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
BOOK THREE
20:1 BISHNAT BO TARTAN ASHDODAH BISHLO'ACH OTO SARGON MELECH ASHUR VA YILACHEM BE ASHDOD VA YILKEDAH
בִּשְׁנַת בֹּא תַרְתָּן אַשְׁדּוֹדָה בִּשְׁלֹחַ אֹתוֹ סַרְגוֹן מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר וַיִּלָּחֶם בְּאַשְׁדּוֹד וַיִּלְכְּדָהּ
KJ (King James translation) : In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it;
BN (BibleNet translation): In the year that Tartan came to Ashdod, when Sargon the king of Ashur sent him, and he fought against Ashdod and took it
New section, new point in time: the year that Sargon of Ashur (Assyria) sent Tartan to take Ashdod. https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/biblical-archaeology-16-sargon-ii-inscriptions/ tells us that Ashdod of the Pelishtim rebelled against Ashur in 713 BCE, and was subdued two years later. The Sargon in question is II of that name, ruled 722-705, not from Nineveh like his predecessors, but from Dur Sharrukin, modern Khorsabad in Iraq. The date tells us that we are after the conquest and destruction of the Ten Tribes, which took place in 722, immediately before Sargon II came to the throne.
And if the Book of Yesha-Yah is in correct chronological order (we have no way of knowing if this is the case), and these are oracles of the future, then we have to rethink our reading of the second book, because the Y-Y of our current chapter must be First Y-Y. However, if, as I have suggested in the last chapter, these were never oracles at all, in the sense of predictions of the future, but in fact theological commentaries on the past as a means of preaching the needs of the present....
And then we look up Tartan, and find him at 2 Kings 18:17 (see below), and guess what, this is the reign of Chizki-Yah (Hezekiah), First Y-Y's chosen king, First Y-Y's model king, and what do we find him doing in the 16 verses before Tartan's appearance in the Kings chapter but all the things that Y-Y has said will happen in the previous three chapters: right down to the serpent-rod that Mosheh and Aharon used in Mitsrayim (Exodus 4 for the original rod, Numbers 21:8 for Nechushtan, but click this link for my detailed notes on this):
And he did what was right in the eyes of YHVH, according to all that David his ancestor had done. He removed the high places, and broke up the pillars, and cut down the Asherah; and he broke in pieces the brass serpent that Mosheh had made; for right up until his time the Beney Yisra-El had carried on making offerings to it; and it was called Nechushtan. He trusted in YHVH, the god of Yisra-El; so that after him there was none like him among all the kings of Yehudah, nor among them that were before him. For he wasw loyal to YHVH, and never ceased following him, but kept his commandments, which YHVH had instructed Mosheh. And YHVH was with him: wherever he went he prospered; and he rebelled against the king of Assyria, and refused to serve him.
That last the principal subject-matter of the opening chapters of this book: Y-Y telling King Achaz (Chizki-Yah's father), and then the nation as a whole, do not passively comply, do not collaborate in your own victimhood, fight back, defend yourselves...
And one final note: even this is clearly an account of history: "after him there was none like him among all the kings of Yehudah, nor among them that were before him..." which by self-definition must be at least three kings, because two would say "both", not "all"; and probably a good deal more than three. So this may be about events in 713 BCE, but they are not being "oracled" until decades and possibly centuries later.
I noted the absence of PELISHTIM at the end of the last chapter; and here we are in ASHDOD, which was one of the 5 great cities of the Pelishtim.
The presence of Sargon here is significant, not just to the contemporary, but also to the previous; because it is reckoned that Sargon was either the model for, or allegorised in, the brief picture we get of Nimrod in Genesis 10.
BI SHENAT... BI SHELO'ACH: Another of those complex elisions.
