanks to the masorah of the manuscripts of Aleppoand Cairo. Although the support of 1Q-a has more weight than the deviationof G, the committee expressed a relative uncertainty by giving one C vote tothe variant and four C votes plus one B to M.


Most commentators remain neutral in the textual debate (e.g. Gray, 314).Exceptionally, they reject the variant reading with the (contestable!) argumentthat ryxq ymy would be a Hebrew construction, but the singular ryxq μwy not(Ehrlich, 69), or they defend it with the (likewise debatable) argument thatIsaiah would never have repeated the same form within one and the same verse(Wildberger, 681). Most translators follow M. Some, however, opt for the “har-vest time” either without making a textual note (NEB, Moˆatt, GNB, FC) orwith a note (REB, NAB).

But it seems that the real problem for the translator is not in the ˜rst placethe textual one, but the correct understanding of the imagery. For some, the im-ages enforce the care of Yahweh. T goes very far in this direction: I will giverest to my people Israel and cause them to be quiet, I will be pleased to do goodto them from my holy dwelling, blessings and consolations I will quickly bringupon them, as clear heat in the sunshine, as a cloud of dew in the heat of theharvest.” For others, the threat of Yahweh is underlined in the images. So inNIV: “Like a scorching heat upon sprouts, like a rain-cloud in the heat of reap-ing time.” For others again, the imagery of a pleasant summer evening enforcesthe serene indiˆerence of Yahweh to the Ethiopian plan (Marti, 149 and Clem-ents, 165). The last exegetical option seems to be the most enlightening one.


Image, object and ground of comparison are best handled in a translationsuch as NJB: “I shall sit here quietly looking down, like the burning heat inthe daytime, like a dewy mist in the heat of harvest.”

Isaiah 11–20 8318.7

18.7

Textual Decisions

By reading μ[' “people,” M understands the text to mean “at that time apeople tall and smooth-skinned will be brought as a tribute to the Lord of Hosts.”By reading μ[m, “from a people,” 1Q-a understands the text as follows: “at thattime tribute will be brought to the Lord of Hosts from a tall and smooth-skinned people.” This understanding is backed up by G and V. Because of suchparallel texts as Is 66.20 and 45.14, a minority of the committee gave a C eval-uation to M. The majority, though, gave such an evaluation to 1Q-a, judgingthat (a) M could be explained as a graphical error in view of the following μ['meW;(b) that 4Q-b and 10 manuscripts of Kennicott by reading in the second caseμ[m and S and T by reading there μ[w can be considered as syntactical facili-tations, and (c) that only this reading respects the rigorous parallelism betweenthis verse and verse 2.


Except for Delitzsch (243–244) who defends M considering the second..mW as accidental dittography and Procksch (245–246) who takes this defenseseriously into consideration, commentators illustrate the point of view of thecommittee. Translations do the same and they only occasionally provide a tex-tual note (NRSV, NAB, REB). Only NJV puts “from” in between square brack-ets to signal the presence of a textual problem, a practice which translatorsshould not normally follow.


Translators can either follow closely the reading of 1Q-a in the traces ofmost modern translations or they can make active transformations as in GNB:“A time is coming when the Lord Almighty will receive oˆerings from . . . .”Even then a textual note will have to be provided in which also the reading of M“people . . . will be brought as a tribute to the Lord of Hosts” can be mentioned.

19.7

Textual Decisions

M has at ˜rst sight the somewhat redundant expression rwOay“ yPiAl[' rwOay“Al[',“along the Nile, on the shore of the Nile.” M nevertheless has the strong sup-port of 1Q-a, 1Q-b, 4Q-b, S and T, whereas the renderings of V and G do notpermit the hypothesis of a diˆerent Hebrew Vorlage. The committee thereforedecided to give a B evaluation to M.



The decision made above shows that translations such as NEB and REB:“The lotus beside the Nile” which eliminate rwOay“ yPiAl[', or a translation like NAB“and bulrushes on the bank of the Nile” which omits rwOay“Al[' have no real tex-tual grounds for doing so. After having solved the textual problem, the trans-lator is nevertheless left with two interpretational problems: (a) the meaning ofthe hapax twOr[;, the ˜rst word of the problematic sentence, and (b) the meaningof yPi. As to the ˜rst problem, twOr[; has traditionally been connected with a verbrr[, “to lay bare,” and it has therefore been rendered with “bare places” as stillin RSV and NRSV: “There will be bare places by the Nile.” Since such a ren-dering does not make any sense, one probably has to relate the Hebrew wordto Egyptian çr, “rushes” or çrt, “bulrushes,” “lotus.” (Holladay; Baumgartner;Wildberger, 701). With regard to the second problem, yPi has frequently beentranslated with “brink” (RSV, NRSV) or “banks” (NJB) which has contributedto the impression of redundancy of the Hebrew. Such a translation is, however,problematic, and a rendering “mouth” (NIV) or “estuary” seems to be morecorrect.


A translation such as EÜ: “Das Riedgras am Nil, an der Mündung desNils”; “The rushes along the Nile, at the mouth of the Nile,” would clearly re-˘ect the positions defended above.

19.9

Textual Decisions

M reads at the end of the verse and at the end of its second part yr:wOj,“white cloth,” so that the second part of the verse would mean “and weaversof white cloth,” and one and the same verb WvboW , “will be confounded,” wouldgovern both sentences. Although G, V, S and T produce diˆerent translationsof this hapax, they seem all to be based upon a same nominal form yrwj. Onthe other hand, 1Q-a and 4Q-a and most probably also 1Q-b read wrwj, to bevocalized as WrwEj;, “shall turn pale,” so that the second part of the verse wouldmean: “and the weavers shall turn (grow) pale.” In view of the parallelism ofthe same verbs in 19.22, the committee preferred the Qumran reading with aC evaluation.


The proposal to read WrwEj;, already proposed by Pinsker (1863, 133), hasbeen adopted by the vast majority of commentators, even before Qumran dis-

Isaiah 11–20 8519.10

coveries. In fact, structurally, this reading produces a neat chiasm, the verseboth starting and ending with a verb of comparable meaning. Translations, withthe exception of most Jewish versions (BR, Chouraqui) and some Christian ones(RSV, NJB) are in agreement with the commentaries.


In many languages, a translation such as “the weavers shall turn pale” maynot be clear as to its meaning. Translators could therefore feel the need to makeits meaning explicit as has been done in FC: “sont pâles d ’inquiétude,” “arepale with anxiety.”

19.10

Textual Decisions

M has in the second word the vocalization h;yt,tov;, which could mean either“her foundations” or “her pillars.” On the other hand, 1Q-a and 4Q-b clearlyread hyttwç which should be vocalized as h;yt,t]wOv, meaning “her weavers.” Thisreading is also supported by G if diazovmenoi, “those who set the warp in theloom,” is taken to be the original Greek, and by T if the reading aj;m;, “toweave” of ms Urbinat. 1 is taken to be original. S, Th and V all made a deri-vation from ht;v;, “to drink,” either in a literal sense (S) or in the sense of ir-rigation of land (V) and resulting fertility (Th). The committee decided to givea C evaluation to the corrected vocalization of 1Q-a and 4Q-b considering thatthe “weavers” interpretation, still accessible to G and T, was lost afterwards,and considering that the vocalization of M for the same reasons brought theHebrew into relation with the mysterious twOtV;h' of Ps 11.3.


Qumran discoveries have con˜rmed the conjectural vocalization alreadyproposed by Koppe (1781). Since an adjective of the root shtt with the mean-ing “woven” also exists in Ugaritic (Gordon, 1965, § 2504) the presence of thesame root in Hebrew is not unlikely. Translators are therefore advised to ren-der a meaning “weavers.” It may very well be that G, well acquainted with theprocess of weaving since using a more speci˜c rendering has preserved here aparticular reminiscence of Egypt. This has been taken over in some moderntranslations like in Chouraqui: “ses ourdisseurs sont prostrés,” “her warpers areexhausted.” It seems wiser to stay with the more general meaning “weavers”which covers the whole process of weaving and not only the beginning. On theother hand, a too general meaning like “The workers in cloth” (NIV) shouldalso be avoided, as well as speci˜c meanings which can hardly be defendedsuch as “spinners” (NEB, REB, NAB). The reading and interpretation of M,


still preserved in RSV “Those who are the pillars of the land” and in NJV “Herfoundations shall be crushed” should be abandoned likewise. It is, in addition,very unlikely that “foundations” or “pillars” could stand for “leading classes”(Delitzsch, 247). One certainly should not adopt an emendation “her drinkers” asTOB by reading “ceux qui préparent les boissons,” “those who prepare drinks”seems to have done. The problem, though, is not restricted to 19.10a and thesame translation renders the parallel line with “les fabricants de bière,” “pro-ducers of beer,” instead of with “who work for wages.” The reason for this isof course the interdependence of textual problems and solutions.


A rendering such as “the weavers (will be) dismayed” (NJB) will be suf-˜cient. It is true that the text has “her weavers” which most probably refersback to the weavers of Egypt and some translations felt the need to make“Egypt” explicit (REB). The setting may, however, be self-evident. Since the“weavers” were the last subject of the last verse, some translations (GN) es-teemed that a simple pronoun “they” was su¯cient. A footnote may explainsome of the complexities of the text and signal variant translations.

19.12

Textual Decisions

M reads W[d“yEw“, “and they know,” “Let them tell you and they know what . . . .”On the other hand, G by reading kai; eijpavtwsan, “and say,” “Let them tellyou and say . . .” seems to have read a hiphil vocalization of the same Hebrewform: W[dIyOw“. M is probably supported by 1Q-a since the last has the same or-thography as M and as a rule distinguishes clearly the hiphil imperfect througha full writing. M is certainly followed by S and T. As to G, it is only supportedby V. M surely presents the most di¯cult reading since at ˜rst sight the “know-ing” should precede the “telling,” and the readings of G and V are facilitating.Therefore, a B evaluation has been attributed to M.


If discussed at all, the facilitating reading has the favor of almost all com-mentaries. It is also “ordered” in the apparatus of BHS which may explain itsadoption in most English versions: “make known” (NAB, NIV, NEB, REB,RSV, NRSV). Since translators are advised to render M, they should knowhow the problem of the more di¯cult reading can be solved. Four possibilitieshave been proposed: (1) the verb would have a diˆerent meaning in this con-text. So NJV: “Let them tell you, let them discover / What . . .” and Chour-aqui: “Qu’ils te rapportent donc, qu’ils pénètrent ce que . . . ,” Let them report to

Isaiah 11–20 8719.14

you, let them apprehend what . . . .” This variant translation does not, of course,solve the problem. (2) The verbal phrase in the Hebrew would have a condi-tional meaning. So GrN and GN: “Sie sollen dir doch sagen . . . —wenn sie eswissen,” “They should tell you . . . —if at least they know.” (3) The meaningof the verb would be the same, but the subject would be diˆerent. So withimpersonal grammatical subject TOB: “et que l’on sache,” “so that one mayknow,” and with slight variation NJB: “so that all may know.” (4) The Hebrewpresents a rhetorical device in which the second verb expresses a presupposi-tion of the ˜rst: “Let them tell you and let them, ˜rst of all, know” (Dillmann /Kittel). The solutions proposed under (4) and (3) are the most probable ones.


No translation can be cited which illustrates directly solution (4). Since,however, presupposition and condition are semantically closely related, solu-tion (2) could be adopted as well. In this case either GN could serve as a modelwith the conditional verbal phrase at the end, or GrN with the same phrase ininitial position: “If they know it, let them announce to you what . . . .” If so-lution (3) is preferred, NJB could be a useful example: “so that all may know.”

19.14

Textual Decisions

M reads HB;r“qiB], “within her,” “The Lord has mixed within her a spirit ofdistortion,” whereas the translation of G: aujtoi'ı seems at ˜rst sight to presup-pose a reading μB;r“qiB], “within them.” G is also backed up by T, but M has thestrong support of 1Q-a, 4Q-b, V and S and for that reason received a majorityC and minority B rating.


Many commentators preferred the reading of G which has even been“commanded” in the apparatus of BH3 and BHS. This may explain the relativespread of the reading in modern versions like NRSV, “The Lord has pouredinto them . . . ,” REB: “The Lord has infused into them . . . ,” with statement ina footnote that this rendering was given for textual reasons. Such a practicecan, however, hardly be recommended to translators. In fact, it is highly doubt-ful whether a textual problem ever existed. Most probably, G and T read a textlike M and they made an assimilation to the context for translational reasons.The same technique seems to have been applied in modern translations as NAB,NIV, GNB, FC which rightly refrain from giving textual notes.

In M the possessive su¯x refers back to Egypt and Egypt is pictured as arecipient in which the Lord mixes a spirit of dizziness like an intoxicating bev-


erage. The main problem is how this picture should be handled translationally.If the metaphor of “mixing” presents problems, a general term “to prepare”should be preferred on lexical grounds (Marti, 154). Most English translationsunfortunately change the picture by rendering “poured into” or “infused into.”


In most translations contextual assimilation will be necessary. In a ratherliteral type of translation NAB could serve as a model: “The Lord has preparedamong them a spirit of dizziness.” If functional equivalence is aimed at, thepicture could be kept as a comparison like in GN: “Der Herr hat ihr Denkenso verwirrt, als wären sie im Taumel eines Rausches,” “The Lord has obscuredtheir thinking as if they were intoxicated.”

19.18

Textual Decisions

M reads sr<h,h' ry[i which could be taken to mean “city of destruction.” Onthe other hand, 1Q-a, 4Q-b and some manuscripts of M have the reading ry[isr<j,h', “city of the sun,” which is also supported by Sym, by the quotation of theIsaiah text in Menachot 110a of the Babylonian Talmud, and by V. As to theother versions, S gives a transliteration of M; G by transliterating (Povli"-)asedekmust have read qd<X,h' ry[i, “city of justice”; T by rendering “Bethshemesh (thehouse of the Sun) which is about to be destroyed” gives evidence of both read-ings with sr<j,h' in the ˜rst position. Finally, Th, Aq give a transliteration ajre",but their habits of transliteration are such that nothing can be concluded as tothe nature of the guttural under discussion. The committee has attributed a Bevaluation to the correction sr<j,h' ry[i, “city of the sun,” for the following rea-sons: (1) the strong textual support of this reading; (2) the fact that the dis-cussion by Jerome shows that he was not aware of any problem with regard tothe identi˜cation of the guttural, which for him was a chet; (3) the evidenceof some manuscripts of the treatise Menachot over against that of the editionswhich have already assimilated the text to M; (4) the strong probability thatboth M and G are due to diˆerent polemical reactions; (5) the fact that sr<j, isa Hebrew word and sr<h,, as far as known, is not.


“City of the Sun” is the vast majority translation of our modern versions.Only EÜ, “Ir-Heres” and NJV “Town of Heres” follow the transliterationpractise whereas Chouraqui and GrN provide transliteration and translation,“City of the Sun.” NIV is the only modern English version opting for M in itsrendering “City of Destruction.” Although a long historical survey about the

Isaiah 11–20 8920.2

identi˜cation of the city could be developed in order to clarify the “relectures”of both M and G, there seems to be little doubt that the city referred to wasHeliopolis.


Translators should take care not to mention the toponym in the text, sincethe context: “one of them will be called . . .” clearly introduces a symbolicname and not a place name. Therefore “City of the Sun” should ˜gure in thetext and a footnote could explain that the reference is to Heliopolis, the Egyp-tian town of the sun god Atum which will become a real “city of the Sun.” Al-though G cannot be considered with Seeligmann (68) as original, its readingshould be mentioned in interconfessional projects with Orthodox participa-tion. A note could explain that the Greek translator of Isaiah probably was apartisan of Onias who wanted to defend the Jewish temple built by Onias inHeliopolis against criticisms from Palestine. (Van der Kooij, 60–61).

20.2

Textual Decisions

M reads dy"B] in the introductory sentence, “through,” “through Isaiah,”whereas G has prov", “to,” “to Isaiah” which could presuppose the reading ofthe preposition la,. In fact, la is the reading of manuscript Kennicott 30 ac-cording to the Hebrew University Bible. However, M is strongly supportedby 1Q-a, V, S and T. G only has the secondary support of the Arabic version.Moreover, G can be explained as a super˜cial correction out of stylistic igno-rance. Therefore, M merited a B rating.


Many modern versions (NRSV, NEB, REB, NJV, GNB) show that thefacilitating translational solution is still popular. Only very occasionally G isquoted as textual base in a footnote (REB). A more precise translation should,however, start from the insight that the Lord addresses himself to the peoplethrough the ministry of Isaiah who performs the symbolic act. On the otherhand, the direct quotation marker rmoale, “saying,” does not introduce this ad-dress, but the preliminary order to Isaiah (Ehrlich, 73).


NIV can serve as a model based upon the insight discussed above: “at thattime the Lord spoke through Isaiah son of Amoz. He said to him . . . .” A samekind of translational solution has been adopted in TOB: “En ce temps-là, le


90 20.6

Seigneur avait parl

é

par le minist

è

re d ’Esa

ï

e, ˜ls d ’Amo

ç

: “Va, lui avait-ildit, . . . .

”

20.6

Textual Decisions

M has the reading Wns]n"

, “we ˘ed,” whereas 1Q-a reads ˚msn

, “we relied.”1Q-a is entirely isolated in its reading and M has the support of all the ancientversions (G, V, S, T). Four reasons moved the committee to give a C evaluationto M: (1) the isolation of 1Q-a; (2) the grammatical awkwardness of 1Q-a,since the verb ˚ms

is normally constructed with the preposition l[

; (3) the factthat 1Q-a can be explained as an assimilation to 36.6 where the same verb ˚ms

is used for the coalition with Egypt; (4) the fact that in 10.3 as well the verbswn

has been used in combination with hr:z“[,l]

, “to whom you will ˘ee for help.”


Kutscher (268–269) has rightly suggested that 1Q-a has preferred the useof the verb ˚ms

to guarantee a metaphorical understanding of the verb and toavoid the impression that the people of Judah would have literally “˘ed” toEgypt. Such a concern for clearness in communication constitutes an examplefor translators.


Several solutions exist: 1Q-a can be followed: “on which we relied,” asmany English versions have done (NEB, REB, GNB), but since the problem isinterpretational and not textual, no textual notes should be provided as has beendone in REB. Other unambiguous phrasings are possible as well, such as “towhom we turned” (Moˆatt), “

bij wie wij een toevlucht hebben gezocht

,”

“withwhom we have taken refuge” (C) etc.

91

3

I S A I A H 2 1 – 3 0

21.1

Textual Decisions

The title of the section has in M the mysterious expression μy:ArB'd“mi

, “thewilderness of the sea,” an expression which has been literally rendered by Th,Aq, Sym, V and S. T presents a paraphrase: “The oracle of the armies whichcome from the desert like the waters of the sea,” but the paraphrase containsall the elements of M. On the other hand, 1Q-a reads μy

rbd

, “word about thesea,” if at least the two words should not be joined, vocalized as μyrIb;D“

andconnected with the following which would yield: “words like storm-winds.” InG the presence of rB'd“mi

is attested, but μy:

is absent. Taking into account that1Q-a and G both distinguish themselves from M by one variant and from eachother by two, the committee judged that M has serious chances to be the oldestpreserved textual form. M received therefore a B rating.


In recent times commentators prefer to stay with M (Fohrer, Wildberger),but this does not mean that the interpretational problems have been solved forthe translator. Many conjectures and changes of text have been proposed in thecourse of time, but very few of them in˘uenced translation. Most frequentlyfollowed has been the omission of μy

or the reading of the (non existent) pluralwith singular meaning: μyrbdm

, “A ‘Desert’ oracle” (Moˆatt, RL, E

Ü

). Further,Driver (1968, 46) had proposed to read μwOy

instead of μy:

which should be giventhe Accadian meaning of “day” or “demon” of storm. This suggestion has beentaken over in NEB which, after the title “A wilderness: an oracle,” starts the textwith “Rough weather.” It still stands, in slightly modi˜ed form, in REB: “ ‘Thewilderness’: an oracle. A day of storms. . . .” These conjectures being unsatis-factory, they cannot be recommended to translators. For translation purposes,

Isaiah 21–30


92 21.2

three considerations are of importance: (1) the title should be seen as purpose-fully emblematical as is the case with titles of other oracles against the nations(18.1; 22.1; 30.6); (2) “wilderness of the sea” may be a reference to SouthernBabylonia which in Accadian is called

m

â

t t

â

mtim

, “Land of the Sea” (so alreadyDelitzsch, 257); (3) μy:

is a reference to the Euphrates.


If the emblematical nature of the title is considered to be in focus, a ratherliteral translation should be given as in NRSV: “The oracle concerning thewilderness of the sea.” If consideration (2) is followed, NJB could serve as amodel: “Proclamation about the coastal desert.” A rendering of (3) is proposedin GrN: “

Onheil over Babel: Woestijn aan de rivier

,”

“Disaster for Babylon:a wilderness on the river.” Any translation whatsoever, should present a notewhich explains the option, mentions the hypothetical character of any render-ing and gives alternatives.

21.2

Textual Decisions

M reads two active

qal

participles: ddEwOv

ddEwOVh'w“

dgEwOB

dgEwOBh'

, “the traitor be-traying and the destroyer destroying.” On the other hand, Sym seems to haveread passive participles, dWgB;

and dWdv;

respectively, given his translation oJajqetw'n

ajqetei'tai

kai;

oJ

talaipwrivzwn

talaipwrei'

, “the traitor betrayed andthe tormentor tormented.” Sym is supported by T “The oppressors are op-pressed and the spoilers are spoiled,” whereas M has the support of G, V andS. Although 1Q-a has the same spelling as M, a certain ambiguity exists since1Q-a has the same spelling in 15.1 where M gives a

pual

vocalization of thedefective writing. The committee judged that the passive translations of Symand T had been in˘uenced by the parallel passage 33.1: “you destroyer, whoyourself have not been destroyed; you treacherous one, with whom no one hasdealt treacherously!” and it gave therefore a B rating to M.


According to Brockington, NEB followed Sym in its rendering: “the trai-tor betrayed, the spoiler himself despoiled.” This rendering has been taken overby REB which did not deem it necessary to justify its rendering in a textualnote. The only other version following Sym without justi˜cation is Chouraqui:“

Le tra

î

tre est trahi, le razzieur razzi

é

.

”

One can easily see that certain inter-pretational problems are at the origin of this textual choice. The active parti-ciples of M are embarrassing indeed when with Ewald and Procksch (261–262)Babylon should be considered to be the subject of the utterances. This problem

Isaiah 21–30

9321.8

no longer exists when with Duhm (122) and Galling (156) Elam and Media,mentioned immediately afterwards, are taken to be the subjects of the activeparticiples. These two former allies of Babylonia in the battle against the As-syrian empire now turn against her. In other words, one has to do with an an-ticipatory summary of the oracle which follows. It is this rhetorical techniqueas such which may need a special translational treatment.


Most of the background information should preferably go into a footnoteand not into the translation itself as in FC. Since in many languages, however,the anticipatory summary as a rhetorical technique would not be understood, itmay sometimes be necessary to change the order of sentences within the verselike in GN: “

Es ist grausig, was der Herr mich sehen und h

ö

ren l

ä

ßt: ‘Elam-iter, zum Angriˆ! Meder, schließt die Stadt ein! Die R

ä

uber m

ü

ssen rauben, dieVorw

ü

ster m

ü

ssen vorw

ü

sten! Dem Seufzen der V

ö

lker

ü

ber Babylon will ichein Ende machen!’ ” “The Lord shows and tells me harsh things: ‘Elam attack!Media, lay siege to the City! The plunderer should plunder, the destroyer de-stroy! All the sighing of the nations about Babylon I will bring to an end!’ ”

21.8

Textual Decisions

M reads hyEr“a', “a lion,” “a lion cried,” whereas 1Q-a has the reading harh,“the watcher,” “the watcher called out.” 1Q-a seems to have the support of Salthough the interpretation of this version remains somewhat doubtful. On theother hand, M is supported by Aq, Sym, V and T, and indirectly by G since thereading of the proper name Oujrivan con˜rms the consonantal sequence of M.Th has the particular rendering Arihvl. The more di¯cult reading of M couldbe the oldest form of the text since 1Q-a and S could be explained as contex-tual harmonization, G as a vocalization error and Th as an assimilation to thetextual option of G in 15.9, a text in which another embarrassing lion was found(see above). On the other hand, it remains di¯cult to draw a probable meaningfrom M. This explains the D rating, given to it by the committee.


Only a few commentators and translators stayed with M and tried to givea meaning to it. From Ibn Ezra till Delitzsch and Ewald it has been suggestedthat M would contain an implicit comparison with a lion, and this conceptionentered into a few translations such as NJV: “And (like) a lion he called out,”BR and GrN. The only diˆerence between the ˜rst and the last two translationsis that the last take the ˜rst two words of verse 8 as the end of the preceding


section in accordance with the sentence division of M. Older translations oftenturned to conjectures (Moâtt, C, NV) while not being able to ñd any accept-able meaning in M. It is therefore no wonder that the newly discovered readingof 1Q-a found almost universal acceptance among translators (RSV, NRSV,NEB, REB, GNB, NJB, NIV, etc.).


In spite of the textual decisions, translators are advised to follow the read-ing of 1Q-a and to render: “the watcher / the look-out / the sentry called out /shouted.” They should note, however, that they follow 1Q-a and that M reads“a lion,” a word to which it is di¯cult to give an acceptable meaning. If trans-lators insist upon rendering M, they should preferably follow the option of BRand GrN: “then he will have to roar like a lion” as closing sentence of thepreceding section. The uncertain nature of the translation, however, should befootnoted and the reading of 1Q-a should be mentioned. Interconfessionaltranslations involving Orthodox will have to explain how G came to the devi-ating reading “and call Urias to the watch-tower.”

22.3

Textual Decisions

M reads ËyIa'x;m]nI, “(all) of you who were found” and this reading has the sup-port of 1Q-a, V, S, T. G, on the other hand, reads oiJ aJlovnte", “the captives,”which does not seem to presuppose a diêrent Vorlage, but simply a diêrentinterpretation of M. M has therefore received a B rating.


Schultens (1769, 267), Duhm (130), HUB, BHS and Seeligmann (50) con-sider the equivalent in G to be oiJ ijscuvonteı ejn soi;, “the mighty men amongyou,” in which case G would have read ËyIx'yMia' and one would have to face atextual problem. Seeligmann even goes so far as to suggest that the translatorof G has been misled by the New-Hebrew meaning of yxm, “to be strong,” sothat he produced a mistranslation and became the victim of “false friends.” Itseems however more likely that oiJ ijscuvonteı soi; is explicit information inorder to create a concentric structure with pavnteı oiJ a[rcontevı sou, “all yourprinces,” and that oiJ aJlovnteı is the equivalent of the Hebrew expression (soalso Trommius and Hatch / Redpath). This view is reinforced by the fact thatin the parallel text 13.15 aJlw'≥ renders the niphal of axm.

Isaiah 21–30 9522.6


In the absence of any textual problem translators should not base them-selves on a hypothetical Hebrew Vorlage of G, neither implicitly like in NEB:“your stoutest warriors,” nor explicitly with textual note as in REB. As to therendering of M, they could use NJB as a model: “all who could be found havebeen captured at a blow, far though they had ˘ed.”

22.6

Textual Decisions

M reads μd:a; bk,r<B] “with manned chariots.” The only existing textual vari-ant is the reading bkrw found in a Kennicott manuscript of the 14th century, butthis reading is isolated and without any weight. All other witnesses are eitheridentical with M (1Q-a) or more or less free renderings of it (G, Th, Aq, V, S,T). M therefore received an A evaluation.


Houbigant and Lowth estimated that the presence of the names of twopeoples in the preceding and following half line (Elam and Kir respectively)made the presence of the name of another people in the second half line almostobligatory. Therefore they proposed to read μr:a} in stead of μd:a;. This conjec-ture entered into a number of translations like Moˆatt: “cavalry from Aram,”NAB: “Aram mounts the horses,” NEB and REB: “the chariots of Aram,” Cand EÜ. The last translation even states misleadingly that it is following G! Infact, the introduction of a third people destroys the parallelism of M. As to themeaning of M, the genitive construction with μd:a; serves to distinguish thechariot from the cart: hl;g:[}.


Although the syntax of the sentence is not too smooth, there seems to beno reason for putting footnotes with statements about obscurity of the Hebrew(RSV) or uncertainty (NRSV). The best understanding seems to be oˆered bya rendering like NJB: “with manned chariots and horsemen.”

22.17

Textual Decisions

M reads rb,G:, “man,” at the end of the sentence, whereas 1Q-b has the read-ing rwbg, “strong one,” “hero.” This last reading is also supported by the Yemen-ite Targum tradition. All other witnesses are, however, in favor of M (1Q-a, G,


S, V and all columns of the Hexapla). The testimony of 1Q-a is particularlyimportant since its defective writing here strikingly contrasts with the full spell-ing which it provides in all nine cases where M has rwOBGI in Isaiah. Since thenoun rb,G< only occurs here in Is, the variant rwOBGI should be considered as facil-itating. Therefore M received a majority B vote.


Apart from the textual problem, Ginsberg (1950, 55–56) had proposed theconjecture dg,B,, “garment,” a conjecture taken over in a slightly modi˜ed formby Driver (1968, 48–49). This conjecture entered into NEB “shake you as agarment is shaken out” and in an ongoing paraphrase into REB: “as a garmentis shaken to rid it of lice.” In spite of even recent adoption of this conjecture(Kaiser, 148), it should not easily be adopted by translators since it presup-poses three accidents to arrive at the reading of M: omission of a kaph, meta-thesis of a gimel and bet, and confusion of dalet and resh.

The reading of 1Q-b, although not signalled as such and diˆerently inter-preted, has crept into many modern versions: RSV: “O you strong man,” NJB:“strong as you are,” NIV: “O you mighty man,” GNB: “You may be important.”

Translators are advised, however, to render rb,G<, preferably as a vocative(Ibn Ezra) and with a sarcastic meaning.


The best model for translation probably is NJV: “The Lord is about toshake you severely, fellow.” The other possible meaning of the verb has beenrendered in NAB: “The Lord shall hurl you down headlong, mortal man,” butthe vocative lacks the sarcastic undertone. Better in this respect are NRSV:“my fellow,” BR: “du Kerl,” TOB: “beau sire.”

22.19

Textual Decisions

M reads the ˜nal verb as Ús,r“h,y<, “he will pull you down” and this readingis only supported by secondary witnesses of G and T. V, S and the originalreading of T can only be understood on the basis of a ˜rst person readingÚs,r“h,a,, “I will pull you down,” which most probably points to an assimilationto the ˜rst person verbal form at the beginning of the sentence: ÚyTip]d"h}w", “I willthrust you.” G has in a sense avoided any problem by having one verb rulingboth sentences and by applying a passive transformation: kai; ajfaireqhvsh/ . . . ,‘and you will be removed . . . .” The Qumran evidence is divided: 1Q-a reads˚srh which should with Kutscher (352) be explained as a partial assimilationto the preceding verb, and 4Q-f most probably reads ˚ryshy, a form which prob-

Isaiah 21–30 9723.1

ably shows a certain scribal hesitation after an accidental (?) metathesis of reshand samek. Because of the clearly facilitating assimilation of the versions, thecommittee decided to give at least a C evaluation to the more di¯cult readingof M.


Translators have generally made some kind of adaptation. Sometimes theyfollowed the assimilation pattern of V, S, T, acting either on a textual base (NEB,REB, NJB, NAB) or on a translational one (GNB, Moˆatt, FC, EÜ). One trans-lation made the opposite assimilation by rendering the ˜rst person verbal formin the beginning of the verse by a third person, and by making the agent ex-plicit as “the king” (GN). Other translations kept the two verbs of M, but fol-lowed the method of G by making a passive transformation of the second verb.So NIV: “and you will be ousted from your position”; NJV: “and you shall betorn down from your stand”; NRSV (in the traces of RSV): “and you will bepulled down from your post.” The last transformation can be said to be basedon an impersonal interpretation of M like in BR: “von deinem Stande reißt mandich hinab,” “one pulls you down from your stand.”

It is very well possible that the discordance of persons in M is not a stylisticphenomenon, but that the third person refers to the “master” of Shebna who hasbeen mentioned at the end of the preceding verse (Luzzatto).


If the translator shares the last mentioned insight, he could follow GrN asa model: “Daarom ontzet ik, de Heer, u uit uw ambt, en verwijdert de koningu van uw post,” “Therefore, I, the Lord, will thrust you from your o¯ce, andthe king will remove you from your post.”

The other way of doing justice to M would be to give an impersonal verbalrendering as in BR, or to follow NRSV, NIV, NJV in their passive transformation.

23.1

Textual Decisions

The two terms awOBmi tyIB'mi, “without house, without entry,” in M create prob-lems both of syntax and meaning. M has the support of 1Q-a and 4Q-a as toboth items. It is supported by 1Q-b and S with regard to the ˜rst item and byV and T with regard to the second one.

tyIB'mi has not been explicitly rendered by G, and it has been paraphrased inV and T. The last has assimilated its translation to verse 14.

G and S provide diˆerent paraphrases of awOBmi for translational reasons.


Because of the strong testimony of the early Hebrew witnesses, it does notseem justi˜ed to reconstruct a diêrent Hebrew Vorlage for the versions. Forthat reason a B evaluation was attributed to awOBmi and a C evaluation to tyIB'misince this word could have been lacking in the Vorlage of G.


It was the problem of meaning which did NEB and REB render the twoterms by respectively “the harbour” and “the port of entry.” This rendering isbased upon a diêrence of vocalization: awObm; tybim; and, for the ˜rst word, ona meaning suggested by Eitan (69). According to Ben Yehuda (2768) however,this word has been used by Ezra ben Ezekiel ha-Babli, an author of the begin-ning of the eighteenth century, who would have borrowed it from Arabic. Toread this word and this meaning in the Isaiah text is therefore a rather daringextrapolation!

As to the syntactical problem, it should at least be noted that M, by puttinga zaqeph on the second word, consideres the two expressions as a unit. Thismeans that M wants to be interpreted as “There has been destruction which hasmade disappear every habitation so that no place is left to disembark.” If onedoes not want to respect the zaqeph, one could take the second term syntacti-cally with the following which would yield something like “There has beendestruction which has made disappear every habitation. As soon as they hadarrived from . . . .” If the zaqeph is respected, translators should most probablyconsider the two expressions as a hendiadys for “harborage.”


If translators want to render M according to its textual divisions, they couldfollow Moâtt as a model: “for your haven is no more! You heard the tidingswhen you touched at Cyprus’ shore.” (so also NAB, but on textual grounds!).If the zaqeph is not respected, NJV could be followed: “For havoc has beenwrought, not a house is left; As they came from the land of Kittim, / This wasrevealed to them.”

23.2

Textual Decisions

M reads at the end of the verse ËWal“mi μy: rbe[o, “sea-farers have replenishedyou,” whereas 1Q-a has the reading ˚ykalm μy wrb[, “your messengers crossedover the sea.” M is supported by V, S, T and, as far as can be judged, also by1Q-b. 4Q-a should be read as follows: ˚alm μy wrb[ since in the last word thespace for a waw is lacking between aleph and the traces of a ñal kaph. Thelast word is omitted in G. The committee judged that 1Q-a most probably was

Isaiah 21–30 9923.3

closest to the original, that 4Q-a could be explained by haplography and M bya concern to give a new interpretation and a stronger assimilation to the con-text. The omission by G could be considered as an elusion of a textual problemor, translation technically, as implicit information to avoid a second subject withthe same meaning as metabovloi Foinivkh", “merchants of Phoenicia.” Therefore,1Q-a received a C evaluation.


M has been rendered by all Jewish versions, but only by a minority ofmodern Christian versions (NV, NIV, SR). In these translations two diˆerentinterpretations have been proposed: (1) “You traders of Sidon, / Once throngedby seafarers” (NJV) and (2) “You merchants of Sidon, whom the seafarers haveenriched” (NIV).

Translators are, however, advised to render 1Q-a and with regard to theinterpretation of 1Q-a, two points should be mentioned: (1) the striking paral-lel text of Ps 107. 23 shows that “messengers” should not be taken in a dip-lomatic, but in a commercial sense as “merchants,” “wholesale buyers”; (2) theconjunction waw in front of the ˜rst word of verse 3 has frequently been seenas causing a syntactical problem, and, for reason of syntactical facilitation, theancient versions did not respect it. It is nevertheless present in the total Hebrewtradition in which it marks the beginning of a new sentence.

The second of these two points, however, is hardly of translational rele-vance, since modern translators as well may want to apply some syntacticalrestructuring for translational reasons.


At a common language level, the paraphrase of GNB is a good model:”You sent men across the sea to buy and sell the grain that . . . .” From a syn-tactical point of view, GrN is a good example for translators: “kooplui uit Si-don, jullie die de zee overstaken en het graan, geoogst aan de Nijl, aanvoerdenover vele wateren,” “merchants of Sidon, you who crossed the sea and importedover great waters the grain harvested at the Nile.” In translation projects withJewish participation it may be helpful to provide the reading of M and its pos-sible interpretations in a textual note.

23.3

Textual Decisions

In 3b M reads μyIwOG rj's] yhiT]w" Ht;a;WbT] rwOay“ ryxiq] rjovi [r"z<, “the grain of Shihor,the harvest of the Nile was her revenue; and it was the merchandise of the na-tions.” G, on the other hand, has the following rendering: spevrma metabovlwn…


wJı ajmhtou' eijsferomevnou oiJ metabovloi tw'n ejqvnw'n, “. . . a generation of mer-chants? As when the harvest is gathered in, so are these traders with the na-tions.” G has rendered the ˜rst two Hebrew words as a question to which therest of the sentence forms an answer. In addition, it does not translate the fourthand the sixth word. M is strongly supported by 1Q-a, 4Q-a and V and, indi-rectly, by S and T, which show, in spite of their paraphrase, the presence of allelements of M. The committee therefore considered that G is at the word levelthe result of some stylistic and translational abbreviation, rjovi and rwOay“ beingclose synonyms referring both to the Nile, and it attributed a B evaluation to M.


