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 King James, and several other translations, have moved 8:23 to 9:1. I have included it in both places, but my notes are in chapter 8. The verse is a continuation of the previous, whence my three dots.
8:23 KI LO MU'APH LA ASHER MUTSAK LAH KA ET HA RI'SHON HEKAL ARTSAH ZEVULUN VE ARTSAH NAPHTALI VE HA ACHARON HICHBID DERECH HA YAM EVER HA YARDEN GELIL HA GOYIM
כִּי לֹא מוּעָף לַאֲשֶׁר מוּצָק לָהּ כָּעֵת הָרִאשׁוֹן הֵקַל אַרְצָה זְבֻלוּן וְאַרְצָה נַפְתָּלִי וְהָאַחֲרוֹן הִכְבִּיד דֶּרֶךְ הַיָּם עֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן גְּלִיל הַגּוֹיִם
BN: ...But it is nothing like the darkness that distressed them when it first alighted on the land of Zevulun and the land of Naphtali; only the latter has dealt a more grievous blow by the way of the sea, beyond the Yarden, in the lands of the Goyim.
9:1 HA AM HA HOLCHIM BA CHOSHECH RA'U OR GADOL YOSHVEI BE ERETS TSALMAVET OR NAGAH ALEYHEM
הָעָם הַהֹלְכִים בַּחֹשֶׁךְ רָאוּ אוֹר גָּדוֹל יֹשְׁבֵי בְּאֶרֶץ צַלְמָוֶת אוֹר נָגַהּ עֲלֵיהֶם
KJ (King James translation, 9:2) The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.
BN (BibleNet translation): The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light. They who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, on them has the light shined.
CHOSHECH: See my note at 8:22. This is about night becoming day, and winter becoming spring; Light, not Enlightenment.
TSALMAVET: Doesn't David reference this in one of his Psalms? 23:4 is the famous occasion: "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death (BE GEY TSALMAVET), I will fear no evil: for you are with me; your rod and your staff comfort me." But there are also 44:20 and 107:10.
So we can see again that Y-Y still inhabits an epoch of polytheism, his deities the forces of Nature and the Cosmos in all their multifarious variety; but Prime Ministered by YHVH, and Presidented by EL.
NAGAH: This is not the most commonly used root in Yehudit to describe the light from the sun; normally we would expect ZORACH (זורח), which also gives MIZRACH for the east, that being the direction in which the sun rises. Other than Y-Y, who uses it on one other occasion (13:10, for the moonlight), the only other Biblical instances are 2 Samuel 22:29 and Psalm 18:29, plus 2 occasions in the Book of Job (18:5 and 22:8).
9:2 HIRBIYTA HA GO'I LO HIGDALTA HA SIMCHA SAMCHU LEPHANEYCHA KE SIMCHAT BA KATSIR KA ASHER YAGIYLU BE CHALKAM SHALAL
הִרְבִּיתָ הַגּוֹי לא (לוֹ) הִגְדַּלְתָּ הַשִּׂמְחָה שָׂמְחוּ לְפָנֶיךָ כְּשִׂמְחַת בַּקָּצִיר כַּאֲשֶׁר יָגִילוּ בְּחַלְּקָם שָׁלָל
KJ (9:3): Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.
BN: You have multiplied the nation but you have not increased their joy. They rejoice before you according to the size of their harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.
HIRBIYTA: In numbers of people, material goods, military power? Given what we have read thus far, it can only be the first of these: in the mythological age, it was all about fertility, whence the May King-May Queen references, the birth of the sacred child in verse 5, below. Y-Y acknowledges that these are the rites and ceremonies and beliefs of his day, but he is trying to move the people to a new stage of growth. So, yes, fertility - but it "has not increased the joy", because it is still "sacrifices" and not yet "obedience", still passively relying on the gods rather than getting up and making it happen on the human level.
GO'I: see my note 8:23; on this occasion the addressee is "the nation of Yehudah", which is all that will soon be left of Yisra-El . As per verses 8 through 10, he is still talking to Achaz about the threat from Ashur and the alliance between Aram and Ephrayim.
GO'I: see my note 8:23; on this occasion the addressee is "the nation of Yehudah", which is all that will soon be left of Yisra-El . As per verses 8 through 10, he is still talking to Achaz about the threat from Ashur and the alliance between Aram and Ephrayim.
SHALAL: Is that the same SHALAL that it was in the child's name in chapter 8 (verse 1)? Why use all four parts of the name, when just one is sufficient to make the point?
