Isaiah: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
The Fall of Bavel (Babylon)
14:1 KI YERACHEM YHVH ET YA'AKOV U VACHAR OD BE YISRA-EL VE HINIYCHAM AL ADMATAM VE NILVACH HA GER ALEYHEM VE NISPECHU AL BEIT YA'AKOV
כִּי יְרַחֵם יְהוָה אֶת יַעֲקֹב וּבָחַר עוֹד בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִנִּיחָם עַל אַדְמָתָם וְנִלְוָה הַגֵּר עֲלֵיהֶם וְנִסְפְּחוּ עַל בֵּית יַעֲקֹב
KJ (King James translation): For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.
BN (BibleNet translation): For YHVH will have compassion on Ya'akov, and will yet choose Yisra-El, and set them in their own land; and the stranger shall join himself with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Ya'akov.
The tone changes again. Calm is restored after that blasting. Note the interchanging of Ya'akov and Yisra-El once again. But "they will return to their land"; others will join them – which again can only be the Babylonian exile.
ADMATAM: Surprising this; why not ARTSAM, which is the normal word for land as "country"? Does this require me to amend my earlier comment when the two words were used together?
14:2 U LEKACHUM AMIM VE HEVIY'UM EL MEKOMAM VE HITNACHALUM BEIT YISRA-EL AL ADMAT YHVH LA AVADIM VE LISHPHACHOT VE HAYU SHOVIM LE SHOVEYHEM VE RADU BE NOGSEYHEM
וּלְקָחוּם עַמִּים וֶהֱבִיאוּם אֶל מְקוֹמָם וְהִתְנַחֲלוּם בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל אַדְמַת יְהוָה לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת וְהָיוּ שֹׁבִים לְשֹׁבֵיהֶם וְרָדוּ בְּנֹגְשֵׂיהֶם
KJ: And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.
BN: And the peoples shall take them, and bring them to their place; and the house of Yisra-El shall possess them in the land of YHVH for servants and for handmaids; and they shall take them captive, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors. {S}
AMIM: Kena'an, then as now, has never been an exclusively Jewish land; dozens of other AMIM - nations, peoples, tribes, as you prefer - have lived there, or come to live there, since antiquity. The intention here is that they will happily welcome the Yehudim back, but it will become a land ruled by the Yehudim. And that is less Zionist ideology than Medean strategy: the aspiration of the Medes to extend their empire all the way to the Mediterranean, and thence into eastern Europe, sending the Yehudim home with military support to establish a "garrison-state": the plan will be foiled in 490 BCE when the Greeks defeat them at the Battle of Marathon.
SHOVIM LE SHOVEYHEM: But among the AMIM, and dominant among them since the Yehudim were taken into captivity, have been the SHOMRONIM (Samaritans), settlers and colonisers from Padan-Aram, the first set arriving as the garrisons of ASHUR in the invasion described in Book One, the larger and more significant group forced to move there by the Babylonians, when they in their turn were conquered and displaced. Those SHOMRONIM will play a hugely significant role in the history of Kena'an until Roman times, and especially in the story of Jesus.
14:3 VE HAYAH BE YOM HANIYACH YHVH LECHA MEY ATSBECHA U MI RAGZECHA U MIN HA AVODAH HA KASHAH ASHER UBAD BACH
וְהָיָה בְּיוֹם הָנִיחַ יְהוָה לְךָ מֵעָצְבְּךָ וּמִרָגְזֶךָ וּמִן הָעֲבֹדָה הַקָּשָׁה אֲשֶׁר עֻבַּד בָּךְ
KJ: And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve,
BN: And it shall come to pass on the day that YHVH will give you rest from your travail, and from your trouble, and from the hard service that you were made to serve...
14:4 VE NASA'TA HA MASHAL HA ZEH AL MELECH BAVEL VE AMARTA EYCH SHAVAT NOGES SHAVTAH MADHEVAH
וְנָשָׂאתָ הַמָּשָׁל הַזֶּה עַל מֶלֶךְ בָּבֶל וְאָמָרְתָּ אֵיךְ שָׁבַת נֹגֵשׂ שָׁבְתָה מַדְהֵבָה
KJ: That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!
BN: That you will take up this adage against the king of Bavel, and say: "How has the oppressor ceased! the exactress of gold ceased!...
MASHAL: "The Book of Proverbs" is known in Yehudit as "Mishlei Shelomoh", though they were dedicated to him rather than written by him. The root is MASHAL, and, as per verse 2 of that book, their purpose is "For learning wisdom and discipline, for understanding words of discernment..." and a great deal more besides. But definitely "proverbs", though we might say "maxims", "adages", even "Pensées", or simply "Pansies". Alas, "clichés" might, all too often, be a more accurate translation.
14:5 SHAVAR YHVH MATEH RESHA'IM SHEVET MOSHLIM
שָׁבַר יְהוָה מַטֵּה רְשָׁעִים שֵׁבֶט מֹשְׁלִים
BN: "YHVH has broken the staff of the wicked, the sceptre of the rulers...
