Isaiah 22

SurfTheSite

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 

22:1 MASA GEY CHIZAYON MAH LACH EPH'O KI ALIT KULACH LA GAGOT

מַשָּׂא גֵּיא חִזָּיוֹן מַה לָּךְ אֵפוֹא כִּי עָלִית כֻּלָּךְ לַגַּגּוֹת

KJ (King James translation): The burden of the valley of vision. What aileth thee now, that thou art wholly gone up to the housetops?

BN (BibleNet translation): The pronouncement on the Valley of Vision. What ails you now, that you are living entirely on the roofs?

GEY CHIZAYON: The Valley of Vision. And yet again we find ourselves asking if this is an actual, physical place, whether on Earth or among the constellations, or the allegorisation of an abstract idea? There is only one reason for thinking this might not just be the name of a place - after all, hundreds of places in the world have weird and unlikely names - and that is the word CHIZAYON, for which see my note to the very first word in the very first chapter of this book, Isaiah 1:1.

MAH LACH: Why is this in the feminine? It can only be because the addressee is feminine. All lands and countries, all cities, are feminine in Yehudit, but all peoples, including clans and tribes, are masculine. So we will need to remind ourselves in several of the following verses that he is addressing the female city in the abstract, and thereby talking both to the people directly and about the people indirectly.

EPH'O: This is surely an Aramaic not a Yehudit spelling. EPH'O with a Hey rather than an Aleph ending (איפה) means "where". Yet this spelling recurs frequently in the Tanach (Genesis 27:33, Exodus 33:16 et al), with the meaning that it has here (though I question the latter in my note there), but then occurs with this spelling, but with still other meanings, on several other occasions (the cue for a famous Hillelism in Job 9:24 for example), and then with neither ending in (Job 19:6) - all this confusion a consequence, I presume, of the scribes of the Tanach in Ezra's time having Aramaic as their mother-tongue and Yehudit only as their language of prayer and study.

LA GAGOT: The housetops in those days were all flat, the roofs serving as summer bed-chambers, mini-mangers for the baby lambs, and especially as look-outs, of the town and the neighbours, but more importantly the heavens, so we are again left wondering if "The Valley of Vision" isn't a black space between Lyra and Betelgeuse rather than a cleft in the hills of Mo-Av or Hinnom. Can we assume that the people are being described as their own watchmen, thereby picking up the image from the previous chapter? (Oh but Y-Y would so love that to be correct. Alas, see the following verses.)


22:2 TESHU'OT MELE'AH IR HOMIYAH KIRYAH ALIYZAH CHALALAYICH LO CHALELEY CHEVER VE LO METEY MILCHAMAH

תְּשֻׁאוֹת מְלֵאָה עִיר הוֹמִיָּה קִרְיָה עַלִּיזָה חֲלָלַיִךְ לֹא חַלְלֵי חֶרֶב וְלֹא מֵתֵי מִלְחָמָה

KJ: Thou that art full of stirs, a tumultuous city, a joyous city: thy slain men are not slain with the sword, nor dead in battle.

BN: You are a city full of noise, your suburbs rowdily whinge and moan - and don't you just love doing it? Your slain have not been slain with the sword, nor have they died in battle...

And if not, then how? And which city? I think he's just complaining about the bloody noise: pop music blaring out, sports fans drunk after the game, that sort of thing, protest marches outside the city hall, or strike pickets fighting with over-zealous police. Though maybe "joyous" diminishes the complaint; unless you translate it my way!

TESHU'OT: With an Aleph; not to be confused with TESHU'AT with an Ayin (תְשׁוּעַת), for which see, inter alia, Psalm 37:39. That other TESHU'AT is also, of course, rooted in the same word that gives Y-Y's own name. And no, of course he isn't playing word-games!

KIRYAH: A word I shall point out for the benefit of Christians. An IR is a "city", a KIRYAH either a small town that got joined to the larger city as the latter grew, or a suburb built explicitly to enable that growth. And thence the concept of a conurbation, with multiple KERAYOT. Why am I mentioning it? Because a Jew who comes from one of these conurbations would be, in Yehudit, Yehudah ish ha Kerayot, or, in translation, Judas Iscariot. Practically any Jew in the world could fit that description.

