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
8:1 VA YOMER YHVH ELAI KACH LECHA GILAYON GADOL U CHETUV ALAV BE CHERET ENOSH LEMAHER SHALAL CHASH BAZ
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֵלַי קַח לְךָ גִּלָּיוֹן גָּדוֹל וּכְתֹב עָלָיו בְּחֶרֶט אֱנוֹשׁ לְמַהֵר שָׁלָל חָשׁ בַּז
KJ (King James translation): Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz.
BN (BibleNet translation): Then YHVH said to me: Take a large tablet, and write on it in human language: "To speed up the spoil requires the passivity of the prey."
"Moreover" in the KJ suggests a continuation, but the text doesn't provide it. Is this the same diatribe to King Achaz, or is it a new chapter? And if the latter, are we in an anthology of gathered but separate pieces, or a continuous work? How actually is the text constructed? (the answer appears to lie in verse 3).
KACH LECHA: Recalling Av-Ram's "Lech Lecha" again (Genesis 12:1), though this lacks the "please" of 7:3.
GILAYON GADOL: A scroll, a piece of parchment, a wax tablet, a piece of clay? Whatever it turns out to be, it recalls Mosheh writing the Ten Commandments on clay tablets. But it also resumes a word-play from Isaiah 7 - see verse 20.
BE CHERET: "A man's pen", as per KJ; or "cursive script", as I have seen elsewhere? A CHARAT is an engraving tool, but the point here is that this is to be the palpability of a human document, not the act of faith of a divine "message".
Bear in mind that alphabetic writing, as we know it, was invented in Ugarit and Babylos (the lands of the Beney Cheret - כרת - spelled with with a Tav not a Tet) around the time of King Shelomoh, circa 1000 BCE, so Y-Y is about as far into its advances as Shakespeare was to the first use of English as a literary language, and the accompanying printing press: three hundred years, enough for the sophistications to have begun emerging.
As to "cursive", where we in English are accustomed to upper and lower case, using upper only for titles, and the initial letters of sentences and proper nouns, cursive script is an alphabet in its own write, sometimes very similar to the print alphabet, sometimes very different, but the two are never used together. The Bible is written entirely in print, as are today's books and newspapers; but a student would write an essay, or a writer keep a diary, or a lover send a letter, in cursive script (an official letter would use print). So it is entirely feasible that "cursive script" is intended here, though I still think the intention is the human over the divine. The link here is to my essay on the alphabet, but it does not include the cursive, for which see the ilustration adjacent.
MAHER-SHALAL-CHASH-BAZ: And what is the use of a translation that gives you the Yehudit without explaining it? To which I presume the answer lies in my explanation of Imanu-El at 7:14 - that translation can prove most inconvenient when you are trying to superimpose a different theology upon it!
MAHER: I have to confess that I am rather pleased with my rendition of this phrase, getting the poetry and even the alliteration that Y-Y so enjoys, but especially getting his meaning so sharply. LEMAHER is the verb for "to hurry" or "to speed up".
SHALAL: "Spoil". See Genesis 49:27.
CHASH: Is more often seen in its feminine form as CHASHAH, but either way it is about "keeping silent" or "staying still" - cf Psalm 28:1 and Psalm 107:29 for example, or Nechem-Yah 8:11, though Y-Y uses it himself repeatedly (62:1 and 6, 64:11, 65:6)
BAZ: See Numbers 14:3 and 31, Deuteronomy 1:39... though I suspect that Y-Y, as he always does, is also playing word-allusions: as per the link, Genesis 22:21 names BUZ as the second son of Nachor, Av-Ram's brother, and in Yehudit the word came to mean "contempt". But don't forget where Nachor and Buz and the other brothers lived: in Padan-Aram, precisely the area from which the invaders are descending upon Ephrayim and Yehudah.
8:2 VE A'IYDAH LI EDIM NE'EMANIM ET UR-YAH HA KOHEN VE ET ZECHAR-YAHU BEN YEVERECH-YAHU
וְאָעִידָה לִּי עֵדִים נֶאֱמָנִים אֵת אוּרִיָּה הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת זְכַרְיָהוּ בֶּן יְבֶרֶכְיָהוּ
KJ: And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.
BN: And I brought with me to the making of this record faithful witnesses, namely Ur-Yah the priest and Zechar-Yah ben Yeverech-Yah.
"Witnesses to the making of a record" means that this is an official, legal document, confirming again Y-Y's status - he is not some luny hippy wandering around doing palm-readings and sneaking past the king's bodyguard to confront him with his rantings. He is here with the full blessing of the Kohen Gadol - no priests of any rank would accompany him to the king, or have the authority to witness an official document, without it.
UR-YAH: the only other Ur-Yah in the Bible is rather famous for reasons that would be rather meaningful to King Achaz, the descendant of King Shelomoh (cf 2 Samuel 11 and 12); but this is not he.