MATEH...SHEVET: fulfilling the prophecy of 9:3; see my note there, but probably more useful to see the one at 10:5.
14:6 MAKEH AMIM BE EVRAH MAKAT BILTI SARAH RODEH VA APH GOYIM MURDAPH BELI CHASACH
מַכֶּה עַמִּים בְּעֶבְרָה מַכַּת בִּלְתִּי סָרָה רֹדֶה בָאַף גּוֹיִם מֻרְדָּף בְּלִי חָשָׂךְ
BN: "He who smote the people in wrath with an incessant stroke, who ruled the nations in anger, with a persecution that none restrained...
BILTI SARAH: Again the phrases echo. This one takes us back to 1:5, but there are numerous other occasions, and not all identical in meaning; see chapters 4, 7 and 9 for the progeny of the May King-May Queen marriage, which will be misinterpreted as the prophesy of Jesus by the later Christians; see 10:8 and 11:13 for a very different meaning, though all are interconnected by the word's root.
14:7 NACHAH SHAKTAH KOL HA ARETS PATS'CHU RINAH
נָחָה שָׁקְטָה כָּל הָאָרֶץ פָּצְחוּ רִנָּה
BN: "The whole Earth is at rest, and is quiet; they break forth into singing.
NACHAH: What is being described is the calm after the storm. The Biblical story of the Flood, like the Shomronim and the Ashurim as nations, has its origins around Mount Ararat, as we know from the end of the tale in Genesis 9, when the captain of the unnamed ship known as the Ark but metaphoring the sun was at last able to anchor it and disembark. No'ach his name, because "he came to rest", from the root NU'ACH, the one in use here.
14:8 GAM BE ROSHIM SAMCHU LECHA ARZEY LEVANON ME'AZ SHACHAVTA LO YA'ALEH HA KORET ALEYNU
גַּם בְּרוֹשִׁים שָׂמְחוּ לְךָ אַרְזֵי לְבָנוֹן מֵאָז שָׁכַבְתָּ לֹא יַעֲלֶה הַכֹּרֵת עָלֵינוּ
KJ: Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.
BN: "Even the cypresses rejoice at you, and the cedars of Lebanon: 'Since you lay down, no feller is come up against us'...
That image of the trees again. The Temple, now destroyed.
KORET: This is "feller" as in "a person who fells trees", a "lumberjack" in north American, an "arborist" or "tree surgeon" in modern Euphemism. But either way not a Cockney "fellow". And either way, yes, the same root that gave us "cut off" and the "covenant" on several previously punning occasions (see 11:13 - again! o the echoes, the return-references!)
14:9 SHE'OL MI TACHAT RAGZAH LECHA LIKRA'T BO'ECHA ORER LECHA REPHA'IM KOL ATUDEY ARETS HEKIM MI KIS'OTAM KOL MALCHEY GOYIM
14:9 SHE'OL MI TACHAT RAGZAH LECHA LIKRA'T BO'ECHA ORER LECHA REPHA'IM KOL ATUDEY ARETS HEKIM MI KIS'OTAM KOL MALCHEY GOYIM
שְׁאוֹל מִתַּחַת רָגְזָה לְךָ לִקְרַאת בּוֹאֶךָ עוֹרֵר לְךָ רְפָאִים כָּל עַתּוּדֵי אָרֶץ הֵקִים מִכִּסְאוֹתָם כֹּל מַלְכֵי גוֹיִם
KJ: Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
BN: "The nether-world, from underneath, is moved for you, to meet you at your coming; the shades are stirred up for you, iuncluding all the chief ones of the Earth; all the kings of the nations are raised up from their thrones."
The Gideon, and others, translate this as "Hell", but this is She'ol, and the two may both lie beneath the earth, but they are entirely different concepts... see the link.
I need to go back and review this, but it seems to me the style has changed radically in this chapter, and this is a poem, a Biblical precursor of Dante's "Inferno" or Eliot's "Wasteland", where most of what came before was, not exactly prosaic, but more like one expects from a recited prophesy. It feels like there are structural things going on here, in the manner of the Psalms. Also the slightly clipped phrases. Should we also be considering the layout?
14:10 KULAM YA'ANU VE YOMRU ELEYCHA GAM ATAH CHULEYTA CHAMONU ELEYNU NIMSHALTA
כֻּלָּם יַעֲנוּ וְיֹאמְרוּ אֵלֶיךָ גַּם אַתָּה חֻלֵּיתָ כָמוֹנוּ אֵלֵינוּ נִמְשָׁלְתָּ
KJ: All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?
BN: All of them will answer, and say to you: "Have you too become as weak as us? Have you indeed become like us?..
ELEYCHA...ATAH...CHULEYTA...NIMSHALTA: "You" in the singular, as though each individual is being personally addressed. English translations cannot convey this.