20:2 BA ET HA HI DIBER YHVH BE YAD YESH'A-YAHU VEN AMOTS LEMOR LECH U PHITACHTA HA SAK ME AL MATNEYCHA VE NA'ALCHA TACHALOTS ME AL RAGLECHA VA YA'AS KEN HALOCH AROM VE YACHEPH
בָּעֵת הַהִיא דִּבֶּר יְהוָה בְּיַד יְשַׁעְיָהוּ בֶן אָמוֹץ לֵאמֹר לֵךְ וּפִתַּחְתָּ הַשַּׂק מֵעַל מָתְנֶיךָ וְנַעַלְךָ תַחֲלֹץ מֵעַל רַגְלֶךָ וַיַּעַשׂ כֵּן הָלֹךְ עָרוֹם וְיָחֵף
BN: At that time YHVH spoke through Yesh'a-Yah ben Amots, saying: "Go, and loose the sackcloth from off your loins, and take your shoe off your foot." And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. {S}
BA ET HA HI: See my notes on this at 19:3. There I thought he might have been playing his usual word-games, though it wasn't obvious why. Now, from this usage, can we deduce that the King always called his Prophet for wise counsel on New Moon, High Holiday and other ITIM, and therefore the Egyptian "oracle" was such an occasion, and the word-play entirely deliberate?
BE YAD: Through the hand of: remember that YHVH himself always acted BE YAD (Deuteronomy 26:8, Psalm 136:12, many others), in his case usually with the adjective... oh yes, that adjective, CHAZAKAH, just like the name of the king he is addressing!... added; meaning "strong", as does the AMOTS part of Y-Y's own hand. Mutual self-esteeming; the king will have enjoyed this.
Just as a side-note, YAD HA CHAZAKAH, is also the alternative name for Moses Maimonides' "Mishneh Torah", his compilation and explanation of the Mosaic Law Code.
Once again in the 3rd person - this is told about Yesh'a-Yah, not by him, but we have no idea who the scribe might have been.
Once again in the 3rd person - this is told about Yesh'a-Yah, not by him, but we have no idea who the scribe might have been.
Y-Y is told (by the deity) to get out of sackcloth and take off his sandals. The former is straightforward; sackcloth is worn for mourning, and while this could have been personal mourning, such would not have made its way into a public oracle, so we can assume with confidence that he is, or has been, mourning the loss of the Ten Tribes, and is being told the Avelut is done, get back to life - I wonder if the summons to Court to deliver this oracle wasn't a part of that transition.
Interesting to examine this instruction to the Prophet in a contemporary light: the continuing abandonment of music within Jewish liturgy, which is one of the key differences between orthodox and Reform practice. Orthodoxy banished music from prayer because it is mourning the loss of the Temple; Reform says it is time to move on and start living again. Not wishing to take denominational sides, but orthodoxy is actually wrong here, from its own orthodox standpoint: Jews in mourning are forbidden to extend the period of mourning beyond twelve months, and actively encouraged to begin to emerge at the end of eleven months.
Walking barefoot thus becomes an act of ascetic masochism, a kind of self-flagellation of the feet, much as I have described in detail the pilgrimage of ibn Mehmet from Sousse to Keirouan in "The Persian Fire"; the principle behind it is the act of, or state of holiness; Moslems to this day remove their sandals (or whatever shoes they are wearing) before they enter the mosque for prayer, and we can assume that the Beney Yisra-El did the same, though actually I am not aware of any text that confirms this. On his Ghandiesque walking-tour of Yisra-El that is now about to start here, Yesh'a-Yah does indeed do the same.
20:3 VA YOMER YHVH KA ASHER HALACH AVDI YESH'A-YAHU AROM VE YACHEPH SHALOSH SHANIM OT U MOPHET AL MITSRAYIM VE AL KUSH
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה כַּאֲשֶׁר הָלַךְ עַבְדִּי יְשַׁעְיָהוּ עָרוֹם וְיָחֵף שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אוֹת וּמוֹפֵת עַל מִצְרַיִם וְעַל כּוּשׁ
KJ: And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;
BN: And YHVH said: "Just as my servant Yesh'a-Yah walked naked and barefoot for three years as a sign and a wonder for Mitsrayim and for Kush.
The inference seems to be that he spent Book Two doing this, going around Mitsrayim and Kush with the oracles that are given in that section (chapters 13-19); and that he did this for three years, though we are not told his precise itinerary. Shrine to shrine presumably, or village to village, which may have been the same thing as every village is likely to have had its shrine. Or did he simply go where the mood and the inspiration and the rumours of unrighteousness took him?