ZECHAR-YAHU: Nor is this the famous Prophet Zechar-Yah, but simply the coincidence of a name. Note again the masculinasion of a Yah name in the Masoretic text; and surprising, actually, that the same was not done to Ur-Yah - probably an oversight by the redactor rather than a need to keep alive any possible Solomonic allusion!
8:3 VA EKRAV EL HA NEVIY'AH VA TAHAR VA TELED BEN VA YOMER YHVH ELAI KERA SHEMO MAHER SHALAL CHASH BAZ
8:3 VA EKRAV EL HA NEVIY'AH VA TAHAR VA TELED BEN VA YOMER YHVH ELAI KERA SHEMO MAHER SHALAL CHASH BAZ
וָאֶקְרַב אֶל הַנְּבִיאָה וַתַּהַר וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן {ס} וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֵלַי קְרָא שְׁמוֹ מַהֵר שָׁלָל חָשׁ בַּז
KJ: And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.
BN: And I went to the prophetess; and she conceived, and bore a son. {S} Then YHVH said to me: Give him the name Maher-shalal-chash-baz.
Samech break after BEN, before VA-YOMER, which is unusual: presumably the original text had the god-quote on a separate line; even, possibly, indented.
EKRAV: "Went to" is just a knock on the door and an invitation to sit across a table to have your palm or your tea-leaves read. "Went into" has a rather more sexual connotation, and EKRAV in the context of a man and a woman is always the latter, never the former - cf Genesis 20:4.
EKRAV: "Went to" is just a knock on the door and an invitation to sit across a table to have your palm or your tea-leaves read. "Went into" has a rather more sexual connotation, and EKRAV in the context of a man and a woman is always the latter, never the former - cf Genesis 20:4.
NEVIY'AH: "Prophetess" is interesting. Y-Y himself speaks later [verse 19] about the false prophets, which is to say the ba'alot ov - necromancers and soothsayers etc - referred to in Torah, making the sort of distinction that the great scientist of the modern Enlightenment Johannes Kepler made when he noted that "God provides for every animal his means of substance. For the astronomer he has provided astrology."
But much more likely he is creating an analogy for Achaz's May-King fathering of Chizki-Yah, which we read about in the last chapter.
And if "went" does mean "went into", were they married as in the May-King and May-Queen ritual, with the Prophet playing hierophant to the Prophetess' hierodule? If so - and I think it highly unlikely as a literal, but totally likely as a parable - it would add an entirely different level of understanding to the shamanism of their roles? And what child is the outcome, remembering that the outcome of the May-King May-Queen ceremony is always dedicated to the Temple and has special status for the remainder of his life? Is it then the same Mashiyach for whom they cried "El is with us" in 7:14? Or is it, as per the parable but in my extended paraphrase,
And if "went" does mean "went into", were they married as in the May-King and May-Queen ritual, with the Prophet playing hierophant to the Prophetess' hierodule? If so - and I think it highly unlikely as a literal, but totally likely as a parable - it would add an entirely different level of understanding to the shamanism of their roles? And what child is the outcome, remembering that the outcome of the May-King May-Queen ceremony is always dedicated to the Temple and has special status for the remainder of his life? Is it then the same Mashiyach for whom they cried "El is with us" in 7:14? Or is it, as per the parable but in my extended paraphrase,
"the Prophetess looked into the future, based on the same contemporary data that I did previously; she saw the same foolish alliances, the same mis-managed drought turning into famine, the same threat from the same eastern lands, the same passivity among the people; and her vision and mine harmonised together like a bride and groom on their wedding night, and the name of the progeny is as I have already told you: LEMAHER SHALAL CHASH BAZ: "To speed up the spoil requires the passivity of the prey."
One last thought: despite the Christian mistranslations, the birthname of the child in 7:14 is never actually given in the texts, only that he would later take the king-name Chizki-Yah (Hezekiah). But clearly, from the parable here, any lingering doubt over the previous chapter is cleared up: the meaning of the name, and the "moreover", of verse 1 tells us that, yes, the intention of the prophecy is the replacement of Achav by Chizki-Yah, as soon as the child is ready (or "even before" to judge from 7:16, which phrasing, by extraordinary coincidence, repeats in the very next verse).
8:4 KI BE TEREM YED'A HA NA'AR KERO AVI VE IMI YIS'A ET CHEYAL DAMESEK VE ET SHELAL SHOMRON LIPHNEY MELECH ASHUR
כִּי בְּטֶרֶם יֵדַע הַנַּעַר קְרֹא אָבִי וְאִמִּי יִשָּׂא אֶת חֵיל דַּמֶּשֶׂק וְאֵת שְׁלַל שֹׁמְרוֹן לִפְנֵי מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר
BN: For before the child shall even know how to call out "Mummy" and "Daddy", the riches of Damesek and the spoil of Shomron will be carried away by the king of Ashur. {S}
AVI...IMI: The KJ translation on this occasion is not simply bad, it fails.