22:3 KOL KETSIYNAYICH NADEDU YACHAD MI KESHET USARU KOL NIMTSA'AYICH US'RU YACHDAV MEY RACHOK BARACHU

כָּל קְצִינַיִךְ נָדְדוּ יַחַד מִקֶּשֶׁת אֻסָּרוּ כָּל נִמְצָאַיִךְ אֻסְּרוּ יַחְדָּו מֵרָחוֹק בָּרָחוּ

KJ: All thy rulers are fled together, they are bound by the archers: all that are found in thee are bound together, which have fled from far.

BN: The entire leadership has fled as one body - and been captured without firing so much as an arrow. What remains of you has been rounded up in what as might well be a concentration camp, after you tried to run as far away as you could get.


KETSIYNAYICH: Military leaders or civilian? The same word gets used for both, and we have to determine from the context. See Joshua 10:24 and Judges 11:6 for the former, Isaiah 1:10, 3:6/7 for the latter - which seems to conclude the matter.

NADEDU: See my notes on this at Isaiah 21:14.

USARU...USRU: given that the meanings are identical, and the grammatical construction ditto, why is one rendered as one, the other the other?

If the rulers have fled, no wonder the townsfolk are living on the roofs - not just to watch for trouble as it approaches, but so much easier to flee when it does. But I don't think they have yet: he is predicting, but not in the sense of a horoscope or tea-leaf reading: he sees what he sees, and reports as newspaper correspondents and political advisors do, forseeing the likely outcomes.

And given how poetical have been Y-Y's oracles until now, it might seem surprising that I have rendered this quite so colloquially. And yet, apart from the grammatically unavoidable rhymes of KETSIYNAYICH with NIMTSA'AYICH, and the several "U" endings, this really is that colloquial.

22:4 AL KEN AMARTI SHE'U MINI AMARER BA BECHI AL TA'IYTSU LENACHAMEYNI AL SHOD BAT AMI

עַל כֵּן אָמַרְתִּי שְׁעוּ מִנִּי אֲמָרֵר בַּבֶּכִי אַל תָּאִיצוּ לְנַחֲמֵנִי עַל שֹׁד בַּת עַמִּי

KJ: Therefore said I, Look away from me; I will weep bitterly, labour not to comfort me, because of the spoiling of the daughter of my people.

BN: Therefore I said: "Turn your gaze away from me, lest you see me weeping bitterly; do not strain yourself trying to comfort me for the violence done to the daughter of my people."

Y-Y's grief or the deity's? Both probably.

SHE'U: From the root SHA'AH (שָׁעָה) = "to weep"; not to be confused with YESHA (יְשַׁעְיָה), which just happens to have the same letters as Y-Y's own name, and in the same order. And no, of course he isn't playing word-games! As with my parallel note at verse 2, these are negatives, where the parallel words would be positives.

22:5 KI YOM MEHUMAH U MEVUSAH U MEVUCHAH LA'DONAI YHVH TSEVA'OT BE GEY CHIZAYON MEKARKAR KIR VE SHO'A EL HA HAR

כִּי יוֹם מְהוּמָה וּמְבוּסָה וּמְבוּכָה לַאדֹנָי יְהוִה צְבָאוֹת בְּגֵי חִזָּיוֹן מְקַרְקַר קִר וְשׁוֹעַ אֶל הָהָר

KJ: For it is a day of trouble, and of treading down, and of perplexity by the Lord GOD of hosts in the valley of vision, breaking down the walls, and of crying to the mountains.

BN: For this is a day of destruction, and of subjugation, and of anarchy, for YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens, in the Valley of Vision; the dismantling of walls, and weeping on the mountain.

LA'DONAI: This anguish is happening to YHVH, not being caused by him; his pain is from what he is seeing happen to his own people.

SHO'A: And once more the same-word is being played with, still the same SHA'AH (שָׁעָה) = "to weep" that we had at verse 4, but now the homonym has become a homopohone, and what we are hearing is that other SHO'AH, the Holocaust itself (which we think of as Hitlerian, but the term is much more ancient and really means "catastrophe" - and note that this translates into Arabic as al-Naksa, for which see the link).

But there are even more multiple meanings, and it is difficult to determine which one belongs here; or maybe they all do. See my notes on SHU'A.


22:6 VE EYLAM NAS'A ASHPAH BE RECHEV ADAM PARASHIM VE KIR ERAH MAGEN

וְעֵילָם נָשָׂא אַשְׁפָּה בְּרֶכֶב אָדָם פָּרָשִׁים וְקִיר עֵרָה מָגֵן

KJ: And Elam bare the quiver with chariots of men and horsemen, and Kir uncovered the shield.