14:11 HURAD SHE'OL GE'ONECHA HEMYAT NEVALEYCHA TACHTEYCHA YUTS'A RIMAH U MECHASEYCHA TOLE'AH
הוּרַד שְׁאוֹל גְּאוֹנֶךָ הֶמְיַת נְבָלֶיךָ תַּחְתֶּיךָ יֻצַּע רִמָּה וּמְכַסֶּיךָ תּוֹלֵעָה
BN: "Your pomp is brought down to the nether-world, and the noise of your psalteries; the maggot is spread under you, and the worms cover you....
The text gives She'ol, but it is described as "maggots and worms", not Dumah or Inferno or Hades; the images suggest the grave as an end, the healthy biodegradation (I am deliberately avoiding that loaded word "corruption") of the body into fertilising manure, rather than having any sense of an afterlife, with or without purgatorial waiting period, last judgement, or any of the other eschatological fantasies that will be added to western religion later on. This is what you would have found in the original tales that became humanised as David and Jesus later on. Winter, like night-time, a descent into the nether-world, because that is the cycle of life.
The sense of it being verse is here again, with some almost-rhymes in addition.
Is that "pomp" the same one that Shakespeare gave to Apemanthus in Timon of Athens?
The sense of it being verse is here again, with some almost-rhymes in addition.
Is that "pomp" the same one that Shakespeare gave to Apemanthus in Timon of Athens?
14:12 EYCH NAPHALTA MI SHAMAYIM HEYLEL BEN SHACHAR NIGDA'TA LA ARETS CHOLESH AL GOYIM
אֵיךְ נָפַלְתָּ מִשָּׁמַיִם הֵילֵל בֶּן שָׁחַר נִגְדַּעְתָּ לָאָרֶץ חוֹלֵשׁ עַל גּוֹיִם
KJ: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
BN: "How you have fallen from the heavens, Sirius the Mourning Star! How you have been cut down to the ground, who once cast lots over the nations!..
HEYLEL BEN SHACHAR: The Gideon Bible translaes him as Lucifer, which seems rather inept to me, despite the description of his "falling from the heavens". And why is he cut down? Has the Messiah even overthrown She'ol? And of course, the answer to that is, yes: in the Davidic, as in the Osiric, the Tammuzian, the Orphean, and later the Christian, the ever-dying ever-reborn Lord of the Earth has to go down into the Underworld (She'ol) for a period of time, and there he will "supplant" the Lord of the Underworld, and assume that role himself, before being reborn on the Earth, which is the right-hand of the sun. Every night indeed, every end-of-month, every winter.
But the way this is presented is Persian-Medean angelology, the roots and sources of mediaeval demonism and "Paradise Lost"!
But all this needs some explanation:
HEYLEL: There is HEYLAL, which is understood to mean "bright" or "shining", which would make for an accurate description of any star, though it it may not be the one intended on this occasion. Why? Because there is a root Hey-Lamed-Lamed (הלל), meaning "to shine", but there is also - see Ezekiel 21:17 and Zechariah 11:2 - a root Yud-Lamed-Lamed (ילל), meaning "to mourn" or "to wail", and - as per my pun in my translation - it is the latter that is intended here (see verse 31 for confirmation).
BEN SHACHAR: See my note at Psalm 22:1.
Whereas the original lines, which Y-Y is referencing - and Zechar-Yah also, in the link above - are Davidic, from 2 Samuel 1:25-27: "How the mighty have fallen in the thick of battle! Yehonatan lies slain on your heights... How the mighty have fallen and the weapons of war have perished!"
14:13 VE ATAH AMARTA VI LEVAVECHA HA SHAMAYIM E'ELEH MI MA'AL LE CHOCHVEY EL ARIM KIS'I VE ESHEV BE HAR MO'ED BE YARKETEY TSAPHON
HEYLEL: There is HEYLAL, which is understood to mean "bright" or "shining", which would make for an accurate description of any star, though it it may not be the one intended on this occasion. Why? Because there is a root Hey-Lamed-Lamed (הלל), meaning "to shine", but there is also - see Ezekiel 21:17 and Zechariah 11:2 - a root Yud-Lamed-Lamed (ילל), meaning "to mourn" or "to wail", and - as per my pun in my translation - it is the latter that is intended here (see verse 31 for confirmation).
BEN SHACHAR: See my note at Psalm 22:1.
Whereas the original lines, which Y-Y is referencing - and Zechar-Yah also, in the link above - are Davidic, from 2 Samuel 1:25-27: "How the mighty have fallen in the thick of battle! Yehonatan lies slain on your heights... How the mighty have fallen and the weapons of war have perished!"
14:13 VE ATAH AMARTA VI LEVAVECHA HA SHAMAYIM E'ELEH MI MA'AL LE CHOCHVEY EL ARIM KIS'I VE ESHEV BE HAR MO'ED BE YARKETEY TSAPHON
וְאַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ בִלְבָבְךָ הַשָּׁמַיִם אֶעֱלֶה מִמַּעַל לְכוֹכְבֵי אֵל אָרִים כִּסְאִי וְאֵשֵׁב בְּהַר מוֹעֵד בְּיַרְכְּתֵי צָפוֹן
KJ: For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
BN: "Because you said in your heart: 'I will ascend into the heavens, I will establish my throne high above the stars of El, and I will sit upon the Mount of Meeting, in the uttermost parts of the north...