SHELAL: The same as in his name.
The end of the Northern Kingdom is then imminent. Can Achaz save Yehudah from following in its demise? Not likely, based on these verses.
The end of the Northern Kingdom is then imminent. Can Achaz save Yehudah from following in its demise? Not likely, based on these verses.
samech break
8:5 VE YOSEPH YHVH DABER ELAI OD LEMOR
וַיֹּסֶף יְהוָה דַּבֵּר אֵלַי עוֹד לֵאמֹר
KJ: The LORD spake also unto me again, saying,
BN: Then YHVH spoke to me yet again, saying:
Once again Y-Y appears to be authoring his own book, where above has been 3rd person narrative.
8:6 YA'AN KI MA'AS HA AM HA ZEH ET MEY HA SHILO'ACH HA HOLCHIM LE'AT U MESOS ET RETSIN U VEN REMAL-YAHU
Once again Y-Y appears to be authoring his own book, where above has been 3rd person narrative.
8:6 YA'AN KI MA'AS HA AM HA ZEH ET MEY HA SHILO'ACH HA HOLCHIM LE'AT U MESOS ET RETSIN U VEN REMAL-YAHU
יַעַן כִּי מָאַס הָעָם הַזֶּה אֵת מֵי הַשִּׁלֹחַ הַהֹלְכִים לְאַט וּמְשׂוֹשׂ אֶת רְצִין וּבֶן רְמַלְיָהוּ
KJ: Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son;
BN: Forasmuch as this people has refused the waters of Shilo'ach that run softly, and rejoices with Retsin and ben Remal-Yah;
SHILO'ACH: Not the pool of Silo'am, which is at En Rogel in Yeru-Shala'im, nor Shiloh; these three get confused, but they are entirely different places. And yes, thank you, I am aware that I used the incorrect-traditional translation, when I wrote my novel "The Flaming Sword" forty years ago. But I also made some other important corrections, as per verse 8, below. For a full explanation of the three locations, see my notes at Joshua 18:1.
RETSIN U VEN REMAL-YAHU: Confirmation, if we still need it, that Y-Y is still speaking about the immediate crisis of King Achaz's reign, and not some future eschatology. My notes on both kings can be found at Isaiah 7:1, and it is not obvious to my why Pekach is referred to here only by his patronymic, but there in full. The insinuation of the verse is that the people are pressing Achaz to join the alliance against Ashur, which will also take them away from the Davidic religion ("the waters of Shilo'ach") into something rather more "pagan"; and I suspect that it is the religious rather than the political that is driving Y-Y.
RETSIN U VEN REMAL-YAHU: Confirmation, if we still need it, that Y-Y is still speaking about the immediate crisis of King Achaz's reign, and not some future eschatology. My notes on both kings can be found at Isaiah 7:1, and it is not obvious to my why Pekach is referred to here only by his patronymic, but there in full. The insinuation of the verse is that the people are pressing Achaz to join the alliance against Ashur, which will also take them away from the Davidic religion ("the waters of Shilo'ach") into something rather more "pagan"; and I suspect that it is the religious rather than the political that is driving Y-Y.
8:7 VE LACHEN HINEH ADONAI MA'ALEH ALEYHEM ET MEY HA NAHAR HA ATSUMIM VE HA RABIM ET MELECH ASHUR VE ET KOL KEVODO VE ALAH AL KOL APHIYKAV VE HALACH AL KOL GEDOTAV
וְלָכֵן הִנֵּה אֲדֹנָי מַעֲלֶה עֲלֵיהֶם אֶת מֵי הַנָּהָר הָעֲצוּמִים וְהָרַבִּים אֶת מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר וְאֶת כָּל כְּבוֹדוֹ וְעָלָה עַל כָּל אֲפִיקָיו וְהָלַךְ עַל כָּל גְּדוֹתָיו
BN: Now therefore, behold, the Lord will bring up against them the waters of the river, mighty and many, even the king of Ashur and all his glory; and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks;
Verse 6 said that YHVH spoke to him, but the phrasing of this verse suggests that he is speaking through him.
HA NAHAR: Shilo'ach is at most a pool, a pond, a small lake, a stream. HA NAHAR could potentially mean the river Yarden, but much more likely that strong definite article indicates a major waterway, and that can only be the Perat (Euphrates), which is the king of Ashur's homeland. Having said which, it is also clear that Y-Y is making a metaphor out of this.
HA NAHAR: Shilo'ach is at most a pool, a pond, a small lake, a stream. HA NAHAR could potentially mean the river Yarden, but much more likely that strong definite article indicates a major waterway, and that can only be the Perat (Euphrates), which is the king of Ashur's homeland. Having said which, it is also clear that Y-Y is making a metaphor out of this.