9:3 KI ET OL SUBALO VE ET MATEH SHICHMO SHEVET HA NOGES BO HACHITOTA KE YOM MIDYAN
כִּי אֶת עֹל סֻבֳּלוֹ וְאֵת מַטֵּה שִׁכְמוֹ שֵׁבֶט הַנֹּגֵשׂ בּוֹ הַחִתֹּתָ כְּיוֹם מִדְיָן
KJ (9:4): For thou hast broken the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, as in the day of Midian.
BN: As on the day of Midian, you will break the yoke of his burden, and the staff on his shoulder, the rod of his oppression.
Y-Y is calling on Achaz to get up and fight, rather than to make a pacifying treaty with the enemy like Aram and Ephrayim. The battle has not yet started, let alone reached a sucessful outcome. And yet KJ, like many other translators, renders this in the past tense, "thou hast broken". No, he hasn't. Not yet. And if he remains passive, as Y-Y fears, he never will. The key to this correction lies in the absence of a verb. KJ has moved HACHITOTA to the beginning of the verse, but it applies to what happened at Midyan, and is at the end of the verse for that reason. I have also moved it to the beginning of the verse, but I have taken its subject with it. Literally, word by word, this should be translated as:
Because the yoke of his burden and the staff on his shoulder, the rod of his oppression...[dramatic pause, probably with a dramatic gesture like the cutting of the throat]... broken, as on Yom Midyan.
YOM MIDYAN: We have to assume that this would be like mentioning the Alamo in America, or Agincourt in Britain - everyone knows exactly what you are referring to without needing to elucidate it (or add a hyperlink!). Yom Yerushalayim in modern Israel. So what was it? See Judges 8, the story of Gid-On, and the pressure on him to accept the kingship after he led the defeat of the Beney Midyan, which he rejected. What happened to the spoil can be found at verse 24 ff.
But it also merits looking at Psalm 83, verses 9 and 10, which I am quite certain Y-Y is thinking of here, even more than the Judges allusion. Yisra-El is under attack on all sides, and the Psalm calls for resistance, opposes surrender. In verse 9 Ashur has now joined the onslaught. In verse 10 the Psalmist references Yom Midyan. Coincidence? I doubt it. One of the principal tasks of the Bardic priesthood, which included the Prophets, was to have the entire canon off-by-heart, in ready-to-recite mode.
SHICHMO: Nor can this be a coincidence. A man who needs a stick carries it in his hand, not on his shoulder - unless it's the insignia of his rank. A chief who has staff (same word, source of the word for "employees" today) may thwack it against his shoulder so you can see from a distance who is boss, but that isn't the point here. We just had an allusion to the great victory inspired by a Prophet against the Beney Midyan, and puns around the letters that anagram from Gil-Gal have abounded since chapter 1. Y-Y doesn't name things without a secondary level of intention; and usually it is the secondary, the unstated, the inferred, that needs paying the most attention to, the actual simply being a means to make your mind go there rather than him thinking the thought for you (the white halls of education, as opposed to the black holes of teaching: Y-Y's philosophy throughout). So what does Shichmo conjure up for anyone in that place, at that time (what did "white halls" conjure up for you by automatic word association? The place of government in the UK)...
Shechem - the capital of the Northern Kingdom until...
And if you are going to take part in (should that be "shoulder the burden of...") a ritual of sacrifice - at the Temple rather than on the battlefield - which is the most highly valued portion, the part reserved for the priests? Oh yes, the Shechem (interesting and very relevant short essay on it here), the shoulder, referred to by its agricultural rather than its anatomical name in Deuteronomy 18:3, the ZERU'A (No, not as in OR ZARU'A, which would then connect to ZERACH in verse 1, and may be the reason why Y-Y avoided using it there, going for the rather more obscure NAGAH instead. Though, on reflection, there is also ZERO'O in verse 19... same spelling, different root... and then yet another odd coincidence, for which see my note to verse 11).
And can we also read from these latter phrases that the enemy is being pushed back? If verse 5 is to be taken literally, then we have moved forward fully nine months from the announcement at Isaiah 7:14.
9:4 KI CHOL SE'ON SO'EN BE RA'ASH VE SIMLAH MEGOLALAH VE DAMIM VE HAYETAH LISREPHA MA'ACHOLET ESH
כִּי כָל סְאוֹן סֹאֵן בְּרַעַשׁ וְשִׂמְלָה מְגוֹלָלָה בְדָמִים וְהָיְתָה לִשְׂרֵפָה מַאֲכֹלֶת אֵשׁ
KJ (9:5): For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire.