BN: And Eylam carrying the quiver, with troops of men, including cavalry. The walls were supposed to provide a shield...

EYLAM: Which takes us to Persia, and the end of the journey made by the exiles from Yehudah in 586 BCE: at least, it was Bavel then, but the journey ends with liberation, and it was the Persian Medes who gave them that. So our map from the last two chapters appears to start with slavery and oppression in Egypt, and travel due east until it reaches liberation now, and as such is both physical and allegorical, though I strongly suspect that Y-Y wants the allegory more than he needs the history, because he is using the future to theologically strategise the future.

   And if I am right, then all these chapters belong 150 years later than has generally been thought.

   And how can I be right, given the later verses of this chapter - unless all this was written very much later, but as a commentary on past events, and not a prediction of future ones?

ASHPAH: Yes, a quiver, and think of the shape of a quiver, which is much like that of a golf bag, just slightly shorter. Now think of the shape of your dustbin, and isn't it exactly the same, just slightly fatter. PACH ASHPAH in modern Ivrit. But I wonder if the same play-on-words didn't already apply in Y-Y's time.

KIR: The word keeps appearing in this chapter, and getting translated differently every time. Either it's a wall, or it's the name of a city (who ever named a city "Wall"?), but not both. See my note on it in chapter 1.


22:7 VA YEHI MIVCHAR AMAKAYICH MAL'U RACHEV VE HA PARASHIM SHOT SHATU HA SHA'ERAH

וַיְהִי מִבְחַר עֲמָקַיִךְ מָלְאוּ רָכֶב וְהַפָּרָשִׁים שֹׁת שָׁתוּ הַשָּׁעְרָה

KJ: And it shall come to pass, that thy choicest valleys shall be full of chariots, and the horsemen shall set themselves in array at the gate.

BN: But what came to pass was your lushest valleys filled with chariots, and the cavalry setting themselves in formal array right at the gate...

Similarly here, either it is present tense, or future tense, or past tense, but it can only be one of the three.

When you are attacked by an imperial power it is, by this theology, always the deity punishing you for wickedness and disbelief, and therefore you deserve it. Go tell that to the survivors of the Holocaust.

See again my note at verse 3, and then listen to the Yehudit here, especially the ending: HA PARASHIM SHOT SHATU HA SHA'ERAH. Nothing colloquial about that! And remember, Y-Y did not write these pieces down; his scribes and students did. Should we then start wondering if different scribes with different personalities also imposed them, one picking up the meaning as the most important, and therefore content to render it colloquially, another loving the poetry and making sure it got recorded, one thinking Y-Y was talking about the past as a way of commenting on the present, another assuming he was nostradaming the future. And all four leaving behind fragments of transcript that were eventually amalgamated as One. I think we should, however much it may add further layers of complexity to our attempt to understand these texts.

22:8 VA YEGAL ET MASACH YEHUDAH VA TABET BA YOM HA HU EL NESHEK BEIT HA YA'AR

וַיְגַל אֵת מָסַךְ יְהוּדָה וַתַּבֵּט בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא אֶל נֶשֶׁק בֵּית הַיָּעַר

KJ: And he discovered the covering of Judah, and thou didst look in that day to the armour of the house of the forest.

BN: And the defenses of Yehudah breached, with nothing but spears and javelins to be seen in the House of the Forest.

YA'AR: When the word came up at 21:13, it seemed to be straightforwardly a forest. But here it is preceded by Beit, and a Beit can be a regular house, but in Biblical texts it is more often a religious shrine. So, given that the Temple in Yeru-Shala'im was famously built with cedar from the Forest of Lebanon, cut down by king Eshmun-Azar as a gift for his friend Shelomoh, can we assume that Beit Ha Ya'ar is a poetical nickname for the Temple, and the NESHEK, which is "military equipment", is a wonderfully satirical picture of those trees, pollarded to spears and javelins rather than squared off as timbered pillars?

22:9 VE ET BEKIY'EY IR DAVID RE'IYTEM KI RABU VA TEKABTSU ET MEY HA BERECHAH HA TACHTONAH

וְאֵת בְּקִיעֵי עִיר דָּוִד רְאִיתֶם כִּי רָבּוּ וַתְּקַבְּצוּ אֶת מֵי הַבְּרֵכָה הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה

KJ: Ye have seen also the breaches of the city of David, that they are many: and ye gathered together the waters of the lower pool.