But you can see why the Gideon translated him as Lucifer. This is Miltonic again; and very pagan - EL et cetera; presumably the tale of the "attempted coup" by the dawn star was very ancient. But it too needs to be read as part of the mythology, not as a "literal tale". Mythology is the ancient method of explaining the workings of the Cosmos, in an epoch that does not yet have Physics, Chemistry or Biology as formal disciplines and languages. So, every morning, when the sun is still weak but trying to get born out of the uterus of darkness, the brightest star in the sky - Sirius having taken over from Vega in Lyra by this hour - is clearly unwilling to yield its dominance in the skies, and will have to be forced by the rising, and strengthening, sun, to go down into the netherworld. And by the time the womb-blood of sunrise has vanished from the sky, and the sun is now visibly in charge, Sirius will indeed have been dispatched to the netherworld - though he will be back at the same time tomorrow. Don't tell Milton.
EL: The father-god of the Beney Kena'an, their version of Ra or Ouranos, the one who began Creation, but was literally cut off, castrated, because the constant spraying of his sperm was giving birth to ever more stars, planets, comets, life-forms. It is this god who is explicitly named in this verse.
HAR MO'ED: An Olympian equivalent of the OHEL MO'ED (for which see the link), or do we regard the Har Mo'ed as CHOREV itself?
EL: The father-god of the Beney Kena'an, their version of Ra or Ouranos, the one who began Creation, but was literally cut off, castrated, because the constant spraying of his sperm was giving birth to ever more stars, planets, comets, life-forms. It is this god who is explicitly named in this verse.
HAR MO'ED: An Olympian equivalent of the OHEL MO'ED (for which see the link), or do we regard the Har Mo'ed as CHOREV itself?
TSAPHON: As I have pointed out on several previous occasions, the northern sky is the only quarter in which the sun can never hold dominance: it rises in the east, travels through the south, sets in the west, but by night, when it is crossing the northern sky to get back to its rising-point in the east, it is the moon, the female principle of the universe, which reigns. Ditto in its mythological equivalent for Winter. This is why it was at the north gate of the Temple (Ezekiel 8:14) that the women keened for the dead Tammuz.
14:14 E'ELEH AL BAMATEY AV EDAMEH LE ELYON
אֶעֱלֶה עַל בָּמֳתֵי עָב אֶדַּמֶּה לְעֶלְיוֹן
KJ: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
BN: "'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like El Elyon, the Most High.'
EL ELYON: Once again returning to the Av-Ramic.
14:15 ACH EL SHE'OL TURAD EL YARKETEY VOR
אַךְ אֶל שְׁאוֹל תּוּרָד אֶל יַרְכְּתֵי בוֹר
KJ: Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
BN: "Yet you shall be brought down to the nether-world, to the uttermost parts of the pit."
This condemns him to She'ol, which means he isn't there now. But the word used here for "the pit" is BOR, which takes us back to Yoseph and his brothers (Genesis 37:20 ff).
14:16 RO'EYCHA ELEYCHA YASHGIYCHU ELEYCHA YITBONANU HA ZEH HA ISH MARGIZ HA ARETS MAR'ISH MAMLACHOT
רֹאֶיךָ אֵלֶיךָ יַשְׁגִּיחוּ אֵלֶיךָ יִתְבּוֹנָנוּ הֲזֶה הָאִישׁ מַרְגִּיז הָאָרֶץ מַרְעִישׁ מַמְלָכוֹת
BN: They who scarcely looked at you are now gazing at you, deep in thought: "Is this the man who made the Earth tremble, who shook kingdoms?..
Is he still speaking about HEYLEL HA SHACHAR? or is this about a human being. He uses the word "ISH", so it appears to be human. Was HEYLEL then a sobriquet of the king of Bavel, and he is actually talking about the downfall of the king?
14:17 SHAM TEVEL KA MIDBAR VE ARAV HARAS ASIYRAV LO PHATACH BAYETAH
14:17 SHAM TEVEL KA MIDBAR VE ARAV HARAS ASIYRAV LO PHATACH BAYETAH
שָׂם תֵּבֵל כַּמִּדְבָּר וְעָרָיו הָרָס אֲסִירָיו לֹא פָתַח בָּיְתָה
BN: "...who turned the world into a wilderness, and destroyed its cities; who refused to release any of his captives?"
14:18 KOL MALCHEY GOYIM KULAM SHACHVU VE CHAVOD ISH BE VEITO
כָּל מַלְכֵי גוֹיִם כֻּלָּם שָׁכְבוּ בְכָבוֹד אִישׁ בְּבֵיתוֹ
KJ: All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.