BN: For every boot that stamps its fierceness, and every cloak that rolls in blood, it shall be for burning, used as fuel to kindle a fire.
SE'ON SO'EN: Sacrifice on the battlefield now equated with sacrifice at the Temple, provided that the battle is for a good reason, and with full Kavanah. But in fact this has to be a literal bonfire, not a Temple sacrifice, because a person who has caused blood in battle cannot make, and a garment soaked in the blood of a dead creature, whether human or animal, cannot be given as, a Temple sacrifice - cf Leviticus 17. The blood must be alive when it is sacrificed, and the giver must be free of blood-guilt.
A SE'ON is really a "sandal", though it seems unlikely that soldiers would have marched wearing sandals rather than something heavier, and sandals don't make the kind of noise Y-Y is describing. Today's army boots are MAGAFAYIM, but that actually comes from the ankle-leggings (gaiters, spatterdashers, puttee, winingas, Wickelbänder, greaves, Stiefeletten.... it all depends which army you are in).
MEGOLALAH: Yet one more of those Gimmel and Lamed anagrams! And again, not the word we would expect: do cloaks "roll" in blood?
9:5 KI YELED YULAD LANU BEN NITAN LANU VA TEHI HA MISRAH AL SHICHMO VA YIKRA SHEMO PEL'E YO'ETS EL GIBOR AVI AD SAR SHALOM
כִּי יֶלֶד יֻלַּד לָנוּ בֵּן נִתַּן לָנוּ וַתְּהִי הַמִּשְׂרָה עַל שִׁכְמוֹ וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ אֵל גִּבּוֹר אֲבִי עַד שַׂר שָׁלוֹם
KJ (9:6): For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
BN: For a child has been born to us, a son is given to us; and the government is on his shoulder; and they will sobriquet him "Wonderful Counsellor", "The Driving Force", "The Founding Father of World Peace".
SHICHMO: Sorry, where did you say the burden of government would be placed? On his shoulder. Ahah!
MISRAH: We need to be clear what this word means, because there is secular government, and there is spiritual government, and quite probably there are several other forms of government as well. But we can't. There is no known root, and there is no other occasion of its usage. Unless... could it be an intensification of the root SAR, "a prince", whence SARAH, "a princess"? The heir to the throne will certainly be counted among the princes - think Prince of Wales in the UK. In which case, is that a subtle way of Y-Y telling King Achaz that his successor has just arrived? Pewrhaps the answer lies in the strange set of sobriquets that follow.
This is now the third time that a child, perhaps the same child, has been given a most unlikely name. First Imanuel, or was it? Then that SHALAL name... Now this... At most the latter two are titles in the Imperial style: "His Glorious Majesty, Protector of Baa-Lambs and Guardian of Desert-Wells..."
PEL'E : The nickname of a great Brazilian footballer, and quite rightly, because it simply means "wonderful". Exodus 15:11, Psalms 77:12 and 88:11, many others.
YO'ETS: A counsellor, or anyone who offers sound advice. Exodus 18:19, 2 Samuel 15:12, et al.
EL: EL is the chief of the gods, but he is still essence, not manifest existence, a metaphor not a physical reality. The E of Einstein's MC2 is precisely the same: kinetic energy that drives the Cosmos.
GIBOR: And as to this. If we add definite articles to both words, we wilAmidahl find ourselves... well, that depends on whether you are a regular shul-goer or not. The regular shul-goer will recognise the words of the central prayer, the Amidah, the very opening of that prayer indeed, line 3
הָאֵל הַגָּדוֹל הַגִּבּוֹר וְהַנּוֹרָא אֵל עֶלְיוֹן
But the scholar of Torah, Jewish or non-Jewish, shul-goer or not shul-goer, will recognise the source of that prayer, which is Deuteronomy 10:17:
And once again there is absolutely no way that a Rosh Yeshiva, addressing his students, is going to use a phrase like EL GIBOR, and not expect his listeners to understand precisely what his allusion means.10:17 KI YHVH ELOHEYCHEM HU ELOHEY HA ELOHIM VA ADONEY HA ADONIM HA EL HA GADOL HA GIBOR VE HA NORA ASHER LO YISA PHANIM VE LO YIKACH SHOCHADכִּי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם הוּא אֱלֹהֵי הָאֱלֹהִים וַאֲדֹנֵי הָאֲדֹנִים הָאֵל הַגָּדֹל הַגִּבֹּר וְהַנּוֹרָא אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִשָּׂא פָנִים וְלֹא יִקַּח שֹׁחַד
KJ: For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
BN: For YHVH your god, he is the god of gods, and lord of lords, the great god, the mighty, and the awful, who pays no regard to persons, and expects no reward.