8:8 VE CHALAPH BIYHUDAH SHATAPH VE AVAR AD TSAV'AR YAGIY'A VE HAYAH MUTOT KENAPHAV MELO ROCHAV ARTSECHA IMANU EL
וְחָלַף בִּיהוּדָה שָׁטַף וְעָבַר עַד צַוָּאר יַגִּיעַ וְהָיָה מֻטּוֹת כְּנָפָיו מְלֹא רֹחַב אַרְצְךָ עִמָּנוּ אֵל
KJ: And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.
BN (conventional translation): And he will sweep through Yehudah, overflowing as he passes through; he will reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of your land, Imanu-El.
Seeming to reference Imanu-El as the name of the child from 7:14; but that child has been named here rather differently. In the Prologue to "The Waters of Shiloh", in "The Flaming Sword", I translated this set of verses (6-10) as:
Because this nation has rejected the waters of
Shiloh
which run
so soft and gentle
between
Rezin and Remaliah
so the Lord shall bring up against it
the strong
flooding waters of the Euphrates
the king
of Assyria and all his host
It shall run up its channels
it shall overflow its banks
it shall sweep through Judah in a flood
pouring
over it and rising shoulder-high
The whole expanse of the land shall be filled
so wide
will it spread its wings
But God is with us
Take note ye nations and be dismayed
Listen all you distant corners of the Earth
You may arm yourselves but you will be dismayed
You may arm yourselves but you will be dismayed
Make your plans - they will be foiled
Plot what you please - it shall not come to pass
For God is with us
The cry of resistance that Y-Y is demanding of Achaz, but knows he will not obtain, and so he has already transferred his semicha to the son, and is calling on him to respond.
And note that, yet again in these early chapters, it is EL, not YHVH, who is being invoked, even though it is YHVH whose mesages he is conveying (theologically, to use my familiar comparison, YHVH is still Prime Minister, with the Tseva'ot, the "Hosts", as his Cabinet; EL is the figurehead President - or the monarch, in the UK).
samech break
8:9 RO'U AMIM VA CHOTU VE HA'AZIYNU KOL MERCHAKEI ARETS HIT'AZRU VA CHOTU HIT'AZRU VA CHOTU
רֹעוּ עַמִּים וָחֹתּוּ וְהַאֲזִינוּ כֹּל מֶרְחַקֵּי אָרֶץ הִתְאַזְּרוּ וָחֹתּוּ הִתְאַזְּרוּ וָחֹתּוּ
KJ: Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; and give ear, all ye of far countries: gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces.
BN (my "Flaming Sword" translation): Take note ye nations and be dismayed. Listen all you distant corners of the Earth. You may arm yourselves, but you will be dismayed. You may arm yourselves, but you will be dismayed.
The enemy will be defeated – which, given the evidence of history and the nature of time, is an easy prediction to make; the trick to a good prophesy is indicating when as well as what. Or is this simply a rallying-cry?
A pretty good rallying-cry for today's Israel too, in the face of Iranian nuclear threats and the anti-Semitism of BDS.
8:10 UTSU ETSAH VE TUPAR DABRU DAVAR VE LO YAKUM KI IMANU EL
A pretty good rallying-cry for today's Israel too, in the face of Iranian nuclear threats and the anti-Semitism of BDS.
8:10 UTSU ETSAH VE TUPAR DABRU DAVAR VE LO YAKUM KI IMANU EL
עֻצוּ עֵצָה וְתֻפָר דַּבְּרוּ דָבָר וְלֹא יָקוּם כִּי עִמָּנוּ אֵל
KJ: Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us.
BN: Take counsel together, and it shall be brought to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand; for El is with us.
UTSU: And I know that you thought I was pushing it, with my note about BUZ at verse 1. Now look at the link to UTS, and see if you've changed your mind. Y-Y is playing word-games, all the time; picking his nouns and verbs entirely deliberately.
And you can see the same mind at work with UTSU followed by ETSAH, DABRU followed by DAVAR, symmetrical internal-rhymes based on identical roots. Poetry, rather more than oracle.
KI IMANU EL: Y-Y's phrase of affirmation, a kind of poetical Amen, like the closing line of Shelley's "Call To Freedom" (click here). It is most definitely not intended to be a name on this occasion (or two verses ago; but these two repetitions also need referencing at 7:14).
samech break
8:11 KI CHOH AMAR YHVH ELAI KE CHEZKAT HA YAT VE YISRENI MILECHET BE DERECH HA AM HA ZEH LEMOR
כִּי כֹה אָמַר יְהוָה אֵלַי כְּחֶזְקַת הַיָּד וְיִסְּרֵנִי מִלֶּכֶת בְּדֶרֶךְ הָעָם הַזֶּה לֵאמֹר
KJ: For the LORD spake thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying,
BN: For YHVH spoke thus to me with a strong hand, admonishing me that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying:
New section? New instructions, but of a negative kind: Y-Y is very good at telling his listeners what not to do, and what will happen to them if they ignore his warning; very poor at telling them what to do to obtain reward, except in vague generalisations such as "Righteousness".
CHEZKAT YAD: It was with a "strong hand" that YHVH took the Habiru out of Mitsrayim, led by Mosheh - BE YAD CHAZAKAH in that instance (Deuteronomy 26:8). The allusion would be unavoidable, for Achaz; but it isn't just the Mosaic allusion that Y-Y is playing with. This is the third time that the name of Hezekiah (Chizki-Yah in the Yehudit) has come up; and it is precisely Hezekiah who will succeed Achaz and restore the greatness of Yisra-El. Then is it worth considering whether he was given that king-name, precisely because of Y-Y's prophecies?
CHEZKAT YAD: It was with a "strong hand" that YHVH took the Habiru out of Mitsrayim, led by Mosheh - BE YAD CHAZAKAH in that instance (Deuteronomy 26:8). The allusion would be unavoidable, for Achaz; but it isn't just the Mosaic allusion that Y-Y is playing with. This is the third time that the name of Hezekiah (Chizki-Yah in the Yehudit) has come up; and it is precisely Hezekiah who will succeed Achaz and restore the greatness of Yisra-El. Then is it worth considering whether he was given that king-name, precisely because of Y-Y's prophecies?
8:12 LO TOMRUN KESHER LE CHOL ASHER YOMAR HA AM HA ZEH KASHER VE ET MORA'O LO TIYRE'U VE LO TA'ARIYTSU
לֹא תֹאמְרוּן קֶשֶׁר לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר הָעָם הַזֶּה קָשֶׁר וְאֶת מוֹרָאוֹ לֹא תִירְאוּ וְלֹא תַעֲרִיצוּ
KJ: Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.
BN (interpretative translation): Do not leap into alliances just because the people of this land say "Let us form an alliance". Fears and threats do not guarantee successful alliances. Do not feel threatened by their fears.
KESHER: Confederacy and conspiracy are very different things! A KESHER is a bond, but the alliance between Ephrayim and Aram is the former, not the latter, as the Davidic kingdom was the former, not the latter.
Saying what not to say says it anyway!
8:13 ET YHVH TSEVA'OT OTO TAKDIYSHU VE HU MORA'ACHEM VE HU MA'ARITSCHEM
אֶת יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת אֹתוֹ תַקְדִּישׁוּ וְהוּא מוֹרַאֲכֶם וְהוּא מַעֲרִצְכֶם
KJ: Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
BN: YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens, him you shall sanctify; and let him be the one you fear, and let him be the one you dread.
Fear the deity. Fear however is not explained; does it mean physical terror, as before a man with a knife who is threatening to kill you, or indeed an army apporaching over the Golan heights even now; or in the sense of awe and respect. The Mosaic texts speak of Pachad Yitschak (see Genesis 31:42), the "Fear of Isaac", as the name for his deity, but this is understood to be the psychic trauma of the Akeda, and is unique in the Torah; elsewhere, in the Shem'a especially, the deity seeks love, not fear.
TAKDIYSHU... MORA'ACHEM... MA'ARITSCHEM: all second person plural, though the English translations cannot convey that. So who is Y-Y addressing: previously we thought he had been summoned to meet Achaz and speak to him, but this is addressed to a larger audience. (I should have pointed this out with TOMRUN in the previous verse as well).
8:14 VE HAYAH LE MIKDASH U LE EVEN NEGEPH U LE TSUR MICHSHOL LISHNEI VATEI YISRA-EL LE PHACH U LE MOKESH LE YOSHEV YERU-SHALA'IM
8:14 VE HAYAH LE MIKDASH U LE EVEN NEGEPH U LE TSUR MICHSHOL LISHNEI VATEI YISRA-EL LE PHACH U LE MOKESH LE YOSHEV YERU-SHALA'IM
וְהָיָה לְמִקְדָּשׁ וּלְאֶבֶן נֶגֶף וּלְצוּר מִכְשׁוֹל לִשְׁנֵי בָתֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפַח וּלְמוֹקֵשׁ לְיוֹשֵׁב יְרוּשָׁלִָם
KJ: And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
BN: And he will be your sanctuary, but also a tripping-stone and a stumbling-block to both the houses of Yisra-El, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Yeru-Shala'im.
MIKDASH: See the link.
EVEN NEGEPH: Is this not self-contradictory? He will be a sanctuary and a tripping-stone? Or are we misunderstanding the Yehudit?
And if we have understood it correctly, does it not then rather undermine verse 13, by declaring that the deity is "your sanctuary", the same word that was used for the Mishkan in the Mosaic desert and for the Temple in Yeru-Shala'im. If A=B, then ergo B=A, in which case the sanctuary is your deity, in which case we are back with the previously rejected sacrifices and incenses, and so Y-Y is again in self-contradiction? And can one place faith in a sanctuary that one only approaches in fear? The construct of the benign or benevolent dictator, simultaneously your friend and your destroyer: or life, which comes with petals, like a beautiful rose bush, but watch out for the thorns.