BN: All the kings of the nations, every single one of them, sleep in their glory, each one in his own house...
14:19 VE ATAH HASHLACHTA MI KIVRECHA KE NETSER NIT'AV LEVUSH HARUGIM METO'ANEI CHAREV YORDEI EL AVNEI-VOR KE PHEGER MUVAS
וְאַתָּה הָשְׁלַכְתָּ מִקִּבְרְךָ כְּנֵצֶר נִתְעָב לְבֻשׁ הֲרֻגִים מְטֹעֲנֵי חָרֶב יוֹרְדֵי אֶל אַבְנֵי בוֹר כְּפֶגֶר מוּבָס
KJ: But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
BN: ...but you are cast out, evicted from your own grave like some hateful piece of gorse, dressed in the raiment of the slain who have been thrust through with the sword, who go down to the pavement of the pit like a carcass trodden underfoot.
HASHLACHTA...KE NETSER: "cast out" – and again we have the image of a branch, abominable here, contrasted with the Netser of 11:1 (but also worth looking at my note at 4:2), and the Scion of Jesse, a corpse trodden underfoot...
HARUGIM: Oddity of grammar or my misunderstanding? Is it definite article and RUGIM (is there a word RUGIM? No. RAGIM, without the Vav? No. RAGAH? No.), No, it's definitely from the verb LEHAROG = "to kill" (see the next verse as well), in which case should it not be MEHURAGIM, and the Mem prefix is missing (they are "slain" after all, not "slaying")? MERE'IM in the next verse would then provide a poetic parallel, as METO'ANEY already does in this one.
CHARUV: And this word too, resonant with echoes... see my link to CHOREV at verse 13.
PHEGER MUVAS: Remarkably similar, this verse, to Dante's account of the 9th circle in Canto 32 of the "Inferno"; his treading on the head of Bocca especially.
14:20 LO TECHAD ITAM BI KEVURAH KI ARTSECHA SHICHATA AMCHA HARAGTA LO YIKAR'E LE OLAM ZERA MERE'IM
KJ: Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.
BN: You shall not be joined with them in burial, because you have destroyed your land, you have slain your people; the seed of evil-doers shall never acquire names.
LO YIKAR'E: Two possible readings of this: the dead man's name remembered by posterity; the naming and future of the offspring.
14:20 LO TECHAD ITAM BI KEVURAH KI ARTSECHA SHICHATA AMCHA HARAGTA LO YIKAR'E LE OLAM ZERA MERE'IM
לֹא תֵחַד אִתָּם בִּקְבוּרָה כִּי אַרְצְךָ שִׁחַתָּ עַמְּךָ הָרָגְתָּ לֹא יִקָּרֵא לְעוֹלָם זֶרַע מְרֵעִים
KJ: Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.
BN: You shall not be joined with them in burial, because you have destroyed your land, you have slain your people; the seed of evil-doers shall never acquire names.
LO YIKAR'E: Two possible readings of this: the dead man's name remembered by posterity; the naming and future of the offspring.
For the first: if the father has died in war, overseas, and either been left unburied altogether, or buried in a mass grave (even if, by chance, he turns out to be the face on the Statue of the Unknown Soldier), then there is no meaningful memory to carry forward. Did he die a coward or a hero? In battle or in captivity? And maybe he was sadistic brute who did terrible things, raped women, murdered children... though mo doubt friends and family would like to think of him as saintly... "the seed of evil-doers shall never be renowned".
For the second: we have to understand the very different way that people were - still are - given names in the world of the Middle East. Muhammad ibn Abd Allah, for example; the first his daily name, the "ibn" meaning "son of", and then the patronymic, the father's name. So with Ben in the Jewish world, Mac in the Scots, Shvili in Georgia, Ovich in Russian - and feminine quivalents, Bat, Ovna etc. But if the child is the result of the woman being raped and left pregnant by passing Crusaders, say, in mediaeval Europe, and who knows who the anonymous father was... so significant did this become in the Jewish world of that epoch that this is the reason why Jewish identity became conferred on the mother - provided that a midwife was present to witness the birth - where Biblically it was always the father who counted in this matter (think of the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah for example, who were accepted and became tribal founders, and the rejection of Kayin and Esav from the tribe, not because they married out, but because they married into matrilocal tribes, and therefore their children would be excluded). Moshe ben Fra Sadisto of Hadesopolis doesn't really work!.. "the seed of evil-doers shall never acquire names".
14:21 HACHIYNU LE VANAV MATBE'ACH BA AVON AVOTAM BAL YAKUMU VE YARSHU ARETS U MAL'U PHENEY TEVEL ARIM
14:21 HACHIYNU LE VANAV MATBE'ACH BA AVON AVOTAM BAL YAKUMU VE YARSHU ARETS U MAL'U PHENEY TEVEL ARIM
הָכִינוּ לְבָנָיו מַטְבֵּחַ בַּעֲוֹן אֲבוֹתָם בַּל יָקֻמוּ וְיָרְשׁוּ אָרֶץ וּמָלְאוּ פְנֵי תֵבֵל עָרִים
KJ: Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
BN: Prepare a sacrifical altar for his children, for the iniquity of their fathers; prevent them from rising up, and possessing the land, and filling the surface of the world with cities.