AVI AD SAR SHALOM: Note the repetition of SAR, confirming my note above. And yes, something decidedly Messianic is implied by these spobriquets, but, once
again, the intention is the immediate successor Chizki-Yah, not some future Jesus. Last time, Y-Y predicted that this child would be born; now he has been.
And yes, you rightly recognised these as Handel lyrics, from the Messiah! Ckick here to hear it.
9:6 LAM RAVAH [LE MARBEH] HA MISRAH U LE SHALOM EYN KETS AL KIS'E DAVID VE AL MAMLACHTO LEHACHIN OTAH U LE SA'ADAH BA MISHPAT U VITSDAKAH ME ATAH VE AD OLAM KIN'AT YHVH TSEVA'OT TA'ASE ZOT
לם רבה (לְמַרְבֵּה) הַמִּשְׂרָה וּלְשָׁלוֹם אֵין-קֵץ, עַל-כִּסֵּא דָוִד וְעַל-מַמְלַכְתּוֹ, לְהָכִין אֹתָהּ וּלְסַעֲדָהּ, בְּמִשְׁפָּט וּבִצְדָקָה; מֵעַתָּה, וְעַד-עוֹלָם, קִנְאַת יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, תַּעֲשֶׂה-זֹּאת. {פ}
KJ (9:7): Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be
no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to
establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The
zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
BN: That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will make this happen. {P}
I have left this in its full Yehudit version, complete with round and curled parentheses, hyphenated words, punctuation - none of these in the original of course, but the Masoretic pointing and more recent additions are all attempts to make sense of a rather difficult verse, and we need to see it in all its complexity to be able to follow any further analysis.
LAM RABAH (LE MARBEH): The former simply isn't meaningful Yehudit, so it can only be a script error that never got corrected until the Masoretes added this. And what does it mean now? "An increase in government" - a rather more blunt way of telling the king to get off his passive backside and do something than the more poetical attempts until now.
SHALOM: When this word has come up before, as it has many times, I have tended to avoid "peace" as its translation, because SHALEM really means "wholeness", even "perfection", and those are certainly the intention behind the names Shelomoh and Yeru-Shala'im. But "peace" is a pre-requisite of "wholeness", and here he definitely means "peace".
KIN'AT: But isn't this also the word for "jealousy", as in Exodus 20:4? The problem is not in the Yehudit, but in our use of the word today, mixing up envy and jealousy as though they were the same thing. Envy is wanting what someone else has - the position of Ashur with regards Yisra-El. Jealousy is treasuring and wanting to keep what belongs to you - the position of YHVH with regards his covenant with Yisra-El.
KIN'AT: But isn't this also the word for "jealousy", as in Exodus 20:4? The problem is not in the Yehudit, but in our use of the word today, mixing up envy and jealousy as though they were the same thing. Envy is wanting what someone else has - the position of Ashur with regards Yisra-El. Jealousy is treasuring and wanting to keep what belongs to you - the position of YHVH with regards his covenant with Yisra-El.
And all this because the Child (7:14 or 8:8?) is born, a political not a spiritual figure - Y-Y has that role already - Mashiyach not Moshi'a: "government" and "throne of David". He fulfils the ideals of Justice, role-modelling it through his leadership, where Achaz is spending his time making babies with pagan hierodules and dealing with the threat from Ashur by appeasement, just like Chamberlain in 1937/38. And I have to keep on stating it: yet again, this is Chizki-Yah (Hezekiah), now, not Jesus or a future Messiah.
9:7 DAVAR SHALACH ADONAI BE YA'AKOV VE NAPHAL BE YISRA-EL
דָּבָר שָׁלַח אֲדֹנָי בְּיַעֲקֹב וְנָפַל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל
KJ (9:8): The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel.
BN: The Lord has sent his Word to Ya'akov, and it has alighted upon Yisra-El.
For an explanation of the two names, see the story of Penu-El in Genesis 32. The key point, yet again, is that Y-Y is calling for action, condemning passivity: "wrestle, Achaz, wrestle, nothing in this human world can ever be achieved with Kampf, Jihad, struggle".
9:8 VE YAD'U HA AM KULO EPHRAYIM VE YOSHEV SHOMRON BE GA'AVAH U VE GODEL LEVAV LEMOR
וְיָדְעוּ הָעָם כֻּלּוֹ אֶפְרַיִם וְיוֹשֵׁב שֹׁמְרוֹן בְּגַאֲוָה וּבְגֹדֶל לֵבָב לֵאמֹר
KJ (9:9): And all the people shall know, even Ephraim and the inhabitant of Samaria, that say in the pride and stoutness of heart,
BN: And all the people shall know, including Ephrayim and the inhabitants of Shomron, the ones who say in pride and in the arrogance of their hearts:
This is more difficult. The inference is that Chizki-Yah, when he takes over as king and does properly what Achaz is failing to do, will liberate the Northern Kingdom as well as repelling the threat to Yehudah, and thereby restore the Davidic kingdom, complete with worship in the form that Y-Y would approve. Which is fine as prophecy, as political rhetoric; what makes it difficult, for us, is that history did not work out that way. Chizki-Yah will repel Ashur, but Ephrayim, the Northern Kingdom, will have disappeared into oblivion by then.
9:9 LEVENIM NAPHALU VE GAZIYT NIVNEH SHIKMIM GUDA'U VA ARAZIM NACHALIPH
KJ (9:10): The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars.
BN: "The bricks are fallen, but we will build with hewn stones; the sycamores are cut down, but we will put cedars in their place."
לְבֵנִים נָפָלוּ וְגָזִית נִבְנֶה שִׁקְמִים גֻּדָּעוּ וַאֲרָזִים נַחֲלִיף
KJ (9:10): The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars.
BN: "The bricks are fallen, but we will build with hewn stones; the sycamores are cut down, but we will put cedars in their place."
GAZIYT NIVNEH: "hewn stones" cannot surely be correct; if used, it would breach Mosaic Law (Exodus 20:21). The Exodus text uses GAZIYT (גָּזִית) for "hewn stones", and this verse uses... the same word. So is Y-Y pre-empting my note at verse 8, aware even before the event that even Chizki-Yah will be unable to save Ephrayim, because the people there, especially the Ashuri colonists and garrisonists who are filling up Shomron, are committed to their "pagan" faith, and will rebuild their land in "pagan" manner, even if Chizki-Yah is able to repel the invader. History will prove him right, if that is his intention. But I am not convinced that I have understood this verse.
SHIKMIM: And that last comment is made because the "sycamore" is generally regarded in the Jewish world as the most likely explanation of the Tree of Life, the sycamore figs being second only to the pomegranate in producing myriads of seeds - and the pomegranate is already the fruit of She'ol, the seeds of Winter, leaving the fig in the Spring world of regeneration. But here they are replaced by "cedars", and it was "cedars of Lebanon" that Shelomoh (Solomon) used to build the First Temple, which is still standing at this time; so what does all this mean?
So will Chizki-Yah defeat the enemy and restore Ya'akov as Yisra-El? Or will the Shomronim ensure that Ephrayim remains separate, with its own religion, its own government, and Yehudah left to stand alone? Perhaps the answer lies in those two descriptors in verse 8: BE GA'AVAH U VE GODEL LEVAV: their "pride" and their "arrogance".
9:10 VA YESAGEV YHVH ET TSAREI RETSIN ALAV VE ET OYEVAV YESACHSECH
KJ (9:11): Therefore the LORD shall set up the adversaries of Rezin against him, and join his enemies together;
BN: Therefore YHVH sets on high the adversaries of Retsin against him, and spurs on his enemies.
9:10 VA YESAGEV YHVH ET TSAREI RETSIN ALAV VE ET OYEVAV YESACHSECH
וַיְשַׂגֵּב יְהוָה אֶת צָרֵי רְצִין עָלָיו וְאֶת אֹיְבָיו יְסַכְסֵךְ
KJ (9:11): Therefore the LORD shall set up the adversaries of Rezin against him, and join his enemies together;
BN: Therefore YHVH sets on high the adversaries of Retsin against him, and spurs on his enemies.
RETSIN again – cf 2 Kings 15ff, but more especially the opening chapters of this book: we are still dealing with the same conflict. It is not yet over. Ashur is still coming down like the wolf on the fold. It does now seem that this is the key to Y-Y's message: YHVH will support us, if we fulfil our part of the covenant (proper government, preparation for war, no appeasement, no passivity, use of the intelligence we have, and the other sort of intelligence that our spies can gather); YHVH will not support Ephrayim, because... or he will, but only if they too do what I am telling you now (the next verse is where you will find this: "his hand remains extended").
9:11 ARAM MI KEDEM U PHELISHTIM ME ACHOR VA YO'CHLU ET YISRA-EL BE CHOL PEH BE CHOL ZOT LO SHAV APO VE OD YADO NETUYAH
KJ (9:12): The Syrians before, and the Philistines behind; and they shall devour Israel with open mouth. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
BN: Aram from the east, and the Pelishtim from behind; and they devour Yisra-El with open mouth. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand remains extended.
Once again we have ARAM interchanging with ASHUR. But now the Pelishtim are also taking advantage of the conflict to push for extension of their settlements.
NETUYAH: A potential positive, simply waiting for the Northern Kingdom to take it up; the source is Exodus 6:6, and how odd, when you go to my link, to find all manner of possible connections in that verse with the ZARU'A and the SHECHEM of verse 5 here. It leaves me wondering (I shall return to this thought many times in the coming chapters) whether Y-Y was quoting Exodus, or might actually have been its author.
9:11 ARAM MI KEDEM U PHELISHTIM ME ACHOR VA YO'CHLU ET YISRA-EL BE CHOL PEH BE CHOL ZOT LO SHAV APO VE OD YADO NETUYAH
אֲרָם מִקֶּדֶם וּפְלִשְׁתִּים מֵאָחוֹר וַיֹּאכְלוּ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכָל פֶּה בְּכָל זֹאת לֹא שָׁב אַפּוֹ וְעוֹד יָדוֹ נְטוּיָה
KJ (9:12): The Syrians before, and the Philistines behind; and they shall devour Israel with open mouth. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
BN: Aram from the east, and the Pelishtim from behind; and they devour Yisra-El with open mouth. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand remains extended.
Once again we have ARAM interchanging with ASHUR. But now the Pelishtim are also taking advantage of the conflict to push for extension of their settlements.
NETUYAH: A potential positive, simply waiting for the Northern Kingdom to take it up; the source is Exodus 6:6, and how odd, when you go to my link, to find all manner of possible connections in that verse with the ZARU'A and the SHECHEM of verse 5 here. It leaves me wondering (I shall return to this thought many times in the coming chapters) whether Y-Y was quoting Exodus, or might actually have been its author.
9:12 VE HA AM LO SHAV AD HA MAKEHU VE ET YHVH TSEVA'OT LO DARASHU
KJ (9:13): For the people turneth not unto him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the LORD of hosts.
BN: Yet the people do not turn to he who smites them, nor do they seek the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens. {S}
The former being the invading Ashurim - which confirms that they have not yet surrendered or made a vassal-treaty, but that they are not resisting either. The latter is YHVH and the polytheon. And if neither of these, who then do they turn to? Ba'al and Asherah presumably, or Oannes, in the case of the Shomronim.
וְהָעָם לֹא שָׁב עַד הַמַּכֵּהוּ וְאֶת יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת לֹא דָרָשׁוּ
KJ (9:13): For the people turneth not unto him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the LORD of hosts.
BN: Yet the people do not turn to he who smites them, nor do they seek the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens. {S}
The former being the invading Ashurim - which confirms that they have not yet surrendered or made a vassal-treaty, but that they are not resisting either. The latter is YHVH and the polytheon. And if neither of these, who then do they turn to? Ba'al and Asherah presumably, or Oannes, in the case of the Shomronim.
9:13: VA YACHRET YHVH MI YISRA-EL ROSH VE ZANAV KIPAH VE AGMON YOM ECHAD
וַיַּכְרֵת יְהוָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל רֹאשׁ וְזָנָב כִּפָּה וְאַגְמוֹן יוֹם אֶחָד
KJ (9:14): Therefore the LORD will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day.
BN: Therefore YHVH will cut Yisra-El off from head to tail, palm-branch and bulrush, on day one.
Does this mean that he will actively help the enemy (who didn’t ask for his help either, and has no intention of worshipping him after their victory)?
KIPAH: Palm-branch? How do we get from there to the little yarmulke that I'm not actually wearing on my head? And is there a word-play going on, between cutting off the head and removing the kipah? and if so, is there also one between the ZANAV and the AGMON?
KIPAH: Palm-branch? How do we get from there to the little yarmulke that I'm not actually wearing on my head? And is there a word-play going on, between cutting off the head and removing the kipah? and if so, is there also one between the ZANAV and the AGMON?
ZANAV: Worth looking at Exodus 4:4, where the ZANAV is the tail of the serpent used by Mosheh for the purpose of prophetcy, though I suspect Y-Y, especially in the next verse, where the head and tail get further poetic elaboration, is thinking of Deuteronomy 28, where verse 13 describes the bounteous rewards of following YHVH, in contrast with verse 44, which has the fall-out for not doing so that is also stated here.
And as to AGMON: Y-Y uses it to mean either bulrushes or marsh-reeds, here and in 58:5 (and see also Isaiah 19:15 where exactly the same verse is repeated, but in a very different, Egyptian, context). The root is AGAM, which is a word used for things that got hot, and therefore smelly, such as marsh water (Isaiah 35:7 and 42:15, but also Exodus 7:19 and 8:1), whence the AGMON that grow in it. It is not, however, the word that is used for bulrushes in Exodus - see my note at Exodus 2:3 which explains why GOM'E is preferred, and entirely logically; the Egyptian word for an Egyptian story, the Assyrian word, here, for an Assyrian story (though probably the two are just dialect variations of the same word anyway).
Threats and promises, scare-mongering and false aspirations, the traditional methodologies of priests, politicans and used car dealers.
9:14: ZAKEN U NES'U PHANIM HU HA ROSH VE NAV'I MOREH SHEKER HU HA ZANAV
זָקֵן וּנְשׂוּא פָנִים הוּא הָרֹאשׁ וְנָבִיא מוֹרֶה שֶּׁקֶר הוּא הַזָּנָב
KJ (9:15): The ancient and honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail.
BN: The elder and the man of rank, he is the head; and the Prophet who teaches lies, he is the tail.
At the very least Y-Y is playing with an existing play-on-words, because the ZAKEN, who is the "wise elder", gets his sobriquet from ZAKAN = "the beard", and the thought behind the term was that old men with beards are supposed to be wiser than young men without them, though the evidence of history to support this generous fantasy is sparse. And in traditional poetry, the corn or maize growing on the stalk, like those on the head of the bulrush, are depicted as "beards" - as in Shakespeare's "the green corn hath rotted ere his youth attained a beard", in "A Midsummer's Night's Dream" Act 2, Scene 1.
MOREH SHEKER: How are the people supposed to know if the Prophet is true or false? Maybe Y-Y is the false one. See my notes on this at various points of the previous chapters.
9:15: VA YIHEYU ME'ASHREI HA AM HA ZEH MAT'IM U ME'USHARAV MEVULA'IM
וַיִּהְיוּ מְאַשְּׁרֵי הָעָם הַזֶּה מַתְעִים וּמְאֻשָּׁרָיו מְבֻלָּעִים
KJ (9:16): For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.
BN: For they who lead this people cause them to err; and they who are led by them are destroyed.
9:16: AL KEN AL BACHURAV LO YISMACH ADONAI VE ET YITOMAV VE ET ALMENOTAV LO YERACHEM KI CHULO CHANEPH U MER'A VE CHOL PEH DOVER NEVALAH BE CHOL ZOT LO SHAV APO VE OD YADO NETUYAH
עַל כֵּן עַל בַּחוּרָיו לֹא יִשְׂמַח אֲדֹנָי וְאֶת יְתֹמָיו וְאֶת אַלְמְנוֹתָיו לֹא יְרַחֵם כִּי כֻלּוֹ חָנֵף וּמֵרַע וְכָל פֶּה דֹּבֵר נְבָלָה בְּכָל זֹאת לֹא שָׁב אַפּוֹ וְעוֹד יָדוֹ נְטוּיָה
BN: Therefore the Lord shall take no joy from his young men, nor shall he have compassion for their orphans and widows; for every one is ungodly and an evil-doer, and every mouth speaks wantonness. For all this his anger is not turned away, his hand remains extended.
BACHURAV...YITOMAV: Both are 3rd person singular, so I do not understand why KJ, and others, render this in the plural. "His" refers to Adonai, which is to say YHVH.
YITOMAV: Interesting piece of sociology in the translation: YETOM means "orphan", but here it is rendered in many English translations as "fatherless", which allows the possibility that mum is still alive. But in that world, at that time (the Levirate Law only applied to women who had not yet produced any children, which meant specifically a son), a wife without a husband was a woman about to start a life of begging, slavery or prostitution, unless her late husband's family agreed to take her in (in which case the slavery option probably still applied: or household servitude anyway), or she could find another husband. Several of Muhammad's wives were acquired by him on this basis, an act of compassion in his case (Hafsah bint Umar ibn Al-Khattab, Zaynab bint Khuzaymah, Umm Salamah bint Abu Umayyah, Juwayriyah bint al-Haarith, Umm Habibah bint Abu Sufyan - all of them young widows to whom he gave what was probably not full marriage, but at the very least household protection). The story of Avi-Gayil and Nadav in 1 Samuel 25 illustrates my point from the other perspective, though there was no "orphaned" child in that case.