In the traces of Duhm (138) and Marti (178) it has frequently been sug-gested not only to adopt the omissions of G, but also to change the third andthe ˜fth vocabulary item in the following way: wOryxiq] and htoa;WbT]. This mixtureof textual argument and conjecture entered into a translation like NEB: “whoseharvest is the grain of the Shihor and their revenue the trade of nations.” Thesame options still underlie REB which only shows some stylistic and informa-tional improvements in addition: “whose harvest is grain from Shihor, whoserevenue comes from trade between nations.”

Translators are, however, advised to render M which should not presentparticular problems. The most di¯cult expression to translate is no doubt rj's]μyIwOG which can be taken to mean “pro˜t from the trade with the nations” (Wild-berger, 872).


A translation of part of 3b has already been proposed at the end of thepreceding case. For the last three vocabulary items REB could be followed, noton textual, but on translational grounds: “whose revenue comes from trade be-tween nations.” If a less restricted paraphrase is preferred, NIV could be quotedas a model: “and she became the market-place of the nations” (so also NJB, BRand GN).

23.4

Textual Decisions

In 4a M reads rmoale μY:h' zwO[m; μy: rm'a;AyKi, “for the sea has spoken, the strong-hold of the sea, saying . . . .” This rather overcharged text of M is supported by1Q-a and 4Q-a. In 4Q-b only the ˜rst three words and the beginning of thefourth one survived. G also supports M and it has taken the ˜rst three wordsas referring to what precedes and the last three words as introducing the fol-lowing information: . . . ei\pen hJ qavlassa: hJ de; ijscu;ı th'ı qalavsshı ei\pen,

Isaiah 21–30 10123.10

“. . . the sea has said; the stronghold of the sea has said . . .” V is a literal trans-lation of M and T provides an interesting paraphrase of M: “for the man of theWest who dwells in the stronghold of the sea has spoken, saying . . . .” Only Sdeviates by omitting the last word. In fact, S presents the only real textual prob-lem. Since S could be considered as a stylistic abbreviation, M naturally got anA evaluation.


The real, interpretational, problem could belong to the prehistory of thetext. Olshausen, Duhm (138) and Marti (178) had already considered “the strong-hold of the sea” as a secondary gloss. A glossator thinking that the “sea” ac-tually meant Tyre, would have been responsible for it. If this insight is correct,such a literary development of the text must have taken place before the sepa-ration of the diˆerent textual traditions. Only one modern translation has madethis insight its own: EÜ, which has the sea speaking and which puts “the strong-hold of the sea” between square brackets in the text, mentioning it in a footnoteas a later, explanatory addition.

If translators want to stay with the transmitted text and produce at least ameaningful translation, they should take with Ehrlich (81) “the stronghold ofthe sea” as a vocative. The vocative could then refer to Sidon, mentioned be-fore, or to Tyre in addition.


If the ˜rst possible reference of the vocative is chosen, NAB could be takenas a model: “Shame, O Sidon, fortress on the sea, for the sea has spoken.” Ofthe English versions, NIV comes closest to the second option by rendering“Be ashamed, O Sidon, and you, O fortress of the sea, for the sea has spoken”and by footnoting that the “fortress of the sea” is Tyre. Such information could,of course, also be given explicily in the text. (GN and GrN).

23.10

Textual Decisions

This verse runs in M as follows: dwO[ jz"me ˆyae vyvir“T'AtB' raoy“K' Ëxer“a' yrIb][i,“Over˘ow your land like the Nile, o daughter of Tarshish; there is no restraintany more.”

Textual problems exist as to the ˜rst, the third and the before last word.(1) With regard to yrIb][i, M has the support of 4Q-c, V and S. 1Q-a, on the

other hand, reads ydb[ (with confusion of resh and daleth) which also seemsto have been the Vorlage of G: ejrgavzou th;n gh'n sou, “till your land.” T pro-vides a paraphrase based upon M. In its judgment about the originality of either


resh or dalet, the committee has been led by the insight that the qal of db[has ten times in the Bible hmda as object, but never ≈ra. Therefore, it attrib-uted a C to M.

(2) As to raoy“K', “like the Nile,” M is supported by 1Q-a, 4Q-c, V, S and T.G does not have any equivalent of this expression, no doubt because it couldnot be used by the translator in his agricultural reading of the text. For thatreason a B evaluation was given to M.

(3) ñally, jz"me has the support of 1Q-a and V: cingulum. In view of the re-lationship between “girdle” and “force,” S and T should be regarded as an exe-gesis of M. The greatest problem is caused by the reading of G: kai; ga;r ploi'aoujkevti e[rcetai ejk Karchdovno", “for ships no more come out of Carthage.” Gprobably arrived at this reading by making an interpretative metathesis, read-ing zjom;, “harbor” and giving a paraphrase of the following Hebrew reading:“for the daughter of Tarshish (Carthage) is no longer a harbor” (van der Kooij,1982, 40). M received therefore a B evaluation.


Given the many problems of interpretation presented by M it is no wonderthat translators preferred the easy escape of the agricultural “relecture”; NEB,REB NJB, FC, EÜ and even NIV: “Till your land as along the Nile, O daugh-ter of Tarshish, for you no longer have a harbor.” Sometimes, translators seemto have been selective, preferring to go with M in the case of the ˜rst textualproblem, and with G in the case of the two others. So NAB: “Cross to yourown land, O ship of Tarshish; the harbor is no more” and NRSV: “Cross overto your own land, O ships of Tarshish; this is a harbor no more.” In other in-stances they seem to have followed M in the ˜rst two cases and G in the last.So BR: “Fahr nun über dein Land wie der Nil˘uß, du Tochter Tarschisch, esgibt keine Werft mehr!,” Pass now over your land as over the Nile, you daugh-ter of Tarshish, there is no wharf any more” and GN: “Ihr Bewohner von Tar-schisch, bewässert euer Land wie die Bauern am Nil und baut Korn an; denn inTyrus werden keine Schiê mehr gebaut!,” “Inhabitants of Tarshish, over˘owyour land like the farmers along the Nile do and cultivate grain, for in Tyre noships are built any more.” It can also happen that G is followed in the ˜rst twocases and that an interpretation of M is given in the last one. So GNB: “Goand farm the land, you people in the colonies in Spain! There is no one to pro-tect you any more.”

All these diêrent translations show that the interpretation of the wholeverse is largely dependent upon the meaning given to jz"me. The most plausiblesolution is to take the ˜gure of “girdle / corset” as a restraint referring to theauthority of Tyre which did not leave any commercial freedom to its colonies(Koppe, Gesenius, Delitzsch).

Isaiah 21–30 10323.11


Only a few translations re˘ect M in all three instances: LV, NV, RSV:“Over˘ow your land like the Nile, O daughter of Tarshish; there is no restraintany more.” The best understandable model for translators would be SR: “Tra-verse ton pays, pareille au Nil, ˜lle de Tarsis, plus de joug!,” “Cross throughyour country like the Nile, daughter of Tarshish, there is no yoke any more!”A note should duly explain all problems of text and interpretation and give alsoattention to G, especially in projects with Orthodox participation.

23.11

Textual Decisions

The last word of this verse reads in M as follows: h;yn<z“[um;, “her fortresses”whereas 1Q-a reads the word as hyzw[m which seems to have a synonymousmeaning. The versions either render the Hebrew by “force” (G and T) or by“fortress” (V and S), but the Hebrew base form cannot be de˜ned because ofsynonymity of meaning. The committee attributed a C evaluation to M sincethe form of M is supported by 4Q-c, and since the form of 1Q-a can be ex-plained as a more current orthographical variant.


The grammatical problem of the nun in excess hardly concerns transla-tors. Driver, however, (1968, 49) has proposed to vocalize M as follows:h;yn<z“[]m', “place where goods are distributed,” on the base of the Arabic “ åaçzana”and this suggestion has been taken over by NEB and REB: “he has decreed thedestruction of Canaan’s marts,” and also by GNB: “He has commanded that thePhoenician centers of commerce be destroyed.” The strongly deviating trans-lation “his harbours” in C also comes close to such an interpretation. The baseof Driver is nevertheless very weak, since he concludes the existence of a He-brew root starting from a phonetic exception in Arabic (El-Azharî II, 138).Such a solution can therefore not be recommended.


Staying with the traditional interpretation, translators can take NIV as aclear model: “He has given an order concerning Phoenicia that her fortressesbe destroyed.”


23.14

Textual Decisions

M reads the last word of this verse as ˆk,Z“[um;, “your (feminine plural) strong-hold” and it is supported by all the versions. On the other hand, 1Q-a has thedi¯cult reading ˚zw[m which should only be preferred if the criterion of thelectio di¯cilior would be applied in an absurd way. Considering the totallyisolated position of 1Q-a, the committee preferred to give a B evaluation to M.The reading of 1Q-a would accordingly be due to a graphical error.


The problem for translators is mainly interpretational. Eitan (1937, 70) haddistinguished two homonyms zwO[m;, one being derived from zy[, “refuge,” theother from a root zz[, “fortress.” According to Baumgartner (577) these twohomonyms have merged in Hebrew to such an extent that the semantic distinc-tion has become di¯cult. The meaning “refuge” has given rise to the transla-tional gloss “harbor” or “haven” (NEB, REB, NAB, C, EÜ, GN). Even then themeanings of the two homonyms seem to be combined since a harbor had to beforti˜ed in order to function as a refuge.


“Refuge” should be preferred since it seems to cover the distinct mean-ings of the two homonyms. FC could be taken as an example: “car votre refugea été anéanti,” “for your refuge has been destroyed,” or, more, explicitly, TOT:“for Tyre, your secure haven, is laid waste.”

24.4

Textual Decisions

M reads verse 4b as follows: ≈r<a;h;Aμ[' μwOrm] Wll;m]au, “the elite of the peopleof the earth languish.” The ˜rst hand of 1Q-a does not have μ[ and an explicitequivalent of μ[ is also lacking in G and S. On the other hand, the second handof 1Q-a has added this word which is also present in 4Q-b, V and T. A majorityof the committee judged that in this context ≈r<a;h;Aμ[' has the meaning of “pop-ulation of the earth” and that the copyist of 1Q-a and the translator of G (Sdepending upon G in this case) omitted purposefully μ[' in order to avoid thepejorative meaning “people not educated in the Torah” current in post-exilictimes. A C evaluation was therefore given to M. A minority of the committeepreferred the prima manus reading of 1Q-a: ≈rah μwrm llma taking it to mean“the heights of the earth languish.”

Isaiah 21–30 10524.16


The main problem is that many modern translations (NRSV, GNB, NAB,GrN, EÜ, GN) have chosen an entirely diêrent track by following the con-jectural vocalization μ[i, “with” and by considering μwOrm] as a periphrasis for“heaven.” This results in such a convenient meaning as “both heaven and earthlanguish/decay.” It is true that such a periphrasis is typical of the language ofIsaiah and that it occurs again in the same chapter: 18 and 21. These recur-rences, however, help to distinguish the diêrences. Although the oppositeword-pair μwrm / ≈ra occurs in 18, the topic is entirely diêrent. And in 21 therepeated μwrm is contrasted with a repeated hmdah. Moreover, no mention ofheaven is made in the discourse 1–13 and it seems very unlikely that verse 4would be an anticipation of the host of heaven in 21, the more so as an identicalword-pair in 21 is lacking (Gray, 410–411). It is also improbable that an ori-ginal μ[i would have been changed into μ[' because it was unacceptable to thefaithful that the place of God’s sojourn would decay (Snijders, 236). Transla-tors are therefore advised to abandon the conjectural track.

Whether they can with the minority of the committee follow the primamanus reading of 1Q-a and translate that reading with REB by “the heights ofthe earth wilt” is highly questionable as well. For it is hardly probable that thecopyist of 1Q-a would have intended another meaning than that of M, admit-ted that the omission of μ[' took place on the grounds indicated above.


Along these lines and considering that μ[' could be left implicit in trans-lation, NIV would be an acceptable model: “the exalted of the earth languish.”Such a rendering should especially be recommended in projects with Ortho-dox participation. A textual note seems to be super˘uous.

24.16

Textual Decisions

Two problems are presented in the second line of this verse. The ˜rst oneconcerns the cryptic expression yliAyzIr: ylIAyzIr: which could literally be renderedby “waste for me, waste for me.” The second one is connected with the se-mantic relationships between the following items . . . μydIg“Bo yli ywOa, “Woe is me!The treacherous . . . .”

The cryptic expression of the ˜rst case is directly supported by 1Q-a, Th,Sym and V, and indirectly by T and S. It is only lacking in G. In view of themassive support of M, the committee attributed a B evaluation to it.

In the second case, M has the support of 1Q-a, Aq, Sym, V and S. G byrendering oujai; toi'ı ajqetou'sin, “woe to those who deal treacherously” seems


to translate a Vorlage μydIg“Bol' ywOa and it is followed in this by T in its translation“woe to the oppressors.” But the rendering of the whole verse in G testi˜es toa literary creative activity of the translator and maybe to an expression of hisown religious conceptions (Seeligmann, 105). Therefore, a majority of the com-mittee gave a C evaluation to M.


These textual problems have had very little impact upon modern transla-tions. Only NEB: “Woe to the traitors . . .” follows G in the second case with-out notice. REB, however, turns back to the traditional translation: “Woe betideme! Traitors deal treacherously!”

The main problem for translators is the meaning of the cryptic expressionof the ˜rst case, and more particularly the meaning of yzIr:. The simple state-ment “unexplained” (Holladay, 336) is not very helpful in this respect. In fact,three meanings have been proposed: (1) a derivation from Aramaic zr:, “secret”;(2) a derivation from the verbal root hzr, “to shrink away,” and (3) a meaning“meanness” based upon Arabic radhîl and upon a Hebrew reading ylyzr. Thelast meaning has only been chosen by NEB: “Villainy, villainy!” and by REB:“Depravity, depravity!” Since it is highly uncertain (HALAT, 1129a), it cannotbe recommended to translators. The ˜rst meaning “secret” has been adoptedby all ancient versions for understandable reasons: the Persian loan zr: in Ara-maic and Hebrew came spontaneously to the mind of the Aramaic translator ofIsaiah and through him to Jerome. This meaning has most recently been de-fended by Kaiser (189), but modern translations never opt for it. They all pre-fer the second meaning for which they use diˆerent translational glosses. Thismeaning is also the most likely one because of the semotactic relationships withthe following “woe is me.”


Several translations can serve as models e.g. NIV: “But I said, ‘I wasteaway, I waste away! Woe to me! The treacherous betray . . . .’ ” Since the ˜rstmeaning is nevertheless a possible one, it may be useful to provide a transla-tional note with the alternative translation: “It is my secret! It is my secret!” asdoes SR.

25.2

Textual Decisions

M reads in the second line μyrIz: ˆwOmr“a', “citadel of foreigners” and the read-ing μyrIz:, “foreigners” is directly supported by 1Q-a, 1Q-b, V and S and indi-rectly by the paraphrase “idol temple of the nations” given by T. On the other

Isaiah 21–30 10725.4

hand, two manuscripts of M present the reading μydIzE ˆwOmr“a', “citadel of the ar-rogant” and such a text has frequently been considered as the Vorlage of G tw'najsebw'n, “of the ungodly.” Considering, however, that G renders rz likewisewith ajsebhvı in 25.5 and 29.5, it is more plausible that one has to do with aninterpretation of the Isaiah translator and not with a diˆerent Hebrew Vorlage.The committee consequently attributed a B evaluation to M.


NEB and REB oˆer a deviating translation “every mansion in the citiesis swept away” in which “swept away” seems to be based upon a conjecturalvocalization μWrz:. This vocalization seems to follow up a suggestion made byDriver (1958, 44) with some slight modi˜cation. But Emerton (1977, 68–70)has clearly shown that Driver’s linguistic base is rather weak, and such a read-ing therefore cannot be advised to translators.

The reading μydIzE has been seriously backed up by a majority of commenta-tors, hence most likely its relative impact upon modern translations: NAB: “Thecastle of the insolent,” NJV (note): “The citadel of arrogant men,” and, alongthe same lines: FC (with textual note), C, and BR. In the light of the textual de-cisions, however, this reading cannot be recommended to translators either.

It seems, however, that translators would do well, when translating μyrIz:, tomake either the component of “violence” or the one of “ignorance” explicit intheir rendering.


Both components are e¯ciently combined in TOB: “La forteresse des bar-bares,” “the fortress of the barbarians” and this translation can therefore serveas a model. The component of “violence” shows up in a translation like GNB:“The palaces which our enemies built” and the component of “ignorance” inGN: “Die Stadt der Fremden, die dich nicht kannten,” “The city of the for-eigners who did not know you.” In Study Bible projects, the textual and inter-pretational note of TOB may serve as a model.

25.4

Textual Decisions

In the last words of this verse the “fury of tyrants” is compared with a“storm” which is quali˜ed by ryqi, “of a wall,” “against a wall.” It has generallybeen suggested to correct ryqi into rqo, “cold” and to change the storm into anicy one. Carmignac (1968, 42) discovered even a waw in the spelling of thisword in 1Q-a. For the committee, however, the spelling in both 1Q-a and 1Q-bis clearly with yod. V, S and T as well entirely support M. T even explicitly


renders “as a rainstorm which beats against a wall.” G has a diˆerent reading,but it is text-critically of no use since no correspondences in translation can bedetermined with any degree of certainty. In the absence of these, the committeeattributed an A evaluation to M.


Inspired by the apparatuses of our Hebrew Bibles and by the majorityposition of scholarship, translators have generally applied the correction of thetext. Sometimes they quali˜ed the storm as “cold” (NAB) or “icy” (NEB, REB,BR); sometimes as a “winter storm” (NRSV, NJV, NJB, GNB, EÜ, C). Sincerqø signi˜es “intense cold,” the last rendering might be considered as a ques-tionable paraphrase even within the frame of the correction.

Translators should, however, note that in the same way as “the bar of theshoulder” in 9.3 means “the bar which hits the shoulder,” “the rainstorm of thewall” can mean “the rainstorm which beats the wall” (Delitzsch, 294). More-over, they should take into account the threatening character of the expressionin M which suggests the violence of the thunderstorm with its accompanyinginundations and the weakness of the wall which probably was made of mud(Snijders, 247). M does make more sense than frequently has been suggested,and there is no reason why it should not be translated.


NIV could function as a translational model: “For the breath of the ruth-less is like a storm driving against a wall.” If a need to complete the compari-son exists, GN could be followed: “Die Wut der Tyrannen zerstörte das Landwie harte Regengüsse eine Mauer,” “The rage of tyrants destroyed the land, asa violent rainstorm a wall.”

25.5

Textual Decisions

In the ˜rst part of the last line M reads b[; lxeB] br<jo, “(as) heat by the shadeof a cloud,” a sentence which is lacking in G. Except for the scriptio plena,1Q-a is identical with M. M also has the direct support of Th and the indirectsupport of S and V. It is even supported by T, for its highly developed para-phrase “as the shadow of a cool rock in a weary land, so is the peace of mindof the righteous” does not seem to presuppose the reading of a diˆerent text.For the seven last words of the verse G only has oi|ı hJma'ı parevdwka", “towhom you delivered us.” G is almost entirely detached from M (Coste, 49) andit therefore cannot be used text-critically. For that reason and because of the

Isaiah 21–30 10926.5

witnesses of which the Vorlage can be reconstructed, a majority A vote wasgiven to M.


According to most commentators, verse 5 consists of a series of successiveglosses. This opinion, combined with the lack of equivalences in G, has in-spired some modern translators in diêrent ways. The sentence under discus-sion has been omitted in TOT, NEB and REB and it has been put betweensquare brackets in EÜ with the footnoted remark that it is lacking in G andshould be considered as a later addition to M. Even more radical is the behav-iour of NAB which omits the whole last line which, according to the textualnotes (411), should be seen as a dittography.

Translators are, however, advised to render M which they can syntacti-cally do in several ways. One of the easiest devices probably is to make theimplicit comparison of the last line explicit as has been done in some of theancient versions.


NIV could serve as an example in its translation of the whole line: “asheat is reduced by the shadow of a cloud, so the song of the ruthless is stilled.”

26.5

Textual Decisions

In the beginning of the second line of M Hl;yPiv]y", “he lays it low,” repeatsthe preceding hN:l,yPiv]y", “he lays it low.” The repetition is supported by V and T.On the other hand, it is lacking in 1Q-a, G and S and probably also in 4Q-c.The committee gave nevertheless a C evaluation to the “swollen” reading (Tal-mon, 1960, 177) of M. For in the context of 3–9 there are six word repeti-tions which the diêrent witnesses have a tendency to avoid because of stylisticconsiderations.

Evaluations of Problems

Translators should therefore not easily omit the repetition, as has beendone without textual justi˜cation in NEB and REB. The repetition can be dealtwith in diêrent ways. Irwin’s suggestion (1979, 242) might be followed: toshift the atnach to the ˜rst form of the repetition, structuring in this way verse5 as one chiastic sentence followed by one parallel sentence. But the oppositeidea that the accentuator of M deliberately disarranged symmetrical structuresin order to create a speci˜c impact seems not less valuable.



If the suggestion of Irwin is adopted, a translation such as NRSV couldserve as a model: “For he has brought low the inhabitants of the height; thelofty city he lays low. He lays it low to the ground, casts it to the dust.” NJBis a good example of respecting the accents of M: “He has brought low thedwellers on the heights, the lofty citadel; he lays it low, brings it to the ground,˘ings it down in the dust.”

26.7

Textual Decisions

This verse presents another example of word repetition: rv;y:, “straight,”“plane,” repeating the preceding μyrIv;yme, “level.” This time M has the supportof 1Q-a, V, S and T. The lacuna in 4Q-c does not permit any conclusion. G isthe only clear witness of the omission of the repetition. But none of the sixword repetitions in the context of 3–9 has been rendered in G so that one caneasily conclude a systematic option of the translator. This consideration, com-bined with the strong support of M has led to a B evaluation of M.


The only translation providing a textual note is RSV, and its note is rathermisleading because the comparison with G does not apply and the meaninggiven to M re˘ects only one interpretation. In fact, traditionally two diˆerentinterpretations have been proposed: (1) rv;y: quali˜es “path,” “straight is the waywhich you make for the righteous” (Delitzsch, 299; Wildberger, 982); (2) rv;y:has been considered as a vocative referring to God, “O upright One, you makethe way of the righteous smooth.” (Saadya). The ˜rst interpretation is followedin RSV, NAB, NJB, FC, GrN; the second one in all Jewish versions (BR, NJV,Chouraqui) and in KJ, NIV, NRSV, SR.


Interpretation (1) should be preferred as the more plausible one (Gray, 440;Wildberger, 982). Moˆatt could be cited as a model: “for honest men thoumakest the way straight.” The history of interpretation and the divergencies be-tween translations, make a footnote with variant translation and interpretation(2) recommendable: “O Just One, you make smooth the path of the righteous”(NRSV).

Isaiah 21–30 11126.8

26.8

Textual Decisions

M reads the verb in the ˜rst line as ÚWnyWIqi, “we put our hope in you,” “wewait for you,” whereas 1Q-a reads the same verb without su¯x: wnywq, “we putour hope in,” taking “the path of your judgments” as object. M only has thesupport of V. 1Q-a is supported by G, S and T. G diˆers nevertheless entirelyfrom the two other versions by taking the verb syntactically with the followinginformation: hjlpivsamen ejpi; tw≥` ojnovmativ sou, “we have hoped in your name.”M certainly has the more di¯cult reading since the su¯x of the verb as gram-matical object competes with jr"ao, “path.” The committee therefore consideredthe omission of the su¯x as due to syntactical ignorance and it attributed amajority C evaluation (minority B) to M.


Instructed by BHS only a few translators followed the reading without suf-˜x (NEB, REB, W, EÜ). A translation like REB, “We have had regard to thepath prescribed in your laws,” shows, that such a rendering is only possible onthe basis of a distortion of the meaning of the Hebrew verb. Another reasonwhy translators should not follow such a model!

The best solution is to take “the path of your judgments” as an adverbialaccusative: “on the path of your judgments” (Wildberger, 983). The ambigu-ous genitive construction may hide several meanings: (1) We are on the pathof your judgments, or (2) you punish us (on our path).


The ˜rst interpretation is followed in NIV: “Yes, Lord, walking in the wayof your laws, we wait for you,” and in GNB: “We follow your will and put ourhope in you.” The second interpretation is followed in GN: “Auch dann, wenndu uns strafen mußt, warten wir voller Hoˆnung auf dich,” “Even when youhave to punish us, we put all our hope in you.” This last interpretation may bepreferred.

26.16

Textual Decisions

This verse contains many problems, but only three of them relate to tex-tual analysis. Of these three two are connected.

(1) At the end of 16a M reads ÚWdq;P], “they sought you,” whereas two Ken-nicott manuscripts read ˚wndqp, “we sought you.” M is supported by 1Q-a, V,


S and T; the two Hebrew manuscripts by G. For although Ziegler has chosenejmnhvsqhn sou, “I remembered you” as the original reading of G, it seems farmore probable that ejmnhvsqhmen sou, “we remembered you” represents the ori-ginal G in agreement with hJmin, “to us,” at the end of the verse (see next case).Through interior corruption ejmnhvsqhmen would then have become ejmnhvsqhn.

Because of the strong support of M and of the fact that G can easily be ex-plained as an assimilation to the wider context of 12 and 17, the committeegave a B evaluation to M.

(2) At the end of 16b M reads wOml;, “to them,” whereas G reads hJmi'n, “tous.” M has the support of 1Q-a and V. An explicit equivalent is lacking in Sand T. Here again, G can be considered as due to contextual harmonization.The reason of the omission in some of the other versions is probably stylistic.Hence the B evaluation of M.

(3) The second word of 16b is read in M as vj'l', “whispering” and in1Q-a as wçjl, “they whispered.” M has the clear support of 4Q-b, 4Q504 andV. It is also supported by G in so far as mikra/`, “small,” seems to presuppose aHebrew reading without ˜nal waw. On the other hand, 1Q-a is followed by Sand T. The committee considered the reading of 1Q-a, S and T as a secondaryalteration in order to obtain a verb parallel to ˚wdqp in the second half of theline. Therefore, M obtained a C evaluation.


The ˜rst two textual problems are of little importance to translators. Theymay ˜nd it as di¯cult to identify the participants intended by the third personsu¯xes of M as the translator of G and they may want to produce the samekind of contextual assimilation to the ˜rst person plural. This is the case inNEB, REB, NAB, FC, EÜ, and GrN. These translations, however, with theexception of the two last ones, base themselves on textual arguments, which inthe light of the textual decisions above, are hardly valid. Translators can basethemselves on translational arguments, but they should refrain from makingtextual notes. If they want to render M, they better take the third person pluralas impersonal and translate the verse as a general statement (so TOB, GN).

As to the third problem, it does not really have a textual character, but itsdi¯culty lies more in grammar and interpretation. The problem concerns theform and meaning of vj'l' ˆWqx;. It has been suggested that this expression wouldhave a function in 16b parallel to the one of ÚWdq;P] in 16a. Depending upon thereading of ˆWqx; as verb or as noun, the expression has traditionally been takento mean “they poured out a whispered prayer” or “the pouring out of a whis-pered prayer.” The prayer could have the nature of an incantation in addition(Snijders, 263). This meaning is, however, far from certain.

Isaiah 21–30 11326.19A


The following translation of verse 16 could serve as a model: “Lord, indistress people come to you for help; they mutter when you chastise them.”Translators are encouraged, though, to state in a footnote that the Hebrew ofthis verse is unclear.

26.19A

Textual Decisions

After “your dead shall live” M reads ˆWmWqy“ ytil;ben“, “my corpse(s) shall rise,”a reading also found in 1Q-a and V. S and T on the other hand, have su¯xesof the third person plural, reading “their corpses.” G has the periphrasis oiJ ejntoi'ı mnhmeivoi", “those who are in the tombs.” S and T can be considered asharmonizations to the immediate context. G either is a Christian interpolation(Ziegler, 1934, 67) in which case the access to the original G no longer exists,or it provides a stylistic variant of nekroiv (Gray, 449). In the last case, G iscertainly secondary since by dropping all possessives it makes a general state-ment out of M. The support given by 1Q-a and V to the more di¯cult readingof M was su¯cient reason for the committee to give a B evaluation to the last.


Most modern English versions (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, NAB) have theharmonizing reading “their corpses” which they justify text-critically. Only NIVseems to do the same for translational reasons. NJB makes, presumably also fortranslational reasons, the opposite harmonization of the second person plural:“Your dead will come back to life, your corpses will rise again.”

Translators should, however, attempt to render M. In order to do so, theyhave ˜rst of all to identify the speaker. Two diˆerent views have been defended:(1) Verse 19 starts a new discourse with the Lord as speaker, and (2) verse 19marks the end of the prayer by the community. Traditional text-divisions aswell as modern structural analysis favor the last view.


The rendering of the last interpretation may make it necessary to give moreexplicit information with regard to participants. GN is a good model in this re-spect: Herr, deine Toten werden wieder leben, die Leichen meines Volkes wer-den auferstehen,” “O Lord, your dead will live again; the corpses of my peopleshall rise.”


26.19B

Textual Decisions

In the second half of the ˜rst line M reads two imperatives: WnN“r"w“ Wxyqih;,“awake and shout for joy (you who dwell in the dust).” 1Q-a, on the otherhand, reads twice future tenses of the verb: wnnryw wxyqy, “they will wake up andshout for joy.” M is supported by V, while 1Q-a has the support of G, S and T.According to Eusebius’ commentary Th and Aq would have future tenses aswell, but the context of the commentary may have in˘uenced the verbal formsso that no certainty as to their witness exists. The committee considered thefuture tenses as assimilations to the tenses of the initial verbs and therefore assyntactical facilitations. It attributed a C evaluation to the more di¯cult read-ing of M.


Duhm (159) was the ˜rst to propose the correction into future tenses andhis proposal has been accepted by the majority of modern scholarship, espe-cially after the discovery of 1Q-a. This dominant position also explains theadoption of the correction in many modern translations (NEB, REB, GNB, EÜ,FC), although only one of these translations justi˜es the correction in a text-critical note (FC).

One of the arguments of Duhm against the imperatives was that ˜rst Godwould have been addressed, then the dead, and, ˜nally, again God (158). Froma point of view of formal structures, however, such an inclusion seems to beperfectly acceptable.


Respecting the imperatives, one can render this half line as in NAB: “awakeand sing, you who lie in the dust.” The change of addressee in the last part ofthe verse may need again some explicit marking as in GN: “Du, Herr, bist wieder belebende Tau . . . ,” “You, o Lord, are like the reviving dew . . . .”

27.2

Textual Decisions

According to BHS, M would read dm,j, μr<K,, “vineyard of splendor,” “splen-did vineyard.” Since the aim of the edition is to reproduce the text of the manu-script of St Petersburg, this is a mistake. M reads in fact rm,j, μr<K,, “vineyard of(unfermented) wine.” The reading with dalet is only found in the Soncino edi-tion of 1488 and in one or two manuscripts. The real reading of M (with resh)

Isaiah 21–30 11527.4

is supported by 1Q-a rmwj (with phonological shift, according to Kutscher, 375),V and S. The reading with dalet is supported by the double translation of G(ajmpelw;n) kalov": ejpiquvmhma (ejxavrcein katΔ aujth'"), “There will be a beau-tiful vineyard and a desire to start a song concerning it.” It is also supported byT which might well present another double translation abf [rab bsn μrkk,“like a choice vineyard in a good soil.”

The reading with dalet obtained a majority C vote for the following reasons:(1) the passage from one reading to another can be purely accidental; (2) μr<k,dm,j, is a classical expression (Amos 5.11); (3) μr<k,, “orchard,” is normally spe-ci˜ed by the kind of trees that are grown in it and not by its product. A minorityC vote was given to the reading with resh, mainly for three reasons: (1) strongsupport of M; (2) a shift from a rare to a more usual form can be more easilyexplained; (3) rm,j, μr<K, could be a poetical equivalent of ˆyIy" ˆp,G<, “grape vine.”


Due to the mistake in BHS and probably to the majority standpoint of mod-ern scholarship as well, almost all translations rendered the reading with dalet.The only notable exceptions, adopting the reading rm,j, are older translations,based upon the Vulgate, like the Dutch translation of 1360 “Wijngaert despuers wijns,” “vineyard of pure wine,” KJ “A vineyard of red wine (!),” andamong the more recent translations NV “een wijngaard . . . , die bruisenden wijnvoortbrengt,” “a vineyard which produces sparkling wine,” and SR “la vigneau vin capiteux,” a vineyard producing heady wine.”

Among all the translations rendering the reading with dalet, only NJB makesa text-critical note stating that the reading of M is not followed. The note iswrong in so far that it declares the reading dm,j, to be a “conjecture” instead ofan attested reading.


Translators can follow the reading with dalet, but would do well to makea footnote stating that they read so with a few Hebrew manuscripts and ver-sions and that M reads “a vineyard of wine.”

27.4

Textual Decisions

In the beginning of the verse M reads hm;je, “anger,” “There is no anger inme.” G seems to have read hm;jo, for it translates to; tei`co", “the wall.” M mostprobably has the support of 1Q-a, since it is very unlikely that hmj would standfor hm;jo, a word which is always written plene in the scroll. M also has the sup-port of V. G, on the other hand, is followed by S. T develops a midrash in


which no Vorlage can be determined with regard to this word. The “wall” ofG is coherent with its totally deviating imagery of a strong, besieged city inverse 2–3. G testi˜es to a free literary construction and it does not seem to bejusti˜ed to take one element of this construction at random in order to put itinto a construction of a diêrent kind.

This argument as well as the argument of the strong support of M madethe committee attribute a B evaluation to M.


None of our Hebrew Bibles ever proposed to correct M in order to readhm;jo. Even among commentators such a correction is rarely suggested, Proksch(338) being one of the exceptions. It nevertheless entered into the JerusalemBible tradition (BJ, NJB): “. . . I do not have a wall.” Needless to say that sucha tradition should not be followed, even if it is supported elsewhere (BR!).

Some translations did not abandon M, but gave a diêrent interpretation ofit. This is the case with NEB and REB in which hm;je is taken to mean “wine,”and in which the ̃ rst sentence of verse 4 is taken with the last sentence of verse3: “Night and day I tend it, but I get no wine.” These translations are basedupon an insight of Driver (1958a, 133) who interprets hm;je as “˜ery wine,” aninterpretation which has correctly been considered as “unacceptable” (Wild-berger, 1008).

In favor of the interpretation “anger” are the parallel with hm;j;l]MiB', “in bat-tle” of 4b (Ehrlich, 95) and the consideration that 27.4a is the key to the secondparable of the vineyard and the opposite of the key to the ˜rst parable of thevineyard in 5.5a.


If an absolute statement like “I have no wrath” (NRSV) is not possible ina language, one may have to spell out the object of the anger like in GNB “Iam no longer angry with the vineyard.”

27.8

Textual Decisions

The ˜rst half line of 8 reads as follows: hN:b,yrIT] Hj;l]v'B] ha;S]as'B], frequentlyrendered as “Measure by measure, by exile you did contend with them.” Tex-tual problems exist with regard to the ˜rst and second item.

(1) The reading of M ha;S]as'B] without the mappiq punctuation of the ñalhe, is supported by Th, Aq, Sym, V, S and T, whereas a reading with mappiqHa;s]a]s'B], “by scaring her away” is found in two manuscripts and seems to besupported by G. For in its reading macovmenoı kai; ojneidivzwn ejxapostelei'

Isaiah 21–30 11727.8

aujtouv", “˜ghting and reproaching he will dismiss them,” the ˜rst Greek wordrenders no doubt the last word of the Hebrew sentence, the before last wordthe second and ojneidivzwn the word under discussion. Moreover, aujtouvı cor-responds to three Hebrew object su¯xes.

The evidence of the unpunctuated 1Q-a is, of course, indecisive.The committee gave a C evaluation to M for the following reason: since

the second form in M has a he with mappiq, its omission in the ˜rst form andin the versions later than G constitutes a more di¯cult reading.

(2) The second item Hj;l]v'B] is missing in S. It is, however, attested by1Q-a, G, V and T and its absence in S can easily be explained by the desire ofthe translator to leave its meaning translationally implicit. M received there-fore a B evaluation.


As to the ˜rst problem, there is no reason to follow NEB and REB in nottranslating the second item.

With regard to the ˜rst problem, the major issue is interpretational. It wasthe intention of the vocalizators of M to read in ha;S]as'B] a concentrated formof ha;s] ha;s]bi, “measure for measure.” Since Th this interpretation has in fact im-posed itself upon Jewish exegesis and upon all versions. That “measuring vessel(for corn),” however, would have had a ˜gurative meaning is highly improb-able. The interpretation of this ˜gurative meaning would be hard to give (mea-sure for measure, with exact measure, moderately ?) and the meaning of theexpression in this particular context would be obscure. (Gray, 457–458). It is,therefore, understandable that modern Jewish versions (with the exception ofChouraqui) abandoned the traditional interpretation and that NRSV revised RSVin this respect. Among recent translations only Gr N and GN try to follow thetraditional interpretation, but the last one with “has meted out punishment” iscertainly more clever than equivalent.

Another interpretation arises from a comparison with an Arabic verb basedupon an onomatopoeia sa’sa,’ the sound made by donkey-drivers to hurry uptheir beasts. Such a verb is also used in Arabic with regard to persons (Driver,1929, 371–372) and it would lead to a meaning “in shooing her away.” Thiscertainly was the meaning read by G and it might be preferred by translators.


Only W and TOT render the text according to the last interpretation. TOTcould serve as a model: “Lord, you contended with them, and shooed themaway into exile.” In a footnote, the traditional interpretation could be given and,considering the divergency of modern translations, it may be useful to mentionthat the Hebrew meaning is not certain.

A Handbook on Isaiah118 28.1 and 4

28.1 and 4

Textual Decisions

In an identical context M reads in both verses ayGE, “valley,” “on the headof a fertile valley,” whereas 1Q-a has yag which vocalized as yaeGE could mean(with reference to Arabic) “dripping (with perfumes).” In the two verses Mhas the support of V, S and T, and in the ˜rst verse in addition the support ofTh and Aq. G renders twice with tou' o[rou", “of the mountain,” which can beconsidered as an assimilation to the context under the in˘uence of the preced-ing word for “head.” It is more di¯cult to evaluate the reading of 1Q-a, whichmight testify to a contextual assimilation in the sense indicated above or mightpresent a construct state plural of ha,GE with the meaning “proud” (Ehrlich, 97).Kutscher (180), however, has noted that the scribe of 1Q-a seems to have hadthe intention to eliminate all spellings ayGE found in M in order to avoid a wrongpronunciation. The ñal sequence yod-aleph stands in the scroll for a long “î.”By changing the sequence a reading with “e” could have been guaranteed. Thisidea of graphical modernization has been retained by the committee as moreprobable with a B evaluation of M as a result.


Translations diêr widely in their treatment of these verses. NEB, REB andGNB render in diêrent ways what they consider to be a possible meaning of1Q-a: “on the heads of those who drip with perfumes,” but only REB signalsthis as a probable reading referring to 1Q-a. A diêrent understanding is of-fered by NJV and NRSV: “on the head of those bloated with rich food.” In thelight of the textual decisions above, translators cannot be advised to followthese rather speculative renderings.

Some translations seem to have followed the advice of modern commen-tators (Wildberger, 1042) to consider the expression “fertile valley” in verse 1as a gloss introduced from verse 4 which should therefore not be rendered inverse 1. So NAB in verse 1: “on the head of him who is stupe˜ed with wine,”but verse 4: “on the head of the fertile valley.” This is related to an interpre-tational option that, in contrast with verse 4, verse 1 does not deal with the cityof Samaria.

It seems, however, preferable to render M and to see in verse 1 likewisea reference to the city of Samaria located on the top of a hill and dominatingthe fertile valley around (Snijders, 278).


EÜ can be used as a model: “(weh der Stadt) der vom Wein Berauschtenauf dem Gipfel über dem fruchtbaren Tal!,” “(woe to the city) of those intox-

Isaiah 21–30 11928.25

icated by wine, on the top of the mountain above the fertile valley.” Somerearrangement of images and comparisons can be done (compare GN).

28.25

Textual Decisions

Verse 25b reads as follows in M: wOtl;buG“ tm,S,kuw“ ˆm;s]nI hr:[oc]W hr:wOc hF;ji μc;w“,which could be rendered as “he set wheat in rows and barley in its proper placeand spelt as the border.” Textual problems are connected with hr:wOc, and ˆm;s]nI.In both cases M has the support of 1Q-a and T and in both cases there is anomission in G and S. hrwç has been rendered “per ordinem” in V which maypresuppose a vocalization of late Hebrew hr:Wv. In the hexaplaric recension ̂ m;s]nIhas been rendered by kai; kevgcron, “and millet,” in an asterisked note. CodexMarchalianus attributes this reading to Th and Aq. This reading also seems tohave inspired V: “et milium.” According to Ziegler (184) the omission in G isdue to the fact that the Greek translator did not know how to render the twodi¯cult Hebrew words. And according to the committee, the textual traditiondoes not oˆer any readings which could compete with the more di¯cult read-ing of M. Hence the B evaluation assigned to M.


Some translations do not render any of the two terms under discussion(NJB, NAB, EÜ, TOB), whereas others (NEB, REB, GNB) do not translate thesecond word. The reasons for the double omission are sometimes unknown(EÜ), and where they are known, they are rarely textual. For NAB the doubleomission is based upon dittography in M, for TOB upon the unintelligible char-acter of the Hebrew words. “Unintelligibillity” is also the reason given for theomission of the last word in NEB and REB. The omission by G was, accordingto Brockington, a supplementary reason for NEB not to translate the last word.The in˘uence from Koehler-Baumgartner who s.v. refrain from giving a mean-ing to ˆm;s]nI is clearly visible.

The short overview above shows that the main problems are interpreta-tional. With regard to hr:wOc Dalman (1905, 31–34) has related this word to theArabic cognate hraçm, a belt of approximately four meters large, demarcatedby the peasants for sowing by dispersion. This etymological suggestion couldbe correct. On the other hand, the Panammuwa inscription (Donner-Röllig,No. 215) provides in lines 6 and 9 a list of cereals, similar to that of our text,which gives hrwçw , probably “sorgho.”

As to ˆm;s]nI, the whole exegetical tradition has read here a niphal participleof ˆms, a verb related to the Mishnaic Hebrew ˆm;ysi, “mark,” and it was under-stood to mean “in a well-de˜ned place.” König in his dictionary (303–304) in-


120 28.28

sists upon this meaning because of the parallelism with wOtl;buG“

, “at its border.”The verb ˆms

is not necessarily a Greek loan (shmaivnw

). It may have a Semiticorigin in the light of Accadian “

simanu(m)

,”

“appointed time.”Translators may follow the traditional reading and understanding of the

text, but they will have to take into account the possibility that hr:wOc

may referto a distinct cereal, probably sorgho.


NRSV is a good example of traditional understanding and translation: “andplant wheat in rows and barley in its proper place, and spelt as the border?” Afootnote should, however, be added that originally the Hebrew word translated“in rows,” may have designed a cereal distinct from wheat and barley, probablysorgho.

28.28

Textual Decisions

In 28b M reads wyv;r:p;W

, “and his horses,” whereas Sym by translating tai'ıoJplai'ı

aujtou'

, “with his hoofs,” seems to have read wyc;r“p'W

. M has no formalsupport in any witness. 1Q-a, which has the same consonants, is not conclu-sive with regard to punctuation. Sym, on the other hand, is followed by V andS. G has an entirely diˆerent literary construction, maybe under the in˘uenceof the parallel passage 57.16 (Seeligmann, 71). The rendering of T, “and he

separates

the corn and throws the chaˆ to the winds,” presupposes an interpre-tation of the verb cr"p;

. The committee attributed a C evaluation to M mainlyon the basis of two arguments: (1) The reading of Sym is not convenient, be-cause the possessive “his” in “his hoofs” refers to the peasant (!); (2) in M,stylistically, verse 28b takes up again, in a reversed order, the techniques oftreading out corn of verse 27a, whereas the punctuations diˆerent from the oneof M do not re˘ect this stylistic phenomenon in a better way.


Three recent versions in English seem to have read a verb cr"p;

with theTargum: NEB “(his cartwheels rumble over it) and break it up”; REB “. . . andthresh it”; and GNB “he knows how to thresh it by driving a cart over it.”

The reluctance to introduce horses in some translations may relate to thefact that no mention is made elsewhere of the use of horses for treading outcorn. This practice is, however, attested by Plinius Maior (

Historia Naturalis

18, 298) and by Xenophon (

Oeconomicus

18, 4). Horses were even preferredto donkeys and oxen (Delitzsch, 321). Therefore, a rendering which implies

Isaiah 21–30

12129.3

that the maneuver of the peasant avoids the pulverizing of the grain, seems tobe justi˜ed.


NRSV can serve as a model for translators: “one drives the cart wheel andhorses over it, but does not pulverize it.”

29.3

Textual Decisions

The ˜rst sentence reads in M as follows: ËyIl;[;

rWDk'

ytiynIj;w“

, “I will encampagainst you all around.” Instead of rWDk'

, “all around,” two manuscripts in thecollation of Kennicott (150 and 245) as well as the ˜rst hand of 1Q-a have thereading dwdk

. M is supported by the second hand of 1Q-a, Th, Aq, Sym, V, Sand probably indirectly by T which has translated rwdk

together with the pre-ceding information: “on a feast day

round about

.” At ˜rst sight, the

primamanus

of 1Q-a seems to be supported by G: kai;

kuklwvsw

wJı

Dauid

ejpi;

se;

, “Iwill surround you

like David

.” It is more probable, however, that the ˜nal

dalet

in 1Q-a is a simple graphical error, for if the scribe would have intendedto write “David” he would, as in the nine other Isaiah instances, have used a

scriptio plena

with

yod

. G can be considered as a facilitating assimilation toverse 1 where David is mentioned. It seems therefore that the more di¯cultreading of M which is well supported should be preferred. This case has notbeen submitted to the judgment of the committee.


The reading of G has been adopted by many commentators. It has beenimposed upon the reader in the apparatus of BHS and in the dictionary ofKoehler-Baumgartner and it therefore entered into several modern translationslike NRSV, “And like David I will encamp against you,” NAB, E

Ü

and TOB.All these versions state that they follow G. For NRSV the meaning of the He-brew is uncertain; TOB translates the Hebrew in a footnote but prefers G.

rWd

seems in another place to have the meaning “ball” (22.18), but com-parison with Arabic

dara

, “move in a circle” and Akkadian

duru

, “ringwall,”shows that a meaning “circle” is not at all impossible. Kaiser (263) stronglyprotests against the treatment of this entry in Koehler-Baumgartner, whereasWildberger (1098), dealing with the content of this sentence, considers that thecomparison of G does not hold: God will not encamp against Jerusalem likeDavid.


122 29.5


Translators are thus encouraged to render M as, for example, has beendone in REB: “I shall encircle you with my army.” In projects with Orthodoxparticipation it may be useful to give and explain in a footnote the reading ofG (compare NJV).

29.5

Textual Decisions

M reads in the ˜rst sentence ËyIr:z:

, “your foreigners,” whereas 1Q-a has thereading ˚ydz

, “your arrogant men.” M has the support of V, S and T, for by ren-dering “your winnowers” these versions did translate a root hrz

. The readingof G tw'n

ajsebw'n

, “of the ungodly,” is debatable, and it could be taken as evi-dence for M as well as for 1Q-a. The discussion of the similar case in 25.2 (seeabove) has shown that G does not necessarily presuppose a

Vorlage

diˆerentfrom M (Laberge, 25). The committee gave a majority C vote to M on the ba-sis of the following consideration: in this context the word ˆwOmh}

, “multitude,”occurs three times, and it is constructed with ËyIr:z:

, “your foreigners,” μyxiyrI[;

,“tyrants” and μyIwOGh'AlK;

, “all the nations,” respectively. The same three nounsoccur in a stereotyped expression in Ezek 28.7 and 31.12 and this makes theirassociation in Is 29.5 plausible.


Interestingly enough a majority of modern translations (RSV, NRSV, NIV,NEB, REB NJV, SR, TOB, FC) render “your ennemies” or “your foes,” butonly RSV and NRSV honestly note that they follow a corrected text, no doubtthe conjecture ˚yrx

. Only one modern translation renders 1Q-a: “The horde ofyour arrogant shall be like ˜ne dust” (NAB). Such a choice is not only madeon textual, but also on exegetical grounds. If the people concerned are identi-˜ed with the ruling classes of Jerusalem (Wildberger, 1099; Snijders, 291–292),the reading of 1Q-a becomes almost obligatory.

Older translations, based upon the Vulgate, used to retain the image of the“winnower.” So the Dutch version of 1360: “

Ende die menichte der gheenre diedi wech waeyen sellen

,”

“And the multitude of those who will blow you away.”Such a rendering might be rather correct. It is very probable indeed that in thiscontext of winnowing a double meaning “foreigners/winnowers” was intended.Double meanings can hardly be translated in a natural way, so that one mean-ing should go into the text and the other into a note.

Isaiah 21–30

12329.9


GNB could serve as a model: “all the foreigners who attack you will beblown away like dust.” Since the connotation here is that of “barbarian invad-ers,” one could also render with “

vreemde soldaten

,”

foreign soldiers,” as in StV.The double meaning could be mentioned in a footnote.

29.9

Textual Decisions

After two imperatives in 9a, M reads in 9b twice a third person plural

qal

:W[n:

. . . Wrk]v;

, “they are drunk . . . they stagger.” In both cases, M has the supportof S.

As to the ˜rst verb, some Hebrew manuscripts vocalize it as an imperative:Wrk]vi

, “be drunk,” followed in this by G, Sym and V. 1Q-a reads ˆwrkç

whichmost probably should be vocalized as a noun (Kutscher, 324) ˆwOrK;vi, “drunken-ness” and contrasted with the following noun: “drunkenness, but not becauseof wine.”

As to the second verb, it is most probably an imperative in 1Q-a, and cer-tainly in Sym and V, whereas it is omitted in G.

T is inconclusive with regard to both problems because the indicative andimperative mood have an identical vocalization for both verbs.

The committee considered all readings diˆerent from M as due to eithersyntactical or contextual harmonization, and it attributed a majority B evalua-tion to the more di¯cult reading of M with its stylistic relief.


The vast majority of modern versions continue the use of imperatives in9b. The lack of textual notes (only NEB and NAB provide them) shows thatthe reasons for this continuation are mainly translational. The “imperatives”to read imperatives in the apparatus of BHS as well as the absolute majorityopinion of commentators in this respect have certainly helped to make the trans-lational practice more universal.

In fact, M can only be understood as the result of a change of participants.The interlocutor abandons the addressees of 9a and by turning himself to thepublic in 9b, he exhibits their state (Rosenmüller). After this brief intermezzo,he addresses them again in 10.

It may be di¯cult to translate these rapid changes in a satisfactory way. Iffor linguistic reasons the addressees will have to be assimilated, at least theindicative mood of M should be maintained.



NJV may be seen as a way of saving the intermezzo by putting 9b betweenparentheses: “(They are drunk, but not from wine, / They stagger, but not fromliquor.)”

For a continuity of participants and indicative mood Smith-Goodspeed isa good example: “You who are drunk, though not with wine, / You who reel,though not with strong drink!” (see also GN and GrN).

29.22

Textual Decision

M reads bqo[}y" tyBeAla,, “to/about the house of Jacob.” Since the days of Lowth(1778) it has been proposed to change the vocalization of the ˜rst word and toread lae, “the God of the house of Jacob.” M is clearly supported by 1Q-a, Symand V. It could be questioned whether G (ejpiv), S and T (l[) base themselveson a reading of the preposition l[, but it is more likely that they present a cor-rect exegesis of the preposition la,. Since the conjecture of Lowth does nothave any textual support, the committee gave an A evaluation to M.


With the exception of Ziegler and Kaiser, commentators adopted withoutquestion the conjecture of Lowth. The apparatus of BHS imposed it upon itsusers and many modern versions (NJB, NAB, NEB, GNB, TOB, FC) followedit with only a few of them (NAB, FC) providing a textual note.

Lowth produced two main arguments in favor of the conjecture: (1) it cre-ates a smoother syntax, especially with regard to the following relative clause“who redeemed Abraham,” and (2) the discourse introduced by this verse doesnot address itself directly to the “house of Jacob.” Against (1) it can be saidthat the text expresses a concern not to separate the preposition from the gov-erning verb rma. In fact, the risk to understand “the God of the house of Jacob”would be greater if the prepositional clause would be moved after the relativeone. Against (2) it can be observed that la, in Isaiah sometimes introduces theperson talked about (37.21: 37.33). It is the rendering of this particular mean-ing of la, which should (with RSV, NRSV and REB) be preferred.


(N)RSV could be used as a model: “Therefore thus says the Lord, whoredeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob.”

Isaiah 21–30 12530.6

30.6

Textual Decisions

After the mention of “the lioness and the lion,” M reads μh,me which couldbe interpreted as “from where come (the lioness and the lion).” At least, thisis the reading and interpretation which are formally con˜rmed by V and S, andindirectly by G, ejkei`qen, “there” and T, “place of.” Only 1Q-a reads μym ˆyaw ,“without water,” instead of μh,me. The committee considered the reading of 1Q-ato be a literary initiative, probably inspired by the supplementary informationhyxw , “and dry country,” which the scroll presents in 6a. The solidly attestedreading of M got therefore a B evaluation.


Although the textual decision is rather straightforward, the interpretationalproblem is not easy to solve. Therefore, several corrections have been pro-posed, such as to read μhenO, “roaring,” a correction which has entered into NABand JB, or to read μheme, a hiphil participle of the verb μmh with the same mean-ing, a correction adopted in NEB and REB. Other translations like NRSV, BR,FC, GN make the same kind of correction without de˜ning their base text. Themost attractive correction is no doubt Grünberg’s proposal to read μheme. Theproblem is, however, that the verb μmh is not attested in the hiphil and that itdoes not have the meaning “to roar.” For such a meaning one has to refer toEgyptian. In order to defend nevertheless the necessity of correction, frequentuse has been made of the structural argument of a parallelism between “roaring(lion)” and “˘ying (serpent).” A closer view, however, reveals the illusive na-ture of the parallelism, since “˘ying” only quali˜es the immediately precedingnoun whereas “roaring” would qualify two preceding substantives (König).

Translators are therefore encouraged to render the textual decision takenabove. Although a fully satisfactory interpretation cannot easily be given, twopossibilities of interpretation exist: (1) μh,me refers to the inhabitants and in an un-usual way to their land: “from where come the lioness and the lion”; (2) “lionessand lion” are a particular illustration of the dangers and hardships mentionedin the preceding line.


A good illustration of (1) is RSV: “from where come the lioness and thelion,” or, depending upon syntactical restructuring in the receptor language NIV:“(a land of hardship and distress,) of lions and lionesses.” GNB provides a goodmodel for (2): “through dangerous country, where lions live . . . .”


30.7

Textual Decisions

Verse 7 is concluded with the mysterious sentence tb,v; μhe bh'r", “those(called) Rahab (are) inaction.” It should be noted that already in 1Q-a the lasttwo words are separated. As to word division, M is entirely supported by Sym.V can likewise be quoted in support of the consonantal text of M although itseems to have vocalized the last word as an imperative: tbov], given its readingquiesce, “be quiet.” G on the other hand, followed by S, gives a paraphrase ofM of which only the last word can be recognized in the form kaqivsa", “sitdown,” in the beginning of verse 8. The di¯culty of M has inspired T to pro-vide a midrash. The ancient textual support on the one hand, and the degreeof di¯culty on the other, has brought the committee to a majority B and aminority C vote for M.


Given the di¯culties of the text, it is not amazing that since the end of the18th century scholars have proposed to correct M by joining the last words andby reading therefore tbçmh. Such a consonant text would then permit diˆerentvocalizations, depending upon the verb from which a certain verbal form wouldbe derived. The correction tB;v]M;h' has most frequently been followed in moderntranslations: “Rahab quelled” (NAB, NEB), “Rahab Subdued” (REB), “Rahab-the-collapsed” (JB), “Rahab-the-tamed” (JB, note).

It seems, however, to be preferable to retain M as recently has been pro-posed again by Donner (158–159), Kaiser (287) and Snijders (300–301).

One may also ask whether the debate about following a certain correctionor interpreting the uncorrected text is relevant, since translationally the resultmay be the same. Translators will in any case have to render the aphorism withits opposition between the meaning of Egypt’s nick-name Rahab, “assail” andthe meaning of the noun tb,v;, “inaction.”


A translation along these lines can take diˆerent forms. One could useNIV as a model: “Therefore I call her Rahab the Do-Nothing.” Such a trans-lation would nevertheless need a note in which the meaning of Rahab is ex-plained. If one wants to give a more explicit functional equivalent translation,GN could serve as a model: “Darum nenne ich es ‘das unbewegliche Unge-heuer,’ ” “So I call it ‘the motionless monster.’ ”

Isaiah 21–30 12730.8

30.8

Textual Decisions

In the second part of 8b M reads d['l;, “for ever,” whereas two manuscriptsof de Rossi read d[el], “as a testimony.” This last reading has the support of thelarge majority of the ancient versions: Th, Aq, Sym, V, S and T. As always inmatters of vocalization, nothing can be concluded from 1Q-a. As to G, codexVaticanus with its reading KAIRW, “in time” probably comes closest to theoriginal form of G since ejn kairw/' renders the only other occurrence of d['l; inIsaiah (64.8). On the other hand, the Antiochian recension presents a con˘atereading in which the original form of G and the text of Th, Aq, Sym, ejscavthneijı martuvrion, are combined: eijı martuvrion ejn kairw/'. M would thereforeonly have the support of G. In spite of this, M got a majority C vote for severalreasons: (1) the reading d[el] was seen as a facilitation suggested by the con-text; (2) Ps 111.8 and 148.6 present parallel examples of the time sequences inthis verse; (3) it is possible to see a climax in the three temporal sequences ofM. However, a minority of the committee gave a B vote to the correction.


This is one of the cases in which only older commentators (Vitringa,Hitzig, Luzzatto) defend M, and in which the whole of modern scholarshipembraces the correction d[el]. No wonder, therefore, that the correction mas-sively entered into all modern English versions, with the noticeable exceptionof JB, and into the vast majority of all other language translations, both Chris-tian and Jewish. The noteworthy exceptions are SR, GN and GrN. Given thisoverwhelming evidence, it may be di¯cult for translators to follow M. Theyare nevertheless encouraged to do so, especially in interconfessional projectswith Orthodox participation since this is one of the rare occasions in whichdaughter versions of the Septuagint back up M.


If M is followed, JB could be used as a model: “so that it may serve fortime to come, for ever and for ever.” If the translator opts for the correction:“that for the days to come it may be an everlasting witness” (NIV), he shouldstate the meaning of M in a footnote, especially when according to the princi-ples of the translation project the vocalized text of M is taken as a base.


30.22

Textual Decisions

In M it is said of the idols: μrEz“Ti, “you will throw them away,” a readingwhich is supported by G, Aq, V and S. It has been sugested (BHS) that T couldpresuppose a vocalization μrEzIT], “you will detest them.” In fact, T uses an aphelof the verb qjr which could have both the meaning of “to remove” and “toloathe.” T, however, repeats this aphel of qjr twice to render the remaining in-formation of the verse in M: “you shall cast them away as men cast away some-thing unclean, so shall you cast them away.” It is therefore di¯cult to concludeanything from this paraphrase. M received therefore an A evaluation.


It is true that some problems of interpretation of the verbal form exist. Forthat reason Perles (1922, 60) proposed the same vocalization μrEzIT] and a deri-vation from a root ryz which, mainly on the base of Arabic and Accadian, wouldhave a meaning “to detest.” This correction has been taken over by NEB: “youwill loathe them,” and it has been maintained in REB. As Wildberger has pointedout (1191), however, this correction creates more problems than it solves.

If μrEz“Ti is derived from hrz, the image would be that of scattering the ˜nestraw in the wind during winnowing (a verb and a picture reoccurring in verse24), and the meaning would therefore be “to throw far away.”


One can follow the standard translation of all other English versions:“you . . . will throw them away like ˜lth” (GNB).

30.27

Textual Decisions

After the statement that the Lord comes “burning with his anger,” M hasthe expression ha;C;m' db,kow“, “heaviness of rising” or, according to a homophone:“heaviness of burden.” This reading is supported by Sym and V which ver-sions interpret the second term as a noun expressing an action: “heavy to bear.”Th by translating kai; baru; to; lh'mma aujtou', “and heavy its burden” must haveinterpreted the ˜nal h as a su¯x of the third person singular masculine. Thesame applies to S and T. In addition, T by reading arbwslm yçqw , “too grieviousto be borne,” must have interpreted the initial m as the preposition ˆm. Whateverone may think of the translation of G meta; dovxhı to; lovgion tw'n ceilevwnaujtou`, “with glory is the word of his lips,” it is clear that the translator has in-

Isaiah 21–30 12930.32

terpreted the ˜rst term of M as dwObK;, “glory” and that he has seen in the secondword the Hebrew ac;m', “pronouncement,” which he combined with the follow-ing word wyt;p;c], “his lips.”

The committee considered that the interpretation of the ˜nal h of the sec-ond term as a su¯x is far more a matter of exegesis than of diˆerent punctu-ation. It also considered such an interpretation as an undue assimilation to thecontext and, therefore, gave a B evaluation to M.


As has become clear, most problems are interpretational. Two main inter-pretations have been given: (1) ha;C;m' has been taken as a column of risingsmoke (with reference to Judges 20. 38, 40 and Jer 6.1) and that meaning hasentered a number of translations like RSV, NRSV: “and in thick rising smoke,”and, with minor variations, such translations as NIV: “and dense clouds ofsmoke”; (2) ha;C;m' has been taken to mean “burden” and this meaning has beenadopted by NJV: “with a heavy burden” (Note: “Presumably with a heavy loadof punishment”), NJB: “heavy his threat,” and NEB and REB: “and his doomheavy.” Although a decision is di¯cult to make (Wildberger, 1218), a slightpreference should be given to (1). It should be noted that Hebrew πa' meansliterally “nose,” and that in this context of “lips,” “tongue” and “breath,” thisliteral meaning “his nose is burning and its exhalation dense” may be under-stood as well. If a translator prefers not to render these anthropomorphisms, hewill nevertheless have to express in some way that ̃ re and anger are two aspectsof divine anger.


GN could serve as a model: “Feuer und dichter Rauch zeigen, wie zorniger ist;” “˜re and thick smoke show his anger.”

In interconfessional translations with Orthodox participation, particular careshould be given to explain in a footnote how G arrived at its translation. Itshould also be noted that the meaning of M is uncertain, as some modern trans-lations (NRSV, NJV) do.

30.32

Textual Decisions

This verse starts with a rather obscure expression: hd:s;Wm hFem' rb'[}m', “thestroke of the appointed staˆ,” the last word of which is especially strange. Mis, in fact, only supported by the likewise incomprehensible V: “transitus vir-gae fundatus.” On the other hand, two manuscripts of Kennicott and the primamanus of one of de Rossi read a r instead of a d: hrswm, “the staˆ of punish-


ment.” For some, this reading is also supported by the rendering adb[Wçd “ofsubjection” or “of humiliation” of S. Nothing can be deduced from 1Q-a (wdswm)which only has a third person masc. sing. su¯x instead of a ˜nal h. G deviatesto such an extent from any understanding of M that its Vorlage cannot be re-constructed. T, by reading “the passing of their nobles and mighty men,” musthave understood at least hFem' as staˆ of the “ruler,” adding afterwards to theobtained “nobles” a synonym. According to the committee, the last two versionswitnessed to a certain liberty, whereas 1Q-a could be understood as a con-textual harmonization. It considered further the reading of ˜ and S as due toa graphical error, taking into account Ehrlich’s observation that rswm as pun-ishment always implies an improvement in the ethical status of the punished,whereas in this context the aim of the punishment is destruction (111). There-fore, the committee gave a C rating to M.


Even if the textual decision is correct, one still has to arrive at an accept-able meaning of hd:s;Wm. The classical Tiberian vocalization of hFem' obliges totake the form as a construct state which implies that hd:s;Wm has to be analyzedas a noun. This noun only occurs in Ezek 41.8 with the meaning “foundation-wall.” To make an acceptable sense in this context, one has to postulate in thetraces of König’s dictionary (212) a metaphorical meaning “destiny,” “appointedlot.” Some translations dare to do this. So BR: “allwann der Stecken der Fü-gung vorüberstreicht,” “when the rod of destiny passes by,” and SR: “A chaquecoup de bâton qui lui est destiné,” “at each stroke of the rod, intended for him.”However, even if one does not agree with Ehrlich who states that hd:s;Wm cannotmean “destiny” (111), it is at least clear that such a meaning is not withoutdi¯culty. And one can understand why the totality of English versions, withthe exception of NJV, opts for the correction hrswm, rendering “staˆ of punish-ment” (NRSV) or “punishing rod” (JB).


Translators should feel free to follow the correction in a way which agreeswith the type of translation. Since the context is clearly marked, they maywant to leave the information of “punishment” implicit like in GNB and GrN.Or they may want to make an explicit statement as in FC: “Chaque volée decoups que le Seigneur lui administrera lui servira de leçon,” “each blow theLord administers to him will be a lesson to him.” A footnote in which a varianttranslation is proposed and in which the textual problem is signalled seemsobligatory here.

131

4

I S A I A H 3 1 – 4 0

32.6

Textual Decisions

In the second part of verse 6a M reads hc,[}y", “works,” “his heart worksevil,” whereas 1Q-a has the reading bçwj, “thinks out,” “his heart thinks outevil.” M has the support of Th, Sym and V, but G, S and T have a similar ren-dering as 1Q-a. The vast majority of the committee considered the reading of1Q-a and its supporters as exegetical and it preferred with a C evaluation thereading of M. The main argument was that the three deviating versions (G, Sand T) use in this verse diˆerent equivalents than they use elsewhere for theverb bçj.


Ehrlich (115) already produced important arguments for the defense of M.Recent scholarship (Orlinsky, 1950, 154–155; Kutscher, 240; Wildberger, 1250)has reinforced the arguments from the literary point of view. An impressiveargument for the defense of M is the chiastic construction of the verbs forspeaking and doing: speak-do-do-speak. Translationally, however, the wholediscussion is rather irrelevant. For modern translators may have to follow theexample of their ancient colleagues by using a more speci˜c verb. This is infact what has been done in almost all modern versions. Contextual reasons evenreinforce the need to use a speci˜c verb.


Diˆerent speci˜c verbs can be used in translation such as “to plot,” “andtheir minds plot iniquity” (NRSV) or “to set on,” “and his heart is set on vil-lainy” (JB). Since such renderings are the result of translational considerations,no textual notes should be provided.

Isaiah 31– 40


32.19

Textual Decisions

The ˜rst sentence of this verse runs as follows in M: r['Y:h' td<r<B] dr"b;W ,“And it will hail while the forest crashes down.” The problematic verbal formdr"b;, “it will hail” is a hapax legomenon as has correctly been indicated in themasorah parva of the Cairo manuscript. This verbal form is only supported byT since nothing can be concluded from the identical consonantal text of 1Q-a.All the other versions have read the noun dr:B;, “hail.” Manuscript 30 of Ken-nicott has dryw , “go down,” “And the forest will utterly go down.” According toHUB, only the prima manus of this manuscript has this reading. The correctorhas eliminated the scribal error and, therefore, the prima manus reading has notextual strength. Since the reading of the noun testi˜es to an assimilation to amore frequent vocalization, the committee decided to give a B evaluation tothe reading of M.


It seems that a sound play has been attempted in which in the ˜rst sen-tence tdrb echoes drb, as in the second sentence ry[h echoes r[yh of the ˜rst,whereas in the second sentence hlpçbw is echoed by lpçt. It seems also clearthat Dilmann-Kittel are right in observing that the reading dr"y:w“ would necessi-tate a reading droy: in the second slot instead of the attested tdrb. It is thereforeamazing that the majority of commentators and in their footsteps the majorityof modern versions (RSV, NRSV, JB, NJV, FC) nevertheless follow such areading. Their decision is certainly related to the problems of interpretationthe verse presents in its particular context.

One solution has been proposed by Reider (1952, 88) and afterwards byDriver (1968, 52–53): they relate the verb drb to Arabic baruda, “it is cool.”This has inspired the translation of NEB: “it will be cool on the slopes of theforest then” (so also REB). Unfortunately, also lpç of the second sentence hasthen to be related to Arabic ta˜la in order to obtain the meaning “and citieswill lie peaceful in the plain.” Driver’s criticism of exegetical violence utteredto those who want to get an acceptable sense out of M, can in reality be re-turned and applied to himself.

It is true, of course, that a traditional interpretation like that of NIV:“Though hail ˘attens the forest and the city is leveled completely” entirely dis-turbs the context, a reason why this verse has been considered as a foreign body(Duhm, 208). Some translators, sticking to the classical interpretation, there-fore put the verse between parentheses (so GNB). It seems, however, possibleto see in the forest destroyed by the hail, the enemy army and in the city itselfthe world capital (Kaiser, 335–336). Such contrastive information is some-

Isaiah 31– 40 13333.3

times clearly marked in the context or shifted to the end of the discourse unit(GrN).


A good model of the last named interpretation is GN: “Den Wald derFeinde wird der Hagel niederschlagen, und ihre Stadt wird untergehen,” “Thehail will ˘atten the forest of the enemies, and their city will vanish.” In viewof the di¯culties of interpretation, it seems nevertheless wise to mention in afootnote the fact that the interpretation of the Hebrew remains uncertain.

33.3

Textual Decisions

In the second half of the verse M reads Út,mum]wOrme, “at your lifting up,” whereas1Q-a has ˚tmmdm which could either mean “at your being silent” or “at yourroaring.” M is supported by Th, Aq, V, S and T. By rendering ajpo tou` fovbousou, “for fear of you,” G repeats its translation tou' fovbou sou, found in the ̃ rsthalf of the verse, a practice noted elsewhere (10.34 and 15.2). It is impossibleto determine the Vorlage of G. Half of the committee gave a C evaluation to1Q-a, considering M due to a graphical error, the other half attributed a C tothe reading of M, considering the reading of 1Q-a to be the result of a scribalmistake. The preference for 1Q-a was strengthened by Kutscher’s argument(228) that hmmd occurs three times in the Hebrew Bible, twice in connectionwith lwq, like here.


Some problems of interpretation remain. If M is followed, the “lifting up”can be understood as the “lifting up of thyself” (RSV) which can then beglossed in diˆerent ways: “when you rise up” (NIV), “when you rise” (JB) or“when you rise in your majesty” (NAB). The last translation in fact combinestwo possible meanings, that of “rising up” and that of “majesty.” The last mean-ing is followed in NRSV and NJV: “before your majesty.” The “lifting up,”however, can also be understood as the “lifting up of the voice” and it may beimpossible to distinguish such a rendering from the translation “at your roar-ing” in case the reading of 1Q-a is followed. Without explanation it is impos-sible to know where a reading as found in REB: “at your roar” comes from.It may be a rendering of M as well as of 1Q-a. It could even be based on thevocalization Út]m;m;D“mi of 1Q-a as proposed by Driver (1951, 28) or on his laterrevocalization of M Út]m;m;r“me which he related to Accadian rimmatu, “rumbling”(1958, 46). This reading was introduced into NEB. It seems, however, wise tostay with M as Wildberger (1283) has convincingly shown.



A translation like “when you rise in your majesty” (NAB) or “at your roar”(REB) seems most appropriate. Generally, it will be unnecessary to put a tex-tual footnote. Only when the translator wants to render what he considers to bea speci˜c meaning of 1Q-a, such a note may be needed (see GN).

33.7

Textual Decisions

The di¯cult second word of M is μL;a,r“a, which according to the Masoretesshould be analyzed as μl; ha,r“a,, “I will see them.” Th, Aq, Sym, the four oldestwitnesses of S and the oldest form of T likewise analyzed the Hebrew form astwo words, but they vocalized diêrently as μl; (h)a,r:ae, “I will appear to them.”This may also be the understanding of 1Q-a which writes likewise two wordswith a non-ñal m at the end: ml ara. The other manuscripts of S and T seemto have read μl; a,r:yE, “it shall be revealed to them.” G seems to have given a dou-ble translation of both verse 7a and 7b (Seeligmann, 18). In the place under dis-cussion G also must have read two words, but the ˜rst one has been interpretedas a form of ary, to fear.” V, on the other hand, with “videntes,” as a designationof angels seems to be based on a vocalization μliaerIa}. The committee consideredthe reading of M as due to a theological correction in order to avoid the ideaof God being seen by men, and it gave a majority D evaluation to the readingof 1Q-a and all the versions with the exception of G and V. Some manuscriptsof S and T were considered as secondary assimilations to the context. A mi-nority of the committee, however, gave a D evaluation to a vocalized formμl;aerIa} (Luzzatto), taking it to mean “their brave warriors.”


The desperate D evaluations of the committee show already how di¯cultit is to draw any valuable conclusions for the translator. Traditionally, trans-lations have mainly tried to solve the problem in three diêrent ways: (a) bytaking the expression to mean “the valiant ones” or “their brave men” (RSV,NRSV, NEB, REB, NIV, GNB); (b) by creating a connexion with layra as nick-name of Jerusalem (Is 29.1) and understanding therefore “inhabitants of Ariel(Jerusalem)” (JB, NJV, NAB, EÜ, GN, FC); (c) by understanding the word tomean “messengers” or “angels” (NV, GrN). None of the translations consultedfollowed the majority D evaluation of the committee, and among commenta-tors, only Snijders (325) expressed himself in favor of such a rendering. Sucha translation makes, however, little sense in the context (Procksch, 419; Wild-berger 1294). In spite of the support of V and of rabbinical Hebrew since thebeginning of the third century AD, the meaning (c) gives the impression of

Isaiah 31– 40 13533.8

having been invented ad hoc for the parallelism with “the envoys of peace” in7b. Remain the meanings retained under (a) and (b). The ˜rst meaning couldbe preferred, for its contrast with the event expressed by the verb (brave men—cry aloud) is not necessarily in contrast with contextual meaning (Wildberger,1294) and meaning (a) could have an associative link with meaning (b) (Del-itzsch, 352).


A translation such as GNB: “Brave men are calling for help” might serveas a model. Given the great uncertainties as to meaning, a note should provideinformation about the textual problem as such and give variant translations atleast of meaning (b).

33.8

Textual Decisions

M reads in the second half of the verse μyrI[;, “cities,” “one has despisedcities,” a reading which is supported by Sym, V, S and T. 1Q-a, on the otherhand, has μyd[, “witnesses,” “one has despised witnesses.” As to G, it is not im-possible that its reading pro;ı touvtou", “with these,” could be traced back toa Vorlage μd[. Given the fact that the diˆerences between the readings of Mand 1Q-a can simply be reduced to a d/r confusion, members of the committeehad a diˆerent judgment as to the direction of the error. Nevertheless, a major-ity gave a C vote to the reading of 1Q-a since “witnesses” ˜ts very well intothe context of treaties.


Long before Qumran discoveries the reading μydI[e had already been con-jectured by Houbigant and his conjecture had been taken over by Marti, Gunkel,Procksch and Fischer. After Qumran discoveries commentaries generally makethe correction. It has therefore entered into most modern versions (RSV, NJB,NIV, EÜ, FC). Recently, Fitzmyer (24) has suggested a comparison with Ara-maic ˆd[, “treaty.” By vocalizing μydI[; some modern translations seem to haveadopted this suggestion: “treaties are ˘outed” (NEB, REB); “agreements areviolated” (GNB). The entry into the Koehler-Baumgartner lexicon (744a) mayhave stimulated such a rendering. The word, however, is unknown in Hebrew(Wildberger, 1294). The meaning “witnesses” should, therefore, be retained inspite of the fact that d[e is never used in connection with tyrIB], “covenant” (Ehr-lich, 119).



Translators may want to gloss μydI[e in diêrent ways, as in NRSV “Thetreaty is broken, its oaths are despised,” or in NAB: “Covenants are broken,their terms are spurned.” Compare also GN. It will be good to mention the read-ing of M in a footnote.

34.5

Textual Decisions

In the opening statement of this verse M reads ht;W“rI, “drunk its ˜ll,” “formy sword has drunk its ˜ll in the heavens,” a reading which has the support ofG, V and S. 1Q-a, on the other hand, reads hart which vocalized as ha,r:Tewould mean “appears,” “for my sword appears in the heavens.” This readingwas probably in the Vorlage of T: ylgtt, “shall be revealed,” “for my swordshall be revealed in the heavens.” The committee was devided between the twoalternatives. M could be understood as a secondary assimilation to the same ver-bal form in verse 7 in order to avoid the superstituous interpretation of heav-enly signs. On the other hand, the repetition in M could be original, consideredthe reoccurrence in verse 7 of many vocabulary items of verses 5 and 6. There-fore, a C evaluation has been attributed to both readings.


In spite of some problems of understanding, older scholarship generallydefended M and this position is still re˘ected in a majority of modern transla-tions (RSV, NRSV, NIV, NJV, NJB). Koppe and Bredenkamp have proposed toread hf;Wrm], “sharpened,” a conjecture which has had some in˘uence on oldertranslations like LV, C and Moâtt: “the Eternal’s sword in heaven is temperedkeen with fury.” Such a conjecture may also be at the origin of GNB: “The Lordhas prepared his sword in heaven” (so also GN). There are, however, no validarguments for its adoption. The same applies to the conjecture ht;a}d:, “swings,”which, launched by Buhl and Procksch, has recently been taken over again byZiegler and Kaiser without having had any eêct on translations. Although thedivision of the committee leaves all liberty to the translator, he may like to givepreference to the reading of 1Q-a with most modern commentators (Wildberger,Clements, Snijders) and an increasing number of modern translations (NEB,REB, FC, EÜ, W and GrN).


If the last reading is preferred, REB could serve as a model: “For my swordappears in heaven.” In view of the textual decisions, a footnote with the reading

Isaiah 31– 40 13734.7

of M should be recommended. This in spite of the fact that a literal translationof M will not make much sense in many languages, whereas a paraphrase (asin NJB and NAV) can hardly be attempted.

34.7

Textual Decisions

In the ˜rst member of this verse M reads μM;[i, “with them,” “wild oxenshall fall with them.” This reading is supported by 1Q-a, although the secondm is not a ˜nal one. It also has the support of G, V, S and T. Only Sym does notseem to have rendered μM;[i since his translation uJyhloi; monokevrwte", “statelywild oxen” should be considered as a double rendering of the preceding He-brew word (Ziegler, 1939, 92). Taking into account the easier rendering of Sym,the committee gave a B evaluation to M.


Because of certain problems of reference, it has sometimes been proposedto delete μM;[i as a dittography (Ehrlich, 123). Translations rarely followed thissuggestion, the only notable exception being LV. In the light of the text deci-sions, such a solution can hardly be recommended.

Another proposal to avoid the referential problems has been the one byProcksch (430) to give a diˆerent vocalization of the Hebrew consonant textand to read μMi[', “peoples,” in which case the animals are only used by way ofcomparison. Such a procedure makes the change of μ[i, “with,” in the secondhalf member of the verse into μ[', “people,” obligatory. This conjectural vocal-ization has been followed in the ˜rst editions of the Jerusalem Bible, and re-cently it has been taken up again in translations like TILC and GNB: “Thepeople will fall like wild oxen and young bulls.” There are, however, no appar-ent textual reasons to justify such a translation.

Finally, Duhm (219), Marti (244), and most recently Wildberger (1327)have proposed to read the preposition μ[ followed by the name of anothersacri˜cial animal like e.g. μyayrm, “fatlings” or “fatted calves.” In this way, the˜rst member would contain two pairs of animals. This conjecture entered intoNAB: “Wild oxen shall be struck down with fatlings, and bullocks with bulls,”and into NEB (but no longer into REB!) and C. In spite of its apparent lucid-ity, one can only say that the conjecture is without any textual base.

If translators will have to render M, the referents of μM'[i will have to bedetermined. In fact, two possibilities exist: (a) “them” refers back to the ani-mals mentioned in verse 6; and (b) “them” refers to the “people of Edom,”mentioned in verses 5 and 6. The choice between the two options is di¯cult.


Condamin may be right in his preference for (b) since the pronominal su¯x in“their land” in 7b cannot refer to the animals.


If option (a) is chosen, REB provides a simple and clear model: “Wild oxenwill go down also.” If option (b) is preferred, NAV is a good model of explicitinformation: “Die buêls val saam met die mense,” “The buâloes fall togetherwith the people.”

34.12

Textual Decisions

The ˜rst word reads in M h;yr<jo, “its nobles,” a reading con˜rmed by G ThAq Sym V and S. The only diêrences between these versions are diêrencesin translational glosses: G reads oiJ a[rconteı aujth'", “her princes,” whereasTh Aq Sym stay closer to the Hebrew meaning by rendering ejleuvqeroi, “freemen.” The same applies to V: nobiles eius, “his nobles.” T has a long par-aphrase: “They who used to say, We are free born, and would not accept aking over them” which does not presuppose a diêrent Vorlage. 1Q-a distin-guishes itself from M only by adding a conjunction: hyrjw. Duhm, Cheyne andMarti have suggested that the extra sentence at the end of verse 11 in G: kai;ojnokevntauroi oijkhvsousin ejn aujth'/, “and satyrs shall dwell in it” re˘ects theoriginal Hebrew. On the base of the translation of G in 12a: oiJ a[rconteıaujth'ı oujk e[sontai, “her princes will be no more,” they suggest likewise thatoriginally h;yr<jo was preceded by some expression like ˆyIa'k] Wyh]yI. The committeeconsidered that the “satyrs” do occur in a similar context in 13.22 and in 34.14and it therefore took the extra sentence of G in 34.11 to be a harmonizinginterpretation. It also considered that the text reconstruction of 12a was notfavored by the reading of 1Q-a, and it accorded a B evaluation to M.


Duhm’s suggestion has entered into a number of translations like W, EÜand Moâtt: “Demons haunt the spot, for the nobles now are gone.” Most trans-lations, and correctly so, do not follow it.

It remains true that the ˜rst word of verse 12 presents serious syntacticalproblems. Brackets and dotted lines in the standard commentaries show theembarrassment.

Some translations like GNB do not render the ˜rst word of 12. Othersrender it, but take it with 12b: “It shall be called, ‘No kingdom is there,’ / Itsnobles and all its lords shall be nothing” (NJV). Others again, like NEB andREB, take it with verse 11 and give it the improbable meaning “frontiers,”

Isaiah 31– 40 13935.7

“boundaries,” “. . . and its boundaries will be a jumble of stones.” Or, like RSVand NRSV, taking it likewise with 11, they add, only partly following a textreconstruction by Lowth, before h;yr<jo the preposition l[', “over,” “. . . and theplummet of chaos over its nobles.”

If these proposals are not accepted, the problem of the interpretation of 12aaccording to M remains. Two possibilities exist: (a) there are no nobles to beproclaimed king, an interpretation by Vitringa, Rosenmüller and Gesenius and(b), the exegesis of Delitzsch and König: there are no nobles to proclaim oneof the princes to be king. As the King of Edom was elected according to Gen36.39, interpretation (b) may be the more correct one.


If interpretation (b) is followed, FC is a good example: “Plus de noblespour élire un roi,” “No nobles left to elect a king.”

35.7

Textual Decisions

At the end of the ˜rst half member of 7b M has the di¯cult reading Hx;b]rI,“her resting place,” “in the haunts of jackals, her resting place.” The witnessof the medieval manuscripts of M is divided between the presence and ab-sence of a mappiq in the ˜nal h. On the other hand, 1Q-a has the reading ≈br.The freedom of the renderings in V, S and T does not allow any precision asto the Hebrew Vorlage. This is even more true for the reading of G eujfrosuvnhojrnevwn, “joy of birds,” which testi˜es to a literary creativity of the translator.

The committee considered the reading of 1Q-a as an elusive abbreviationand it gave a C evaluation to M in order to protect the reading with mappiqfound in the classical Tiberian manuscripts A, C and L against facilitations.


Both RSV and NRSV render 7ba as follows: “the haunt of jackals shallbecome a swamp,” noting that this rendering is based upon a correction. In allprobability, these versions have adopted a conjecture hX;bil], “to a swamp,” ˜rstmade by Ruben according to Cheyne (1899), and taken up again by Scott (122).Such a manipulation should, however, not be recommended. It is true that Mis notoriously di¯cult and that it is hard to de˜ne the antecedent of the singularfeminine su¯x. The best solution seems to be to consider the su¯x as a referenceto the “jackals.” In fact, the singular feminine su¯x can take up again a mas-culine or feminine plural referring to animate and inanimate objects (Gesenius-Kautzsch, 145k; König, 348gh). This syntactical insight would permit a literaltranslation such as “in the haunts of jackals, their resting place.”



Some transformation of the literal rendering given above, would lead to atranslation as in NIV “in the haunts where jackals once lay,” or, as in NJB:“the lairs where the jackals used to live.”

35.8

Textual Decisions

The sentence of M which presents textual and interpretational di¯cultiesis the following one: Ër<D< Ëleho wOml;AaWhw“, “and he for them goes the way.” 1Q-ahas the conjunction w connected with the second item which ends with a yodand not with a waw: ˚rd ˚lwh ymlw hawh. The rendering of G oujde; e[stai ejkei'oJdo;ı ajkavqarto", “neither shall there be there an unclean way” has simply beenconstructed in order to contrast with the translation of verse 8a: “there shall bethere a pure way.” G in turn seems to have inspired the translation of S. V byrendering “et haec erit nobis directa via,” “and this will be for us a straightway,” has either read or understood wml as wnl. The translation of T “but way-farers shall not cease” may be considered as a negative transformation of thefollowing understanding of the four words: “but there will be for them (for theroad and for the highway) wayfarers.” These diˆerences between the textualwitnesses do not permit the reconstruction of a text which could be preferredto M. For that reason M received a C evaluation.


Duhm (224) transferred this sentence to the margin as a gloss. Wildberger(1355) still comes to the same conclusion. This idea has been accepted by sev-eral modern translations. (RSV, EÜ). NAB transferred it to verse 9: “It is forthose with a journey to make.”

Since Procksch (437) another problem-solving approach has been to re-distribute the consonants of the sentence. Driver (1957, 126) e.g. suggested toread the second and third word as follows ËLeh'm]l', a suggestion taken over byNEB and REB: “it shall (will) become a pilgrim’s way.”

Preference should nevertheless be given to an interpretation and translationof M. The proposal of Calvin who in 1551 suggested in his commentary to seeGod as the antecedent of aWhw“ has had quite some impact. It has been adoptedin TOB, TILC, GrN and NJB: “He (= God) will be the one to use this road.” Lin-guistically, however, such a back-reference is too far-fetched and other interpre-tations should be preferred.

It is possible to understand Ër<D< Ëleho as “who ful˜lls the law” (Snijders, 337)so that the text would testify to a certain play upon words: “The highway to

Isaiah 31– 40 14136.9

Jerusalem is for those who go on the way,” an insight which has entered intoNIV: “it will be for those who walk in that Way.”

It seems, however, better to respect, contrary to most translations, the at-nach and, therefore, the sentence division of M. “For them” will then be thehealed people of verses 5 and 6, or in a wider sense “the people of God.” Sucha rendering would be based on translational arguments, and not on the sinceBredenkamp proposed textual correction of wOml; into wOM["l].


For such an interpretation NRSV could serve as a model: “but it shall befor God’s people;.” The rest of the sentence should preferably be rendered asin NIV: “wicked fools will not go about on it.”

36.9

Textual Decisions

M reads the word tj'p', “o¯cer,” “how then can you repulse one o¯cer ofthe least of my master’s servants . . . .” This reading has the support of 1Q-a,G, Sym, V and T. It is only lacking in the most ancient manuscripts of S. Thecommittee considered the omission in S as due to a stylistic abbreviation andit judged that the expression hj;P,, already used in 1 Kings 10.15 and 20.24 aswell as in Akkadian, was in no way out of place in this context. Therefore a Bevaluation was attributed to M.


The fact that the word tj'p' is in the construct state con˜rms for most criticsthe character of a gloss. Even the change into a plural vocalization tjop' to ex-plain “the servants” as “o¯cers” (Marti, Duhm) would not take away that char-acter. The omission of the word has therefore been suggested generally and ithas been practised in a few translations such as NJB and NAB: “How then canyou repulse even one of the least servants of my lord?”

However, one should consider the possibility that the noun which should bein the absolute state, has entered into the construct state through assimilation toits apposition which is itself in the construct state. The more so since anotherexample of such an assimilation can be found in 2 Kings 19.21 = Isaiah 37.22.In that case, “one of the least of my master’s servants” would explain tj'p'.

Although the word tj'p' has frequently been rendered by speci˜c terms suchas “captain,” or “governor,” a more generic rendering such as “o¯cer” couldbe recommended.



If a more literal translation model is desired, Moâtt could serve as such:“How, then, can you repulse even the weakest of my master’s o¯cers . . . .” If,in a functional equivalent translation, the rhetorical question has to be trans-formed into a positive statement, GNB can be recommended as an example:“You are no match for even the lowest ranking Assyrian o¯cial . . . .”

36.19

Textual Decisions

The text following the proper name “Sepharvaim” in M is identical withthe parallel text of M in 2 Kings 18.34. Minor diêrences consist of the inser-tion of the proper names “Hena and Ivvah” and the omission of a waw beforeyk in the text of Kings. The old Greek of 2 Kings 18.34, represented in the An-tiochian recension, however, followed by one manuscript of the Vetus Latina,reads in addition: kai; pou' eijsin oiJ qeoi; th'ı cwvraı Samavreia", “and where arethe gods of the land of Samaria?” It has been suggested by several commen-tators as well as by the apparatuses of BH 2, 3, S to read the same addition inthe Isaiah text. Since this extra is, however, nowhere represented in the textualtradition of Is. 36.19, the committee attributed an A evaluation to M.


Several modern translations followed the suggestion and read “Where arethe (national) gods of Samaria?” (NEB, REB, NAB, NJB, RL). Other transla-tions seem to arrive at the same result on translational and not on textual groundsby taking the verbal subject in the sentence “And did they save Samaria fromme?” to refer to the “gods of Samaria.” So NJV in a footnote and Moâtt: “Andhave the gods of Samaria saved Samaria from me?”

It is not impossible that M can be analyzed as an ellipsis (Luzzatto). On theother hand, the historical context could justify a literal interpretation of M. Thereference could be to the nordic coalition led by Ilu-bi’di of Hamath againstSargon II in the second year of his reign, one year after the capture of Samaria.The gods of the coalition were unable to resist the king of Assyria and to saveSamaria.


If the interpretation given above is correct, a literal rendering imposes it-self as in NRSV “Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand?”

Isaiah 31– 40 14337.9

37.9

Textual Decisions

In M the second sentence of this verse starts like the ˜rst with [m'v]YIw", “andhe heard,” and this reading has the support of V, S and T. 1Q-a, on the otherhand, reads bwçyw [mçyw , “and he heard and again . . . ,” a reading con˜rmed byG: kai; ajkouvsaı ajpevstreye, “and when he heard it, he turned aside,” where“turned aside” translates bwçyw. This text seems to combine the readings of 2 Kings19.9 and of Isaiah 37.9. The witness of 1Q-b is uncertain. Only the ˜rst lettersçyw are present. The photographs, however, show that the following lacuna inthe text does not oˆer su¯cient space for the combined reading, so that it ismore likely that 1Q-b supports M. 1Q-a and G could present a con˘ate reading.It is also possible that M and its followers would have omitted bçyw through asimilar beginning (homoioarcton). The committee favored the ˜rst probabilityand attributed a C evaluation to M.


Modern research since Bredenkamp is on a slightly diˆerent track in thatit proposes on other than textual grounds to delete the second occurrence of[mçyw and to read bçyw as in the text of Kings. This proposal has been adoptedin NEB, REB: “he sent messengers again” and also in NAB and NJB. Such anassimilation, however, has to be avoided.

If the textual decision of the committee is followed, two considerationsmight nevertheless be taken into account by the translators: (a) avoidance ofrepetition for stylistic reasons; (b) translational variation for the same reasons.


Avoidance of repetition may lead to the ellipsis of the second [mçyw as inGN and GrN.

Stylistic variation can take several forms such as “. . . Sennacherib receiveda report . . . When he heard it . . .” (NIV); “the king of Assyria learned . . . ; andwhen he heard it . . .” (NJV).

37.18

Textual Decisions

M reads μx;r“a"æAta,w“ twOxr:a}h;AlK;Ata,, “all the countries and their country.” Asto twOxr:a}h;, “the countries,” ˜fteen Hebrew manuscripts read μyIwOGh' as in 2 Kings19.17. M has the support of 1Q-a, G, V, S and T. For that reason, and in orderto protect M against an assimilation to 2 Kings 19.17, the committee gave an


A evaluation to M. As to the last two words μx;r“a'Ata,w“, “and their country,” theyare missing in 1Q-a and present in G, V, S and T. The committee considered thepresence of these two words in M and the versions as due to an assimilation to2 Kings 19.17 M, and it considered the absence in 1Q-a as a representation ofthe original text of Isaiah. Likewise, the absence of these two words in the Kingstext of G was taken to represent the original literary form of Kings (CTAT 1,411–412). The omission in 1Q-a therefore received a B evaluation.


In order to avoid the di¯cult repetition of ≈ra many commentators, fol-lowing Lowth, had proposed to read μywgh. This proposal has simply been takenover in many versions as RSV, NRSV, NIV, NJB, NAB, GNB, NJV, EÜ etc.:“all the nations and their lands.”

On the other hand, Ehrlich (134) and Procksch (454) had proposed to omitthe last two words and since this omission has also been found in 1Q-a, mod-ern research (James, Fohrer, Wildberger) revitalized the earlier proposal. Thejoint insights of textual analysis and modern research are su¯cient indicationsfor the translator.


NEB and REB should be followed as a model: “. . . it is true that the kingsof Assyria have laid waste every country” (so also Moˆatt, GN and GrN). Itmay be necessary to add a footnote stating that 1Q-a is followed here, and thatM adds the words “and their country.”

37.21

Textual Decisions

The last sentence of verse 21 in M “Because you have prayed to me con-cerning Sennacherib king of Assyria” is syntactically dependent upon the ˜rstsentence of verse 22 “this is the word that the Lord has spoken concerninghim.” This syntactical division has the support of 1Q-a, V and T. On the otherhand, G by reading h[kousa a} proshuvxw provı me peri; Sennachrim basilevwıΔAssurivwn, “I have heard what you have prayed to me concerning Sennacheribking of Assyria,” has added h[kousa, “I have heard,” as the independent sentenceon which the relative sentence “what you have prayed . . .” depends. G is fol-lowed in this by S. Since this reading testi˜es to a syntactical facilitation as wellas to an assimilation to the reading yTi[]m;v;, “I have heard,” in 2 Kings 19.20, thecommittee preferred with a B evaluation the more complex syntactical divisionof M.

Isaiah 31– 40 14537.25


The reading of G and S has had the preference of many older and recentcommentators and it has been imposed by all Hebrew text editions. It thereforeentered into some modern translations such as EÜ, NEB and REB, the last oneproviding a textual justi˜cation for its reading in a footnote. Recent versionssuch as RSV, NRSV and NIV literally copied the syntax of M, but they aretherefore not necessarily good models for translations in other languages or forother audiences. Syntactical simpli˜cations may be necessary and these couldtake diˆerent forms: (1) change to parataxis; (2) change to indirect discourse,and (3) change to independent sentences.


NAB provides a model for (1): “In answer to your prayer for help againstSennacherib, king of Assyria, this is the word the Lord has spoken concerninghim.” GNB illustrates (2): “Then Isaiah sent a message telling king Hezekiahthat in answer to the king’s prayer the Lord had said . . . .” The third simpli˜ca-tion is adopted in GrN: “U hebt tot mij gebeden om hulp tegen koning Sanheribvan Assur. Dit is wat ik over Sanherib te zeggen heb . . . ,” “You have prayed tome for help against king Sennacherib of Assyria. This is what I have to tellabout Sennacherib. . . .”

37.25

Textual Decisions

The ˜rst line in M reads μyIm; ytiytiv;w“ yTir“q' ynIa}, “I dug wells and drank water,”whereas in 1Q-a it reads μyrz μym, “I dug wells and drank foreign water.” Thereading of M is supported by Sym, V, S and T. G by reading kai; e[qhka gevfu-ran, “and I have made a bridge” has taken its Hebrew Vorlage to mean “I havebuilt with beams” (hrq II) and put (some form of tyv) over the water.” Theonly thing one can therefore say is that G indirectly con˜rms M! It is possiblethat μyrIz: has been omitted in M by homoioteleuton. But it is also possible toconsider μyrz in 1Q-a as an assimilation to the parallel text of 2 Kings 19.24, themore so since this is not the only case of assimilation in 1Q-a (36.5, 37.9, 37.20).

By attributing a C evaluation to M, the committee wanted to protect Magainst undue assimilation.


Already in the eighteenth century (Houbigant) μyrIz: μyIm; was proposed as thereading of M in Isaiah and commentators have generally followed this proposal,especially since it was reinforced by the discovery of 1Q-a. For translators, it


seems wise to give a slight preference to the well-founded decision taken bythe committee. If, in spite of the arguments, they want to follow the 1Q-a read-ing, they will still have to de˜ne what—exegetically and translationally—“for-eign waters” mean. The most probable explanation would be that Sennacheribbrags of drawing the subterranean water in foreign countries to use it for hisown purposes (Wildberger, 1432).


If the proposal of the committee is followed, NJV could serve as a model:“It is I who have drawn / And drunk water.” If the reading of 1Q-a and 2 Kings19.24 is preferred NIV could serve as a model: “I have dug wells in foreignlands and drunk the water there.” In the last case, the translator should makea footnote stating that the reading “in foreign lands” is found in 1Q-a and in2 Kings 19.24, but not in M. In projects with Orthodox participation, the read-ing of G may have to be explained.

37.27–28

Textual Decisions

The end of verse 37. 27 and the beginning of verse 28 reads in M as fol-lows: ÚT]b]viw“ . hm;q; ynEp]li hm;dEv]W , “and a ˜eld before standing grain (or: before itis grown). Your sitting down . . . .” The reading of 1Q-a is, however, the fol-lowing: hktbçw hkmwq μdq ynplp πdçnh (a yod was subsequently added be-tween d and m in the third word, μydq), “blasted by the east wind. Your risingup and your sitting down . . . .”

As to the ˜rst textual problem πdçnh / hmdçw , the reading of 1Q-a is indi-rectly supported by V and T. The Vorlage of both Sym and S is uncertain andG abbreviates the last part of 27 to such an extent that its witness cannot beused. The committee judged that the hapax hm;dEv]W of M could hardly be origi-nal, that the original probably was hp;duv]W as in the reconstructed form of 2 Kings19.26 (Barthélemy 1982, 413) and it considered πD:v]NIh' of 1Q-a as a modern-ized form of that original. For reasons of homogeneity of text, the committeeattributed a C evaluation to the reading of 1Q-a.

With regard to the second problem, the absence in G of the reading μydqof 1Q-a has already been explained in the treatment of the ˜rst problem. Itsabsence in M, V, S and T can be explained by the fact that in the Vorlage ofM μydq had already been dropped because of homoioarcton before ˚mq. Thisword alone became incomprehensible and has then been changed in M to hmq.

The reading μydq therefore received a B evaluation.Regarding the third problem: the change of the 1Q-a reading hkmwq in M,

V S and T has already been explained in the treatment of the second problem

Isaiah 31– 40 14738.11

as a contextual assimilation after the omission of μydq. Consequently, also thisreading of 1Q-a received a B evaluation.


The discovery of 1Q-a has con˜rmed some of the earlier intuitions ofThenius (1849), Wellhausen (1878, 259) and Duhm (1902 and 1968, 2nd and5th ed.). Iwry (1957, 29) has clearly shown with many textual references howthe green herbs (˜rst item in verse 27c) are constantly in danger of witheringby the east wind, which leaves withered vegetation (twOpduv]). Wildberger (1418–1419) is, therefore, certainly right in regarding 1Q-a as the original form of 27and the beginning of 28. Translators are therefore encouraged to follow 1Q-aas a homogeneous text, and not to follow many recent versions in their ratherselective renderings.


REB is a good example of such a homogeneous textual rendering: “as grasson the rooftops blasted by the east wind. I know your rising up and your sittingdown . . . .”

38.11

Textual Decisions

The last word of this verse in M is ld<j;, “cessation,” “the inhabitants of the(place of) cessation” or “the inhabitants of the ephemerical (place).” On theother hand, two manuscripts of Kennicott, three manuscripts of de Rossi andthe manuscript of Petrograd read dlj, “world,” “the inhabitants of the world.”The ˜rst reading has the support of 1Q-a, the second one that of S.

G, Th, Aq and V seem to have read the verbal form ldEj;, “to cease,” an in-direct support of M, whereas T provides a double translation, once renderinga[ra, “world,” and a second time rendering qsp, “to cease.” The committeejudged that here, as in numerous other places in Isaiah, M was due to an in-tentional metathesis dlj / ldj and that the author through this rhetorical pro-cedure evoked both words at the same time. A permutation in the language assuggested by most dictionaries since Judah ben Qoreish can nevertheless notbe excluded.

M got a B evaluation.


Since Michaelis up to our days (Wildberger) the correction of ldj into dljhas been proposed and has generally been accepted. It is therefore no wonder


that it entered into many translations which even did not take the trouble ofproviding textual justi˜cation (RSV, NRSV, NJV, EÜ, FC). Only NJB bothersto note that it follows a conjecture because M is unintelligible. NIV carefullygives the reading of M in a footnote, explaining that it follows the reading ofa few Hebrew manuscripts.

It seems very di¯cult to reproduce in a translation an evocative pun as inthe Hebrew, since these puns belong to the surface structure of languages. Evenif one wants to render M, it is not easy to determine the meaning of the hapaxlegomenon ld<j;. Calderone (412–413) connects the hapax with Arabic gadira“wealthy” and takes the expression to mean “prosperous land.” Such a render-ing seems, however, to be rather speculative. Dahood (1971, 215–216) takesit as a poetic name for the underworld, joining again the older exegesis sinceRashi. This insight entered very occasionally into translations (W). In light ofthe parallel “land of the living,” the question can be raised whether such an in-terpretation is likely (Feldmann, 451). More probably the pun would qualify theworld as one which will be destroyed, in which human beings will no longerexist.


If the translator is convinced of the existence of this old pun and if hewants to express the double meaning he could translate: “the inhabitants of thisephemeral world.”

If he prefers to follow the majority of translations, he should not do thiswithout making a footnote along the lines of NIV.

38.12

Textual Decisions

The second line of this verse starts in M with yTid“P'qi, “I have rolled up,” “Ihave rolled up my life like a weaver.” 1Q-a reads instead of this ytrps, “I havecut,” “I have cut oˆ my life like a weaver,” a meaning also found in V: praecisa.Th, Sym, V, S and T use passive verbal forms, and Aq an impersonal plural. TheVorlage of G cannot be ascertained. The committee judged that the ˜rst personsingular of the verb in M caused di¯culties to the versions and that they solvedthese di¯culties translationally. It also noted that 1Q-a testi˜es to linguisticmodernization, but that the scroll gives a precious support to the reading of the˜rst person singular of M. Therefore, a B evaluation was given to M.


Since the eighteenth century (Clericus) till our days (Wildberger) it hasbeen proposed to keep the verb of M, but to change the ˜rst person singular

Isaiah 31– 40 14938.13

into a second person singular tdpq, “you have rolled up.” This conjecture hasbeen adopted in some translations like REB, “you have rolled up my life likea weaver.” The background of this proposal is the refusal of the idea that kingHezekiah would have taken himself the initiative to end his life. The verb,however, does not seem to refer to suicide, but to an act of mental resignation(Delitzsch, 391). In that case, the ˜rst person singular of the verb, parallel tothe ̃ rst persons singular of the verbs at the beginning of verses 10 and 11, doesnot present any particular problem. The translator may only judge it necessaryto spell out the comparisons in a more complete way.


GrN is a good example of an elaborated comparison: “Ik had mijn leven alopgegeven, het opgerold zoals een wever het doek,” “I had already given up mylife, rolled it up like a weaver the web.”

38.13

Textual Decisions

Verse 13 starts with the verbal form ytiyWIvi, “I imagined,” a meaning con-tested by others who translate: “I remained quiet.”

1Q-a reads ytwpç which according to Kutscher (293) would have the mean-ing “I was crushed.”

It is most likely that both Th and V with their respective renderings ejtevqhnand sperabam (here: “I feared”), render the meaning of M.

paredovqhn, “I was given up” in G seems to render the verb of the repeatedrefrain and not the verb under discussion. The occurrence of a refrain at the endof verses 12 and 13 is also the reason that due to homoioteleuton verse 13 islacking in 1Q-b and in S.

T by means of a contextual assimilation to the “lion” renders “ I roared.” Although three witnesses are lacking and although of the remaining four

only two support M, the committee decided to give a C evaluation to M, judg-ing that M might represent a more primitive form of the text.


Houbigant was the ˜rst to propose the conjecture yTi[]W"vi, “I cry for help,”and in his time it had already been suggested that the reading of T was basedon such a text. As the conjecture was generally accepted it is no wonder thatit entered into many modern versions such as RSV, NRSV, NJB, NJV, NAB,EÜ. Since the textual base of T is, however, very uncertain, translators are notadvised to follow the conjecture, in spite of its success.


150 38.15A

Other translations base themselves on what they consider to be the mean-ing of 1Q-a. So NEB and REB: “I am racked with pain.” They have vocalized1Q-a as ytiwOPc'

and for the meaning they have followed Driver’s comparisonwith Arabic

s

aˆa

(1968, 56). TOB, on the other hand, rendering “

Je serai re-duit

à

rien

,”

“I will be reduced to nothing,” has found its inspiration in the post-biblical Hebrew form πpv

, “to crush,” from which stems the participle πWpv;

,“to be crushed.” If, with Luzzatto, in view of the meaning of ytiyWIvi

in Psalm16.8, translators want to render M with “I imagine,” the following informationhas to be taken as the content of the imagination.


Translators could translate with V and in the line of KJV, StV, GrN and GN:“

sperabam usque ad mane quasi leo sic contrivit omnia ossa mea

,”

“I thoughtuntil dawn: he will break my bones as a lion.”

38.15A

Textual Decisions

M reads yliArm'a;w“

, “for he has spoken to me,” and 1Q-a has the readingawl rmwaw

, “I will say to him.” M is supported by Aq, V and S, but the readingof 1Q-a seems to have been the base of Th and T. Nothing can be concludedfrom the very fragmentary text of 1Q-b and verse 15a is lacking in G. Since thereading of 1Q-a seems to assimilate to the preceding words “What can I say?”the committee retained M with a C evaluation.


Already Cappel (834) had proposed the conjecture wOl

rm"aow“

as the

Vorlage

of Th, and Houbigant, referring to T, had adopted the conjecture, which has ob-tained the majority support of commentators. The more so, since it was con-˜rmed by Qumran discoveries. Many modern translations therefore follow thisreading. So

e.g.

NAB: “What am I to say or tell him?” and, with minor varia-tions, NEB, REB, NJB, E

Ü

, W, FC.M, however, does not present any serious problems to the translator. The

˜rst question “What shall I say?” means “What shall I say to thank him?” andit is an introduction to the thanksgiving expressed in verses 16–20. The secondclause refers then to a promise God has made (verse 5) and the last clause toits realization (Delitzsch, 393).

Isaiah 31– 40

15138.15B


Two translations present a good model: (1) NJV: “What can I say? Hepromised me, / And He it is who has wrought it,” and (2) NAV: “

Wat kan eks

ê

? Die Here het met my gepraat, Hy het gedoen wat Hy ges

ê

het

,”

“What canI say? The Lord has spoken with me, He has done what he has said to me.”

38.15B

Textual Decisions

The beginning of verse 15b reads in M yt'wOnv]Alk;

hD<D"a,

, “I will walk all myyears.” 1Q-a reads the Hebrew verb as hdwda

to all probability from the rootddn

, “to ˘ee.” 1Q-a certainly has been the

Vorlage

of S which, in addition, hasread the last Hebrew word as ytin:v]

, “my sleep,” “all my sleep has ˘ed.” Thispart of verse 15b is lacking in G.

The Hebrew verb has presented great di¯culties to the versions. Th inter-preted it as a noun kaqodhvghsin

, “guidance,” Aq as an in˜nitive probibavsai

,“lead on,” both of them making it an object of the preceding Hebrew verb. Vby rendering

recogitabo

, “I will consider” follows Sym: ajnalogivsomai

. T mayexpress the result of such “considerations”: “how shall I serve, and repay himall the years which he has added to my life.”

The committee considered the reading of S (and possibly of 1Q-a) as veryattractive, and it decided to give a C evaluation to M only because of its tra-ditional exegetical support.


It is not worthwhile to mention the diˆerent conjectures of Begrich (1926,42), and Kaiser (399), which—and rightly so—did not enter into any most re-cent translation.

More important is it to try to determine what M could mean. It could, ˜rstof all, be interpreted positively in the sense of “humbly walking because of (or“remembering”) the anguish” (Feldmann, 453) or in the sense of “continuinglife in spite of the anguish.” A positive meaning would also prevail if the verbof M would have the meaning “walking slowly” (Abulwalid, 1880, 123–125),and if such a meaning would refer to walking in a solemn procession of thanks-giving. Secondly, a negative meaning could be present if the “slowly walking”would be a reference to the way of walking of an invalid.

In view of the doubts regarding M, however, the translator may also wantto give, either in the text or in a note, the reading of S and—possibly—of 1Q-a.


152 38.16


A model of positive interpretation is NIV: “I will walk humbly all myyears because of this anguish of my soul”; a negative interpretation gives NJB:“I must eke out the rest of my years in bitterness of soul.”

If the variant reading of S—which may be the reading of 1Q-a as well—is preferred, NRSV can function as an example: “All my sleep has ˘ed becauseof the bitterness of my soul.”

38.16

Textual Decisions

Almost insoluble problems have been posed by 16a: yYEjæ

ˆh,B;Alk;l]W

Wyj]yI

μh,le[}yjiWr

, “by these things (men) live and in all these things the life of my spirit(dwells).” M is nevertheless supported by 1Q-b for the ˜rst four words pre-served in this scroll, and entirely by Aq. Apart from the orthography and oneassimilation (hmhb

to hmhyl[

) 1Q-a only distinguishes itself from M by four y

/w

confusions. G by reading peri;

aujth'ı

ga;r

ajnhggevlh

soi

kai;

ejxhvgeiravı

mouth;n

pnohvn

, “concerning this, it was told you and you have revived my breath,”has distributed the consonants of his Hebrew

Vorlage

in a diˆerent way. BothV and S went for an easier syntax. S, in addition, connected verse 16a with thepreceding verse. T provides a

midrash

: “with regard to all the dead, you havedeclared that you would bring them to life, but before them all you have causedmy spirit to live.” In view of the numerous facilitations, the committee con-sidered M to be well supported and gave it a C evaluation.


The problems of verse 16a do not concern the text, but its interpretation.Wildberger (1445) is therefore entirely correct when stating that one should nottry to reconstruct another text according to the gift of one’s imagination, and,through the translation of such an imagined text suggest a fully arbitrary un-derstanding. The by Duhm and Driver inspired text reconstruction proposed inBHS and followed

e.g.

in NEB and REB “Yet, Lord, because of you my soulwill live. Give my spirit rest,” therefore cannot be recommended to translators.

A translation based upon the facilitating reading of 1Q-a, however, as pro-vided in NJB “The Lord is over them; they live, and everything in them livesby his spirit,” cannot be recommended either.

A translation should be based upon M, the meaning of which has to bedetermined. Houbigant already wrote: “

Felix, qui potest haec verba, ut sunt,interpretari

,”

“Happy who is able to interpret these words as such.” If the trans-lator agrees with Wildberger (1444) that this happy person is not yet born, hecan only refrain from translating these words, as has been done in RL. This

Isaiah 31– 40

15338.17

seems a better procedure than leaving out the translation of some words, re-placed by dotted lines, as in NAB, or to provide a fully intelligible renderingand mention in a footnote that the Hebrew text is unintelligible! (E

Ü

). If thetranslator thinks, however, that M can meaningfully be interpreted, the follow-ing presuppositions are necessary: (1) the use of masculine, μhl[

, and feminine,ˆhb

, su¯xes should be considered as a rhetorical device in order to express to-tality; (2) the su¯xes refer back to the divine interventions alluded to in verse15; (3) lk

refers to yyj

in spite of the separation by ˆhb, a construction foundin Hosea 14.3. These presuppositions united may lead to the following under-standing: “O Lord, thanks to these things people live and in these things is allthe life of my spirit.”


If the above interpretation is considered possible, NIV could be taken as amodel: “Lord, by such things men live; and my spirit ˜nds life in them too.” If“such things” have to be spelled out in translation, GrN can be taken as an ex-ample: “Een mens leeft van uw beloften, Heer, alleen daaruit put ik levensmoed,”“People live by your promises, o Lord, only from these I take the courage tolive.”