BN: And many, many fissures by the city of David, and the waters of the lower pool gathered together...

And this now naming the City of David, which is the Palace of Mil'o adjacent to the Temple (2 Samuel 5:9)... I take the waters of the lower pool to be Gihon, but they may be Shilo'ah or Silo'am, or indeed all three.

TEKABTSU ET MEY HA BERECHAH: Why would you "gather the waters together"? The answer to that can be found at 2 Chronicles 32: the city is under siege, and  "Why should the kings of Assyria come, and find much water?" (verse 4). But also because these waters will not be accessible to the Yehudim if the fissures in the wall turn into full-scale breaches. We know from the Chronicles chapter that Chizki-Yah's defense of Yeru-Shala'im against Sennacherib included digging a tunnel down to the lower pool, so that the townsfolk could still fill their buckets during the siege. Click here to visit it.

22:10 VE ET BATEY YERU-SHALA'IM SEPHARTEM VA TIT'TSU HA BATIM LEVATSER HA CHOMAH

וְאֶת בָּתֵּי יְרוּשָׁלִַם סְפַרְתֶּם וַתִּתְצוּ הַבָּתִּים לְבַצֵּר הַחוֹמָה

KJ: And ye have numbered the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses have ye broken down to fortify the wall.

BN: And the houses of Yeru-Shala'im counted, and then torn down to fortify the wall; 

Nechem-Yah has a detailed description of the rebuilding of the wall, including who had what houses and the value attached to so doing - click here.


22:11 U MIKVAH ASIYTEM BEYN HA CHOMOTAYIM LE MEY HA BERECHAH HA YESHANAH VE LO HIBATETEM EL OSEYHA VE YOTSRAH ME RACHOK LO RE'IYTEM

וּמִקְוָה עֲשִׂיתֶם בֵּין הַחֹמֹתַיִם לְמֵי הַבְּרֵכָה הַיְשָׁנָה וְלֹא הִבַּטְתֶּם אֶל עֹשֶׂיהָ וְיֹצְרָהּ מֵרָחוֹק לֹא רְאִיתֶם

KJ: Ye made also a ditch between the two walls for the water of the old pool: but ye have not looked unto the maker thereof, neither had respect unto him that fashioned it long ago.

BN: And a reservoir constructed between the two surviving parts of the wall to catch the water from the old pool; not that you paid any more respect to he who did this than you ever did to he dug the original long ago.

EL OSEYHA: He who made it originally being, of course, the deity, for it was a natural pool, not a man-made one.

We know from other cities with walls that this was standard practice, in order to separate water supply from sewage, while providing both. So, for example, in London, there are the Houndsditch and the Shoreditch along the inside and outside of the north-east wall, and Caen Ditch, or Kentish Town as the name has managed to evolve, between the Barbican of the northern wall and the sources of the Fleet, the city's main water supply.

MIKVAH: There is the ritual bathing-place, but there is also the separation of the "waters" in the Creation story; this could be either, and is probably both.


22:12 VA YIKR'A ADONAI YHVH TSEVA'OT BA YOM HA HU LIV'CHI U LE MISPED U LE KARCHAH VE LA CHAGOR SAK

וַיִּקְרָא אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה צְבָאוֹת בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לִבְכִי וּלְמִסְפֵּד וּלְקָרְחָה וְלַחֲגֹר שָׂק

KJ: And in that day did the Lord GOD of hosts call to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth:

BN: And on that day YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens, called for weeping, and for lamentation, and for the shaving of heads in mourning baldness, and for the putting-on of sackcloth.


The deity apparently supporting the attackers (who don't worship him either, but this flaw in the argument is overlooked). 

SAK: One for the English etymologists: is the word "sackcloth" derived from the Yehudit SAK, or it just pure coincidence? The answer is, yes, it is so derived, and therefore not coincidence at all. How did it enter the English language? Probably in the Norman age, when most of the bespoke tailors were Jews.

22:13 VE HINEH SASON VE SIMCHAH HAROG BAKAR VA SHACHOT TSON ACHOL BASAR VE SHATOT YAYIN ACHOL VE SHATO KI MACHAR NAMUT

וְהִנֵּה שָׂשׂוֹן וְשִׂמְחָה הָרֹג בָּקָר וְשָׁחֹט צֹאן אָכֹל בָּשָׂר וְשָׁתוֹת יָיִן אָכוֹל וְשָׁתוֹ כִּי מָחָר נָמוּת

KJ: And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine: let us eat and drink; for to morrow we shall die.