The alternative explanation is that he is being sent on these journeys now, as a sign against Mitsrayim (Egypt) and and Kush (either Ethiopia or Mesopotamian Kush - see my notes on this at 18:1). But what has this to do with Ashdod, which was Philistine, let alone Yehudah?
20:4 KEN YINHAG MELECH ASHUR ET SHEVI MITSRAYIM VE ET GALUT KUSH NE'ARIM U ZEKENIM AROM VE YACHEPH VA CHASUPHAI SHET ERVAT MITSRAYIM
כֵּן יִנְהַג מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר אֶת שְׁבִי מִצְרַיִם וְאֶת גָּלוּת כּוּשׁ נְעָרִים וּזְקֵנִים עָרוֹם וְיָחֵף וַחֲשׂוּפַי שֵׁת עֶרְוַת מִצְרָיִם
KJ: So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.
BN: So shall the king of Ashur lead away the captives of Mitsrayim, and the exiles of Kush, young and old, naked and barefoot, and with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Mitsrayim.
KEN YINHAG: Unusual methodology, but, again, think of Mahatma Gandhi... or better still, read the article at this link … the intention here is to illustrate the condition of Ashur's captives, which seems to suggest that Ashdod was under Egyptian rule, while Egypt was under Ethiopian – or Arabian Kushite. And we can also assume that this was how the Yisra-Elim went into captivity in 722, and probably the same for the captives of 586 as well.
GALUT: Two words for the status of the Jews around the world between the Roman conquest of Yehudah and the founding of the modern State of Israel, the choice depending on your politics: "Galut" if you regarded it as "exile", and were hoping one day to return, "Diaspora" if you regarded the spreading-out across the world as permanent. The oddity is that both words are still in use today, in Israel as much as in the Galut-Diaspora.
20:5 VE CHATU VA VOSHU MI KUSH MABATAM U MIN MITSRAYIM TIPH'ARTAM
20:5 VE CHATU VA VOSHU MI KUSH MABATAM U MIN MITSRAYIM TIPH'ARTAM
וְחַתּוּ וָבֹשׁוּ מִכּוּשׁ מַבָּטָם וּמִן מִצְרַיִם תִּפְאַרְתָּם
KJ: And they shall be afraid and ashamed of Ethiopia their expectation, and of Egypt their glory.
BN: And they shall be dismayed and ashamed, equally by their expectation of Kush, and the might of Mitsrayim.
BN: And they shall be dismayed and ashamed, equally by their expectation of Kush, and the might of Mitsrayim.
So we can say that the oracles against Kush and Mitsrayim in the immediately previous chapters were prologues and prefaces to this, reminding his listeners of the whats and whys of the past, readying them for the impending threats of the present. And the actual oracle? We know from history what both of those lands are like, and what will happen to us if they conquer us. We have resisted the equally barbaric Ashurim, and we need to go on doing the same. We know what happened to us in Mitsrayim; we have to insist "Never Again", and work to make that motto a reality.
The knowledgeable reader will recognise my contemporary comparison in the way I have phrased this. If not, click here.
20:6 VE AMAR YOSHEV HA IY HA ZEH BA YOM HA HU HINEH CHOH MABATENU ASHER NASNU SHAM LE EZRAH LEHINATSEL MI PENEY MELECH ASHUR VE EYCH NIMALET ANACHNU
וְאָמַר יֹשֵׁב הָאִי הַזֶּה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא הִנֵּה כֹה מַבָּטֵנוּ אֲשֶׁר נַסְנוּ שָׁם לְעֶזְרָה לְהִנָּצֵל מִפְּנֵי מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר וְאֵיךְ נִמָּלֵט אֲנָחְנוּ
BN: And the inhabitant of this coast-land shall say on that day: "Yes, this is indeed our expectation, though we fled here for help, to be delivered from the king of Ashur; and how shall we escape?" {P}
Out of the gas-chamber into the.... no, I shall not continue with that sentence. But it is the explanation of Israeli politics throughout the past seventy-five years (I am writing this in 2023).
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