38.17

Textual Decisions

M reads in the second sentence of the verse T;q]v'j;, “you have loved mysoul,” whereas V by translating eruisti, “you have rescued,” seems to presup-pose a Hebrew reading T;k]c'j;, “you have preserved.” M has the support of 1Q-a,1Q-b, Sym, S and T, and, contrary to what has frequently been said, also of G.For G uses here the verb aiJrevw in the same sense as in 1 Sam 19.1: “to taketo oneself,” “to be fond of” (Lust, 12a). M received therefore a B evaluation.


Houbigant had already proposed the correction T;k]c'j; noting that the He-brew verb qv'j; is never used without a preposition. His proposal has beenfollowed by a majority of commentators and modern translations: RSV, NRSV,NJB, NJV, NAB and GNB.

It should, however, be taken into consideration that qvj could have beenintentionally constructed with the syntax of ˚cj in a context where the last verbis expected with the aim of evoking its particular meaning: “you have loved meto such a point that you have kept me from the pit of destruction.” Such is atleast the understanding of other modern translations such as NEB, REB, NIV,FC, RL.



REB is a good model for such a translation: “your love saved me from thepit of destruction,” or, with FC: “car tu m’as aimé assez pour m’éviter la mort,”“for you have loved me so much that you saved me from death.”

38.21–22

Textual Decisions

These two verses are not attested by the ˜rst hand of 1Q-a, but they arepresent in all other textual traditions. Since there are su¯cient indications thatthese verses are a secondary addition in M, the committee attributed a C eval-uation to the omission in 1Q-a.


Duhm (246) took the initiative to insert these two problematic verses after38.6 where according to his opinion they originally belonged. Procksch (461)thought it necessary in addition, to introduce after this insertion verse 7 withthe words “And Isaiah said,” taken from 2 Kings 20.9. The two proposals com-bined entered into the apparatus of BHS and by way of the apparatus into manymodern translations (NEB, REB, NJB, NAB, GNB, FC, GrN). Other transla-tions, like C, inserted verse 22 after verse 6, and verse 21 after verse 8. Othersagain, leaving them at the end, indicated in a footnote (EÜ) that in fact theybelonged to verses 1–8, possibly before verse 7.

It should be noted, however, that there is no textual evidence for such atransfer and that it is a major rule that the assimilation to diˆerent text tradi-tions be avoided. Feldmann (455) rightly argued that these two verses nowhere˜t into the Isaiah text and Ehrlich (140) simply pleaded for their omission. Atotal omission, however, does not seem to be justi˜ed since the presence ofthese two verses in all other textual traditions is not due to an accident, but tothe initiative of a redactor.


Two possibilities present themselves therefore to the translator: (1) to trans-late these verses at the end as do RSV, NRSV, NIV and NJV adding, unlike thesetranslations, a footnote with the statement that these verses are lacking in the˜rst hand of 1Q-a and probably are a secondary addition; (2) to put a transla-tion of these verses into a footnote, adding the same information, as has beendone in GN.

The second possibility may be preferred.

Isaiah 31– 40 15540.6

40.6

Textual Decisions

In the second occurrence of the verb rm'a;, “to say,” “to ask,” M reads thethird person masculine singular rm'a;w“, “and he/one said” whereas 1Q-a has the˜rst person singular reading hrmwaw , “and I said.” M has the support of S and T,whereas 1Q-a is supported by G and V. M presents no doubt the more di¯cultreading since a textual change from the ˜rst person into the third can hardly beexpected. In addition, the prophet rarely emphasizes his own role. For thesereasons, a C evaluation has been attributed to M.


The vast majority of modern versions follow the reading of 1Q-a, G andV without noting so. Only NEB, NJV, TOB, C, BR, NV render M, mostly in animpersonal way: “(and) another asks” (NEB, NJV). Herewith a dialogue be-tween two unidenti˜ed voices has been introduced. Interpretationally, however,the best solution is to see in the ˜rst voice a voice from heaven and in thesecond voice the one of the prophet who asks for more precision with regardto his task. This question is then answered by the same heavenly voice in thefollowing verses. (Koole, 31–32). In that case, the use of the impersonal ver-bal form in M is a device used in order not to put the prophet into the picture(Bonnard).


In a type of translation for which it has been stipulated that the intent ofthe original author has to be respected, NV could be taken as a model: “En devraag klinkt . . . ,” “And the question is raised . . . .” In other types of transla-tion for which the intentional ambiguity of the source text would not be clearenough for the reader, REB could be used as an example: “A voice says, ‘Pro-claim!’ and I asked, ‘What shall I proclaim?’ ”

40.12

Textual Decisions

In M the grammatical object of the ˜rst sentence is μyIm', “the waters,” “Whohas measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,” whereas 1Q-a has μy ym,“the waters of the sea.” M has the support of G, Aq, V and S, and, indirectly,of T, which makes explicit what is meant through its rendering “all the watersof the universe.” The reading of 1Q-a can hardly be original. For when in bib-lical Hebrew the construct state yme is followed by the genitive μy:, the last noun


is always determined by either the article or a local speci˜cation. Therefore thereading of 1Q-a was considered to be a graphical error and a B evaluation wasattributed to M.


Since in some receptor languages translators may have felt the need to qual-ify “the waters,” the frequent rendering “the waters of the sea” is not amazing.In the light of the textual decisions it seems to be wrong, however, to cite ina footnote the reading of 1Q-a as a justi˜cation for such a translation (NJB,NAB, TOB, FC). The problem seems to be an interpretational one: is there areference to creation or not?


If no reference to creation is seen in this text, a rendering such as “(the wa-ters of) the sea” is justi˜ed. But no textual note should be provided. If, on theother hand, the text is considered to refer to the creation narrative of Gen 1,translators may want to expand the rendering along the lines of T: “all thewaters of the world.”

157

5

I S A I A H 4 1 – 5 0

41.3

Textual Decisions

The last two words of M are awOby: aol, “he does not come,” “the road withhis feet he does not come.” This reading has the direct support of Th, Aq andSym, and it is presupposed by S, T (“the strength of the way entered not intohis feet”) and also V. On the other hand, G does not have the last two wordswhereas 1Q-a reads wnyby al, “they do not discern.” If connected with the pre-ceding information 1Q-a would therefore read: “They do not discern the pathof his feet” (McKenzie, 27). If connected with verse 4, 1Q-a would read: “Theydo not understand who has done this and who has brought this to pass.” If thelast syntactic division is preferred, the variant may be explained as an assim-ilation to parallel texts such as 43.10 and 44.18. The textual support of M wasconsidered to be strong enough to justify a C evaluation.


The main problems concern the interpretation of M. One possible exegesisis that Cyrus passes by a road on which he never put his feet before (Ehrlich,Kissane, Snaith, RSV, NIV, NV). Another option is to take jr"ao, “path,” as gram-matical subject as in T and V and in translations dependent upon V. In Jerome’sparaphrase this would give “viae laborem non sentiet,” “he doesn’t feel the hard-ship of the road.” This option has only been defended by Ibn Ezra and Kimchi.In a last interpretation two possible exegeses converge, which take the sentenceto mean that Cyrus in his swiftness does not even touch the road. (NRSV, NJB,NEB, REB, GNB). This last analysis is the most convincing.

Isaiah 41–50



According to the needs of the receptor language the “swiftness” can be leftimplicit as in NJB: “his feet scarcely touching the road” or it can be madeexplicit as in GNB: “so fast that he hardly touches the ground.” A textual noteshould be provided in translations based upon G.

41.22

Textual Decisions

The ˜rst word of this verse reads in M the hiphil verbal form WvyGIy", “Letthem bring . . . ,” a reading con˜rmed now by 1Q-a. All the ancient versions,G Sym V S T, however, translated the verbal form as if it was written in theqal : WvG“yI, “Let them come forward.” Two arguments persuaded the committeeto attribute a C vote to M: (1) the reading of M is protected by a masora magna(Weil, par 1601); (2) the same verbal form (with grammatical object) occursin the preceding verse. Moreover, it can be noted that in the parallel text 45.21no correction of M has ever been proposed in spite of the same behavior of theancient versions.


Since still recently the reading of a qal form has been defended by com-mentators such as Bonnard and Elliger, it is no wonder that a number of trans-lations (NEB, REB, NAB, GNB, FC) follow this proposal. It is not alwaysclear, however, whether such a rendering re˘ects a textual emendation or an in-terpretational option. McKenzie e.g. retains M, but he gives an intransitive andintensive meaning to the hiphil form instead of a causative one. He is followedin this by NJV which renders M as “Let them approach.” Such a meaning ofthe hiphil is nevertheless extremely doubtful.

NIV has the peculiar reading “Bring in your idols” based upon two highlyimprobable suppositions: (1) that these words are spoken to the nations and notto the gods, and (2) that a meaning “idols” would be suggested by μk,ytewOmxu[} inverse 21.


When rendering M, the normal hiphil meaning will have to be given: “Letthem bring . . .” or “Let them produce . . . ,” “them” referring to the gods. Agrammatical object will then have to be understood or stated. The most naturalthing to do is to take the explicit object of the preceding verse: μk,ytewOmxu[}, “yourproofs,” “your arguments.” NRSV can be taken as a model of translation:“. . . bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob. Let them bring them . . . .”

Isaiah 41–50 15941.23

41.23

Textual Decisions

The last verb of 23b has in M the qere ha,r“nIw“, “and we will see,” whereasthe ketib has hr<nEw“, “that we may see.” The qere is clearly supported by 1Q-a.All the ancient versions are based upon a reading of the ˜rst person plural ofthe verb “to see,” but it cannot be decided whether they follow the qere or theketib. The committee, with a majority B vote, preferred the ˜rst one, the qere.It considered that after a ˜rst verb with a voluntary mood the second verbcould use the indicative and that therefore the ketib should be seen as an as-similation to the mood of the preceding verb.


Confusion amongst commentators and translators has been caused by theerroneous notes in BH3 and BHS maintaining the ketib to read ar:nIw“, “and weshall be afraid.” In fact, this reading which was for the ˜rst time proposed byLowth, is a mere conjecture and those who proposed it never claimed it to bethe ketib.

Whether the conjecture should be adopted or not depends upon the inter-pretation of the preceding verb h[;T;vnIw“. If this verbal form is analyzed as a qalof [tv, “to be afraid,” the conjecture should be taken over. If, on the other hand,the form is analyzed as a hithpael of h[v, “to see,” the conjecture should beabandoned. Most recent translators (RSV, NRSV, NJB, NIV, NEB, REB, GNB)follow the ˜rst derivation and arrive at an interpretation such as: “that we maybe afraid and terri˜ed.” It should, however, be noted that the context does notimpose such an interpretation. The second half line of verse 23a makes thatalso in the second half line of verse 23b verbs of veri˜cation are expected. Andalthough the prophet could say by way of derision: “that we may be afraid andterri˜ed,” one should not forget that these words are uttered by the Lord.

Finally, it is not to be excluded that the last interpretation evokes the ˜rst,and that the combination of the verb har, “to see,” with the hithpael of h[v inthis verse evokes the combination of the verb ary, “to fear,” with the qal of[tv in verse 10.


SR could be used as a model of translation: “Pour que nous ouvrions lesyeux / Et qu’ensemble nous le voyions,” “that we may open our eyes and seeit together.” It is not impossible to introduce the derision by qualifying one ofthe verbs of seeing as has been done in FC and in Moˆatt: “that we may mar-vel at the sight!” The other interpretation may be given in a footnote as hasbeen done in SR.


41.25

Textual Decisions

The ˜rst line of verse 25 ends in M with ymiv]bi ar:q]yI, “he shall call on myname,” a reading also supported by V and S. G and T likewise con˜rm the ˜rstperson su¯x of the second word in M, but they deal diˆerently with the verb.G renders klhqhvsontai tw] ' ojnovmativ mou, “they shall be called by my name,”a plural, translationally conditioned by the preceding double object: “him whocomes from the north and him who comes from the rising of the sun.” Thistranslation therefore presupposes a reading of the verb in the niphal: arEQ;yI. Trenders with ymçb hynrbga, “I will make him strong in my name,” which doesnot seem to presuppose a ˜rst person Vorlage as Elliger postulated (173). Fi-nally, 1Q-a reads wmçb arqyw , probably meaning “and he will be called on byhis name.” The committee considered the divergent traditions of 1Q-a, G andT as due to corrections by copyists and translators who no longer understood thesyncretistic religiosity of Cyrus and who saw here a conversion to Judaism de-nied by later history. Therefore, a majority B vote was given to M.


Modern exegesis apparently follows the line of the ancient renderings andseveral conjectures have been proposed. Bredenkamp with his conjecture ar:q]a,wOmv]Bi, “I have called him by his name” based himself upon 45.3 and 4. Thisconjecture has recently been taken over by Westermann (69) and it is found intranslations such as Moˆatt, C and EÜ. Recent translations sometimes followthe ˜rst word of the conjecture, but keep M for the second (REB, GNB, GN).Condamin vocalized the verb as a niphal and changed the su¯x into that of thethird person masculine singular. Since the discovery of 1Q-a others like Bon-nard have followed him. This option entered into translations such as NRSV,NJB and TOB.

These conjectures, however, become unnecessary if M is not taken as areference to Cyrus’ conversion to Judaism, but as an appeal to the God of Is-rael for the actions described in what follows (compare Cyrus’ proclamation inEzra 1.2). So NJV, RSV, NIV, GrN, SR.


NJV can serve as an example for the translator: “one who invokes Myname.” It may be useful to explain the interpretational di¯culties in a footnoteas has been done in the NIV Study Bible.

Isaiah 41–50 16141.27

41.27

Textual Decisions

The ̃ rst half line of the verse ends in M with the word μN:hi, “here they are.”This reading is presupposed by the literal rendering of S, and by the explicitrenderings of T: “They have come to pass” and of V: “dicet ecce adsunt,” “hesays: ‘see, here they are.’ ” G on the other hand, by rendering the ˜rst half linewith ajrch;n Siwn dwvsw, “I will give dominion to Sion,” omits the two last wordsof M and replaces them by the last word of the second half line: ˆTea,, “I willgive.” 1Q-a has the peculiar reading hmwnh which could be analyzed as a par-ticiple of a root hmn or μwn, used in Palestinian rabbinic Hebrew with the mean-ing “to give information,” “to announce.”The reading of 1Q-a would then mostprobably be based on a vocalization μN:h' of the consonantal text of M. Since,however, there are no indications of the usage of a verb hmn or μwn with this par-ticular meaning in the Hebrew of the biblical period, the committee judged itto be more prudent to maintain the vocalization of M to which a C evaluationwas attributed.


In view of the di¯culties of interpretation Marti (284) already proposed toread h;yTid“G"hi, “I have announced it,” and this conjecture has been taken over byFC, RSV and NRSV “I ˜rst have declared it to Zion.” In more recent transla-tions it has become customary to abandon conjectures and to translate the textof 1Q-a. So NEB: “Here is one who will speak ˜rst as advocate for Zion” andREB which seems to base itself on the “see, there is the one who speaks” of1Q-a in its rendering “I am the ˜rst to appoint a messenger to Zion.”

It seems best, however, to render M in spite of its di¯culties. There canbe no doubt that ˆwOvarI should be taken in the meaning “the ˜rst” and that itshould refer to the Lord. As to the identi˜cation of “they” in “here they are,”three interpretations have been given: (1) the Hebrew su¯x refers to the eventswhich will take place or which are taking place. So Delitzsch (431) and NJV,(2) the su¯x refers to the armies of Cyrus. So Koole (138) and LB: “Look,look! Help is on the way!” (3) the su¯x refers to those returning from exile.So the older Jewish exegesis, Calvin, Grotius, Snaith. Of these three interpre-tations, the last one is to be preferred (Leene, 56, 108).


A more literal translation could follow NIV as a model: “I was the ˜rst totell Zion, ‘Look, here they are!’ ” If the need for more explicit information re-garding “they” is felt, NAV is a good example: Ek is die eerste wat vir Sion


gesê het: Kyk, jou mense kom terug!,” “I was the ˜rst who told Sion: Look,your people are coming back!”

41.29

Textual Decisions

In M the third word of the verse, the last word of its ˜rst member, readsˆw<a;, “male˜cence,” a reading endorsed by Th, Sym (a[dikoi, “wrongdoing”) andV (iniusti). 1Q-a on the other hand, seems to have read ˆyIa;, “nothingness,” areading which may have the support of S and T: “nought.” Nothing can be con-cluded from the reading oujqe;n, “nought,” in the Göttingen edition of the Sep-tuagint since this is an editorial conjecture of Ziegler (1934, 54). As he admitshimself, nothing in G corresponds with the ̃ rst three words of M. As to the tex-tual judgment, it should always be kept in mind that 1Q-a derives from an ar-chetype in which it is very di¯cult to distinguish a y from a w. In this case, thecommittee judged that the variant reading of 1Q-a, S and T could best be ex-plained as an assimilation to the twice occurring ̂ yaw of verse 28. The result wasa C vote for M.


Medieval Jewish translators as well as Christian translators from the ref-ormation period rendered on exegetical grounds ˆw<a; of M as if it were writtenˆyIa'. No wonder therefore that many modern translations, e.g. NEB, REB, NJV,do the same. Their translations are the result of interpretational and not of tex-tual analysis.

Other modern translators render the variant ˆyIa' providing textual notes, e.g.NJB, FC, GN.The result is the same, but their decision was based on textualcriticism. (NJB, FC, GN).

If the translator, however, wants to render the literal meaning of M withmany other translations (RSV, NRSV, NIV, TOB e.a.)—he may be right todo so since it is not impossible that the author intentionally created a tensionbetween text and context—the question about a meaningful rendering of ˆw<a;remains.

Whybray (70) is no doubt right in stating that the Hebrew word can hardlyhave the meaning given to it in RSV and NRSV: “a delusion.” Most probablyit indicates the trouble and misfortune resulting from idolatry.


For the rendering of M, TOB can serve as example: “Voici ce qu’ils sonttous: une malfaisance!,” “Look here what they are all: harmful!” In intercon-

Isaiah 41–50 16342.11

fessional projects with Orthodox participation, the translators may have to notethe important diˆerences between M and G.

42.11

Textual Decisions

The ˜rst verb of verse 11 reads in M Wac]yI, “they raise,” with ellipsis of theobject “voice” or “their voices,” a reading con˜rmed by Th, Sym and Aq. Onthe other hand, 1Q-a and 4Q-h read the verb in the singular: açy. In 1Q-a thissingular reading is conditioned by the omission of the conjunction before thethird word of the verse which makes the grammatical subject a singular one,only the “desert.” 4Q-h has a lacuna after the second word so that the motiva-tion remains uncertain there. V also has a singular verb, to which it ascribes anintransitive meaning: “sublevetur,” “may (the desert) be lifted up.” G, S and Tseem to have read wççy, vocalized either as Wcyciy: or as WcWcy:, “rejoice,” “let (thedesert) sing praises.” It seems that the last three versions tried to solve the el-lipsis of the grammatical object and that they anticipated the translation theywere going to give of the ˜rst verb of 11b: WNroy:, “Let . . . rejoice.” Because ofthe singular verb in Qumran and—probably—in the Vorlage of some of theversions, only a C evaluation was given to M.


Grätz has been the ˜rst to propose the correction Wcyciy: and he has beenfollowed in this by Fohrer, Westermann and Elliger. Mainly older translationssuch as Moˆatt and LV, but also EÜ, made the same correction. NEB and REBpresent an identical translation: “Let . . . rejoice,” but this rendering seems tobe based upon a vocalization WawOCyI and the derivation from a verb hac whichlike its Arabic cognate would have the meaning “to rejoice oneself” (Guil-laume, 1966, 53–54).

None of these corrections, however, should be made and with Whybray,McKenzie and Koole M should be maintained. So RSV, NRSV, NIV, NJB, NJVand others.


In a literal type of translation the classical rendering “Let . . . raise theirvoices” (NJB, NIV) can be used as a model. In other types of translation, trans-lators may want to make explicit the aim of the “raising of voices” and theytherefore may decide to follow the example of GNB “Let . . . praise God.”


42.19

Textual Decisions

In the second half of the second member of this verse M reads for thethird time the same word (here preceded by a conjunction): rWE[iw“, “and blind.”This reading is supported by V and S and—BHS and Ziegler base themselveson an erroneous quotation of Sym—also by Sym according to the reading inTheodoret (168, 34). One manuscript (Kennicott 80) and the ˜rst hand of man-uscript de Rossi 267 read vrEjew“, “and deaf.” The scribe of 1Q-a also started towrite a j, but then he erased this character and wrote raw[w. The aleph whichhas been added in this orthography, should with Kutscher (163) be consideredto be a mater lectionis for sere. The midrash given in T is of no great use forthis textual problem. G omits the last two words of the ˜rst line and the ˜rsttwo words of the second, no doubt by homoioarcton, the same beginning ofykalmk and μlçmk. Its reading kai; ejtuflwvqhsan, “and they have been madeblind,” indirectly con˜rms M. Because of this indirect support and the directsupport of 1Q-a, Sym, V and S, the committee was equally divided between aC and a B evaluation for M.


The rather weak textual argument for a reading vrEjew“, “and deaf,” has in factbeen seized for literary reasons. The ̃ rst line of verse 19 reads once “blind” andonce “deaf,” and therefore it was considered that the parallel line should do thesame. It has to be noted, however, that 19aa and 19bb have a chiastic relation-ship (who is blind but my servant?—and blind like the servant of the Lord?)in the same way as 19ab and 18b (Koole, 186, 188). This inclusion characterof the text can therefore be quoted in defence of M. In addition, the repetitionof “blind” in 19b may also be an intentional device to stress the fact that hewho has to be a light for the nations and who has to open the eyes of the blindis blind himself (Hitzig). There are therefore no su¯cient textual and literaryreasons to change M as has been done in NJB, NEB, REB, EÜ, TOB, FC.


The second half line of the second member of verse 19 could be renderedas in NJV: “So blind as the servant of the Lord?” If the second line of verse19 is considered to be a gloss, the translator may want to put his rendering be-tween parentheses as done in NJB and GN.

Isaiah 41–50 16542.24

42.24

Textual Decisions

In the second rhetorical question M reads Wnaf;j;, “we have sinned” and itsreading has the support of 1Q-a, V and S. G, on the other hand, reads the thirdperson plural, “they have sinned,” and so do most of the witnesses of T withthe inclusion of manuscript Urbinates 1. The committee judged that the read-ings of G and T were due to contextual harmonization, in this case to an as-similation to the third person plural verbs of verse 24c: “they would not walk”and “they did not obey.” M received therefore a B evaluation.


Grätz, Oort, Marti, Kissane, Morgenstern and others have all proposed thethird person plural reading of G and T, on textual grounds. They seem to havebeen followed by NEB and REB, in the ˜rst on the base of T and in the secondon the base of G. Most translators, however, made contextual harmonizationslike G and T, not for textual, but for stylistic reasons. They either used thirdperson plural forms (NJV) or ˜rst person plural forms throughout (GNB, GrN,NVA). The last type of harmonization may have been chosen because it wasthought that the speaker wrongly “slips out of his identi˜cation with the peopleafter the ˜rst verb” (McKenzie, 46).

We have nevertheless to retain M with RSV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NJB, whichmeans that the prophet on one side expresses his solidarity with the publicguilt, and, on the other hand, takes his distance with regard to those who con-sciously refuse to obey God. Translators will have to express such subtletieswithout imposing awkward constructions upon the receptor language.


One way of matching M would be to take TOB as a model: “N’est-ce pasle Seigneur, lui envers qui nous avons commis des fautes, lui dont on n’a pasvoulu suivre les chemins et dont on n’a pas écouté la Loi?, “Was it not the Lord,against whom we had sinned, in whose ways people refused to walk and whoselaw was not listened to?” If the impersonal forms are not considered to be a sat-isfactory translational solution, FC may present a useful model: “N’est-ce pasle Seigneur envers qui nous étions coupables? Israël n’a pas voulu suivre lavoie que son Dieu lui traçait, il n’a pas écouté sa loi,” “Is it not the Lord towhom we are guilty? Israel did not want to follow the way which his God layedout for him, it did not listen to his law.”


43.10

Textual Decisions

The second half line of verse 10a starts in M with the singular form yDIb]['w“,“and my servant,” “and my servant whom I have chosen,” whereas in one manu-script of Erfurt the plural vocalization yd"b;[}w", “and my servants” is found. Thisplural reading is also attested by S, but M has the support of G, V and T. 1Q-ahas the unique reading ydb[ without the conjunction w. The plurals were con-sidered to be contextual assimilations and their weak evidence was noted. There-fore, M received a B evaluation.


From Duhm (290) till Elliger (307) the plural has been adopted by manycommentators for diˆerent reasons, and it is not amazing that it is found inmany modern translations.

The real problems are, however, not of a textual nature, but they are in-terpretational. M has a high degree of ambiguity and this is maintained in lit-eral translations such as RSV, NRSV and NIV: “You are my witnesses, says theLord, and my servant whom I have chosen.” M may either mean to say: “youare my witnesses—and you are my servant(s)” or: “you are my witnesses and(so is) my servant.” Since Delitzsch (443) the ˜rst interpretation has becomethe majority exegesis, to be found back in most translations (NEB, REB, NAB,GNB, NJV). Older exegesis has almost unanimously opted for the second in-terpretation which has recently been defended by Koole (221). This also isclearly the choice of some modern translations such as NJB, EÜ and SR. Thesecond witness could then be Cyrus (Barthélemy 314), the prophet (Ibn Ezra),or a messianic interpretation could be given as in Targum with its “and myservant the Messiah,” G—where the sentence is preceded by kajgw; mavrtu", aChristian interpolation according to Seeligmann (28–29)—and Calvin.


If the ˜rst interpretation is preferred, translators could, not on textual, buton interpretational grounds, use NAB as a model: “You are my witnesses, saysthe Lord, my servants whom I have chosen.” If the translator has a preferencefor the second interpretation, SR with its pronominal repetition could be takenas an example: “C’est vous qui êtes mes témoins, . . . , (Vous), et mon serviteurque j’ai choisi, . . . ,” “You are my witnesses, . . . , You and my servant whomI have chosen. . . .” The interpretation which has not been selected in the textmight ˜gure as an alternative rendering in a footnote, with or without evalua-tion, as has been done in TOB and FC.

Isaiah 41–50 16743.13

43.13

Textual Decisions

This verse starts in M with the expression μwOYmiAμG", “and from today on also.”It has been suggested that G, ajpΔ ajrch'", “from the beginning,” V, ab initio, andT, aml[m, “from everlasting,” would have read in their Vorlage μl;wO[me and acorrection of M has lastly been proposed in the apparatus of BHK. M, however,has the support of 1Q-a, and, indirectly, of S whose rendering “from the ˜rstday on” clearly is an explicit formulation of M. Elliger (308) has strongly ar-gued that the renderings of G, V and T are simply interpretations of M. Thecommittee attributed a B evaluation to M.


No diêrent textual evidence for a translation “from eternity” should bequoted as is done in NJB and in the notes on NAB (414). Since Rashi olderexegetes understood M to mean “from the moment there was a day” or “beforethere was a day” (Vitringa). In modern translations this interpretation has leadto such renderings as “Ever since day was” (NJV), “from ancient days” (NIV),and “from everlasting” (REB).

More recent exegetes since Ewald have interpreted M in the sense of Ez48.35 “from this very day,” “henceforth.” This interpretation should be pre-ferred with RSV, NRSV, NEB, TOB.


See Evaluation of Problems.

43.14

Textual Decisions

This verse presents two major problems:(1) The second line in M ends with μL;Ku μyjirib;, “fugitives all of them,” a

reading which is also attested by 1Q-a, G and S. Th according to Jerome, fortes,“noblemen,” V, vectes, “bars,” and T, ˆyfwçmb, “in boats,” do not seem to suggesta diêrent Hebrew Vorlage, but only a diêrent interpretation of M. So M gota majority B vote.

(2) In the last line M reads twOYnIa’B;, “ships.” It has been proposed in BHS tocorrect the vocalization of this word into twOYnIa}B', “in lamentations.” M, how-ever, has the support of the whole textual tradition, and therefore it receivedan A evaluation.



(1) The interpretation of V has been rather successful among exegetes (El-liger, 331) and translators. It is found e.g. in RSV and NRSV, “and break downall the bars” and, in diˆerent wordings, in NAB, NJV, GNB and FC. It is some-times combined with an emendation of the word μL;Ku into a nominal form ofthe root alk, “to shut up,” with the meaning “prison.” So e.g. EÜ and NJB: “Ishall knock down all the prison bars.”

The most widespread interpretation is the one by G and S, analyzing M asan adjective derived from a root with the meaning “to ˘ee.” It has recently beendefended again by Westermann (99) and Beuken (180–181) and it does notneed any change in vocalization of M. It is found in NIV, “and bring down asfugitives all the Babylonians,” TOB, GrN, GN, and, with a diˆerent interpre-tation of the preceding Hebrew verb, in NEB and REB: “and lay the Chaldae-ans prostrate as they ˘ee.” It is this interpretation of μyjiyrIb; which should bepreferred.

(2) The correction of the vocalization in M into twOYnIa}B', “in lamentations”has also found recent defenders (Muilenburg, Koenig, Elliger). This correctionis normally followed by those translators which adopted the interpretation of Vin (1): RSV, NRSV, NAB, NJV, GNB, FC. There are, however, no textual orcontextual reasons for such a change.


TOB seems to be the best translational model when dealing with both prob-lems “je les fais tous descendre en fugitifs, oui, les Chaldéens, sur ces naviresoù retentissaient leurs acclamations,” “I will bring down the Chaldeans as fu-gitives in the ships in which resounded their acclamations.” A footnote couldexplain that the boats were used for the procession of the gods and that thereference in M is to the praise of the Babylonian gods.

43.19

Textual Decisions

The last word of this verse reads in M twOrh;n“, “rivers,” “and rivers in thedesert,” whereas 1Q-a to all probability has the reading twbytn, “paths,” “andpaths in the desert.” Although M has the support of G, V, S and T, it is verydi¯cult to say which reading should be preferred. M could be considered as anerroneous anticipation of twrhn in verse 20, and 1Q-a as an assimilation to theparallelism of verse 16. The committee was therefore equally devided betweenboth readings and gave a C vote to both.

Isaiah 41–50 16943.28


Before the discovery of 1Q-a Kissane had already proposed the emenda-tion twObytin“. Only after the discovery of this variant the reading has been adoptedby a number of scholars such as Fohrer, Bonnard, McKenzie, Schoors andWhybray. It also entered into a few modern translations such as NEB, REB,TOB and EÜ. Other scholars such as Muilenburg, Westermann and Elliger pre-ferred M just like the majority of modern versions (RSV, NRSV, NIV, GNB,NJV, NAB).

It is very di¯cult to ˜nd additional discourse arguments which could turnthe scale in favor of one of the readings. “Way and paths” of 19 could be com-plementary to “water and rivers” in 20, but “way and rivers” of 19 could alsobe a transition between “way and paths” of 16 and “water and rivers” of 20.Translators should therefore make the choice they feel justi˜ed.


See above. In view of the remaining uncertainties, it can be advised tomention in a footnote the reading which has not been retained in the text. Soalso REB, TOB and EÜ.

43.28

Textual Decisions

The three ˜rst words of this verse read in M as follows: vd<qo yrEc; lLej'a}w", “SoI profane the princes of the sanctuary.” This reading has the support of 1Q-a,V and T. On the other hand, G reads kai; ejmivanan oiJ a[rconteı ta; a{giav mou,“and (your) princes profane my sanctuary,” which has been taken to re˘ect adiˆerent Hebrew Vorlage: yvid“q; Úyr<c; WlL]j'y“w". The reading of G is also attestedby S. The committee considered that G and S did not accept the idea that Godwould destroy the sanctuary and that for these theological reasons they madethe syntactical substitutions in the text of their translations (so still Ziegler,1934, 154). The committee also observed that the correction in an oppositesense in M would be more di¯cult to explain. So M received a C evaluation.


The proposal to take G as textual base, ˜rst launched by Houbigant, hasonly found a few recent defenders (Ziegler in 1948, Snaith, BHS). In agree-ment with this situation only a few modern translations adopted it (NEB, REB,GNB, EÜ, GrN).

Translators are encouraged to render M with its problems which are of aninterpretational nature. The di¯culty of the expression vd<qo yrEc; has led Duhm


(295) to the emendation vd<qo yrE[}v', “holy gates” and this emendation has beentaken over by NAB: “Till I repudiated the holy gates.” Such an emendation iswithout textual grounds. M could mean “the holy princes” (NJV) or the “sac-rosanct authorities” (TOB), but most probably the chief leaders of the sanctu-ary are envisaged by the expression. Quite independently from the use of tense(either past or future), the translators should realize that the verbal aspect inHebrew underlines the fact that verse 28 has to be rendered as a consequenceof verse 27.


NIV could be quoted as a model: “So I will disgrace the dignitaries ofyour temple.”

44.4

Textual Decisions

In the ˜rst half line of this verse M has the di¯cult construction ˆybeB], “inbetween,” “they will grow up in between the verdure,” a reading which isbasically attested by Th, Sym and V, and even by S. 1Q-a, on the other hand,reads ˆybk, “as between,” “they will grow up as amid the verdure,” a readingalso found in two Kennicott manuscripts and in the ˜rst hand of four others aswell as in three manuscripts of de Rossi and in two others in the ˜rst and inthe second hand respectively. On the other hand, a number of manuscripts ofKennicott and de Rossi omit the y (ˆbb). Others again combine the two variants,omission of y and k instead of b. According to Lilienthal (339–340), the secondmanuscript of Königsberg vocalizes the b with a segol (ˆb,k]). On such a variantT seems to be based: “as a sprout of the grass.” G reads kai; ajnatelou'sin wJsei;covrtoı ajna; mevson u{dato", “and they will spring up like grass in the midst ofwater.” It has been defended that G was based on a Hebrew Vorlage μyIm' ˆybeK]ryxij;], “like among the water grass,” but it can be rightly questioned whethersuch a Hebrew can exist (Ehrlich, 160). It is more likely that G rendered a textlike M and took its inspiration from the “water” in the second half line of theverse. The reading of 1Q-a with k was considered to be syntactically facilitat-ing. The committee gave a C evaluation to the reading of M with b, qualifyingthis letter here as “semantically redundant” and preferring it to the reading witha comparitive k, considering that the metaphorical discourse had already beensu¯ciently marked with the initial verb.


Most scholars since Houbigant did adopt the reading of G and it thereforeentered into some recent versions like RSV: “They shall spring up like grass

Isaiah 41–50 17144.7

amid waters,” GNB, EÜ and FC. Other versions made further facilitations suchas NJV: “And they shall sprout like grass.”

An eôrt should, however, be made to render the text meaningfully. Thishas been done e.g. by Allegro (154–156) who on the base of comparative phi-lology considered ˆyBek] to mean “like a tamarisk” and ryxj “green,” changingthe yod in waw. Such an understanding was adopted by several modern schol-ars and it entered into translations such as NEB, REB, NRSV: “They willgrow up like a green tamarisk.” This interpretation, however, presupposes atext with k and does not translate M.

There only seems to be one way of giving meaning to M: the real com-parison is in verse 4b which gives additional information, and 4a should betaken as circumstantial / metaphorical.


NAB could be taken as a good model of such a view: “They shall springup amid the verdure like poplars beside the ̆ owing waters.” So also NJB: “theywill spring up among the grass like willows on the banks of a stream.”

44.7

Textual Decisions

Diêrent textual problems are presented in the second line of this versewhich reads in M as follows: wOml; WdyGiy' hn:aobT; rv,a}w' twOYtiaow“ μ=l;wO[Aμ[' ymiWCmi, “sinceI established the people of long ago; and the things to come and those whichwill happen, let they announce it to them.” This text of M has generally beenconsidered as corrupt, and Oort has proposed to restore it with regard to the˜rst four words in the following way: twytwa μlw[me ['ymiv]hi ymi, “who has an-nounced from of old the things to come?” The characteristics of this restorationare the redistribution of the consonants, the diêrent division of the verse, theaddition of a h and the omission of the particle w before twOYtiao.

The ˜rst word of M, ymiWCmi, has the support of G, V, S and T. 1Q-a haswmyçm, inverting w and y, but it is well-known that 1Q-a stems from an archetypein which the shape of these two letters creates confusion. So the committeegave here a B evaluation to M.

The fourth word twOYtiaow“ is attested by 1Q-a, 4Q-c, G, S and T. The particlew is only lacking in V. 1Q-a, moreover, adds after this word rmawy, “let him say.”The committee considered the omission in V and the addition in 1Q-a as sec-ondary, judging the omission in V to be due to stylistic improvement and theaddition of 1Q-a to the desire to create a balance with the verb WdyGIy". So thisfourth word of M received a C evaluation.



Oort’s restoration has been generally accepted in modern scholarship andit is therefore found in many recent versions such as RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB,NAB, EÜ etc. It is very well possible that the proposal by Oort leads us backto the original text. This can, however, no longer be decided by textual analy-sis, since such an original text has not survived in any of the existing wit-nesses. In textual analysis it can only be stated that M represents the oldestattested form of the text.

It will depend upon the textual principles of a translation project whethera translator can render a hypothetical original or not. If according to the prin-ciples only the most primitive canonical form of the text can be translated, Mhas to be rendered.

Such a rendering is not so impossible as sometimes has been maintained.The ˜rst part of verse 7 seems to deal with past events and the second part withevents in the future. Exegetically, it will have to be decided whether μl;wO[Aμ['refers to the humanity of long ago in general or to Israel in particular. The sub-ject of “announce,” “let they announce it to them,” could be considered to bethe false gods and the addressees might be their people (Ehrlich, 160). Thiscould lead to a translation: “. . . lay out before me what has happened since Iestablished humanity in the old days; and what is yet to come and what willhappen, let they announce it to them.”

None of the modern translations renders in this way. Closest to it are NJBand TOB—but they introduce the variant of 1Q-a—and BR, which takes, how-ever, wOml; with Delitzsch as a dativus ethicus : “ihrethalben,” “in their owninterest.”


See above. If the principles of translation accept the reconstruction of anoriginal beyond textual analysis, (N)RSV could be taken as a model. It seemsnecessary, however, to explain the textual and interpretational problems in afootnote.

44.12

Textual Decisions

Verse 12 starts in M with the words lz<r“B' vr"j;, “ironsmith,” as subject of averbless sentence. This reading is con˜rmed by 1Q-a, V and T. The sentence inG, on the other hand, starts with a verb by reading o{ti w[xune tevktwn sivdhron,“for the craftsman sharpens the iron,” and it is followed in this by S. The Greekverb certainly is a rendering of Hebrew djey:, a hiphil of ddj or hdj, “to sharpen.”And djey: is a diˆerent vocalization of the same consonants of the last word of

Isaiah 41–50 17344.21

verse 11. One could consider M as original and G due to a transfer of djy fromthe end of verse 11 to the beginning of verse 12 in the Vorlage of the last. Onecould also consider G as original and both M and 1Q-a due to an archetypewhich had already lost djy in the beginning of verse 12 through haplography.The committee was equally divided between the two readings and attributed aC evaluation to both.


The interpretation of M presents many di¯culties to translators. An ellip-sis of the verb makes it necessary to provide a verb in the translation as hasbeen done e.g. in NJB: “The blacksmith makes an axe . . .” and in NIV: “Theblacksmith takes a tool . . .” (so also GNB and GN). Such a translational pro-cedure certainly has to be preferred to the practice of the majority of moderntranslations which base themselves on a number of highly improbable textualconjectures (RSV, NRSV, EÜ). Which verb should be chosen, will depend uponthe global exegesis of the verse. If, with the older exegesis (still found inSchoors), the manufacturing of an axe for cutting the tree, out of which theimage is made, is envisaged, “make” obviously is the verb to be supplied. Ifthe aim is considered to be the fabrication of a metal idol, only a verb such as“take” can be supplied (Koole, 286).

Di¯culties are minor when G is preferred as base text, as has been doneby many commentators since Delitzsch (453) and in many translations (NEB,REB, TOB).


When following M, NIV (see above) could be taken as example. When fol-lowing G, REB is a good model: “The blacksmith sharpens a graving tool . . . .”

44.21

Textual Decisions

At the end of the verse M reads ynIveN:ti (aol), “you will (not) be forgotten byme,” a reading supported by 4Q-b, G, V, S and T. 1Q-a, on the other hand, hasynaçt, a form hard to interpret. It has sometimes been vocalized as a hiphil ofavn II: ynIa}ViT', “you will not deceive me” (Bonnard), but it was judged to be un-likely that such a defective writing of the verb would occur in 1Q-a (Kutscher,267). In view of this and other uncertainties, M got a C evaluation.



M has been understood to mean two diˆerent things: (1) “you shall notforget me” (so all the ancient versions and NEB, REB, NJV), and (2) “you shallnot be forgotten by me” (so most modern versions). In favor of the ˜rst inter-pretation it can be said that the Aramaic verbal form of yçn which correspondswith the Hebrew niphal has the active meaning “to forget” and can be con-structed with an accusative. Against the ˜rst interpretation is the fact that onedoes not expect aol, but the prohibitive negation la'. In favor of the second in-terpretation the later use of the pronominal su¯x to indicate the agent can becited (Ewald, 1863, par 315b) as well as the fact that contextually an assurance˜ts better than an order. Against the second interpretation the absence of anyother example in the Old Testament could be quoted. On balance, one may beinclined to give a little more weight to the second interpretation.


If the second interpretation is followed, (N)RSV can, of course, be used asan example “you will not be forgotten by me,” but, in view of the non-use orrestricted use of passives in many languages, an active transformation as in NJB:“I shall not forget you” may be preferred. In projects with Orthodox partici-pation it may be useful to note the ˜rst interpretation in a footnote.

44.26

Textual Decisions

In the ˜rst sentence of the verse M reads the singular wODb][', “his servant,”whereas T has a plural yhwdb[, “his servants.” M is supported by 1Q-a, 1Q-b,G, V and S, whereas T has the support of the manuscript Alexandrinus of G.Since the second sentence in M has a plural “his envoys,” the plural of the ˜rstsentence in T and the Alexandrinus was considered to be a facilitating assimi-lation and M therefore got a B vote.


A plural correction of M has ˜rst been proposed by Vogel and it has beentaken over by many exegetes and in many modern versions (NEB, REB, NAB,FC, GN). Occasionally (so Elliger, 454) it has been put that, though the textualbase for such a correction is rather weak, the plural noun in the parallel linenecessitates such a change.

On the base of the textual analysis, one should, however, maintain the sin-gular. The singular can hardly be analyzed as a collective (so Slotki, 1949) sincethis would be a use without parallel in the book. Such a conception may nev-

Isaiah 41–50 17545.9

ertheless have determined the plural translation of NIV. The singular should beinterpreted as a real one, intentionally contrasted with the plural of the parallelline. Several possibilities of identi˜cation present themselves: (1) the prophetis talking about himself (Ibn Ezra, Vitringa, Beuken); (2) “the word of the ser-vant of the Lord” refers to the project of Cyrus mentioned in verse 28 (Bon-nard, Koole).


NRSV: “who con˜rms the word of his servant” or, if some stylistic pos-sessive adaptations are required, NJB: “who con˜rm the word of my servant,”are useful translational models. In view of uncertainties, it seems di¯cult toidentify the servant in the translation. Some of the exegetical options might,however, be mentioned in a footnote.

45.9

Textual Decisions

In the ˜rst line M reads ycer“j', “pot(sherd)s,” “a pot(sherd) among thepot(sherd)s of clay,” whereas 1Q-a reads a plural participle of the verb vrj,yçrwj, probably meaning “those who plough (the soil).” M is supported bySym, V, S and T. 1Q-a, on the other hand, has the support of Th: ajrotriw'ntou;ı ajrotriw'ntaı th;n gh'n, “the plougher the ploughers of the soil,” and ofthe paraphrase in G: mh; oJ ajrotriw'n ajrotriavsei th;n gh'n… “Does not theplougher plough the soil?” Aq also seems to have read a v, but from his trans-lation keravmion su;n tevktosi cqonov", “a jar with workers of clay,” may be de-duced that he vocalized yver:j;, “workers.”

The committee considered the readings of 1Q-a, Th and G, “plougher(s),”as due to a harmonization with “soil,” and it considered the reading of Aq asthe result of an assimilation to the ˜rst half line. M got a C evaluation.


The change from c to v has ˜rst been proposed by Foreiro and, in moderntimes, it has been taken over by many exegetes (de Boer, Morgenstern). Theresult was a translation such as the one by Aq. Many recent translations didthe same, so e.g. (N)RSV: “(Woe to you who strive with your Maker,) earthenvessels with the potter!” and NEB, REB, LB, LV, C. A major argument for thechange was that the particle Ata, in the ˜rst half line is used with the meaning“with,” “to quarrel with,” and that it therefore should have the same meaningin the second half line. Since, however, a translation as that of KJ: “Let the pot-sherd strive with the potsherds of the earth” is devoid of any sense, the changeimposes itself. Not, of course, in the direction of 1Q-a, G and Th as in TOT:


“or the ploughed land with those who plough the soil?” since the image of theplougher does not ˜t into the context. But in the direction of Aq and RSV.

However, as Kutscher (238) has shown, the second half line, althoughclosely tied up with the ˜rst, is not its replica. It is therefore not to be excludedthat diˆerent meanings should be ascribed to the twice occurring particle Ata,.Since a potter makes pots, not “potsherds,” the meaning “pot” should, of course,be selected in the translation.


NJB can be quoted as a good example of translation of M: (Woe to anyonewho argues with his Maker, ) one earthenware pot among many!”

45.11

Textual Decisions

The ˜rst line of verse 11 in M ends with wOrx]yOw“, “his maker” and the secondline starts with the words ynIWla;v] twOYtiaoh;, “the things to come, ask them from me,”a reading which has the support of 1Q-b and V. 1Q-a reads the ˜rst word withscriptio plena and without y, connecting it not with the following word, butwith the preceding one, the last word of 11a. This word is also written plene,but without connecting particle and without possessive su¯x: twtwah rxwy. Thisyields the meaning: “who fashions the things to come” (Kutscher, 217). 1Q-ais supported exactly by G: oJ poihvsaı ta; ejpercovmena, “who has formed thethings which are to come.” S was judged to have interpreted twOYtiaoh; as “signs”and T presents a con˘ate reading but both versions follow the syntactical di-vision of M. Considering that “his maker” with reference to Israel is a usualexpression in Deutero Isaiah and that “he who fashions the things to come” isa rather unusual expression, the committee attributed a B vote to M.


The fact that exegetes have proposed readings which are not based on anytext does not facilitate the task of the translator. Ehrlich (166) had proposed toread ynIWla;v]Ti μT,a'h', “will you ask me . . . ?” and he has been followed in thisby Westermann and McKenzie as well as by NAB, NJV, RSV, NRSV: “Willyou question me (about my children)?” Driver (1933, 39) proposed a diˆerentdivision of the consonant text ynIWla}v]ti ytiaoh}, reading the emphatic accusative ofthe ˜rst person followed by the second person plural of the verb. His proposalhas been adopted in GNB, NEB and REB: “Would you dare question me (con-cerning my children)?”

How to interpret M, however, is less evident. One of the interpretationssince Gesenius and Rosenmüller has been that questioning about the future is

Isaiah 41–50 17745.16

allowed, but that the care for his children and for the work of his hands shouldbe left to God. Another exegesis is that all impertinent questions (and orders)are allowed (Leene, 194). The ˜rst interpretation seems to be the most plau-sible one.


BR is a good model for the rendering of such an interpretation: “Über denWeltlauf befraget mich! meine Söhne, das Werk meiner Hände müßt ihr mirentboten sein lassen,” “You can question me about the course of this world!You should leave me my sons, the work of my hands.”

45.16

Textual Decisions

According to M verse 16a ends with μL:-Ku, “all of them,” and verse 16bstarts with wD:j]y", “together.” The sequence of these two words is witnessed bythe second hand of 1Q-a which has written a w above the k, as well as by Th,Aq, V, S and T. The ˜rst hand of 1Q-a reads hmlk which could be consideredas a contextual assimilation to the noun hM;liK] which follows in 16b. The reallydeviating reading is the one by G: pavnteı oiJ ajntikeivmenoi aujtw' /, “all thosewho oppose him.” It has been suggested that G presupposes a Hebrew Vorlagewyr:j‘n<AlKo, “all who are angry with him.” The committee considered it, however,more likely that the translator of G would have assimilated his translation tothe one he had given of a similar context before, in 41.11a. M got therefore aC evaluation.


Köhler has been the ̃ rst to propose the Hebrew Vorlage of G and to emendM accordingly. He is still followed in this by McKenzie and others, and bysome recent translations (be it on slightly diˆerent textual bases) such as NAB:“who vent their anger against him “ and NEB: “Those who defy him.” In viewof the unreliable grounds, such a translation can hardly be recommended.

Remains the question whether the translator should respect the atnach in Mand render μL;Ku as the last word of verse 16a and wD:j]y" as the ˜rst word of 16bor whether he should freely displace the accent and take wD:j]y" μL;Ku as one ex-pression “all of them together.” Stylistically, arguments for both positions canbe put forward.



If the principles and procedures of translation prescribe a respect of theatnach, REB could be followed as a model: “All the makers of idols are con-founded and brought to shame, they perish in confusion together.” If, on theother hand, no binding rules with regard to the atnach have been formulated,and if the other stylistic option is preferred, translators could take NJB as anexample: “They are shamed and humbled, every one of them, humilated theygo, the makers of idols.”

47.3

Textual Decisions

In the last sentence of verse 3b M reads [G"p]a,, “I shall encounter,” “I shallnot encounter anyone,” a reading which has the support of 1Q-a and 1Q-b.4Q-d, on the other hand, reads [ygpa, a hiphil form, ['yGIp]a', the meaning of whichwill be discussed below. It is possible that G oujkevti mh; paradw' ajnqrwvpoi", “Iwill no more abandon (you?) to men,” is also based upon such a hiphil reading,for other forms of the verb paradivdwmi correspond with the hiphil of [gp in Gin 53.6 and 53.12. It cannot be decided whether Aq, S and T have read a qal ora hiphil form. On the other side, it is clear that Sym kai; oujk ajntisthvsetaiv moia[nqrwpo", “and nobody will resist me” and V “et non resistet mihi homo” haveeither read a third person qal [G"p]yI or, making a syntactical transformation, ren-dered the ˜rst person qal of M. The committee took the last view. Moreover,it considered the qal meaning the better one in the context and the reading of4Q-d due to a vocalization error. M therefore got a majority C vote.


The real problem is not a textual, but an interpretational one, and it con-cerns the meaning of the Hebrew verb. Since Rashi the last sentence of 3b hasbeen taken to mean that God would not use ordinary people for the executionof his judgment of Babel. This interpretation is still found in TOB: “et je n’au-rai pas recours à un homme,” “I will not have recourse to a man.” Most modernexegetes ascribe to the hiphil of [gp the meaning “to spare” and render accord-ingly “I will spare no one.” So with slightly diˆerent wordings RSV, NRSV,NIV, REB, GrN. Other interpretations (Ibn Ezra, de Boer, Beuken) however aremore likely. If the hiphil of [gp means “to intercede,” “to resist,” the qal canexpress the behavior by which someone faces such an opposition. In other words,it could mean: “I do not accept the intercession of anybody” or “I will not meetthe resistance of anybody.” These last meanings should be preferred.

Isaiah 41–50 17947.4


The following translations could be taken as models: “And (I) let no manintercede” (NJV); “I will yield to no entreaty” (NAB). If the stylistic transfor-mation of Sym and V, “I will not meet the resistance of anybody,” is preferred,translators could render as in GNB: “and no one will stop me.”

47.4

Textual Decisions

Verse 4 starts in M with Wnlea}GO, “our redeemer,” a reading con˜rmed by1Q-a, 1Q-b, Th, Aq, Sym, V, S and T. The Greek evidence is divided. A num-ber of manuscripts read eij 'pen oJ rJusavmenovı se, “says he who saves you,” areading which has been considered to be based upon a Hebrew Vorlage rm"a;Wnlea}GO, “says our redeemer.” Other manuscripts, among which the ˜rst hand ofcodex Sinaiticus, do not have a verb of saying. Moreover, not all manuscriptscontaining a verb of saying read eij 'pen. Some read levgei which could indicatethat the addition of a verb is a secondary development in the textual traditionof G (against Ziegler). In view of this textual situation, half of the committeevoted A and the other half B for M.


According to Volz and others an original rm'a; was lost in M by haplo-graphy with the last word of verse 3: μd:a;, whereas for Duhm and others μd:a;simply was a writing error for rm'a;. The ˜rst hypothesis would be backed up byG. Only four modern translations follow G in this respect: NAB, NEB (accord-ing to the footnote in the OT edition of 1970), REB and NJB. They are never-theless not identical, since NAB, NEB and REB connect the verb of saying withthe preceding discourse (REB: “. . . says our Redeemer, the Holy One of Is-rael, whose name is the Lord of Hosts”) and NJB with the following one: “Ourredeemer, Yahweh Sabaoth is his name, the Holy One of Israel, says: . . . .” Itshould be observed that, without any verb of saying, part of the classical Tibe-rian manuscripts of M connect verse 4 with the preceding discourse and an-other part with the following.

Translators may feel the need to use as in G a verb of saying in order toidentify or identify again the speaker. They should only do so on translationaland not on textual grounds (compare FC). They may, however, also take verse4 as a kind of intermezzo or interjection between discourses. This seems to bealready the interpretation in 1Q-a which leaves two blank spaces before andafter the verse. NIV, GNB, GN and GrN suggest this interpretation.


180 48.1


The interjection could be formulated as in GNB: “The Holy God of Israelsets us free—his name is the Lord Almighty.”

48.1

Textual Decisions

The last sentence of verse 1b starts in M with yMemiW

, “and from the waters,”“and have issued from the waters of Judah.” This reading is supported by 1Q-a,the hexaplaric recensions, V and S. Fourty medieval manuscripts of M readymymw

which is a simple graphical error. G reads kai;

oiJ

ejx

Iouda

ejxelqovnte"

,“who have sprung from Judah,” dropping the image and rendering the mean-ing, whereas T by rendering “from the seed of Judah” interprets the metaphor.This textual evidence led to a B vote for M.


A literal translation of M as still provided in NJB and NJV does not makeany sense. For that reason, translators frequently turned to Secker’s conjecture(in Lowth) to read y[eM]mi

, “from the loins,” “and who came forth from the loinsof Judah” (RSV, NRSV). This conjecture still has success (McKenzie

e.a.

), andit is attractive for two reasons: (1) it is con˜rmed by 1Q-a in 39.7, and (2) it cre-ates an

inclusio

with verse 19 of this chapter. Unfortunately, it is not con˜rmedby any textual witness in 48.1, where therefore M will have to be translated.

The metaphor of M could stand for “seed” (de Boer, Bonnard) in spite ofthe objections by many commentators that such a meaning is only attested forlate Hebrew. Rashi quotes the parallel of Numbers 24.7.


Depending upon the use or non-use of euphemisms translations could sim-ply state “you that are descended from Judah” (GNB) or “(who) have sprungfrom the seed of Judah” (REB).

48.11

Textual Decisions

In the second half line of 11a M reads lj;yE

, “it be profaned,” how shouldit be profaned?” a reading which is only supported by secondary Targum manu-scripts. All three existing Qumran manuscripts, 1Q-a, 4Q-c and 4Q-d, read ljya

,“I be profaned,” “how should I be profaned?” and this is also the reading of V,S and the original Targum, preserved in the manuscripts Reuchlin and Urbi-

Isaiah 41–50

18148.14A

nates 1. G has o{ti

to;

ejmo;n

o[noma

bebhlou'tai

, because my name is profaned,”exegetically providing an explicit subject of the third person masc. sing. verbof M. The committee considered that the joint evidence of three Qumran man-uscripts could be original and that M could be explained as a theological cor-rection to avoid a profanation of God. The Qumran reading therefore got amajority C vote.


Since Lowth till McKenzie many commentators have based themselves onG, either presuming that G to;

ejmo;n

o[noma

re˘ected an original Hebrew

Vor-lage

ymiv]

, or presuming that ymiv]

of verse 9 could still act as the implicit sub-ject of the verb in 11, and had, therefore, been made explicit in G (Rignell,Schoors). So it is not amazing that in slightly diˆerent wordings G, or G’s exe-gesis of M, has been rendered in most modern versions: “for why should myname be profaned?” (RSV, NRSV, REB, NJB, NJV, GNB, FC, GrN, GN).

Although such a reading can still be considered possible, and may even beattractive in projects involving daughter versions of the Septuagint, translatorsare nevertheless encouraged to follow the Qumran evidence with a minority ofrecent translations.


Translations as NAB: “Why should I suˆer profanation?” and NIV: “Howcan I let myself be defamed?” can serve as models.

48.14A

Textual Decisions

In the second sentence of 14a M reads μh,b;

, “among them,” whereas fortymanuscripts of M have the reading μk,b;

, “among you.” The ˜rst reading has thesupport of 4Q-d, V and part of the witnesses of T, especially of codex Reuchlin;the second reading is supported by S and other witnesses of T, among whichmanuscript Urbinates 1. The reading of the second person plural clearly is anharmonization with the second person plural of the ˜rst sentence: “Assembleall of you and listen.” In fact, 1Q-a and G which support M in the second sen-tence, harmonize in the ˜rst sentence by reading third person plurals through-out. The harmonizations into both directions seem to prove that the contrast ofM is original. So M got a B evaluation.


182 48.14B


From Houbigant to Muilenburg the second person plural reading has beendefended and it has been taken over in many modern versions like NEB, REB,NJV, NAB, FC. The harmonization is, however, unjusti˜ed, since it wouldeliminate a semantically important contrast. The second person plural of the˜rst sentence marks Jacob and Israel of verse 12 as the addressees, whereas thethird person plural of the second sentence “among them,” refers to the “gods,”hinted at in verse 11. Although some modern versions such as RSV, NRSVand NJB correctly maintain the contrast, a literal translation cannot convey thisinformation. Some degree of explicitness seems to be obligatory.


NIV is a good example of such explicitness: “Which of the idols has fore-told these things?” See also GNB, E

Ü

and GrN.

48.14B

Textual Decisions

In 14b M reads wO[roz“W

, “and his arm,” “against Babel and his arm (against)the Chaldeans,” whereas 1Q-a omits the conjunction

waw

possibly interpret-ing: “against Babel of which the Chaldeans are the arm.” M is supported by Vand T. G reads tou'

aj'rai

spevrma

Caldaivwn

, “to abolish the seed of the Chald-eans,” a reading which goes back to a vocalization [r"z<

, “seed.” G is followed inthis by S which most probably is dependent upon G in this case. The commit-tee considered both the readings of 1Q-a and G as facilitations and it attributeda C evaluation to M.


Driver (1958, 47–48) proposed the vocalization W[r“zOw“

, “and shall be scat-tered,” a conjecture taken over by NEB and REB: “and the Chaldeans shall/willbe scattered.” Such a meaning is, however, quite uncertain. Many recent trans-lations (NJB, NAB, E

Ü

, TOB) render in slightly diˆerent wording according tothe Greek: “against Babylon and the progeny of Chaldea,” no doubt becauseof the strong scholarly support of this reading and the imperative

lege

in BHS.Although this reading makes good sense, the more di¯cult reading of M willhave to be rendered.

Diˆerent interpretations of M remain possible. wO[roz“W

could, for example,be taken as an adverbial accusative as in NJV: “And, with His might, againstChaldea.” It can also be taken as subject with ellipsis of the verb: “and his armwill be against the Chaldeans” (so RSV, NRSV and NIV). The arm will then

Isaiah 41–50

18349.12

most probably be the arm of God and a metaphor for power. This last inter-pretation may be preferred.


FC solves conveniently the rendering of the metaphor and the problem ofellipsis: “

et fera sentir mon pouvoir aux Babyloniens

,”

“and he (

i.e.

Cyrus) willlet the Babylonians feel my power.”

49.12

Textual Decisions

The last word of the verse in M is the proper name μynIysi

, “Sinim,” the landof Sinim,” whereas 1Q-a has the spelling μyynws

. M is supported by the hexa-plaric columns (with the exception of G) and by S. The other versions are ex-planatory in diˆerent ways, G reading (ejk

gh'"

) Persw'n

, “(from the land of the)Persians,” and V and T “(from the land of the) south.” The committee consid-ered M as due to a graphical error and it attributed a C evaluation to the readingof 1Q-a which attests the spelling of the proper name “people of Syene,” knownfrom the Elephantine papyri (Cowley, 24.33).


Last century exegesis saw in M a reference to the Chinese (!), but theynever found their way into any translation. Some modern versions (NJB, NJV,E

Ü

, GrN) stay prudently with M, but there no longer seems to be any reasonfor doing so. 1Q-a con˜rms the correction already proposed by Michaelis (1780,32–42) and adopted by Marti (330) and—since the Qumran discoveries—ac-cepted by almost everybody. Sewen, known to the Greeks as Syene, correspondsto modern Assouan, the district on the southern border of ancient Egypt. In fact,for the prophet it could represent the southern limits of the civilized world. Thereading of G (the Persians) is considered by Seeligmann (79) as an actualiza-tion, but it is not impossible that in the time of the Greek translator it was stillknown that Assouan had been a Persian military colony.


Translators could either select the proper name “Syene” (RSV, NRSV, NEB,REB, NAB) and add a textual or interpretational note or they could actualizeand render: “(region of) Aswan” (NIV, GNB, TOB). In view of the directionsmentioned in this verse (North, West) they might want to specify, adding: “theextreme south of Egypt” (GN, compare FC).


184 49.17

49.17

Textual Decisions

This verse contains two problems which because of their connection aretreated together:

(1) The second word reads in M ËyIn:B;, “your sons,” a reading which is con-˜rmed by Sym, S and the Targum text as it is found in the ˜rst two rabbinicBibles. On the other hand, 1Q-a has the reading ˚ynwb, to be understood as ËyIn"Bo,“your builders,” a reading supported by the ˜rst hand of the Petrograd manu-script of the prophets, G, Th and Aq (according to the commentary attributedto Chrysostom, and only preserved in Armenian), V and the original text of T,preserved in the Antwerp polyglot and in manuscript Urbinates 1.

(2) The third word reads in M ËyIs'r“h;m], “your destroyers,” a reading alsowitnessed by Sym, V, S and T. 1Q-a, on the other side, reads ˚ysrwhm whichmost probably should not be considered as a phonetic variant of M (Kutscher,56 and 496), but vocalized as ËyIs'r“home, “(more) than your destroyers.” 1Q-a hasthe support of G and Aq.

In both instances the committee considered M as due to contextual assim-ilation, and it attributed a C evaluation to 1Q-a. Major arguments were (a) tex-tual: G and Aq can only be based upon a misunderstanding of 1Q-a with regardto the comparitive meaning of “min,” and (b) grammatical and syntactical: thepiel use of srh is an exception and the qal use the normal one, and the ̃ rst verbof the sentence Wrh}mi, “they hasten” is normally used in combination with a verbof action of which the speed is quali˜ed.


Jewish translations up to the present have traditionally rendered M (soBR, NJV, Chouraqui). Christian versions rarely did so, at least with regard tothe ˜rst textual problem. The few recent exceptions are TOT, NAV, GrN, SRand NIV: “Your sons hasten back, and those who laid you waste depart fromyou.” It has sometimes been suggested that M would contain a double enten-dre: the builders are the sons (Bonnard, Koole). Such an ambiguity is, how-ever, hard to prove and it could only be described in a footnote as in TOB.

Most recent translations (NJB, NAB, GNB, EÜ, GN, FC, TOB) seem tofollow 1Q-a in the case of the ˜rst textual problem, and M as to the second ase.g. in NAB: “Your rebuilders make haste, as those who tore you down and laidyou waste go forth from you.” Translators are, however, encouraged to follow1Q-a in both cases with a minority of contemporary versions (RSV, NRSV,NEB, REB).

Isaiah 41–50 18549.21


NRSV could act as a good model: “Your builders outdo your destroyers,and those who laid you waste go away from you.” In interconfessional Bibleprojects with Jewish participation a note as in NRSV could mention the varianttranslation “Your children come swiftly; your destroyers and those who laid youwaste go away from you.”

49.21

Textual Decisions

In the second line of verse 21 Sion quali˜es itself in M as hr:Wsw“ hl;GO, “ex-iled and removed,” a reading con˜rmed by Th, Aq, Sym, V, S and T. The pres-ence of these two words is also attested in 1Q-a which reads, however, hlwgwhrsw , adding a conjunction to the ˜rst word and most probably correcting thesecond word into an active qal participle (Kutscher, 350). In G, on the otherhand, both words are lacking. The committee considered the reading of 1Q-aas a syntactical facilitation. In view of the presence of both words in 1Q-a a Cevaluation was attributed to M.


Ruben (quoted in Cheyne) saw in both Hebrew words hr:Wsw“ hl;GO a dittog-raphy of the preceding word hd:Wml]g"w“, “barren.” In that case, the words are notlacking in G because of ignorance of the translator with regard to their mean-ing (Ziegler, 55), but because they did not ˜gure in the Vorlage of G. Ruben’shypothesis is not impossible, especially since it is strengthened by other argu-ments such as metrical irregularity and the fact that Sion itself was not exiled(Duhm, 338).

Although both words in M may be the result of a literary developmentstarting from a dittography, their presence in 1Q-a shows that they were al-ready part of the literary content of the Hebrew Isaiah in the second centuryBC. It may therefore be wise not to omit them as has been done in some ver-sions (Moˆatt, NEB, REB). One could, of course, put them between paren-theses as in NAB if unambiguous procedures for the use of these have beendeveloped.


GNB can be used as a model by translators: “I was exiled and drivenaway.”

A Handbook on Isaiah186 50.11A

50.11A

Textual Decisions

The second half of the ̃ rst line of M reads yrEZ“a'm], “those who provide them-selves,” “those who provide themselves with ˜rebrands.” This reading has thesupport of 1Q-a, 1Q-b and V. It may, indirectly, also be supported by G if itsreading kai; katiscuvete (˘flovga), “and you feed—literally “strengthen”—(a˘ame)” can be considered as a translation of M in˘uenced by Arabic azara III(Schultens, 1769, 105–106). S, on the other hand, reads ylzW\gmw, “and whoset alight (˜re brands)” which could represent a Hebrew Vorlage yrEyaim]. Noth-ing can be concluded from the midrash given by T. In view of its strong attes-tation, M got a B evaluation.


In the traces of Secker several commentators up till Koole (110) havetaken the reading yrEyaim] as the Hebrew Vorlage of S and they have emended Maccordingly. So also RSV, NRSV: “lighters of ˜rebrands,” NEB, REB and EÜ.It remains, however, questionable whether S really found such a reading in itsVorlage. The use of the same Syriac verb as in the second half line of 11b forthe Hebrew verb r[b could just as well be the result of a contextual harmoni-zation. Such a harmonization also occurs in the allusion to this text found inthe Qumran-based Damascus document CD 5.13: twqyz yr[bmw ça yjdq, “(all)kindlers of ˜re and setters-alight of ˜rebrands” (Rabin, 20, note 4). Even ifonly on these grounds, a rendering of M seems to be preferable.

Several hypotheses have been made as to the meaning of M: (1) the mean-ing of yrEZ“a'm] is the same as that of μT,r“['Bi in 11b to which it is chiastically re-lated: “set alight” (Abulwalid) ; (2) it means “surrounding the glowing emberswith combustibles to stir up the ˜re” (Yefet ben Ely); (3) M could have themore general meaning of “provide oneself with.” In the ˜rst case the problemis only exegetical and no longer textual.


If meaning (2) is rendered, TOB could serve as a model: “qui formez un cer-cle de brandons,” “you who make a circle of ˜rebrands.” If meaning (3) is pre-ferred, NJB could be used as an example: “and arm yourselves with ˜rebrands.”

Isaiah 41–50 18750.11B

50.11B

Textual Decisions

In the second line of this verse M reads rWaB], “in the ˘ame of,” “in the˘ame of your (own) ˜re,” a reading supported by T. On the other hand, G withtw' / fwtiv, “in the light of,” V with in lumine and also S with arhzb haveclearly read a vocalization rwOaB], “in the light of.” 1Q-a, of course, does notprovide any information as to the vocalization. The committee considered themeaning of M contextually more appropriate but it attributed only a C evalu-ation to M because of its weak attestation.


Most probably under the in˘uence of V, Geneva Bible and KJ, many En-glish translations (RSV, REB, NAB, NJB, NIV) have: “walk by the light ofyour (own) ˜re.” They therefore seem to interpret the text like Calvin as an“ironical permission.” However, if M is rendered, it is more likely that it con-tains an announcement of doom: “those who have started the ˜re will be caughtby it” (Whybray, 154). One could then only hesitate whether such an announce-ment is only suggestive (NRSV, NEB) or direct (EÜ, GN, GrN, FC).


If the covered interpretation is preferred, NEB could serve as an example:“go, walk into your own ˜re.” If translators would endorse a more explicitstatement, FC is a good model: “voici ce qui vous attend: les ˘ammes de votrepropre feu,” “see what lies ahead of you: the ˘ames of your own ˜re.”

188

6

I S A I A H 5 1 – 6 0

51.4

Textual Decisions

In the ˜rst line of verse 4 M reads the singular nominal forms yMiWal]W yMi[',“my people and my nation,” “listen to me, my people; hear me, my nation.” Itis supported in this by 1Q-a, 1Q-b, V and T. In addition, the ˜rst singular formhas the support of G and the second one the support of Th, Aq and Sym. Anumber of Hebrew manuscripts, on the other hand, read the plurals μymwalw μym[,“peoples and nations,” “listen to me, peoples and nations hear me.” This read-ing is con˜rmed by S and, only for the second noun, by G. The remarkablereading oiJ basilei'", “kings,” found in the last version seems to be based ona rabbinic lexicographical tradition manifested in the Targum of Genesis andIsaiah (Seeligmann, 51). The committee considered the singular μaol] as lectiodi¯cilior and both plurals as assimilation to the plurals in verses 4b and 5.The result was a B evaluation of M.


From Lowth till McKenzie many commentators have adopted the pluralnouns, mainly because of the rare use of the singular μaol] and the fact that theplural of this word usually refers to the other nations. They frequently ex-plained M as due to abbreviation. Their view has had little impact on recenttranslations since it has only been taken over in RL and EÜ.

Other commentators, from Duhm to Beuken, correctly remarked that thesingular μaol] is elsewhere used for Israel (Gen 25.23; Prov. 11.26; 14.28) andthat the remainder of the verse speaks about the nations and is not addressedto them. A translation of the singular forms seems therefore to be indicated.

Isaiah 51– 60

Isaiah 51– 60 18951.16


The translation could run as follows: “Pay attention to me, my people,listen to me, my nation” (NJB).

51.16

Textual Decisions

The second line of this verse starts in M with ["fon“li, “to plant” or “plant-ing,” “planting the heavens,” a reading which is also attested by 1Q-a, G, Aq,Sym and V. On the other hand, S, by rendering tjtmd, “to stretch out” seemsto be based on a form tfon“li. The elaborate midrash of T cannot be used for tex-tual purposes. The committee considered the reading of S as an assimilation tothe usual verb hfn found in 51.13 and other contexts, and it attributed a ma-jority A evaluation to M.


The fact that the metaphor of M is very unusual led many scholars sinceHoubigant to opt for the usual one which is behind the reading of S. Manymodern versions did the same (RSV, NRSV, GNB, NJB, NAB, RL, EÜ, GN,FC). An eôrt should, however, be made to render M. A literal translation ofthe ˜gurative meaning as in TOB and NJV, “I, who planted the skies,” may notbe possible. Therefore, the metaphor may have to be replaced by a diêrentbut equivalent metaphor of the receptor language, or a demetaphorization mayhave to be applied, as in NIV, NEB, REB and GrN.

There are further complications with regard to the translation of the inñi-tive construction. Translators will have to decide whether the reference is to thecreation of the universe in the past (so most translations) or to a new act ofcreation in the future (so Luther 1545 and C).


NEB and its restructuring of the text may be a useful example: “. . . that Imight ˜x the heavens in place and form the earth and say to Zion, ‘You are mypeople.’ ”

51.19

Textual Decisions

The second line of this verse ends in M with Ëmej}n"a} ymi, literally: “who—should I comfort you?” whereas 1Q-a reads ˚mjny ym, “who will comfort you?”M only has the support of T: ana ˆyhla ˚ynmjnyd tyl, “there is none that will


comfort you but I.” G, Sym, V and S have a third person masculine singularlike 1Q-a. Since the variant assimilates to the parallel at the end of the ̃ rst line:Ël; dWny: ymi, “who can console you?” and is therefore facilitating, the committeegave a C evaluation to M in spite of its almost total isolation.


Since Foreiro the correction of a in y has generally been taken over byexegetes and translators. If, however M has to be rendered, its meaning has tobe determined. Three possibilities could be considered. (1) The rhetorical ques-tion could be rendered as “by whom should I comfort you?” an interpretationdefended by Rashi and Ibn Ezra and interpreted by them in the following way:which example could I mention of a people which has been treated in the sameway as you? This exegesis has been taken over in StV and Chouraqui. (2) Therhetorical question could be translated with: “how shall I comfort you?” Thisinterpretation, proposed by Levy and Beuken, can be found in NJV, NV andGrN. (3) The rhetorical question could be understood to mean: “who am I thatI could comfort you?” i.e. “upon what grounds could I console you?” Such aninterpretation is followed in SR. Of the three possibilities the ˜rst one mightbe preferred.


If preference is given to the ˜rst possibility of interpretation, Chouraquican be used as a model: “Par qui te réconforterais-je?” “By whom could Icomfort you?”

51.23

Textual Decisions

The ˜rst line of the verse ends in M with ËyIg"wOm, “your tormentors,” “I willput it into the hands of your tormentors,” whereas in 1Q-a one ˜nds a doublet:˚yn[mw ˚ygwm (ËyIN"['m]W ËyIg"wOm), “your tormentors and your oppressors.” The readingof M is most probably supported by Aq, Sym, S and, indirectly, by V. Thereading of 1Q-a has the support of 4Q176 and of G: tw'n ajdikhsavntwn se kai;tw'n tapeinwsavntwn se, “them that injured you and them that a˙icted you.”T by reading ˚yl ˆnwm wwhd, “them that were oppressing you” seems to be basedupon a graphical error. One member of the committee voted B for M assumingthat the doublet in Qumran and G was a gloss not yet known by M. The othersattributed a C evaluation to the reading of Qumran and G considering that thesecond word had been eliminated in M by homoioteleuton.

Isaiah 51– 60 19152.2A


Already Duhm (350–351) and Marti (342) had proposed to adopt the dou-blet of G and this may be the reason why it is found in one English translation:“I hand it to your torturers, to those who harrowed you” (Moˆatt). After theQumran discoveries, Ziegler (1959, 42) signaled this reading common to 1Q-aand G, and adopted it in his translation (1948). BHS expresses hesitations as tosuch an adoption just like most recent commentators. It is not particularly clearwhy some of the last ones consider the textual arguments for the adoption tobe weak (Koole, 168). This may explain why the doublet is absent from allmodern translations with the exception of NEB.


NEB could be followed: “I will give it instead to your tormentors andoppressors.”

52.2A

Textual Decisions

In the ˜rst line of the verse M reads ybI¡V] the accentuation of which clearlyindicates an imperative: “sit,” namely “on your throne.” This reading is sup-ported by G, V S and T. 1Q-a reads ybçw , and the added, syntactically facili-tating conjunction w shows that the form was understood as an imperative. 4Q176reads ybwç, an assimilation to the form of the preceding imperative ymiWq, pro-ducing a meaning “return” which is contextually rather impossible. The strongattestation of M engendered a B evaluation.


Duhm (351) proposed to correct ybiV] into hY:biv], “captive,” the word foundin the parallel position of the second line of the verse. He has been followed inthis by many commentators and recent translations such as RSV, NRSV, NJB.

Other commentators such as Radaq and Gesenius did not make any cor-rections, but they understood ybiv] to mean “captivity.” Such an interpretationmay be the background of translations like RL, EÜ, TOB and BR.

Against such an interpretation it has been remarked that the noun ybiv] ismasculine and that it therefore cannot be related to the preceding feminine im-perative. So the verb of M has to be rendered. As has been noted (Dahood,1958, 43–44), the two lines of verse 2 witness the same kind of play uponwords between bçy, “sit,” and ybç, “captivity,” as in Jer 20.6.



GNB oˆers a good example: “Shake yourself free, Jerusalem! Rise fromthe dust and sit on your throne!”

52.2B

Textual Decisions

The ˜rst word of the second line in M reads in the ketiv WjT]P't]hi, “they areloosed,” “the bonds are loosed,” whereas it reads in the qere yjiT]P't]hi, “loose,”“loose the bonds.” The ketiv has the support of 1Q-a and T, the qere of 4Q176,G, Th, Aq, Sym, V and S. The committee attributed a majority C evaluation tothe ketiv on the basis of two arguments: (1) the fact that in the second line thesecond word is not connected with the preposition ˆmi favors the reading of theketiv; (2) the qere can be interpreted as a contextual harmonization with the im-peratives of the ˜rst line.


The vast majority of commentators opts for the qere reading so that, notamazingly, this also is the reading of the great majority of modern versions:RSV, NRSV, GNB, NIV, NJV etc.: “Free yourself from the chains on yourneck” (NIV). The ketiv reading, however, is recommended, and it announces thegood news of the consequences of Cyrus’s politics: “your bonds are loosed,”which should then be considered as the base of the imperative statements of the˜rst line.


NJB could be followed as example: “The chains have fallen from yourneck . . . .”

52.5

Textual Decisions

M reads Wlyliyhey“ wl;v]mo, which could either mean “its rulers wail” or “its rul-ers howl in triumph,” whereas 1Q-a reads wllwhw wlçm, which could be vocal-ized as Wll}wOhw“ Wlv]m; and may therefore mean: “they made up a proverb and madean object of derision” (Rignell, 77) i.e. “they made ridiculous by proverbs.” Mis supported by Th and Sym: ojloluvzousin, “they howl,” and—according toEusebius and con˜rmed by Jerome—by Aq: dakruvousin, “they weep,” by Gojloluvzete, “howl,” and by S and T. The rendering of V inique agunt, “they

Isaiah 51– 60 19352.15

act unjustly,” does not permit drawing any conclusions as to its Vorlage. Thestrong support of M motivated the majority C vote in favor of it.


Of modern versions only NIV seems to re˘ect an active vocalization of1Q-a: “and those who rule them mock.” NEB seems to base itself (with inter-pretation of the w as y) on a passive vocalization of 1Q-a: WlL]huy“, given its ren-dering “their rulers derided.” One should, however, with all other translationsrender M. The main problem of translation is interpretational and the interpre-tation of the verb is conditioned to a large extent by the identi˜cation of the“rulers.” If these are identi˜ed with the leaders of Israel (Saadya and Ibn Ezra),they are likely to “wail” (RSV, REB); if, on the other hand, they are identi˜edwith the Babylonian oppressors (most modern commentators), they most proba-bly “howl in triumph” (NJB, NJV, TOB, FC, GrN). M has also been taken tomean “to boast” (NAB, GNB, RL, EÜ, GN), following the Targumic interpre-tation of M.


If translators identify the rulers with the rulers of Israel, REB can be used asan example: “My people carried oˆ and no price paid, their rulers wailing . . . .”If they identify the rulers with the Babylonian oppressors, NJB can be taken asa model: “my people have been carried oˆ for nothing, their masters howl intriumph . . . .”

52.15

Textual Decisions

In M the verb of the ˜rst sentence reads hZ<y", “he will sprinkle,” a readingwhich—with the same or with a diˆerent interpretation—is supported by 1Q-a,1Q-b, Th, Aq, Sym, V, S and T. G, on the other hand, reads qaumavsontai,“they will marvel,” “so many nations will marvel at him.” It was consideredthat the translator of G also at other occasions (52.5) used this verb when themeaning of a Hebrew verb escapes him. In addition, the Greek verb creates aparallel with verse 14, so that contextual assimilation may be seen as anotherreason for its choice. A diˆerent Vorlage of G was considered as rather im-probable. The committee was divided between an A and B evaluation of M.


Many modern translations—not all of them noticing the fact—follow G(NJB, NEB, REB, GNB, TOB, FC, GN, GrN). There is, however, no objective


argument for doing so. Nor can it be recommended to adopt one of the numer-ous text changes which have been proposed. Translators should therefore try torender M in spite of its notorious di¯culty.

If one disregards the many metaphorical interpretations which have beengiven of the Hebrew verb and which are all of them far-fetched, two possibili-ties remain:

(1) The ritual meaning of “to sprinkle” as in NIV and RL. In spite of syn-tactical problems, Delitzsch (514) has rightly argued that the construction of ahiphil of hzn with the accusative of the person sprinkled remains possible.

(2) A meaning “to startle” in the light of the cognate Arabic root naza(RSV, NRSV, NAB, NJV). In spite of what is said above, even G might bebased on this meaning as qaumavzein is certainly the result of “to startle.”


If the ˜rst meaning is rendered, NIV can be used as an example: “so willhe sprinkle many nations.” It may be necessary to explain in a footnote theritual character of “cleansing” and/or “consecration.” If the last meaning ischosen, NAB can be taken: “So shall he startle many nations.”

53.8

Textual Decisions

M reads at the end of the verse wOml; [g"n<, “an a˙iction for him/them,” a read-ing which has the support of 1Q-b, 4Q-d, Sym, Th, Aq, V and T. The correctedtext of 1Q-a reads wml [gwn, which could be vocalized as wOml; [G"Wn, “a˙icted forthem,” whereas the reading of G h[cqh eijı qavnaton, “he was led to death,” pre-supposes—in spite of the verbal equivalent taken from verse 7—a HebrewVorlage tw<M;l' [G"nU, “stricken to death.” In spite of its single attestation the com-mittee attributed a C evaluation to this Hebrew Vorlage, because 1Q-a in itsopinion presented an intermediary textual state in which the verbal form [gwnhad not yet been corrected into a nominal one, but in which the t of twm hadalready been lost by accidental mutilation.


Only very few translations render the nominal form of M (TOB, BR, NV).Mostly, without noticing it, they translate in fact the verbal form of 1Q-a. So,with minor variations, RSV, NRSV, NAB, NIV, RL: “for the transgression ofmy people he was stricken.” Translators are, however, encouraged to renderthe Hebrew Vorlage of G with the vast majority of modern commentators andmodern translations (NJB, NEB, REB, GNB, EÜ, GN, FC, GrN).

Isaiah 51– 60 19553.9

In many modern translations the question whether in the same sentenceyMi[', “my people” (M) or wm[ (1Q-a corrected text) “his people” should be ren-dered, is handled as a textual problem. In fact, the di¯culty is far more inter-pretational and its solution depends upon the identi˜cation of the speaker: apagan ruler speaking about his own people (Barthélemy, 399), God himself orthe prophet (Koole, 248). The last identi˜cation could be preferred.


REB can be considered as a good translational model: “stricken to deathfor my people’s transgression.”

53.9

Textual Decisions

At the end of the ˜rst line M has the reading wyt;moB], “in his deaths,” a pluralwhich is only con˜rmed by the plural context in T. 1Q-a, on the other hand,reads wtmwb, most probably derived from tm,Bo, “tumulus,” “his tumulus.” G: ajnti;tou' qanavtou aujtou', “for his death,” V pro morte sua and S htWmb, all hadthe singular wOtmoB] in mind. The committee considered the readings of G, V, andS as facilitating translations, the readings of both M and T as midrashic, andit attributed a C evaluation to the reading of 1Q-a.


M has only been rendered in one Jewish translation (BR). The facilitatingsingular reading “and with the rich in his death” is only found in a few modernversions (RSV, NIV, NJV). The vast majority of modern interpreters and trans-lations (NRSV, NJB, NEB, REB, NAB, GNB etc.) follow 1Q-a.

Already Lowth (quoting Jubb) was of the opinion that Hebrew lexicog-raphy confounded hmb (plural: twmb) meaning “cult place” and twmb (plural:μytwmb) meaning “tumulus.” 1Q-a still clearly distinguishes the two meaningsby its orthography and it con˜rms the opinion of Bauer-Leander (597h’) whoconsidered ytem’Bê; to be the plural construct of a singular tm,Bo. In other words, theMasoretic vocalization and the dictionaries later on, confounded hm;B; and tm,bo,a word now discovered in 1Q-a.


NRSV is a suitable model for translators: “They made his grave with thewicked and his tomb with the rich.”


53.10

Textual Decisions

In the ˜rst half line of the verse M reads ylij‘h, which can be taken to mean“he made sick.” G th'ı plhgh'", “of the plague,” Aq to; ajrrwvsthma, “the ill-ness,” Sym ejn tw/' traumatismw' /, “by wounding,” and V in in˜rmitate, “in sick-ness,” all seem to have read a noun ylij’h,. From the writing of 4Q-d: yljh cannotbe concluded whether a verb or a noun has been read. 1Q-a, on the other hand,reads whlljyw , clearly substituting the verb hlj of M by the verb llj, “towound,” in order to create an agreement with verse 5 (Kutscher, 236). S hasinterpreted the word as an in˜nitive like the preceding word and the midrashof T is of no help for the textual case. The committee, considering 1Q-a andS as contextual assimilations and the noun reading of the other versions as syn-tactical facilitations, gave a C evaluation to M.


Begrich (1963, 64), followed by others, lately by Westermann (205), pro-posed to emend M to μc;Ata, μylij‘h,, “and healed him who had made (himself asacri˜ce to sin).” This conjecture, which also ˜gures in the apparatus of BHS,has been taken over in a number of modern translations (NEB, REB, EÜ, FC).

Other recent versions, staying closer to M, followed the way of syntacticalfacilitation by reading a noun: “(to crush him) with pain” (NRSV, NJB) or “tocrush him by disease” (NJV).

It is, however, not necessary to keep the global “sadistic nuance” of cur-rent translations that it would be God’s good pleasure to “crush him with pain”(Barthélemy, 402). The verbal clause of M ylij‘h, can be taken as a relative clauseof which the preceding word wOaK]D", “the crushed one, him,” is the antecedent.This relative clause has the function to make “him” explicit: “The Lord ap-proved of his oppressed servant whom he had put to grief.” The same inter-pretation of the Hebrew verbal clause is found in BR.

Proposal of Translation

See above.

53.11

Textual Decisions

In the ˜rst half line M reads ha,r“yI, “he will see,” without object. This read-ing, according to ˜eld, is also attributed to Th, Aq, and Sym in the Barberinimanuscript. It is certainly con˜rmed by V, S and T. On the other hand, 1Q-a,

Isaiah 51– 60 19753.12

1Q-b and 4Q-d have in addition to the verb the object rwa, “light,” “he will seelight,” and this reading is supported by G. The committee considered that notonly text types diêrent from M such as 1Q-a, 1Q-d and the Vorlage of G,but also 1Q-b which is esteemed to be a pre-Masoretic text type, all oêr thesame reading. It therefore judged it likely that M had either been subject to anaccident or to a correction of theological nature. For this reason a majority Bvote was given to the text of Qumran.


A rendering of the verb “to see” without object is, of course, quite impos-sible and has with the notable exception of BR and Chouraqui, not been at-tempted. The few translations which still render M try to ñd a possible objectin the immediate context which they then make explicit. So RSV “fruit,” “heshall see the fruit (of the travail of his soul),” or TOB “descendants,” “il verraune descendance.” The ambiguous, indeñite, object “it” of older translationsis sometimes retained in recent versions, and explained in a footnote. So NJV,based on emendation: “he shall see it” (i.e. the arm of the Lord).

With the vast majority of commentators and translators (NJB, NRSV, NAB,REB, RL, EÜ, GN, GrN) the reading of Qumran should be followed. If themetaphor “light” is not transparent, “life” and “joy” can serve as objects ofcomparison.


NIV could possibly be a good model for translation: “he will see the lightof life and be satis˜ed.” Both objects of comparison can sometimes be com-bined as in FC: “mon serviteur jouira de la vie,” “my servant will enjoy life.”

53.12

Textual Decisions

In the last line of this verse M reads μy[iv]Pol'w“, “and for the transgressors,”“and he interceded for the transgressors,” a reading which is supported by V,S and T, and, according to Pseudo-Chrysostom (1887, 399) by Th, Aq and Sym.On the other hand, 1Q-a reads hmhy[çplw , to be vocalized μh,y[ev]pil]W , “and fortheir transgressions,” “and he interceded for their transgressions.” The samereading is attested in 1Q-b, 4Q-d and G: kai; dia; ta;ı aJmartivaı aujtw'n, “andbecause of their trangressions.” For the same reasons indicated in the precedingcase the committee voted B for the text of Qumran. In this particular case Mcould be either due to an assimilation to μy[iv]Po in the preceding line or to acorrection of a theological nature.



The silence of commentators is probably the cause that the vast majorityof modern translations simply renders M. Neither the neutral proposal in BHSnor the clear defense of Ziegler (1959, 50) in favor of the Qumran reading seemto have in˘uenced translators. One could, of course, accuse Qumran of assim-ilation with the “sins,” af]je, of the preceding half line (so Kutscher, 383), butthe really strong argument in favor of the Qumran reading is its attestation indiˆerent text types. Translators are therefore encouraged to adopt this readingwith a few other versions (NEB, NAB).


A translation such as NEB: “and interceded for their transgressions” canfunction as model.

56.5

Textual Decisions

In the second line of this verse M reads wOl, “to him,” “I will give an ever-lasting name to him,” whereas 1Q-a reads hmhl, “to them,” “I will give aneverlasting name to them.” M is supported by 1Q-b. 1Q-a has the support of G,Th, Sym, Aq, V, S and T. The committee considered the plural reading as anassimilation to μh,l;, “to them,” in the ˜rst line. It also considered the supportof 1Q-b given to the more di¯cult reading of M as rather strong. M receiveda B evaluation.


The vast majority of commentators has adopted the proposal of Lowth toread the plural wOml;, “to them,” and, therefore, almost all translators did thesame. Only a few modern versions (NJB, NAB and OT edition 1970 of NEB)noted that they did so for textual reasons. However, M has to be rendered, and,as has been observed by Vitringa, König and Delitzsch, M should be under-stood as having an individualizing meaning “to each of them.”


StV can be taken as a model: “een eeuwige naam zal Ik een ieder van hengeven,” “an eternal name will I give to each of them.”

Isaiah 51– 60 19956.12

56.12

Textual Decisions

In the ˜rst line M reads hj;q]a,, “I will get,” or “let me get,” “let me getwine,” whereas 1Q-a has the ˜rst person plural form jqnw , “we will get.” M is(in spite of the absence of the cohortative ending) supported by 1Q-b jqa andby Aq. 1Q-a has the support of Th, V, S and T. Nothing can be deduced fromG since verse 12 is lacking. The reading of 1Q-a clearly is an assimilation tothe plural form of the two other verbs in the same line. Since M does notpresent any particular di¯culty and since it is supported by 1Q-b, the commit-tee gave it a B evaluation.


RSV and NRSV, according to their note, base themselves on textual evi-dence for their rendering “let us get wine.” Such evidence can hardly be consid-ered as valid, and M will have to be rendered with all the other modern versions(with the exception of GNB and FC, apparently guided by translational con-siderations). In fact, the singular of M appears to be distributive: “ ‘Come!’(everyone of us shall say) ‘I will take . . . .’ ”


NIV can serve as a model: “ ‘Come,’ each one cries, ‘let me get wine!’ ”

57.9

Textual Decisions

This verse starts in M with the following sentence ˆm,V,B' Ël,M,l' yrIvuT;w" whichcould mean “you went down to the king with oil.” This reading is con˜rmedby 1Q-a. Sym renders the verb with kai; ejkosmhvqh", “you dressed yourself,” areading which seems to have inspired V “ornasti te” and which is close to S.The midrash of T is useless for textual analysis. G apparently did not knowhow to render this sentence and replaced it with kai; ejplhvqunaı th;n porneivansou, “and you have multiplied your fornication,” a sentence taken from theGreek translation of Ezek 16.25 and 23.19 (Seeligmann, 74). The committeejudged that Sym, V and S most probably interpreted the common reading of Mand 1Q-a, and it therefore gave a majority B vote to M.


Both NEB and REB render this sentence with “You drenched your tresseswith oil,” which seems to presuppose a conjectural vocalization ËLem,l] yrIvoT;w", for


which there is no textual ground. With all other modern versions M should betranslated, but decisions will have to be made with regard to the meaning ofthe ˜rst two words.

As to the verb, several options can be made: “journey” (RSV, NRSV),“go” (NJB, NIV), “approach” (NJV, NAB), “present oneself” (Rashi). The lastinterpretation was favored by the committee.

As to the second word, it could either be understood as a reference to agreat king or emperor (so Delitzsch, 554) or to a god Melek (Duhm, 390). Thelast hypothesis is the most plausible.


Taking into account what has been observed above, the translation couldrun as follows: “You presented yourself to (the god) Moloch with oil.” Varianttranslations and /or further explanations can be provided in a footnote. In in-terconfessional projects with Orthodox participation, the diˆerences betweenM and G, as well as the reasons for it, should be mentioned in a note.

57.11

Textual Decisions

In the last line of this verse M reads μl;[omeW , “and for a long time,” “Was Inot silent for a long time?” 1Q-a and 4Q-d clearly support this reading becauseof their full writing μlw[mw. It also has the support of S and T. On the otherhand G, by rendering parorw', “I disregard,” and V quasi non videns, “as if Idid not see,” seem to presuppose a vocalization μli[]m'W , “hiding (sc. the eyes)”.The majority of the committee was impressed by the Qumran evidence andattributed a C evaluation to M. A minority gave the same evaluation to thevariant, considering M to be a later assimilation to Is 42.14.


In order to protect the vocalization of M, the Masorah (Weil, par. 3352)had already noted that the reading μl;[omeW occurs three times in the Bible (Is57.11; 64.3 and Ps 90.2), twice with a full writing, and once with a defectiveone. Nevertheless, Lowth proposed to correct M according to the vocalizationread by G and V, and he has been followed in this by many exegetes and by theapparatuses in our Hebrew Bibles. This may also explain the presence of thevariant in a relatively large number of modern versions (NRSV, NAB, NEB,REB, RL, EÜ).

With some recent commentators (Whybray, 207; Beuken, 71) it seems, how-ever, preferable to follow the majority of the committee, especially because

Isaiah 51– 60 20157.17

μl;[omeW is taken up again in verse 16: μl;wO[l]. The preceding w is emphatic and thisemphasis will have to be re˘ected in the translation.


NJB is a good model for translators: “Was I not silent for a long time? Soyou cannot have been afraid of me.”

57.17

Textual Decisions

In the ˜rst sentence M reads wO[x]Bi, “his greed,” “Because of his sinful greedI was enraged,” a reading which is supported by 1Q-a, 4Q-d, Th, Aq, Sym, V,S and T. G, on the other hand, renders diΔ aJmartivan bracuv ti ejluvphsa aujto;n,“because of sin I grieved him for a little while,” a rendering in which, accord-ing to some, bracuv ti would translate a Hebrew [x'B,. Since, however, G ren-ders the piel of [xb with ejktevmnein, “to cut down,” in Is 38.12, it seems morelikely that, under in˘uence of the temporal data of the immediate context, thetranslator simply provided an exegesis of M (Fischer, 1930, 63–64 and Berg-meier, 95–96). The committee therefore attributed a majority A evaluation to M.


Lowth has been the ˜rst to propose a correction [x'B, and a translation ac-cording to G and in the apparatus of BHS translators are still “ordered” to dothe same. This may explain its introduction into a number of modern versions(NEB, REB, FC, EÜ). It is, however, very doubtful whether [x'B, can have themeaning “for a little while.” If G, on the other hand, is the result of an exege-sis of M, this exegesis should certainly not be preferred. The topic is here notthe duration of God’s anger, but its cause (Beuken, 88). The traditional inter-pretation as found in the majority of versions should therefore be maintained.


NIV could be taken as an example: “I was enraged by his sinful greed.”

57.18

Textual Decisions

The ˜rst two verbs of the second line read in M Whjen“a'w“ WhaeP;r“a,w“, “and I willheal him and I will lead him.” M may only have the support of 1Q-b since inthis manuscript the second verb is attested preceded by a lacuna which leavessu¯cient place for the reading of M. The second verb is absent from 1Q-a,


probably because of an accident of either homoioarcton or homoioteleuton sincethe ̃ rst two letters are identical with those of the preceding and following wordand the last two letters are identical with those of the preceding word. The sec-ond verb may also have been lacking in 4Q-d since the lacuna in the manu-script after the ˜rst verb has a size which does not seem big enough to havecontained the second verb of M and does suppose that its reading is more inagreement with the reading of 1Q-a. The second verb is rendered in G by kai;parekavlesa aujto;n, “and I conforted him,” which is frequently considered tobe a translation of a Hebrew Vorlage Whmej}n"a}w". However, in 40.11 and 51.18 onthe one hand, and in 49.10 on the other, G renders two diˆerent Hebrew verbsmeaning “to lead” with parakalei'n. So this may have happened here as well(Seeligmann, 68). The “conforting” of the next sentence in M may have causeda kind of contextual assimilation. This would also be true of S which is hereentirely dependent upon G, and of V. T: μyjraw , “and I will have compassion”seems to be an assimilation with 54.7. All these considerations led to a C eval-uation for M.


In 1891 Oort had proposed a diˆerent vocalization of the second verb: WhjenIa}w",“I shall give him rest.” This proposal still has the support of recent commen-tators (Westermann, McKenzie, and more hesitantly, Whybray). It has been “or-dered” by BHS and was adopted by NEB and REB: “yet I shall heal him andgive him relief.” (REB)

Such a correction, however, is not very well founded. In fact, a verb “tolead” takes up again the topic of the “way,” which is rather central in this pas-sage (Beuken, 90). It seems therefore better to stay with all other versions withthe traditional interpretation.


NJB could serve as a good model for the translator: “I saw how he be-haved, but I shall heal him, I shall lead him, ˜ll him with consolation.” Inprojects with Orthodox participation, the reading of G should be footnoted.

59.18

Textual Decisions

M reads at the end of the verse μLev'y“ lWmG“ μyYIail;, “to the islands he will ren-der requital,” a reading con˜rmed by 1Q-a, Th, Aq, Sym, V, S and T. There isno literal equivalence of this sentence in G, but it renders the last four wordsof verse 17 and the whole of verse 18 in the following way: kai; to; peribovlaionwJı ajntapodwvswn ajntapovdosin o[neidoı toi'ı uJpenantivoi", “. . . and his cloak,as about to render a retaliation; a reproach, to his adversaries.” In other words,

spread run one pica long

Isaiah 51– 60 20360.1

G provides an abbreviated stylistic rewrite of the whole passage, and it does notjust omit some words. Therefore, the committee gave a majority B vote to M.


Since Oort many commentators considered the last sentence as a glosswhich should be omitted in translation. Their view has been taken up by in afew modern versions such as NEB, REB, NAB and GrN.

However, there is no textual base for changing the redundant syntax of Mand the information contained in the last sentence that the retribution will beuniversal and touch the most distant nations in the west, will have to ˜gure, inone way or another, in the translation of the passage.


FC is a good example of a good translation of the whole verse: “Il varendre aux humains ce qu’ils ont mérité, user de furieuses représailles contretous ses ennemies, même les plus lointains,” “He will repay everyone his due,furious reprisals on all his enemies, even the most distant ones.”

60.1

Textual Decisions

This verse starts in M with two feminine imperatives yrIwOa ymiWq, “rise, shine,”whereas G, which does not render the ˜rst imperative but which renders thesecond imperative twice, has the extra information Ierousalhm, “Jerusalem.”M is supported by 1Q-a and 1Q-b and by Aq, Sym, V and S, and G has the sup-port of v and T. The committee explained the readings of G and T by their ten-dency to make addressees explicit. G had already done the same in 51.9 and Twould do so in 60.4. In view of the strong support of M, it received a majorityB vote.


There are no textual reasons to render the vocative “Jerusalem.” WhenNEB and REB nevertheless do so, they have been inspired by Driver’s sugges-tion that, originally, after the last yod of the last imperative another yod waspresent which served as an abbreviation of the place name Jerusalem (1964,80). However, there may be several translational reasons to make the implicitaddressee of M explicit, one of the most important of which may be the factthat this verse opens a new, major, division of the book. It may therefore notonly be necessary to mention explicitly the addressee, as in TEV, FC, GrN andNAV, but also the speaker, as has been done in GN.



In projects with Orthodox participation it may be wise to mention the ad-dressee, and to follow G in its translational procedure. Communicative transla-tions will be obliged to do the same. Textual notes should, however, be avoided.

60.5

Texual Decisions

The last of the four verbs of verse 5a in M reads bj'r:w“, “and will be wide,”whereas a few Hebrew manuscripts have the reading bhrw , which could havethe meaning “and will boast.” M has the support of 1Q-a, Th, Aq, Sym, V, S,and T. There is some uncertainty as to the Vorlage of G: kai; ejksthvsh/, “andyou will be excited.” G renders only three of the four Hebrew verbs, and thepossibility exists that the verb under discussion has been omitted, especiallysince the preceding Hebrew verb dj'p;W has three times elsewhere in G beenrendered with forms of ejxivsthmi. However, since the verb djp is at three otheroccasions in the Septuagint of Isaiah translated with fobei'n, it is far more likelythat kai; ejksthvsh/ is an interpretative rendering of bj'r:w“. Although the variantbhrw entered even into the ˜rst Hebrew Bible (Soncino, 1488), it is weakly at-tested and it does not ˜gure in the Massoretic lists. It could therefore be con-sidered as a graphical error. The committee was divided: two B and two Cvotes were given to M, and two C votes to the variant.


In fact, the variant only seems to have been rendered in NEB: “then yourheart shall thrill with pride.” Although such a rendering is not impossible,Marti’s observation (382) remains true that such a meaning ascribed to bhr isquestionable. Even when with almost all versions M is translated, problemsremain as to the meaning of the ˜gurative expression “to be wide” in relationto the heart. “Broad of heart” is an expression which occurs in Ps 101.5 andProv 21.4 with the meaning “proud,” “arrogant.” This shows that one does notnecessarily have to read the variant in order to arrive at a translation such asthat of NEB. However, it is here rather unlikely that the Hebew verb wouldhave the same meaning as the adjective. It is more probable that the “widen-ing” is caused by joy in the same way as “oppression” is caused by fear (Del-itzsch, 578). Since the preceding Hebrew verb dj'p;W , “to throb,” is also relatedto the heart and since the “throbbing” it expresses is likewise caused by joy,translators may want to combine both Hebrew expressions in a way appropriateto their language.

Isaiah 51– 60 20560.19


If no combinations are made, NIV could be taken as an example: “yourheart will throb and swell with joy” or FC “tu en seras toute émue, ton coeuréclatera de joie,” “you will be greatly touched by it, your heart will burst withjoy.” Diˆerent models can be proposed when the informations are combined,e.g. TEV: “You will tremble with excitement,” or GN: “Vor Glück wird dirdas Herz klopfen,” “your heart will beat with joy.”

60.19

Textual Decisions

In verse 19b M reads j"rEY:h' Hg"nOl]W , “as a light the moon,” whereas in 1Q-athese words are followed by hlylb, “in the night.” M is supported by 1Q-b, Vand S and the reading of 1Q-a has the support of G and T. In view of thefrequency (Jer 31.35; Ps 121.6) and the naturalness of the combination of“sun” and “moon,” the committee considered an omission of the words “duringthe night” less likely than their addition. Moreover, the addition is redundantsince Hg"nO expresses already a nocturnal light of either moon or stars. For thesetwo reasons a C evalution was given to M.


The vast majority of modern versions render the addition, but only someof them note that they do so for textual reasons (RSV, NRSV, NAB, NJV). Inspite of the arguments above, a translator should feel free to make the additionfor stylistic reasons.

There has been some grammatical debate whether the nouns in Hebrewshould be considered as a construct state introduced by the preposition l withthe meaning “with regard to” (Gesenius-Kautzsch, par. 119u): “with referenceto the light of the moon, it will not shine upon you,” or whether the propositionl should be taken as introducing a predicate: “as a light, the moon will notshine upon you” (Beuken, 184). The use of the zaqef gadol on the ˜rst wordis in favor of the last interpretation. This kind of hairsplitting is of course onlyrelevant for interlinear and very literal translations.


If no addition is stylistically deemed necessary, NJB can function as amodel: “nor moonlight shine on you.” If the parallelism is considered to justifythe addition, TEV is a good example “Or the moon be your light by night.”Since the addition is translationally based, no textual footnotes are necessary.

206

7

I S A I A H 6 1 – 6 6

61.6

Textual Decisions

The last word of this verse reads in M WrM;y"t]Ti, which, if derived from rmyand interpreted as rwm could mean “you will change yourself (with their glory),”“you will put on (their glory).” On the other hand, 1Q-a has the reading wrmaytt,which, if not an orthographical variant, could be an explicit derivation from theroot rma II with the meaning “to rise,” “to culminate,” “to be proud of”: “youwill pride yourself on their glory.” The same derivation is made in Th, Sym, Vand S and most probably also in Aq, G and T. Although the committee attrib-uted a majority B vote to the reading of M, it considered the problem to bemore of an exegetical than of a textual nature.


NEB is the only modern version which by rendering “and (you shall ) befurnished with their riches” follows a conjecture proposed in BHS: WrY:m't]Ti,based upon a metathesis and inspired by the cognate Arabic mara, “to be pro-visioned.” Such a conjectural base has rightly been abandoned in REB.

The interpretation of 1Q-a had the favor of many commentators, lexicog-raphers and translators. It is still widely followed by modern versions (RSV,NRSV, NAB, NIV, TEV FC, GrN). The interpretation of M has, among others,been defended by Saadya, and, more recently, by Duhm (415), Bauer-Leander(403) and Beuken (208–209). It is increasingly represented in modern transla-tions (REB, NJB, GN, BR). Although a translator should feel free to chooseone interpretation or the other, it should be noted that an interpretation “to puton their glory” is contextually more appropriate. Such a meaning has been pre-pared in the beginning of verse 6b and it is continued in verse 7.

Isaiah 61– 66

Isaiah 61– 66 20761.8


If the interpretation of M is chosen, REB is a good model for translation:“and (you will) succeed to their riches.” If the interpretation of 1Q-a is optedfor, TEV can serve as an example: “(You will enjoy the wealth of the nations)And be proud that it is yours.”

61.8

Textual Decisions

The object of the verbal clause “I hate” in verse 8a is in M hl;wO[B] lzEg:,which could mean: “robbery with a burnt oêring.” On the other hand, ˜veHebrew manuscripts have the reading hl;w“['B] lzeg:, “robbery with wrongdoing.”The possible meaning of M is also found in V: “rapinam in holocausto,”whereas the meaning of m has clearly been read by G: aJrpavgmata ejx ajdikiva",“robberies because of injustice,” S: alw[w, “and wrongdoing,” and T: asnwaw ,“and oppression.” The vocalization of 1Q-a cannot, of course, be decided.

The committee decided with de Dieu (229) and Delitzsch (588) that a mean-ing “wrongdoing” does not necessitate a change in vocalization of M, so thatthe diêrent meanings are not a matter of text, but of interpretation. M there-fore got a B evaluation.


Remains therefore the problem of interpretation. It could be remarked thatthe use of the preposition b is more in favor of the interpretation of the nounas “burnt oêring” than as “wrongdoing,” since the last meaning would containa considerable degree of redundancy in combination with a word for “robbery.”

On the other hand, the analysis of the total discourse should be taken intoaccount as well, namely the question whether injustice in the relationship be-tween Israel and the nations is concerned or injustice within Israel. Becauseof the immediate context, it seems to be most probable that the relationshipbetween Israel and the nations is concerned here.

“Robbery with a burnt oêring” would mean “a stolen animal oêred asa burnt oêring” (compare Mal 1.13). In spite of strong Jewish support forsuch a rendering, Saadya being the only notable exception, this rendering isonly present in some older translations (KJ, Luther 1545, StV) and virtuallyabsent from all recent versions. The only departure, even among Jewish ver-sions, is NJV.



In view of this analysis of interpretation translators will probably opt forthe rendering “wrongdoing.” A simple sentence such as “I hate robbery andwrong-doing” (NJB) will be su¯cient. It can be recommended to put the alter-native in a footnote. No textual notes of the kind found in NJB or GN shouldbe given.

62.5

Textual Decisions

The last part of verse 5a consists in M of the following sentence: ËWl[;b]yIËyIn:B;, frequently considered to mean: “your sons will marry you.” The readingof M is con˜rmed by 1Q-a and by all the ancient versions, so it got an Aevaluation.


This sentence has been “corrected” in several ways. Lowth (1770, 618–619), shocked by the idea of incest which is the result of the double metaphor,proposed to correct the vocalization of the second word into ËyIn:Bo, “your builder.”As to the verbal form, Lowth refers to the plural participle form in the paralleltext 54.5, ËyIl'[}bo, and he thinks that the same participle would have been mis-understood here by those responsible for the Masoretic pointing. Others, likeDuhm (418) and Marti (389), change the verbal form into Ële[;b]yI. The result isthe same: a meaning “your builder will marry you.” These corrections, whichhave the advantage of making verse 5b entirely parallel to verse 5a, are ac-cepted by two other commentators, Mc Kenzie (185) and Whybray (248). Theyentered into a number of recent versions such as NJB, “your rebuilder will wedyou,” NAB, NRSV, GNB, “He who formed you will marry you,” FC, GrN. Al-though related to this option, NEB, “so you shall wed him who rebuilds you,”and REB, “so will you be wedded to him who rebuilds you” have some inver-sion and passive transformation.

However, as has been pointed out (Delitzsch, 592; Beuken 229–230), theprimary meaning of l[b is “to possess,” “to take possession of,” and that mean-ing also pertains to a “wife” in Hebrew. “Sons” is the well known metaphor for“inhabitants.” Translators, who do not want to keep the metaphor as do, withminor variations, RSV, NIV and NJV, should translate the ˜gurative meaningof “sons” and the principal meaning of l[b as has been done in NAV and GN.

Isaiah 61– 66 20963.1


GN is a reliable model for translators who do not want to stay with themetaphor: “Wie ein junger Mann sich mit seinem Mädchen verbindet, so wer-den deine Bewohner für immer mit dir verbunden sein,” “Like a young manjoins a girl, so your inhabitants will forever join you.”

63.1

Textual Decisions

The second half of the second line of this verse starts in M with h[,xo, whichcould be rendered with “stooping,” and this reading is con˜rmed by both 1Q-aand 1Q-b as well as by Th and Aq: katastrwnnuvwn, “laying low.” T presentsin this verse a midrash which does not permit any textual conclusion. Whateverthe reason of the rendering ˜yç[, “gaining (in strength)” in S may be, it is thesame rendering which has been given of h[,xo in 51.14, and therefore an indi-cation that S did read M, but interpreted it in a diˆerent way. The curious read-ing biva/, “with force” in G is most probably due to the metathesis hx,[o, meaningin Aramaic “to act with violence.” (Fischer 1930, 66). The metathesis may thenhave been applied because of ignorance as to the meaning of the form in M, themore so since the same form in 51.14 is left untranslated in G. It is not impos-sible that—as to the form—the reading of G has inspired the rendering of Symbaivnwn, “walking,” although the graphical resemblance with the Hebrew formd[exo, “walking,” may also have played an important role. The reading gradiens,“walking” in V can best be explained as a borrowing from Sym. Since M is theonly strongly attested reading, it received a B evaluation.


The conjecture d[exo has since Michaelis been adopted by the majority ofcommentators. It therefore also entered into the majority of modern transla-tions in a form such as “marching so full of strength” (NJB). Sometimes, as inNJB, REB, GNB, NAB, a justi˜cation is given in a textual note. In other cases(NIV, RSV, NRSV, GrN) no justi˜cation is given at all. Only a few commen-tators (Vitringa, 990; Delitzsch, 596; Beuken, 248) defend M and only a fewtranslations (NJV, NEB, GN, BR, SR, TOB, Chouraqui) follow this option.Nevertheless, it is this last option which should be chosen by translators. Re-mains though the correct interpretation of M. There is quite some semantic dif-ference between interpretations such as “stooping” (NEB), “pressing forward”(NJV), “to stand up straight” (SR, BR) and “to incline oneself” as an ex-pression of self-assurance (Vitringa, Delitzsch). König (1936, 391b) with hisgloss “sich stolz aufrichtend,” “to raise oneself proudly,” may represent the bestinterpretation.


210 63.3


In keeping with the option defended above, SR would be an acceptablemodel for translators: “

Et se redressant avec ˜ert

é

/ Dans la pl

é

nitude de saforce

,” “and standing proudly up in the fullness of his strength.”

63.3

Textual Decisions

The second half of the ˜rst line of this verse starts in M with the readingμyMi['meW

, “and of the peoples,” whereas 1Q-a reads ym[mw

, “and of my people.”The reading of M has the support of 1Q-b, G, Aq, Sym, V, S and T while thereading of 1Q-a stands alone. The committee considered the reading of 1Q-aas due to an assimilation to the many ˜rst person forms in the immediate con-text as well as to an exegetical tradition, at least attested by Yefet ben Ely andAbravanel. These considerations led to a B evaluation of M.


Dahood (1966, 412) considered the ˜nal

mem

in M as enclitic and itwould therefore through a modernizing orthography have been omitted in 1Q-a.In fact, M and 1Q-a would then have the same meaning “and of my people.”However, this argument does not take into account the existence of a Jewishexegetical tradition which applied the text to Israel. It does, in addition, notconsider the

masorah parva

, which by indicating the form of M as uniquewants to protect it against the variant of 1Q-a, present in Exod 8.4. And, ˜-nally, it cannot explain the plural su¯xes in the context which clearly refer topeoples. On the other hand, the variant of 1Q-a can only exist because of theabsence of the immediately following three half lines. There is therefore novalid reason to adopt with NJB, REB, NEB and FC the reading of 1Q-a. Prob-lems of interpretation, nevertheless, remain. In the immediate context, the bestinterpretation seems to be that nobody among the nations was on the side ofYaweh so that he had to tread everybody in his anger (Beuken, 251).


NRSV could serve as a model: “and from the peoples no one was with me.”

63.6

Textual Decisions

In the second sentence of this verse M has the reading μrEK]v'a}w"

, “and I madethem drunk,” whereas 37 Hebrew manuscripts and the Soncino edition of 1488

Isaiah 61– 66

21163.6

read μrEB]v'a}w:

, “and I crushed them.” M has the clear support of both 1Q-a and1Q-b, of Th, Sym and the Vulgate. It most probably also has the support of S.For although S uses the verb

awd

, “to be a˙icted, to a˙ict,” this reading doesnot imply that the translator read the verb rbç

, as this verb is never renderedby

awd

. Most probably it was the person responsible for the punctuation whojudged that the verb

awd

suited better the context than the verb

awr

, “to be-come drunk, to intoxicate,” and who therefore,

daleth

and

resh

being writtenalike in Syriac, put the point at the lower level. G drops the whole second sen-tence while T to all probability does not render the verb. The committee wasof the opinion that it was the interpretational di¯culty which had forced G andT not to render the verb, which had led to the particular punctuation in S, andwhich had directed certain scribes of M to the variant with

bet

. For all thesereasons, M received a B evaluation.


The same exegetical problem has led modern commentators to the conclu-sion that M “suits the general image but is unsuitable for this line” (McKen-zie, 186). This conclusion and the encouragement to read the variant in BHSbrought many translators to a rendering such as: “I shattered them in my fury”(REB, NJB, and, with minor variations, NRSV, GNB, NAB, BR).

Translators, however, though encouraged to render M, will encounter thesame problem as G, S, T e.a. and will hardly be able to make sense by trans-lating literally, as in RSV: “(I trod down the peoples in my anger), I madethem drunk in my wrath.” And the proposal of Bonnard (438), to read this textin relation with 49.26: “I will make your oppressors eat their own ˘esh, andthey shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine” (RSV), can be usefulas a defense of M and can explain something of the imagery, but it cannot helpthe translator to ˜nd a better rendering. Translators who want to avoid the dif-˜culty are perhaps better served by the exegesis of Delitzsch (598), that theimage only wants to say that God has made his anger deeply felt by tramplingdown the nations.


For translators, who want to abandon the ˜gure, GN is a good translationalmodel: “

ich gab ihnen meinen ganzen Zorn zu sp

ü

ren

,” “I made them (

i.e.

thepeoples) feel all my anger.”


212 63.9

63.9

Textual Decisions

In this verse the

qere

reading of M is wyn:P;

Ëa'l]m'W

rx;

wOl

, “for him it wasa˙iction, and the angel of his face (saved them).” On the other hand, the

ketiv

reading of M runs as follows: wyn:P;

Ëa'l]m'W

rx;

aol

, “he was not a˙icted (or: he didnot a˙ict), and the angel of his face (saved them).” The

qere

is without ver-sional support whereas the

ketiv

is supported by Th, V, S and T. V, by reading

non est tribulatus

, “he was not a˙icted,” chooses the intransitive interpreta-tion, while all the others choose the transitive one: “he did not a˙ict (them).”1Q-a with its reading awl

is clearly ambiguous since it can support both the

qere

and the

ketiv

. In fact, ambiguous orthographies may even be at the originof some of these

qere

/

ketiv

cases. G, by reading ouj

prevsbuı

oujde;

a[ggelo",ajllΔ

aujto;ı

kuvrio"

, “It was no envoy, no angel, but the Lord himself (that de-livered them),” has clearly read wyn:P;

Ëa;l]m'W

rxi

aol

. In other words, G starts a newsentence with the negation of the

ketiv

, it vocalizes the second word as rxi

,“messenger,” letting the negation rule over both following substantives and itunderstands wyn:P;

to mean “himself.” The committee, guided by considerationsof internal coherence and a long and outstanding tradition, considered that thereal choice is between the

qere

and the

ketiv

according to the rendering of G.On the other hand the

qere

might nevertheless be preferred as the origi-nality of G can be doubted for the following reasons: (1) the word rxi

for“messenger” is only used in a profane sense, (2) μynp

(followed by a pronom-inal su¯x) as subject of a verb requires a plural verbal conjugation; (3) theinterpretation of G requests an adversative particle before wynp

.Nevertheless, both

qere

and

ketiv

received a C evaluation.


In view of the overwhelming commentary support, most modern versions(NJB, NRSV, NAB, NEB, REB, GNB, FC, BR) follow the

ketiv

according toG. One of the main reasons for the preference of this interpretation may havebeen the theological rejection of the anthropomorphic character of the

qere

.Nevertheless, a number of recent translations (RSV, NIV, NJV, Chouraqui, GN,GrN) render the

qere

. Whatever the choice of the translator may be, it seemswise to provide the other options in a footnote as has been done in NRSVand NJV.

Proposals of Translations

If the qere is chosen, NIV could be used as a model for a certain type oftranslations: “In all their distress he too was distressed, and the angel of hispresence saved them.”

Isaiah 61– 66 21363.11A

If the ketiv according to G is chosen, NRSV can be employed as an ex-ample: “. . . in all their distress. It was no messenger or angel but his presencethat saved them.”

63.11A

Textual Decisions

At the end of the ˜rst line of this verse M reads wOM[', “his people,” whereasa few Hebrew manuscripts as well as the Soncino edition of 1488 have thereading wODb][', “his servant.” M is supported by 1Q-a, Aq, Sym, Th and V, theother reading has the support of S. T reads hym[l, “for his people” and someVulgate witnesses as well as the hexaplaric recension have a conjunction pre-ceding wOM[' as if they would have read wOM['w“. The word wOM[' as well as the preced-ing and following word, have been omitted in G. The committee consideredthe omission in G as due to exegetical problems, the readings adding conjunc-tions or a preposition as syntactical facilitations, and the variant wODb][' as an as-similation to the frequent expression “Moses, his servant.” The more di¯cultreading of M therefore received a B evaluation.


The variant “(Moses,) his servant” has been adopted in many modern ver-sions (RSV, NRSV, NJB, NAB, GNB), although only a few of them provide afootnote with the correct textual bases for such a reading (NJB, NAB). Trans-lators should, however, not render a facilitating reading, but the more di¯cultone of M. In order to do so they will have to decide upon the interpretation ofthe whole sentence which literally runs as follows: “and he/it remembered thedays of old, Moses, his people.”

First of all, the grammatical subject of “remembered” has to be determined. One of the options is “he,” God. This option has recently again been de-

fended by Beuken (12–15) on the base of a structural inclusio between verses8a and 11a. RSV and NJB adopted this exegesis.

The second possibility is to consider “his people” as the grammatical sub-ject of “remembered.” Contextually this option has to be preferred since the“remembrance” is elaborated in verse 11b—14 where the people are speaking.This option is followed by Chouraqui and the majority of functional equiva-lence translations: FC, GN, GrN, NAV.

A third possibility exists, where “the people” is in some way made explicitas the grammatical subject and “his people” is taken as object. This is done inNIV: “Then his people recalled the days of old, the days of Moses and hispeople.” The same construction was followed by those translations which, inthe steps of Judah ibn Balaam, have taken hv,mo as the participle of a verb at-


tested in Ex 2.10, with the meaning “to pull out” (of the water) as resemblingin sound the name of Moses (NJV, NEB, REB) REB: “Then they recalled dayslong past and him who drew out his people.”

It is the second option which should be preferred since it corresponds bestto the Hebrew accents.


NAV can serve as a model: “Toe het sy volk gedink aan die ou dae, aan dietyd van Moses,” “Then his people remembered the days of old, the time ofMoses.”

63.11B

Textual Decisions

In the second line of the same verse M has y[ero, “shepherds,” whereas manyHebrew manuscripts and editions read the singular h[ero, “shepherd.” The pluralis attested by 1Q-a, Aq and V, while the singular can be found in G, S and T.The plural reading is found in the best manuscripts and it represents the readingof the classical Tiberian text. Not only is it the more di¯cult reading, it alsohas, as the evidence of Aq and V shows, its roots in the protomasoretic text.The support given by 1Q-a made the committee prefer this reading with a Cevaluation.


It is certainly under the joint in˘uence of Luther, the Bible des Pasteursand the KJV that the singular reading has traditionally been favored and thatmost recent translations (NIV, NJB, NAB, NJV, NEB, REB, Chouraqui, GN)still opt for it. On the other hand, since one Hebrew form evokes the other,contextual factors may have imposed on some translators the singular reading.For although the plural may allude to both Moses and Aaron (compare Ps77.21), only Moses is in focus in the following verses. This kind of discoursestrategy is so common, however, that this argument cannot be used against theplural reading.

The plural reading should therefore be preferred with RSV, NRSV, GNB,FC and GrN.

In the translation the word preceding “shepherds,” tae, should preferablynot be rendered as the signal for the direct object, but as a preposition with themeaning “with.”

Isaiah 61– 66 21563.14


NRSV is a good model for certain types of translation: “Where is the onewho brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his ˘ock?”

Translators who prefer to render the singular, are encouraged to mentionthe reading of M in a footnote.

63.14

Textual Decisions

The ˜nal verb of the second sentence has been vocalized by M as WNj,ynIT],“gave them rest,” hiphil of the verb jwn. Through the presence of the yod, 1Q-acon˜rms this vocalization. G, V, S and T, on the other hand, vocalized theHebrew verbal form as the hiphil of the verb wjn: WNj,n“T', “led them,” a meaningsuggested by the preceding and following verb.

Since sound play evoking a homonymous word is a rather frequent phe-nomenon in Isaiah, however (compare 38.11), the committee decided to givea B evaluation to M.


The variant reading of the versions has only had a modest impact uponmodern versions. It only appears in NEB, REB and NAB. One of the reasonsis no doubt that modern commentators generally defend M, occasionally takingthe notion of “rest” as a code for the settlement in the country (Beuken, 18),NAV: “led his people to a place of settlement.”

The majority rendering of modern translations (NIV, NJB, RSV, etc.)should be recommended to translators.


Since one Hebrew verbal form evokes the other, a combined translation ofboth verbs could be considered and NJB can function in this respect as a model:“Yahweh’s Spirit led them to rest.”

63.15

Textual Decisions

The last two words of this verse read in M: WqP;a'thi yl'ae, “towards me arewithheld.” This reading is con˜rmed by 1Q-a and V, and, indirectly, by Th, Aqand Sym who put the verb in the singular since it is ruled by a collective sin-gular noun as grammatical subject. The only notable variant is found in G, S


and T which do not render a ˜rst person singular, “me,” but a ˜rst personplural, “us.”

The committee considered this variant to be a facilitating assimilation to the˜rst person plural su¯xes of the following verse and it gave M a B evaluation.


The syntax of M has been considered by some as strange and clumsy. There-fore, the since Oort proposed correction qP;a't]Ti la', “do not withhold yourself,”has been taken over in several recent versions: “Do not stand aloof” (NEB,REB), “O Lord, hold not back” (NAB), “Do not ignore us” (GNB). Sometimes(as in NAB) reference is made to G, but G cannot favor such a rendering sinceit reads o{ti ajnevscou hJmw'n, “(where is the abundance of your mercy and ofyour compassions) that you have withheld yourself from us?”.

So M should be maintained with the majority of modern translations. Pro-nominal assimilations as in the ancient versions may though be required fortranslational reasons only.


NIV is a suitable translational model: “Your tenderness and compassionare withheld from us.”

63.18

Textual Decisions

In the ˜rst sentence M has the reading μ[' Wvr“y: which could either mean“the people possessed” or “they possessed the people.” M is supported by Vand T, T giving the ˜rst interpretation and V the last. 1Q-b has a lacuna hereand only the ˜nal mem of μ[ is present. 1Q-a reads μ[ çry, and the singularverbal form is a clear indication that 1Q-a considered “people” to be the gram-matical subject. This singular reading has the support of S.

G reads, on the other hand, i{na mikro;n klhronomhvswmen tou' o[rouı tou'aJgivou sou, “that we may inherit a small part of your holy mountain.” G there-fore does not take up the complaint again, but it continues the intercession, tak-ing up the stereotyped expression “taking possession of your holy mountain”as in 57.13 and 65.9 (Seeligmann, 114). The interpretation “we” of G seems tobe based upon μ[ as subject. Apart from this, G can hardly be used for textualpurposes.

The committee considered the singular reading of the verb in 1Q-a and Sas a syntactical facilitation and was divided in giving B and C votes to M.

Isaiah 61– 66 21764.2 (3)


Because of interpretational di¯culties Gesenius-Buhl (453b) proposed partlyredistribution of the Hebrew consonants of the ˜rst three words of the ˜rst sen-tence, reading μy[iv;r“ Wd[}x; hM;l;, “Why invaded the wicked . . . .” This conjecturewas favored by a majority of commentators and it is still by some. It can there-fore be found in NAB: “Why have the wicked invaded your holy place,” REB,and, with a diˆerent reading of the verb, NEB.

Translators are, however, advised to render M in one of the two possibleinterpretations: (a) by taking “people” as grammatical subject: “Your holy peoplehave owned it for so short a time,” NJB, and, with minor variations RSV, NRSVand NJV. Or NIV, which has “your holy place” and FC and GN, which have “theland” as object; or (b) considering “our enemies” to be not only the grammaticalsubject of the second sentence but that of the ˜rst as well: “For a short time ourenemies have dominated your holy people and they trampled down your sanc-tuary.” This second interpretation can be found in BR, Chouraqui, GrN andGNB. It might be preferred according to Ehrlich (224).


If solution (b) is preferred, for certain types of translation the paraphraseof GNB could be a useful model: “We, your holy people, were driven out byour enemies for a little while, they trampled down your sanctuary.”

64.2 (3)

Textual Decisions

The second sentence of this verse starts in M with T;d“r"y:, “you went down,”a reading which is supported by 1Q-a, V, S and T.

G seems to have rendered this verbal form with trovmoı lhvmyetai, “trem-bling will seize,” as in the fully identical sentence of 63.19, where, contrary to64.2, all the words are rendered. It might be possible, that G read here throughmetathesis and substitution a form of the verb d[r, “to tremble.”

Th and Sym read the plural form wdry, katevbhsan, connecting this verb withthe preceding sentence: fobera; a} ouj prosedokw'men katevbhsan, “impressivethings we did not expect, have come to pass.”

The committee considered this variant to be due to a contextual harmoni-zation and M was given a B evaluation.

A Handbook on Isaiah218 64.4 (5)A


NEB renders the second sentence with “the mountains shuddered beforethee,” and states in a footnote that it omits T;d“r"y: with G. As has been shown,G does not omit this verb, and therefore the rendering of NEB is unjusti˜ed.

Duhm (428) proposed to omit not only the ˜rst word but the whole secondsentence as a gloss from 63.19. This proposal was accepted by most commen-tators and by some translators. That the gloss interrupts the ˘ow of the textbecomes clear from those translations which leave it out such as NAB andMoˆatt: “at thy dread actions, far beyond our dreams, far beyond all that menhave ever heard of.” Other translations, such as NJB, keep the sentence, butput it between parentheses and characterize it as a gloss in a footnote. Thereare, unfortunately, no textual bases for the omission and translators may there-fore prefer to keep the sentence as an integral part of the text with the vastmajority of modern versions.


The sentence as a whole could be rendered as a statement like in REB:“the mountains shook when you appeared,” or as an invocation like in GN:“Komm herab, daß die Berge vor dir erbeben!,” “Come down, may the moun-tains quake in your presence!”

64.4 (5)A

Textual Decisions

The grammatical object of the ˜rst verb of the ˜rst sentence in M isqd<x, hce[ow“ cc;Ata,, “the joyful person and the one who does righteousness.” Thisreading has the direct support of 1Q-a, V, and T, and the indirect support of Swhich has interpreted the ˜rst Hebrew word as a preposition and the secondword as an abstract noun “gladness.”

G, on the other hand, reads toi'ı poiou'si to; divkaion, “with those who dowhat is right,” omitting the ˜rst Hebrew participle and reading a plural form ofthe second one.

The committee considered this rendering as an elusive abbreviation toescape a syntactical di¯culty. M received a B vote.


Duhm was the ˜rst to propose a correction of M according to G (429) andhis proposal has been taken over by most commentators, some of them ex-plaining w çç as an uncorrected scribal mistake for the following word (Marti,398). Some translations (NAB, Moˆatt, RL, EÜ, W), therefore, follow the cor-

Isaiah 61– 66 21964.4 (5)B

rection. In addition, some of these even read, according to Grätz’s proposal Wl,“oh, that . . . might,” before the ˜rst word of the verse, presuming that this wordin M was accidentally dropped out after the ˜nal wOl of the preceding sentence.So e.g. NAB: “Would that you might meet us doing right.”

There are, however, insu¯cient reasons to apply the correction. For thesyntactical di¯culty can easily be solved. König (1897, 361k) has noted thatafter verbs expressing joy, the object of the joy can be expressed by a verbhaving the same grammatical form as the ˜rst. The meaning of the coordinatedsentence would thus be: “Who rejoices to do what is right.” This meaningshould be rendered with the great majority of modern versions.


For the translation of the whole sentence GNB is a good model: “Youwelcome those who ˜nd joy in doing what is right.”

64.4 (5)B

Textual Decisions

The second half of verse 4b reads in M as follows: ['veW:nIw“ μl;wO[ μh,B;, liter-ally: “in them for ever, and we shall be saved.” This di¯cult reading is also at-tested by 1Q-a, Sym and V. It can be presupposed by the reading of S whichtakes μh,B; with the last verb of the preceding half line and which omits theconjunction of ['veW:nIw“, simplifying in this way the syntax. It can even be pre-supposed by the reading of T which, like S, connects μh,B; with the precedingverb and which paraphrases μl;wO[ with “by the deeds of our righteous fatherswho are from old” as the instrument through which “we are delivered.”

The rendering of G dia; tou'to ejplanhvqhmen, “therefore we have goneastray,” remains di¯cult to explain. Lowth has suggested that G may have read[v;p]NIw" whereas Michaelis proposed a reading [v;r“NIw". The ˜rst proposal is themost plausible since plana'n sometimes renders [çp in the Septuagint of Isaiah,but never [çr. It is nevertheless possible that the Greek translator simply madean assimilation to 63.17a: tiv ejplavnhsaı hJma'ı, “Why did you lead us astray?”

Because of its strong attestation, M received a B evaluation.


Translators are in danger of being totally confused by the variety of mod-ern versions. Most radical is NAB which does not render the whole of the sec-ond half line. All the other translations do, but many of them follow someform of conjecture in which a presupposed Vorlage of G plays some role:

(1) The conjecture [v;p]NIw" μl;wO[me ÚB], “against you, since long we rebelled,”still recently defended by McKenzie (190), is followed by RL;


(2) The related conjecture [v;r“NIw" μl;wO[me HB;, “in spite of it, we have doneevil from of old,” remains closer to the consonantal text of M and is the baseof GNB, NEB and REB.

(3) The conjecture of Volz [v;rNIw" Úm]l,[;heB], “when you hid yourself we be-haved wickedly,” recently again defended by Whybray (264), is taken over inNRSV: “because you hid yourself we transgressed.”

Nevertheless an eˆort should be made to render M. Central in this respectis the de˜nition of the antecedent of μh,B;. Some translations (RSV, NJV, GrN)consider the condition of sinning to be referred to (Delitzsch, 610), and, in ad-dition, they interpret the last verbal clause as a question: “in our sins we havebeen a long time, and shall we be saved?”

It seems, however, better to take μh,B; as referring back to Úyk,r:d“Bi, “on yourways,” the ˜rst word of the second half line of 4a, structurally in the sameplace (Ehrlich, 226). This gives a meaning: “In these ways we will be deliv-ered.” So NJB, FC, BR, GN.


NJB is a good example for such an interpretation: “now we persist in yourways and we shall be saved.”

64.6 (7)

Textual Decisions

The last verb of this verse reads in M WngEWmT]w" the interpretation of whichvaries from “you made us waste away,” “you made us melt” to “you made ustremble.”

1Q-a has the reading wndgmtw which, on the base of Palmyrean and Arabic,may mean “you have given us (into),” whereas G, S and T do presuppose aVorlage WnnEG“m'T]w", “you have delivered us (into).”

The Vorlage of V, et allisisti nos, “and you have struck us,” more di¯cultto reconstruct, may indicate M as base since “striking” can be considered thecause of “trembling.”

The committee gave a C vote to M as to the more di¯cult reading.


According to Barthélemy (451) M alludes to the vocabulary of the holywar, more particularly to the “melting of the heart” of the vanquished, andwith Delitzsch (610) he consideres M as a pregnant expression for “you havemade us lose our courage and you have delivered us into.” This would then beanother example in the book of Isaiah of the use of an expression (dyb gwm) sug-

Isaiah 61– 66 22165.5

gesting another expression (dyb ˆtn). Such a subtlety would then no longerhave been understood in the milieu in which 1Q-a came into existence.

It has certainly not been understood by the few modern versions whichfollow M (NIV, NJV, BR, NAV). TOB probably is the only exception, but itslanguage can hardly be proposed as a translational model.

On the other hand, the lexicographical confusion with regard to the se-mantics of the root gWm is extreme, as is well illustrated by König (211a). Onecan therefore easily understand Kutscher’s preference for the reading of 1Q-a(252). Semantically, there is even no distinction between that reading and theone of G, S and T. That reading would even agree with the hidden meaning ofM if the analysis above is taken seriously. Translators may therefore prudentlyprefer it.


REB and NEB are good examples of this solution with respectively: “andleft us in the grip of our iniquities” and “and abandoned us to our iniquities.”

65.5

Textual Decisions

The last word of the ˜rst line reads in M ÚyTiv]d"q] which can be understoodto mean “I am sacred for you.” It has been wrongly suggested (Ryssel) that Thand Sym would have read a piel form of the same root: ÚyTivD"qi meaning “I(would) have sancti˜ed you.” This is a mistake, however, as the rendering of This unknown and the rendering of Sym aJgiwvterovı sou (eijmiv), “I am more holythan you,” re˘ects the same interpretation of M as is found in T ˚nm anykd ana,“I am purer than you.” A piel reading has also been suggested in BHS for Sana çdqmd. But it seems preferable to vocalize the paÔel participle as a pas-sive one with the meaning “because I am sancti˜ed” (Emerton, 1980, 447). Swould then be identical with G kaqarovı eijmi, “I am pure,” and it could be atranslation of it (Weisz). Both these versions could then be considered as anelusive abbreviation of M.

The rendering of V immundus es, “you are unclean” shows a shift of focusbased on the interpretation: “in relation to you, I am clean.”

With regard to the qal–piel debate, nothing can, of course, be concludedfrom the reading of 1Q-a.

M got an A/B vote.


The piel vocalization was preferred by the vast majority of commentators,but it has had but little impact upon modern translations, BJ and TOB being the


most notable exceptions. As has been stated again recently (Emerton, 449), sucha vocalization is impossible, since a meaning “I might sanctify you” wouldrequire an imperfect, not a perfect verbal form.

Occasionally, since the Reformation, the qal of M has been taken to have atransitive meaning and this view has again been defended by NJV which trans-lates: “For I would render you consecrated,” noting that it consideres the qalas equivalent to the piel. But the same objection against the use of the perfectwould apply here, and since it is normally the piel which expresses the transi-tive meaning, such an equivalence is most unlikely.

Remains therefore the interpretation of M which takes the su¯x of the verbas equivalent to the construction l plus su¯x (Joüon-Muraoka 125ba, note 2)with the meaning “I am too sacred for you” (so with minor variations NIV,NRSV, GNB, NAB, NEB).


A rendering as “do not come near me, for I am too holy for you” (NRSV)may be a good model. If, however, the translator wants to make the implicitdanger more explicit, he could turn to REB with: “Do not touch me, for myholiness will infect you.”

65.15

Textual Decisions

The second line of this verse starts in M with the reading ar:q]yI wyd:b;[}l'w“,“and his servants he will call (by another name),” a reading also witnessed bya number of Greek manuscripts, Aq, Sym, V, S and T.

In 1Q-a there is a lacuna. The whole second line of the verse and the ˜rstfour words of verse 16 are lacking, no doubt because this part of the text waslacking or unreadable in the Vorlage of 1Q-a. The scribe left some space andimprovised a transition (Kutscher, 289).

According to the editions of Rahlfs and Ziegler, G would read toi'ı de;douleuvousin aujtw'/ klhqhvsetai (o[noma kainovn), “but his servants shall be called(by a new name).” However, the most ancient manuscripts of G read moi insteadof aujtw'/, “but my servants shall be called (by a new name),” and this reading,maybe inspired by a Hebrew Vorlage arEQ;yI yd"b;[}l'w“, should most probably ˜gurein the text of the editions.

But this reading of G was considered to be an assimilation to the many˜rst person su¯xes of the context, and M received a C evaluation.

Isaiah 61– 66 22366.2


Since Klostermann M has frequently been corrected according to the pre-supposed Vorlage of G mentioned above, or, according to a hypothetical Vor-lage which kept all the consonants of M in a diêrent division: arqyw ydb[lw ,considering the waw before the verb as emphatic (McKenzie, 197).

It is therefore not amazing that traces of such a correction can be found insome modern versions. This is certainly true for translations justifying theirrendering in textual notes, such as NAB: “but my servants shall be called byanother name,” and TOB. It is probably also true for translations such as RLand EÜ, although they change the passive into an impersonal active verbalform: “one will give them another name.”

Such alterations are, however, unnecessary on textual grounds. This doesnot mean that translators may not feel obliged to make the same kind of pro-nominal assimilations as in G, or the same type of active/passive transforma-tions for translational reasons only. No textual justi˜cations should be given,however.


Depending on translational strategies, such renderings as “but to his ser-vants he will give a diêrent name” (NRSV) or “But I will give a new nameto those who obey me” (GNB) can be taken as examples.

66.2

Textual Decisions

The second sentence of this verse begins in M with Wyh]YIw", “and so theyexisted,” a reading con˜rmed by 1Q-b, Th, Aq, Sym, V and T.

1Q-a has the variant reading wyhw , “and so they exist” which seems to bean assimilation to the perfect tense of the preceding verb (Kutscher, 354).

G has the rendering kai; e[stin ejma;, “and they are mine,” a rendering alsoattested by S. This rendering could be based on a diêrent Hebrew VorlageWyh; yliw“, but more likely, it was an assimilation to the text of Ps 50 (49), 10.

Since M provides the argument necessary for the discourse and is well at-tested, the committee gave a B vote to its reading.


Since Houbigant many commentators have adopted a correction accordingto G, and the imposition of such a correction in the critical approach of BHSmay be the reason of its adoption in many modern versions (RSV, NRSV, NJB,NEB, REB, EÜ, FC).


In the absence of su¯cient textual ground, translators are encouraged torender M and to take Wyh]YIw" as a reference to the creation narrative, more par-ticularly Gen 1.3 (Ehrlich, 230).


NJV: “And thus it all came into being” is a suitable rendering of such aninterpretation. Compare also NIV and NAB.

66.12

Textual Decisions

The last line of this verse begins in M with the reading μT,q]n"ywI, “and youshall suck,” whereas 1Q-a has the fragmentary reading hmhytw[ . . . , which nodoubt might be completed to hmhytwqnwy, equivalent to μT;q]n"yO, “their infants.” Mhas the support of 1Q-b, Th, Aq, Sym, V, S and T while 1Q-a is supported byG ta; paidiva aujtw'n, “their children.” As is clear from other agreements in thesentence, 1Q-a has been the Vorlage of G. In fact, 1Q-a could be explained asthe most primitive textual form, which is the reason why a minority of thecommittee assigned a C vote to it. A majority of the committee did the samewith regard to M mainly for two reasons: (a) the vocalization as a verb is pref-erable to the vocalization as tq,n<yO with third person masc. plural su¯x, since thefeminine noun in all its six occurrences has the meaning of a “shoot” of a tree;and (b) the third person masc. plural su¯x of 1Q-a does not have an obviousantecedent in the context.


Duhm (441) had already proposed to correct M into μT;q]n"yOw“ or HT;q]n"yOw“, “andher nurslings.” In fact, the last correction makes Jerusalem the natural ante-cedent of the third person fem. sg. su¯x. It is therefore in this form that thecorrection has been taken over by many commentators and by some recent trans-lations such as REB: “her babes will be carried in her arms . . . .” Although thislast correction does not agree with the reading of 1Q-a, it might be consideredas a translational adaptation.

Translators may, however, prefer to render M with the verb qny, as has beendone in the majority of modern versions (NJB, NJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, NEB),in which case they will be guided in their rendering by the way in which theytranslated the same verb in the preceding verse. Since they have to render a ver-bal metaphor, they may even want to make explicit certain implicit elementsof the comparison as is done in GNB, FC and GN.

Isaiah 61– 66 22566.17


If 1Q-a is followed and translationally adapted according to the secondcorrection of Duhm, REB can be followed in its translation mentioned above.If M is adopted in a literal type of translation, NJB can function as a model:“You will be suckled, carried on her hip. . . .” In a translation of the functionalequivalence type, the metaphor can be marked as a comparison as in NAB: “Asnurslings, you shall be carried in her arms . . . ,” or be made more explicit asin GNB. Projects with Orthodox participation may want to adopt the readingof 1Q-a and G. Whatever the choice may be, it would be advisable to note thevariant reading.

66.17

Textual Decisions

The last three words of the ˜rst line according to the ketiv of M are rj'a'Ëw<T;B' dj;a,, “behind one (masc.) in the middle,” but according to the qere theyare Ëw<T;B' tj'a' rj'a', “behind one (fem.) in the middle.” The ketiv is clearly sup-ported by S and possibly by Th who reads according to Jerome: “alter postalterum”; and the qere by 1Q-a, 1Q-b, V and T. Nothing can be concludedfrom Sym who according to Procopius would have had the rendering ojpivswajllhvlwn, “behind one another.” Instead of these three words under discussion Greads kai; ejn toi'ı proquvroi", “and in the porches.” In several places the Isaiahtranslator borrowed expressions from Ezekiel and this is one of them: Ezek8.3, 7, 14 (Seeligmann, 74).

Half of the committee assigned a C vote to the ketiv, the other half a Cvote to the qere.


In the light of the interpretational problems, Böttcher (1833, 33) proposedfor the ˜rst two words the correction dj;a, rj'a' dj;a,, “one after another,” andthis correction was taken over by NEB and REB: “one after another in a magicring.” The overwhelming majority of English modern versions adopt, however,an impersonal rendering which avoids a decision between qetiv and qere : “fol-lowing the one in the center.” So with minor variations NJB, RSV, NRSV, NIV,NAB, NJV. Such a strategy though cannot be applied in other languages wherefor grammatical reasons it is obligatory to make a choice between ketiv (soRL, BR, FC) and qere (GN, Chouraqui).

The great problem, of course, is the identi˜cation of the “he” or the “she.”As to the “he,” one of the most accepted interpretations is that the reference isto a priest, a mystagogue, who as a leader stands in the midst of a group ofworshippers teaching them the rites which they imitate (see Ezek 8.11). As to


the “she,” an ancient Jewish exegetical tradition sees in the feminine form areference to a holy tree, an ashera. So KJ: “behind one tree in the midst.” An-other interpretation sees here a reference to a priestess. So GN. Because of ourignorance with regard to the religious practices hinted at, no absolute certaintycan be obtained.


A neutral translation: “following the one in the center” or “imitating onein the center” (NJV) where possible may be preferred. Such a rendering wouldnecessitate a textual as well as cultural footnote.

If the ketiv is opted for, FC can be a model: “derrière celui qui est aucentre,” “behind him who is in the center.” Even then a note is necessary andthe one in FC is a good example of an acceptable content.

If the qere is clearly chosen and made explicit, one could, according to theinterpretation followed, follow either KJ: “behind one tree in the midst” (comp.LB) or GN “die sich um eine Götzenpriesterin scharen,” “who group them-selves around a priestess of idols.”

66.18

Textual Decision

M presents in this verse basically two textual problems: (a) there is no syn-tactical relationship between the ˜rst word ykinOa;w“, “and I,” and the two followingwords meaning “their deeds and their thoughts,” and (b) the grammatical sub-ject of the verb ha;B;, “it is coming,” is unclear. Both problems of text and in-terpretation being related, they are treated together.

As to (a), the reading of M ykinOa;w“ presents an ellipsis of a verb, whereas Ghas the rendering kajgw; . . . ejpivstamai, “and I . . . know.” The ellipsis of M issupported by 1Q-a and V, while G is supported by S and by T: “before me arerevealed.”

As to (b), M reads ha;B;, “it is coming,” but 1Q-a has the reading wab, “theyhave come,” taking apparently “their deeds and their thoughts” as grammaticalsubject. G, on the other hand, renders with e[rcomai, “I am going,” which wouldcorrespond to a reading of the ˜rst person singular ytab. There is no supportfor the reading of 1Q-a and only a hypothetical support for the reading of M:1Q-b, in the fragmentary text of which only the two ˜rst characters can beread, but not the decisive one(s). G is supported by V, S and T.

The committee assigned in the case of (a) a majority B evaluation to M onthe base of the consideration that no Hebrew manuscript has read anything dif-ferent. In the case of (b) a majority C evaluation was given to M on the base

Isaiah 61– 66 22766.19

of the traditional interpretation which takes t[e, “time,” as the implicit gram-matical subject of ha;B; like in Ezek 21.12 and 39.8.


Most modern versions follow the majority of the ancient ones in provid-ing a verb “to know” and in adapting the verb “to come” to the ˜rst personsingular: “For I know their works and their thoughts, and I am coming to . . .”(so with minor variations RSV, NRSV, GNB, EÜ). The only diˆerence in sometranslations is that they take the ˜rst sentence with the preceding discourse unitand that they start a new division with the second sentence (NEB, REB).

Other translations apply the same discourse division, but they consider“their deeds and their thoughts” with Duhm (442–443) as an intrusion fromverse 17. They therefore restore the text by making these nominal phrases thesubject of the verb “to end” in the last line of the preceding verse: “their deedsand their thoughts will perish together” (NJB, NAB).

However, as other proposals of transposition show, there is no objectiveground for doing so (Whybray, 289).

The best thing for translators to do is to take with NJV, GN, GrN, NAV t[e,“time,” as the subject of ha;B; if they are convinced at least that such a choicedoes not exceed the limits of implicit information. As to the ̃ rst problem of therendering of ykinOa;w“, ellipsis,—if ellipsis as rhetorical device is present here—can hardly be reproduced in translation. Therefore, translationally a verb mayhave to be provided as in the ancient versions.


NIV can be cited as a model: “I know their deeds and purposes.” And afterparagraph break: “The time has come . . . .”

66.19

Textual Decisions

Following the proper name “Lud” M reads as apposition tv,q, ykev]mo, “thosewho draw the bow.” This reading has the support of 1Q-a and 1Q-b, of theHexaplaric columns other than G which read according to Jerome “tendentesarcum,” V, S and T.

G, on the other hand, renders kai; Mosoc, reading therefore the ˜rst wordas a proper name.

Two possibilities exist: (a) the reading of G is the original one and M hasgiven a midrash inspired by Jer 46.9: tv,q; yker“Do ycep]To μydIWlw“, “the Ludim whograsp, who draw the bow” (Seeligmann, 60). Or (b) M is original, and the mid-


rash is based upon a play upon words between the proper name ˚çm and thehomonymous verb. G would then have decoded the midrash.

The committee was divided: one half voted C for M, the other half pre-ferred G, equally with a C vote.


In addition to the reading of the proper name “Meshek,” Duhm (444) con-jectured that the second word of M, tv,q,, concealed the name of another people,vro, “Rosh,” also mentioned in connection with Meshek and Tubal in Ezek 38.2,3and 39.1. Some commentators (Marti, 413) even see in the reading Mosoc kai;eijı of a number of Greek manuscripts of the Origen and Lucianic recensionsa corruption of an original reading Mosoc kai; ÔRw"! Since this conjecture ofDuhm is still defended in many recent commentaries, it has found its way intosome modern versions such as NEB, REB, RL and EÜ. Such a rendering can-not be defended because the reading of G is kai; Mosoc, and the existence ofa people “Rosh” both in text and in history is pure conjecture.

The translator should therefore choose between M and G. If M is preferredwith RSV, NRSV, NJV, NIV GNB, he may want to render in such a way thatskill is expressed. A rendering of G, as in NJB, NAB, GN, may be preferred inprojects with Orthodox participation.


In a literal translation of M, NJV can be taken as example: “that draw thebow.” If skill is aimed at, a rendering along the lines of GNB: “with its skilledbowmen” or NIV “(famous as archers)” could be given. Whatever rendering ischosen, the variant reading could be given in a footnote.

(textual criticism and the translator, v. 1) jan de waard-a handbook on isaiah-eisenbrauns...

Documents

national bible

bible societies policy

american bible society

netherlands bible society

eign bible society

modern bible translations

c ethe united bible

lancien testament