BN: But what did you do? Feasts and parties, the slaughtering of cattle and the killing of sheep, the eating of flesh and the drinking of wine. "Let us eat, and drink wine, for tomorrow we shall die!"

And while the deity called for sackcloth, and Yesh'a-Yah bemoaned, the people did Carpe Diem and they didn't care, which of course…


22:14 VE NIGLAH VE AZNAI YHVH TSEVA'OT IM YECHUPAR HE AVON HA ZEH LACHEM AD TEMUTUN AMAR ADONAI YHVH TSEVA'OT

וְנִגְלָה בְאָזְנָי יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת אִם יְכֻפַּר הֶעָו‍ֹן הַזֶּה לָכֶם עַד תְּמֻתוּן אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה צְבָאוֹת

KJ: And it was revealed in mine ears by the LORD of hosts, Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die, saith the Lord GOD of hosts.

BN: And YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens, revealed himself in my ears: "Surely this iniquity shall not be expiated by you until you die," says my Lord YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens. {P}

The {P} in one of the books of Torah would indicate the end of a pareshah - explanation here. But this is not Torah, and it isn't read on a regular basis in synagogue, thereby requiring these breaks. So why is it here? I am presuming that the oracle on the "Valley of Vision" is now complete, and we are about to commence a completely different (though quite probably connected) oracle; remember, the Yehudit version of this book is one continuous scroll, and not divided into chapters or even verses as in the later Christian renditions.


22:15 KOH AMAR ADONAI YHVH TSEVA'OT LECH BO EL HA SOCHEN HA ZEH AL SHEVN'A ASHER AL HA BAYIT

כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה צְבָאוֹת לֶךְ בֹּא אֶל הַסֹּכֵן הַזֶּה עַל שֶׁבְנָא אֲשֶׁר עַל הַבָּיִת

KJ: Thus saith the Lord GOD of hosts, Go, get thee unto this treasurer, even unto Shebna, which is over the house, and say,

BN: Thus said YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens: "Go and fetch that steward, Shevna, the one who is the head of the household...

SOCHEN: Really means... no, not "neighbour", which would be SHOCHEN with a Sheen (שכן), though several translations make this error. Psalm 139:3 uses it in the Hiphil, HISKANTAH, for "someone who knows all my ways" - which might be a Royal Chamberlain, or simply the King's Scribe; and you will see why I have made this observation in a moment. 1 Kings 1 uses it several times, as a description of the role of Avi-Shag, for which there is no formal term, because she was neither a nurse nor a prostitute not a temple hierodule, and yet also all three. There is also MISKEYN, from the same root, which goes with the Yiddish Nebish: someone having a really bad time, but I don't think that is the intention here.

SHEVNA: 2 Kings 18:17/18 is where we need to go for this. Confirmation too that this is Chizki-Yah and the siege by Sennacherib:

And the king of Ashur sent Tartan and Rab-saris and Rab-shakeh from Lachish to king Chizki-Yah with a great army to Yeru-Shala'im. And they went up, and came to Yeru-Shala'im. And when they arrived, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is on the highway beside Fullers' Field. And when they had called to the king, he sent out to them El-Yakim ben Chilki-Yah, who was his Chief Steward, and Shevnah the scribe, and Yo'ach ben Asaph the recorder.

And only two problems with this:

i) that Kings has Shevnah spelled with a final Hey,  which is how we would expect it to be spelled, but our text has Shevna spelled Aramaically with a final Aleph. 

ii) That Shevnah is the scribe, and it is El-Yakim who is the head of the household - but why would we expect the deity to be au fait with such minor and banal detail? 

and now jump ahead to verse 20.

22:16 MAH LECHA PHOH U MI LECHA PHOH KI CHATSAVTA LECHA POH KAVER CHOTSVI MAROM KIVRO CHOKEKI VA SEL'A MISHKAN LO

מַה לְּךָ פֹה וּמִי לְךָ פֹה כִּי חָצַבְתָּ לְּךָ פֹּה קָבֶר חֹצְבִי מָרוֹם קִבְרוֹ חֹקְקִי בַסֶּלַע מִשְׁכָּן לוֹ

KJ: What hast thou here? and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewed thee out a sepulchre here, as he that heweth him out a sepulchre on high, and that graveth an habitation for himself in a rock?