MATBE'ACH: A particularly clever and interesting word-play here. There is מזבח (MIZBE'ACH), and then there is מטבח (MATBE'ACH), a difference of a single letter, but... see my notes at Genesis 8:20, to save me repeating them here. But, as far as this verse is concerned, MATBE'ACH is "slaughter", which is what happens in war, as in the previous verses; whereas SHECHITAH, which also means "slaughter", happens on the MIZBE'ACH, and is... one of those propitiatory religious acts which Y-Y has told us are no longer required, or if carried out must be done with full intensity and sincerity. So, we can deduce, there is human slaughter which is evil and wicked, and there is human slaughter which is divinely approved, and I guess which one is which depends on whose side you are on (the double-bladed rapier, which, funnily enough, is precisely the main subject of Canto 32, so it really does seem to me that Dante must have been reading Y-Y when he wrote that. I wonder which version he had access to? The Vulgate probably.
His children shall be destroyed too, to prevent them from following in their fathers' footsteps and doing... precisely what has been done: pollution, slums, global warming...
ERETS: Once again it is unclear why the text chooses ERETS over ADAMAH, for precisely the reason that is the second problem, that ERETS may be translated as "land", but it may also be translated as "Earth" (verse 25 will clarify it). Here the problem is exacerbated by TEVEL, which (see the link) is invariably used to mean the "whole wide world", or at the very least its inhabited parts.
14:22 VE KAMTI ALEYHEM NE'UM YHVH TSEVA'OT VE HICHRATI LE VAVEL SHEM U SHE'AR VE NIYN VA NECHED NE'UM YHVH
וְקַמְתִּי עֲלֵיהֶם נְאֻם יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת וְהִכְרַתִּי לְבָבֶל שֵׁם וּשְׁאָר וְנִין וָנֶכֶד נְאֻם יְהוָה
KJ: For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.
BN: "For I shall rise up against them", says YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens, "and cut off from Bavel both name and remnant, both offshoot and offspring", says YHVH.
Which appears to leave us with both of the options from verse 20.
14:23 VE SAMTIYHA LE MORASH KIPOD VE AGMEY MAYIM VE TE'TE'TIYHA BE MAT'AT'E HASHMED NE'UM YHVH TSEVA'OT
וְשַׂמְתִּיהָ לְמוֹרַשׁ קִפֹּד וְאַגְמֵי מָיִם וְטֵאטֵאתִיהָ בְּמַטְאֲטֵא הַשְׁמֵד נְאֻם יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת
BN: "I will give her as a possession to the hedgehog, with pools of water; and I will sweep it with the broom of destruction," says YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens.
SAMTIYHA: The only feminine singular in that last verse was ERETS, and my note on TEVEL at verse 21 definitely favoured "the Earth" over "the land"; but the phrasing here restricts it to Bavel itself.
The desolation echoes that in 13:20-22.
TE'TE'TIYHA BE MAT'AT'E: We have been been following the usage of MATEH and SHEVET, meaning "staff" and "tribe", throughout these chapters. Now the former appears to have become a verb. MATEH is spelled Mem-Tet-Heh (מַטֵּה), but the root of the verb here ius alnost certainly Tet-Vav-Aleph, and therefore an entirely different root, derpite the meaning, which is "to sweep". Gorgeous word though, for poets! All those Tets and Alephs!
TE'TE'TIYHA BE MAT'AT'E: We have been been following the usage of MATEH and SHEVET, meaning "staff" and "tribe", throughout these chapters. Now the former appears to have become a verb. MATEH is spelled Mem-Tet-Heh (מַטֵּה), but the root of the verb here ius alnost certainly Tet-Vav-Aleph, and therefore an entirely different root, derpite the meaning, which is "to sweep". Gorgeous word though, for poets! All those Tets and Alephs!
samech break
14:24 NISHBA YHVH TSEVA'OT LE'MOR IM LO KA ASHER DIMIYTI KEN HAYETAH VE CHA ASHER YA'ATSTI HI TAKUM
נִשְׁבַּע יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת לֵאמֹר אִם לֹא כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּמִּיתִי כֵּן הָיָתָה וְכַאֲשֶׁר יָעַצְתִּי הִיא תָקוּם
KJ: The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:
BN: YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens, has sworn, saying: "Just as I have imagined it, so shall it be; just as I have proposed it, so shall it come to pass...
DIMIYTI: I have translated it as "imagined", which is one of several equally valid options for this word (thought, conceived...). But the root is DAMAH, and translating it this way in this verse helps us to understand better - even without needing Maimonides' help from chapter 1 of his "Guide for the Perplexed" - the use of DAMAH in Genesis 1:26.