And if we have understood it correctly, does it not then rather undermine verse 13, by declaring that the deity is "your sanctuary", the same word that was used for the Mishkan in the Mosaic desert and for the Temple in Yeru-Shala'im. If A=B, then ergo B=A, in which case the sanctuary is your deity, in which case we are back with the previously rejected sacrifices and incenses, and so Y-Y is again in self-contradiction? And can one place faith in a sanctuary that one only approaches in fear? The construct of the benign or benevolent dictator, simultaneously your friend and your destroyer: or life, which comes with petals, like a beautiful rose bush, but watch out for the thorns.
Difficult, but from this time on the classic image of the Isaiac deity – and very different, as noted previously, from the patriarchal deity in any of its manifestations, let alone the Christian-Zoroastrian division into Good and Evil as external forces beyond human control. Anyone can take a sacrifice to the Temple, and maybe the sacrifice is sincere, or maybe it isn't, you've fulfilled your obligation, end of story; but living up to the high standards of an ethical code requires constant self-discipline, and is, to use the later Moslem phrase, Jihad - not holy war, but the sort of inner struggle that Ya'akov underwent at Penu-El. So YHVH can be both a potential sanctuary and a potential stumbling-block - it all depends on you. And it requires you to follow the advice of the name in verse 1: you will get nowhere if you passively comply with those who threaten you, and in your fear simply collaborate in your own victimhood.
TSUR MICHSHOL: Much the same again in this image: a rock rather than a stone, but the same capacity to trip you up. We are familiar with YHVH as the TSUR, the "Rock of Ages" - we still sing it in synagogue, immediately before the Amidah indeed, so it can hardly be more central: "Tsur Yisra-El, kumah be ezrat Yisra-El..." - and EZRAT especially in Y-Y's allusion here, the "helper" of Yisra-El. Worth quoting the prayer in full:
“Tsur Yisra-El kumah be-ezrat Yisra-El u-phdey chinumecha Yehudah ve-Yisra-El. Go’aleynu YHVH Tseva’ot shemo, kedosh Yisra’-El. Baruch atah YHVH, ga’al Yisra-El.”
“Rock of Yisra-El, arise to the aid of Yisra-El and liberate, as you pledged, Yehudah and Yisra-El. Our redeemer - the Lord of the Heavenly Host is his name - the Holy one of Yisra-El. Blessed are you, YHVH, who redeemed Israel.”
An absolutely gorgeous setting of it, and the full lyric, here.
8:15 VE CHASHLU VAM RABIM VE NAPHLU VE NISHBARU VE NOKSHU VE NILKADU
וְכָשְׁלוּ בָם רַבִּים וְנָפְלוּ וְנִשְׁבָּרוּ וְנוֹקְשׁוּ וְנִלְכָּדוּ
KJ: And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.
BN: And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.
8:15 "Broken, snared, taken". The same language for Yehudah and Yisra-El as for their enemies.
pey break
8:16 TSUR TE'UDAH CHATOM TORAH BE LIMUDAI
8:15 "Broken, snared, taken". The same language for Yehudah and Yisra-El as for their enemies.
pey break
8:16 TSUR TE'UDAH CHATOM TORAH BE LIMUDAI
צוֹר תְּעוּדָה חֲתוֹם תּוֹרָה בְּלִמֻּדָי
KJ: Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.
BN: Bind up the testimony, seal the instruction among my disciples.
"The testimony" – does this mean the Law, because that is normally Torah, and the second half of the verse use Torah as though the two were separate? Nor is it the word that is normally used: that is Brit (בְּרִית) - "Covenant". The first occasion of it is in Exodus 25:8, where YHVH tells Mosheh: "And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them", the Sanctuary at this time being the Mishkan, not the later Temple in Yeru-Shala'im. Verse 10 tells us that it was "an ark made of acacia wood: two and a half cubits its length, a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height".
LIMUDAI: Yesh'a-Yah claims to have disciples, but I wonder, given what has been noted above about the role of the prophet, whether we shouldn't translate the word as "apprentices" or "acolytes". Or are they not Y-Y's anyway, but YHVH's? In which case "followers" or "worshippers". Or simply his "students". (See my previous note on this).
8:17 VE HIKIYTI LA YHVH HA MASTIR PANAV MI BEIT YA'AKOV VE KIVEYTI LO
8:17 VE HIKIYTI LA YHVH HA MASTIR PANAV MI BEIT YA'AKOV VE KIVEYTI LO
וְחִכִּיתִי לַיהוָה הַמַּסְתִּיר פָּנָיו מִבֵּית יַעֲקֹב וְקִוֵּיתִי לוֹ
KJ: And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.
BN: And I will wait for YHVH, who hides his face from the house of Ya'akov, and I will look for him.
HISTIR PANAV: for which I have an entire essay in draft, and will eventually finish it. It confirms, yet again, and YHVH Tseva'ot in the next verse likewise, that the deity Y-Y followed was still the Multiple Plural, the sun-god at the head of the polytheon of stellar and planetary deities, and not yet the Omnideity: only a sun-god can turn his face aside in this manner, which is the opposite of Yevarechecha.
8:18 HINEH ANOCHI VE HA YELADIM ASHER NATAN LI YHVH LE OTOT U LE MOPHTIM BE YISRA-EL ME IM YHVH TSEVA'OT HA SHOCHEN BE HAR TIS'ON
8:18 HINEH ANOCHI VE HA YELADIM ASHER NATAN LI YHVH LE OTOT U LE MOPHTIM BE YISRA-EL ME IM YHVH TSEVA'OT HA SHOCHEN BE HAR TIS'ON
הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי וְהַיְלָדִים אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לִי יְהוָה לְאֹתוֹת וּלְמוֹפְתִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מֵעִם יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת הַשֹּׁכֵן בְּהַר צִיּוֹן
KJ: Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.
BN: Behold, I and the children whom YHVH has given me shall serve as signs and proofs in Yisra-El from the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens, who dwells on Mount Tsi'on.
What children? Is this again his "disciples" - if so, it confirms my reading of BENECHA in chapter 7; the equivalent in the Christian world makes for an easy explanation. The "father" of the Abbey was the Abbot, and Av, the source-word, means "father" in Yehudit; and you are referred to as "my son" because you are an apprentice monk, a Friar, from the Norman-French "frère", meaning "brother". I imagine much the same applied in the Guild of Prophets.
OTOT... MOPHTIM: once again alluding to the Mosaic Exodus from Mitsrayim. But in a world of metaphorical deities MOPHTIM cannot be translated as wonders, however wonderful they may be: they are scientific "proofs", nullius in verba (you can look up the meaning of that for yourself; and when you do, it will be obvious why I have made you, and will further substantiate Y-Y's point!).
YHVH Tseva'ot inhabits Mount Tsi'on,(look again at Isaiah 2:3, and then ahead to verse 20), which confirms the A=B I wondered about before: not only is the Olympus or Valhalla of this deity Mount Tsi'on (an extremely important historical point in terms of modern political Zionism and the clash with the Palestinians), but his home is quite specifically in the Temple, not in the heavens.
samech break
8:19 VE CHI YOMRU ALEYCHEM DIRSHO EL HA OVOT VE EL HA YID'ONIM HA METSAPHTSEPHIM VE HA MAHGIM HA LO AM EL ELOHAV YIDROSH BE AD HA CHAYIM EL HA METIM
samech break
8:19 VE CHI YOMRU ALEYCHEM DIRSHO EL HA OVOT VE EL HA YID'ONIM HA METSAPHTSEPHIM VE HA MAHGIM HA LO AM EL ELOHAV YIDROSH BE AD HA CHAYIM EL HA METIM
וְכִי יֹאמְרוּ אֲלֵיכֶם דִּרְשׁוּ אֶל הָאֹבוֹת וְאֶל הַיִּדְּעֹנִים הַמְצַפְצְפִים וְהַמַּהְגִּים הֲלוֹא עַם אֶל אֱלֹהָיו יִדְרֹשׁ בְּעַד הַחַיִּים אֶל הַמֵּתִים
BN: And when they say to you: ask the necromancers, and those who conjure up the spirits of the dead, the ones who chirp and mutter; should not a people ask their god, on behalf of the living, to know about the dead.
8:19 Superstition challenged (this is difficult for a modern reader, as the belief in any kind of a deity must be regarded as superstition, and not simply, as then and throughout most of the histories of all the world’s religions, those other deities besides your own one, who of course is not a human allegory or metaphor at all, but an absolute reality).
OVOT... YID'ONIM: see my note to verse 3. But also pick up again the allusions to King Sha'ul that have occurred on several occasions, that not-very-hidden warning to Achaz that Prophetic support for his kingship can be withdrawn: the penultimate straw in Sha'ul's kingship was his visit to the "witch of En Dor"* (1 Samuel 28).
* I wonder if Tolkien knew that? He was generally quite knowledgeable about these ancientnesses, and used them throughout his writings. Click here.
8:20 LE TORAH VE LI TE'UDAH IM LO YOMRU KA DAVAR HA ZEH ASHER EYN LO SHACHAR
לְתוֹרָה וְלִתְעוּדָה אִם לֹא יֹאמְרוּ כַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר אֵין לוֹ שָׁחַר
KJ: To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
BN: For instruction and for testimony? Surely they will speak according to this word, wherein there is no light.
The BN translation above is from the Gideon Bible; I have put it in because I don't understand that question-mark and wish to question it.
LE TORAH VE LI TE'UDAH: Law and testimony again, as per verse 16, and my link there to 2:3; a religion that is very different from propitiation by means of incense and sacrifice, one that hints towards the Pharisaic Judaism of the CE epoch, where Judaism is more a lifestyle choice and a set of personal disciplines which happen to include the recounting of certain ancient but now obsolete rituals and hymns, rather than the rituals and the literality of the hymns themselves. Y-Y as the founding-father of philosophy-rather-than-religion! But who else was there? Confucius and Buddha don't appear until the mid-6th century BCE. But this is what Y-Y means when he says the gods don't want your sacrifice, they want your obedience. Draw up a charter of rights and a charter of responsibilities, and live by them. Use Leviticus 19:18 as your starting-point, but live by it, with Kavanah.
SHACHAR: is not simply "light" but very specifically the light of dawn, while "Shacharit" was the name of the morning sacrifices in the Temple, and the morning prayers in post-Temple synagogue.
BN (my translation): Go to the Torah, and bear witness there. If it does not confirm what I am saying here, then there is no light in this dark world.
8:21 VE AVAR BAH NIKSHEH VE RA'EV VE HAYAH CHI YIR'AV VE HITKATSAPH VE KILEL BE MALKO U V'ELOHAV U PHANAH LEMA'LAH
8:21 VE AVAR BAH NIKSHEH VE RA'EV VE HAYAH CHI YIR'AV VE HITKATSAPH VE KILEL BE MALKO U V'ELOHAV U PHANAH LEMA'LAH
וְעָבַר בָּהּ נִקְשֶׁה וְרָעֵב וְהָיָה כִי יִרְעַב וְהִתְקַצַּף וְקִלֵּל בְּמַלְכּוֹ וּבֵאלֹהָיו וּפָנָה לְמָעְלָה
KJ: And they shall pass through it, hardly bestead and hungry: and it shall come to pass, that when they shall be hungry, they shall fret themselves, and curse their king and their God, and look upward.
BN: And those who are hard-pressed and hungry shall pass this way; and it shall come to pass that, when they are hungry, they will make themselves angry, and curse their lives in the names of their king and their gods, and, whether they turn their faces upward...
Blame, always blame, at least for those who do not accept the Isaiac philosophy of rights accompanied by responsibilities. Things go wrong - it's never my fault. Blame the government, the...
8:22 VE EL ERETS YABIT VE HINEH TSARAH VA CHASHECHAH ME'UPH TSUKAH VA APHELAH MENUDACH
וְאֶל אֶרֶץ יַבִּיט וְהִנֵּה צָרָה וַחֲשֵׁכָה מְעוּף צוּקָה וַאֲפֵלָה מְנֻדָּח
KJ: And they shall look unto the earth; and behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish; and they shall be driven to darkness.
BN: Or look down onto the earth, all they will see are troubles and darkness, the gloom of anguish, and every imaginable form of darkness.
CHASHECHA: The darkness that comes with sunset is CHOSHECH (Genesis 1:2). But that is a masculine noun, and this is the feminine from the same root. What is the distinction? The answer to that lies in Psalm 82:5, and it is clearly the opposite of "Enlightenment" rather than of "sunlight", with HASKALAH the word for "Enlightenment", SECHEL, its root, being "Wisdom", "Intelligence", "Common Sense". Education again; always, with Yesh'a-Yah, the requirement of education.
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.
For reasons that I am unable to share because I do not know them, the King James, and many other Christian translations, have moved the final verse of this chapter to the next chapter; and for simplicity I have included it in both places, though the comments on it will go here.
And of course the chapter numbering is entirely arbitrary anyway, a much later attempt to structure the text; look at the Dead Sea Scrolls version of Yesh'a-Yah and, like all of the Tanach, you will see columns of text, divided by Pey (paragraph) and Samech (verse) breaks, divided by Nun breaks in the Psalms and other poetry (for a fuller explanation of this, see my notes at Psalm 1).
HEKAL: Once again I cannot resist joining in Y-Y's love of word-play. HEKAL really means "afflict", and of course, when "darkness" "alights" "affliction" is the inexorable consequence.
HEKAL: Once again I cannot resist joining in Y-Y's love of word-play. HEKAL really means "afflict", and of course, when "darkness" "alights" "affliction" is the inexorable consequence.
ZEVULUN...NAPHTALI: See the links and the adjacent map. Surprising that Yisaschar doesn't get mentioned as well - these were the three tribes who stood directly in the line of invasion from Ashur - that beige section where the Sea of Chinnereth is marked (an English mis-spelling of Kinneret, which is the other name for the Sea of Galilee). Or maybe Yisaschar had already been conquered by the time of this pronouncement.
GOYIM: The word simply means "nations", and can be used without any pejorative intention; it has, however, acquired that pejorative among modern Jews, and it is clearly in that sense that Y-Y is using it here.
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