BN: "What's going on here [mah lecha phoh], and who do you think you are [u mi lecha phoh], that you have hewn out for yourself a sepulchre here [ki chatsavta lecha poh kaver], like some rock-sculptor engraving his name on the mountain-face for the benefit of posterity?..

The steward of the king's house would likely be a member of the aristocracy, even in a priestly-tribal world like this one, and even if the term "aristocracy" was not the one used. So taking advantage of rank and position to pick out a fancy burial-place is only to be expected, and getting one of the best houses, with one of the finest views, ditto. In a time of peace anyway. But this is a time of siege, and the king's steward needs to be focused on the national crisis, not the personal glorification. Such, as I read it, is the oracle of this verse.

I have repeated the words inside my translation for the first half, which I am confident I have accurately. The second half is not so clear, because the word MISHKAN adds several layers of ambiguity. MISHKAN literally means "dwelling"; so:

i) he has built a house for himself above the cave-tomb

ii) he has built some kind of shrine, a mini-temple, to whichever deity he worships, and it may very well be YHVH, but if it is he is not authorised to do so

iii) CHOTSVI MAROM is metaphorical, and the tomb is the place where he has carved his great and self-glorified name so he will be remembered, as kings should be but not stewards, by posterity.

22:17 HINEH YHVH METALTELCHA TALTELAH GAVER VE OT'CHA ATOH

הִנֵּה יְהוָה מְטַלְטֶלְךָ טַלְטֵלָה גָּבֶר וְעֹטְךָ עָטֹה

KJ: Behold, the LORD will carry thee away with a mighty captivity, and will surely cover thee.

BN: "You will see! YHVH will kebab you like a soldier with his spear; oh but he will barbecue you round and round...

The two previous verses were definitely Y-Y quoting YHVH, and the latter of those was grammatically incompete, so this has to be YHVH still speaking; yet he is speaking about himself, so it is just as certainly Y-Y quoting him.

METALTELCHA TALTELAH: The root is TUL (טוּל), but has been doubled here for effect - or should I say "for impact", given that this is about someone using a spear; and no doubt it is one of those very spears that we encountered at verse 8 in the House of the Forest.

OT'CHA OTOH: Tets (ט), but replace them with Tavs (ת) and it becomes OT'CHA and ATAH, "you" in the possessive and direct forms.

22:18 TSANOPH YITSNAPHCHA TSENEPHAH KADUR EL ERETS RACHAVAT YADAYIM SHAMAH TAMUT VE SHAMAH MARKEVOT KEVODECHA KELON BEIT ADONEYCHA

צָנוֹף יִצְנָפְךָ צְנֵפָה כַּדּוּר אֶל אֶרֶץ רַחֲבַת יָדָיִם שָׁמָּה תָמוּת וְשָׁמָּה מַרְכְּבוֹת כְּבוֹדֶךָ קְלוֹן בֵּית אֲדֹנֶיךָ

KJ: He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.

BN: "He will violently toss and turn you like a ball into a large country; your power will be reduced to nothing there, and the chariots that were once your glory will now be the shame of your Lord's house...

TSANOPH YITSNAPHCHA TSENEPHAH: Twos in the previous, but a full triplet here, the kebab not just skewered but now mounted on the schwarma grill, spinning round and round until it is fully cooked.

ERETS RACHAVAT: Does this mean that "you" will become a much larger country as a result of the imbroglio, or that the kebab will be tossed onto someone else's plate, that someone else being a rather larger empire - Bavel or Ashur?

YADAYIM SHAMAH: YADAYIM are hands, and have no other usage, anywhere, ever. But this is not about hands. Most translators either ignore the word, or make up something that works for them. I think the answer lies with the speaker, and with the reference to BEIT ADONEYCHA at the end of the verse, because the "hand" of the deity is the emblem of might and power in the world, so in captivity they will lose that "guiding hand", and in so doing lose their own strength, their own power having already been taken away in the fact of conquest and captivity.

MARKEVOT KEVODECHA KELON: And another triplet, though only of a single letter this time, rather than a full root. Plentiful powerful poetry nonetheless.


22:19 VA HADAPHTIYCHA MI MATSAVECHA U MI MA'AMADCHA YEHERSECHA

וַהֲדַפְתִּיךָ מִמַּצָּבֶךָ וּמִמַּעֲמָדְךָ יֶהֶרְסֶךָ

KJ: And I will drive thee from thy station, and from thy state shall he pull thee down.

BN: And I will oust you from your office, and reduce you from your rank...

Even in this Y-Y manages alliteration and internal rhyme! You have to think that he too is carving his words for the benefit of posterity - but maybe, like kings, that is permissible for poets and prophets! And maybe he is even making this point to the self-important steward by doing so.

22:20 VE HAYAH BA YOM HA HU VE KARA'TI LE AVDI LE EL-YAKIM BEN CHILKI-YAHU

וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא וְקָרָאתִי לְעַבְדִּי לְאֶלְיָקִים בֶּן חִלְקִיָּהוּ

KJ: And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:

BN: "And it shall come to pass on that day, that I will call my servant El-Yakim ben Chilki-Yah.


See verse 15, and wonder with me if Shevna was indeed the Chief Steward at this time, but the Kings verses reflect his having been "ousted from his office" and "reduced in rank", replaced by El-Yakim ben Chilki-Yah.

EL-YAKIM - or it could be ELI-AKIM, the shva under the Lamed is second-syllable, so EL-YAKIM is grammatically correct, but only in the Masoretic text; unpointed this could still go either way.

   And either way note again the masculination of a Yah name in the Masoretic text.

And then, who was he? Given the remainder of the history, as told in the Book of the Kings and reiterated in the Chronicles (2 Chronicles 36), this seems to identify Shevna with Yeho-Achaz (יְהֽוֹאָחָז֙ - Jehoahaz) of Yehudah, who came well after Chizki-Yah (Hezekiah), so the question I asked in verse 11 appears to be answered in the affirmative; 2 Kings 23:30 is the reference, but look at the whole of 2 Kings 23 to get the context. El-Yakim was Pharaoh Necho's (נְכֹ֧ה) vassal, and renamed by him as Yeho-Yakim (Jehoiakim - יְהוֹיָקִ֑ים) - see 2 Kings 23:34 - when he put him on the throne in place of his brother Yeho-Achaz (we are not told which was the elder, which the younger, only that both were sons of the late king. Is Y-Y then addressing Yeho-Yakim, who Necho took in captivity to Egypt, where he died? Note also that the late king, Josiah in English, is Yo'shi-Yah in Yehudit - יֹאשִׁיָּ֗הוּ; but once again masculinised, as Yoshi-Yahu, in the Masoretic text. Not quite the same name as our Prophet, because there is an additional Aleph, but with very similar meaning.

22:21 VE HILBASHTIV KUTANTECHA VE AVNET'CHA ACHAZKENU U MEMSHALTECHA ETEN BE YADO VE HAYAH LE AV LE YOSHEV YERU-SHALA'IM U LE VEIT YEHUDAH

וְהִלְבַּשְׁתִּיו כֻּתָּנְתֶּךָ וְאַבְנֵטְךָ אֲחַזְּקֶנּוּ וּמֶמְשַׁלְתְּךָ אֶתֵּן בְּיָדוֹ וְהָיָה לְאָב לְיוֹשֵׁב יְרוּשָׁלִַם וּלְבֵית יְהוּדָה

KJ: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

BN: And I will dress him in your cloak, and wrap around him your chain of office, and I will commit your government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Yeru-Shala'im, and to the house of Yehudah.

It almost sounds as if Necho is the one saying this; he too is the deity's tool. 

If we have jumped from the death of Achaz to the reign of El-Yakim, does that mean that there was nothing in Chizki-Yah's (Hezekiah's) reign for which Y-Y felt the need to pronounce an oracle? Not even a positive one, a moment of praise for the all the godly things he did? Maybe we'll find it in another chapter.

So precise is the detail of this, we have to assume one of three options: a) Boy did YHVH give Y-Y accurate visions of the future; b) Y-Y cheated by reading the Book of Kings, but can only have done that after the events, so this is history, not prophecy; c) as per b, but from other sources than the Book of Kings, including possibly having lived through the events himself. And I guess we ought to add a fourth option, though it is extremely unlikely, that Y-Y was himself the author of the Book of Kings, making c = b.


22:22 VE NATATI MAPHTE'ACH BEIT DAVID AL SHICHMO U PHATACH VE EYN SOGER VE SAGAR VE EYN POTEYACH

וְנָתַתִּי מַפְתֵּחַ בֵּית דָּוִד עַל שִׁכְמוֹ וּפָתַח וְאֵין סֹגֵר וְסָגַר וְאֵין פֹּתֵחַ

KJ: And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

KJ: And I will place the key to the house of David on his shoulder; so he shall open it, and nobody but he shall shut it; and he shall shut it, and nobody but he shall open it.

Isn't that the Chief Steward's job! Oh he is so witty, this Y-Y.

22:23 U TEKA'TIV YATED BE MAKOM NE'EMAN VE HAYAH LE CHIS'E CHAVOD LE VEIT AVIV

וּתְקַעְתִּיו יָתֵד בְּמָקוֹם נֶאֱמָן וְהָיָה לְכִסֵּא כָבוֹד לְבֵית אָבִיו

KJ: And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.

BN: And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place; and he shall be for a throne of honour to his father's house.

TEKA'TIV YATED: A form of crucifixion really! But also an interesting double-word. Ya-El did what is described here to Sis-Ra in Judges 4:21, but the same root also blows the shofar, and I honestly cannot even begin to think how the root bifurcated into two such very different branches. Teru'a, Shevarim, Teki'a - the three great blasts on ther shofar at Rosh ha Shana and Yom Kippur - see, for one of many examples, Numbers 10:2/3, and click here for a fuller explanation of the blasts. And note, as mentioned at the link, that a Teki'a would be sounded at the "coronation" of the king, and quite probably a Teki'a Gedolah as well. So, yet again, Y-Y is playing very deliberately with his choices of language.

YATED: The same with this. The pegs of the Sanctuary can be found, inter alia, at Exodus 27:19 and 35:18.

22:24 VE TALU ALAV KOL KEVOD BEIT AVIV HA TSE'ETSA'IM VE HA TSEPHI'OT KOL KELEY HA KATAN MI KELEY HA AGANOT VE AD KOL KELEY HA NEVALIM

וְתָלוּ עָלָיו כֹּל כְּבוֹד בֵּית אָבִיו הַצֶּאֱצָאִים וְהַצְּפִעוֹת כֹּל כְּלֵי הַקָּטָן מִכְּלֵי הָאַגָּנוֹת וְעַד כָּל כְּלֵי הַנְּבָלִים

KJ: And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.

BN: And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the offshoots, and all the vessels, every thimble, every tea cup, every flagon.

TALU: First the cross, now the gallows! It is such an odd way of describing this that the choice of word has to be deliberate. They will adorn him with... they will put on him... they will dress him in... any of those would be positives. But "hang upon him"? It conjures up a very different image, of something rather burdensome.

TSE'ETSA'IM: At some point, when I have completed these commentaries, I shall go through the chapters one by one, and make a list of all the double words Y-Y uses. Dozens of them, and very few of them belong to the daily world, the vernacular; indeed, I would not be surprised if he didn't neologise several of them himself. This one, for example.

   The root would have to be TSETSE (צֶאֱצֶא), and no such root exists in Yehudit. Taken singly TSE means "to go out", so this may be intended as human offspring, or any of the yields of the agricultural world, though TSEPHI'OT also covers that latter. (I am also unconvinced by the Masoretic spelling; I think this should be TSETSAYIM, the chataph segol under the first Aleph being the error.)

22:25 BA YOM HA HU NE'UM YHVH TSEVA'OT TAMUSH HA YATED HA TEKU'AH BE MAKOM NE'EMAN VE NIGDE'AH VE NAPHLAH VE NICHRAT HA MASA ASHER ALEYHA KI YHVH DIBER

בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא נְאֻם יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת תָּמוּשׁ הַיָּתֵד הַתְּקוּעָה בְּמָקוֹם נֶאֱמָן וְנִגְדְּעָה וְנָפְלָה וְנִכְרַת הַמַּשָּׂא אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ כִּי יְהוָה דִּבֵּר

KJ: In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken it.

BN: On that day, declares YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens, shall the peg that was fastened in a sure place give way; and it shall be cut down, and fall, and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off; for YHVH has spoken it. {P}

Which completes El-Yakim's enthronement, and Mitsrayim's effective conquest by reduction to vassaldom of Yisra-El. He lasted, incidentally, eleven years, and Nebuchadnezzar came during that time (2 Kings 24) and made him his vassal. 

And for those who thought I was overstating matters re Teki'a and Yated and Talu and all those other "carefully chosen words", this verse brings them together, and completes them in one go.

SurfTheSite

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