14:25 LISHBOR ASHUR BE ARTSI VE AL HARAI AVUSENU VE SAR MEY ALEYHEM ULO VE SUBALO MEY AL SHICHMO YASUR
לִשְׁבֹּר אַשּׁוּר בְּאַרְצִי וְעַל-הָרַי אֲבוּסֶנּוּ וְסָר מֵעֲלֵיהֶם עֻלּוֹ וְסֻבֳּלוֹ מֵעַל שִׁכְמוֹ יָסוּר
KJ: That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders.
BN: "That I will break Ashur in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot; then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulder."
ARTSI: Given the narrow boundaries of the war, this is now definitely "land", as in a specific place, and not "Earth" as in the planet.
But which "land", and at what dates? See my note to verse 28.
14:26 ZOT HA ETSAH HA YE'UTSAH AL KOL HA ARETS VE ZOT HA YAD HA NETUYAH AL KOL HA GOYIM
14:26 ZOT HA ETSAH HA YE'UTSAH AL KOL HA ARETS VE ZOT HA YAD HA NETUYAH AL KOL HA GOYIM
זֹאת הָעֵצָה הַיְּעוּצָה עַל כָּל הָאָרֶץ וְזֹאת הַיָּד הַנְּטוּיָה עַל כָּל הַגּוֹיִם
KJ: This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations.
BN: This is the plan that is proposed for the entire land; and this is the hand that is stretched out to all the nations.
The "hand stretched out" was a consistent image several chapters ago. And from the careful phrasing of this verse, we can now see the purpose of the word-play with ERETS. What is proposed for this land, locally, is also intended for the entire Earth, globally. And perhaps that word-play is devised because of the inevitable word-play on the two kings named ACHAZ, and the two events connected with them (thus does a poet, facing a poem that is in danger of having to be breach-birthed, finally cross the rubicon of doubt and decide to tell the tale of Julius of Rome using caesuras.... something of that sort... see my note at verse 28)
14:27 KI YHVH TSEVA'OT YA'ATS U MI YAPHER VE YADO HA NETUYAH U MI YESHIYVENAH
כִּי יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת יָעָץ וּמִי יָפֵר וְיָדוֹ הַנְּטוּיָה וּמִי יְשִׁיבֶנָּה
KJ: For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?
BN: For YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens has proposed, and who is going to vote against or veto it? And his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?
YAPHER: How do you "disannul" something? Worth looking at the link, because this is a root with some very precise and specific usages, the first three on the link-page especially.
pey break
14:28 BI SHNAT MOT HA MELECH ACHAZ HAYAH HA MASA HA ZEH
בִּשְׁנַת מוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ אָחָז הָיָה הַמַּשָּׂא הַזֶּה
KJ: In the year that king Ahaz died was this burden.
BN: In the year that king Achaz died was this oracle delivered.
This tells us unequivocally that this oracle was given in the year king Achaz died – but which Achaz? click here.
The one we encountered in Book One was Chizki-Yah's (Hezekiah's) father and immediate predecessor; he came to the throne (2 Kings 18:1) in the 3rd year of Hoshe'a of Ephrayim, 6 years before Shalman-Ezer V conquered Yisra-El (see my notes at 13:1 - and decide how you are spelling the name!)
But if it was him, then this verse becomes immensely
problematic, and really key to the whole process of reading it: if it was
genuinely an oracle at that time, then it is a prediction of the future that
has quite remarkable accuracy, but does so for three completely different
events, 160 years apart for the first two, and then another 50 for the third.
Even Nostradamus didn't get that accurate!
But if it is the second Achaz, and therefore not prediction..., then it has to be history,
retroactively claimed as prediction, in which case Deutero-Isaiah must have
written the whole thing, and not earlier than the time of the third event,
around 536 BCE.
14:29 AL TISMECHI PHELESHET KULECH KI NISHBAR SHEVET MAKECH KI MI SHORESH NACHASH YETS'E TSEPH'A U PHIRYO SARAPH ME'OPHEPH
אַל תִּשְׂמְחִי פְלֶשֶׁת כֻּלֵּךְ כִּי נִשְׁבַּר שֵׁבֶט מַכֵּךְ כִּי מִשֹּׁרֶשׁ נָחָשׁ יֵצֵא צֶפַע וּפִרְיוֹ שָׂרָף מְעוֹפֵף
BN: Do not rejoice, Peleshet, any of you, because the rod that smote you is now broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth an asp, and his fruit shall be a flying serpent.
PELESHET: Then Y-Y speaks, as if in an epilogue to the above, to the Pelishtim, warning them not to exult at the defeat of Ashur , because "out of the serpent's roots will come forth a viper and its offspring will be a fiery serpent" - imagery we have encountered previously - see my notes at 11:8.