YADAV: As in verse 11.
9:17 KI VA'ARAH CHA ESH RISH'AH SHAMIR VA SHAYIT TO'CHEL VA TITSAT BE SIVCHEI HA YA'AR VA YIT'ABCHU GE'UT ASHAN
כִּי בָעֲרָה כָאֵשׁ רִשְׁעָה שָׁמִיר וָשַׁיִת תֹּאכֵל וַתִּצַּת בְּסִבְכֵי הַיַּעַר וַיִּתְאַבְּכוּ גֵּאוּת עָשָׁן
KJ (9:18): For wickedness burneth as the fire: it shall devour the briers and thorns, and shall kindle in the thickets of the forest, and they shall mount up like the lifting up of smoke.
BN: For wickedness burns like fire; it devours the briers and thorns; indeed, it kindles in the thickets of the forest, and they roll upward in thick clouds of smoke.
SHAMIR VA SHAYIT: Continuing the imagery of verse 13, but moving it from the wetlands to the drylands, to make clear that nothing escapes.
9:18 BE EVRAT YHVH TSEVA'OT NE'TAM ARETS VA YEHI HA AM KE MA'ACHOLET ESH ISH ACHIV LO YACHMOLU
בְּעֶבְרַת יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת נֶעְתַּם אָרֶץ וַיְהִי הָעָם כְּמַאֲכֹלֶת אֵשׁ אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו לֹא יַחְמֹלוּ
KJ (9:19): Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother.
BN: Through the anger of the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens is the land burnt up; the people too are like fuel for the fire; no man spares his brother.
9:19 VA YIGZOR AL YAMIN VE RA'EV VA YO'CHAL AL SEM'OL VE LO SAVE'U ISH BESAR ZERO'O YO'CHELU
וַיִּגְזֹר עַל יָמִין וְרָעֵב וַיֹּאכַל עַל שְׂמֹאול וְלֹא שָׂבֵעוּ אִישׁ בְּשַׂר זְרֹעוֹ יֹאכֵלוּ
KJ (9:20): And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm:
BN: And he will slice off his right arm, but remain hungry; and his left arm, and still be unsatisfied; so a man will eat the flesh of his own arm.
YIGZOR: is the keyword here. Joshua 10:33, 12:12 and 16:3 refer to a place named Gezer, formerly a Kena'ani (Canaanite) royal city, now "cut off" - later restored by Shelomoh after the Egyptians did much the same to it (1 Kings 9:15-17). Multiple other occurrences throughout the Tanach confirm "cut off", though usually it is about destroyed towns or arid wildernesses. But here, cut off means cut off. Cannibalism. Dante has a tale like this in the Inferno - Count Ugolino in Canto 33. My only challenge to Y-Y is this: if he has already cut off his right arm, what means does he now have for cutting off his left arm? Or is the intention of the next verse that two men will assist each other - but that still leaves the problem of the second man's second arm.
9:20 MENASHEH ET EPHRAYIM VE EPHRAYIM ET MENASHEH YACHDAV HEMAH AL YEHUDAH BE CHOL ZOT LO SHAV APO VE OD YADO NETUYAH
9:20 MENASHEH ET EPHRAYIM VE EPHRAYIM ET MENASHEH YACHDAV HEMAH AL YEHUDAH BE CHOL ZOT LO SHAV APO VE OD YADO NETUYAH
מְנַשֶּׁה אֶת אֶפְרַיִם וְאֶפְרַיִם אֶת מְנַשֶּׁה יַחְדָּו הֵמָּה עַל יְהוּדָה בְּכָל זֹאת לֹא שָׁב אַפּוֹ וְעוֹד יָדוֹ נְטוּיָה
BN: Menasheh, Ephrayim; and Ephrayim, Menasheh; and they together are against Yehudah. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand remains extended. {S}
Menasheh versus Ephrayim, brother versus brother, inferring tribe against tribe.
The third time he has used this phrase, but this time it is different, because his hand is now compared with the cannibalistic hand of Humankind in the preceding verses.
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