This is complex, and not only because it is probably a deliberate allusion to Judges 14:14, but because Judges 14:14 is itself a riddle. Serpents don't have roots. Roots don't parent vipers. Lucifer in Christian mythology may be a serpent, but this isn't Christian mythology (see my note at verse 12 to understand why I am saying this). However, both Tahamat and Behemot are, and self-evidently so is the serpent of Eden - how else would all that dead matter get biodegraded into fertile compost if there weren't giant worms in She'ol to effect it? But the fiery serpent is none of these; he is Nechushtan, Mosheh's banner, alluded to above already, and soon to be destroyed by Chizki-Yah.
I leave my reader to solve this complex riddle in your own time.
But to offer some assistance, the key is the word SHORESH, which is indeed "a root" (Y-Y uses it as such in 40:24), as in those that fix shrubs and trees, and metaphorically human families, in their native soil. But you can uproot a root - for which see Psalm 52:7, Job 31:8 and 12), as has clearly been the case with the Padan-Aramians who are now living in Shomron, and the Yehudim who are now in Bavel, uprooted peoples, taken away to foreign lands because uprooting them is the best way to ensure they will never rebel against their slavery. See Ezra 7:26.
And then there is a SHARSHAH, which is precisely the chains those slaves wore, in Bavel probably, in Egypt for certain, because the word is found in Exodus 28:22, and a smaller version, a SHARSHERAH, in Exodus 28:14 and 39:15.
And finally, to complete this chain of word-plays and root them back in the text, there is Isaiah 53:2, which echoes 11:10 - the "root of Yishai".
14:30 VE RA'U BECHOREY DALIM VE EVYONIM LA VETACH YIRBATSU VE HEMATI VA RA'AV SHARSHECH U SHE'ERIYTECH YAHAROG
וְרָעוּ בְּכוֹרֵי דַלִּים וְאֶבְיוֹנִים לָבֶטַח יִרְבָּצוּ וְהֵמַתִּי בָרָעָב שָׁרְשֵׁךְ וּשְׁאֵרִיתֵךְ יַהֲרֹג
KJ: And the firstborn of the poor shall feed, and the needy shall lie down in safety: and I will kill thy root with famine, and he shall slay thy remnant.
BN: And the first-born of the poor shall feed, and the needy shall lie down in safety; and I will kill your uprooted with famine, and your remnant shall be slain.
14:31 HEYLILI SHA'AR ZA'AKI IR NAMOG PELESHET KULECH KI MI TSAPHON ASHAN BA VE EYN BODED BE MO'ADAV
הֵילִילִי שַׁעַר זַעֲקִי עִיר נָמוֹג פְּלֶשֶׁת כֻּלֵּךְ כִּי מִצָּפוֹן עָשָׁן בָּא וְאֵין בּוֹדֵד בְּמוֹעָדָיו
BN: Howl, O gate; cry, O city; melt away, O Peleshet, all of you. For smoke is coming out of the north, and there is no straggler in his ranks.
This now turns the full assault against the Pelishtim… and from the north, from the land of Tammuz-Adonis, of Delilah... this cannot be YHVH, except by surrogate...
but it also leaves us needing to question once again where and when he is writing, and/or delivering, this oracle: in Bavel, or in Yehudah? It becomes a very different text in each location.
HEYLILI: See my notes at verse 14, and note that the Christian translators all agree with me on this occasion!
14:32 U MAH YA'ANEH MAL'ACHEY GOY KI YHVH YISAD TSI'ON U VAH YECHESU ANIYEY AMO
וּמַה יַּעֲנֶה מַלְאֲכֵי גוֹי כִּי יְהוָה יִסַּד צִיּוֹן וּבָהּ יֶחֱסוּ עֲנִיֵּי עַמּוֹ
KJ: What shall one then answer the messengers of the nation? That the LORD hath founded Zion, and the poor of his people shall trust in it.
BN: What then shall one answer the messengers of the nation? That YHVH has founded Tsi'on, and in her shall the afflicted of his people take refuge. {P}
But surely YHVH founded Tsi'on in Solomonic times? Does he then mean re-founded? When the first of the Yehudim returned with Zeru-Bavel, around 536 BCE, a rather makeshift version of the Temple was built on the site of the ruined First Temple, but it was only with Nechem-Yah, nearly a hundred years later, that the walls of Yeru-Shala'im were rebuilt, and meaningful political sovereignty established. The tale is told in full in his book.
Or is this simply asserting the superiority of Tsi'on in its role as a refuge city? It cannot be so, if Tsi'on is about to be destroyed, and the people taken off into captivity; so this can only mean re-founded, as per the Temple "fellers" above, which takes us forward to Zeru-Bavel and Ezra et al...
All of which leaves many questions unanswered, and considerable apparent confusion in the text still unresolved. I find myself wondering if, as with the folio and quarto editions of Shakespeare's plays, the lost text of Y-Y wasn't reconstructed centuries later, by priests who had learned the passages they were to recite off-by-heart, but didn't know the other parts so well, and may not even have understood the sophisticated poetry but merely had the words, and those assembling a final version put it together the best they could out of these fragments.
Isaiah:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
Copyright
© 2022 David Prashker
All
rights reserved
The
Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment