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
10:1 HOY HA CHOKEKIM CHIKEKEY AVEN U MECHATVIM AMAL KITEVU
הוֹי הַחֹקְקִים חִקְקֵי אָוֶן וּמְכַתְּבִים עָמָל כִּתֵּבוּ
BN (BibleNet translation): Woe unto those who issue unthought-through decrees, and to the scribblers who scribble garbage.
Once again: who is speaking? Narrator quoting Yesh'a-Yah quoting the deity?
CHOKEKIM CHIKEKEY: Untranslateable into English without losing the word-play. A CHOK is a law, one made by humans rather than stemming from the deity. A CHEKEK is a thought, and probably, linguistically, it derives from the same root, but CHOK has one Kuph, biut CHEKEK has two. What turns the CHEKEK into a negative is the word AVEN, for which "unrighteous" is an entirely reasonable translation, but I think, based on what we have read until now, "unthought-through" is more precise.
MECHATVIM...KITEVU: The same word-play precisely here, but using the same root - KATAV, "to write" - in two different ways. The first uses it in the Pi'el form, so it is more about "dictating" than "writing"; the second uses it in the NIPHAL, which is to say the passive form. Things that get "dictated", and things received "passively" - two of Y-Y's biggest complaints throughout these pages, brilliant punned in a single verse. What would he want? Think it through thoroughly, then write it yourself.
AMAL: Ecclesiastes 1:3 and 2:11 use the word to mean "heavy" and "wearisome" labour. Y-Y uses the word again in 53:11, speaking of "the labours of the soul" which lead to weariness.
10:2 LEHATOT MI DIN DALIM VE LIGZOL MISHPAT ANIYEY AMI LIHEYOT ALMANOT SHELALAM VE ET YETOMIM VAVOZU
לְהַטּוֹת מִדִּין דַּלִּים וְלִגְזֹל מִשְׁפַּט עֲנִיֵּי עַמִּי לִהְיוֹת אַלְמָנוֹת שְׁלָלָם וְאֶת יְתוֹמִים יָבֹזּוּ
BN: To turn away the needy from justice, and to take away the rights of the poor of my people, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey!
Social values again, picking up a theme raised in the previous chapter and oft repeated in the chapters ahead. Y-Y the Socialist! Y-Y who would never accept a Charter of Human Rights unless it also included a Charter of Human Responsibilities.
SHELALIM: Cf Isaiah 8:1.
10:3 U MAH TA'ASU LE YOM PEKUDAH U LE SHO'AH MI MERCHAK TAVO AL MI TANUSU LE EZRAH VE ANAH TA'AZVU KEVODCHEM
וּמַה תַּעֲשׂוּ לְיוֹם פְּקֻדָּה וּלְשׁוֹאָה מִמֶּרְחָק תָּבוֹא עַל מִי תָּנוּסוּ לְעֶזְרָה וְאָנָה תַעַזְבוּ כְּבוֹדְכֶם
BN: And what will you do on the day of reckoning, and in the holocaust which shall come from far away? To whom will you flee for help? And where will you leave your dignity?
Where will you turn when your turn comes? To which the obvious reply of an intelligent human is: why would you turn to anywhere non-human; turn to yourself and the advice you can give yourself based on the wisdom gleaned from reflection on your lived experience; and if you don't have that, because you haven't bothered to live intensely, or reflect intensely, then you are a lost cause anyway. And after turning to yourself, turn to your friends and to your other human guides, living or in preserved documents from the past. But why would you turn to an imaginary metaphor, even if the evidence of history was in favour of his support being likely, or useful if it came - unless, through that metaphor, you are able to provide yourself with all of the above?
SHO'AH: Yes, that word. See the link.
10:4 BILTI CHAR'A TACHAT ASIR VE TACHAT HA RUGIM YIPOLU BE CHOL ZOT LO SHAV APO VE OD YADO NETUYAH
בִּלְתִּי כָרַע תַּחַת אַסִּיר וְתַחַת הֲרוּגִים יִפֹּלוּ בְּכָל זֹאת לֹא שָׁב אַפּוֹ וְעוֹד יָדוֹ נְטוּיָה
BN: They can do nothing but crouch under the captives, and fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand remains extended.
But my parenthesis in the note to the last verse is primarily the humanist, only secondarily the religionist position; Y-Y's is the latter, that you need a deity, however metaphorical, and that the deity is always there (see my next note); though again the theology is now, post-Mosaic. And in the end, if the deity is purely metaphorical, I am not sure that these two philosophical positions are actually any different, except in their choice of language (see my note to verse 6).
VE OD YADO NETUYAH: This the 4th, or is it the 5th time, he has used this phrase. See the previous chapter. But also see 14:26, where he uses the same phrase with an entirely different meaning (but by inference endorsing this one).
pey break
10:5 HOY ASHUR SHEVET API U MATEH HU VE YADAM ZA'MI
הוֹי אַשּׁוּר שֵׁבֶט אַפִּי וּמַטֶּה הוּא בְיָדָם זַעְמִי
BN (standard translation): O Ashur, the rod of my anger, in whose hand as a staff is my indignation!
HOY vs OY again (and sometimes Oi as well, in Yiddish).
HOY ASHUR: "Woe to Assyria"! Not much historical evidence to support that prophesy either; Assyria would remain the power in the region for some while yet, and will return, repeatedly, throughout the centuries; go watch today's news!
SHEVET...MATEH: Both translations are meaningless. Because the text is, shall we say, complex.
SHEVET...MATEH: Both translations are meaningless. Because the text is, shall we say, complex.
The argument with the king is over his position with regards the Northern Kingdom, which is in alliance with Aram to protect itself against invading Ashur, even while the Pelishtim are taking advantage to attack from the west. Y-Y says: stay out of these dubious alliances, even with Ephrayim, the Northern Kingdom, because it has rejected YHVH and Temple worship in Yeru-Shala'im for its own way of doing things, and he is predicting disaster for all who reject YHVH. He, and YHVH, are "angry" ("API") and "indignant" ("ZA'MI"), both of which are in the 1st person singular. But YADAM is in the 3rd person plural, which must mean that the "hand" in question is not YHVH's extended hand of the previous verse, but the threatening hand of the invader - except that Ashur is also in the singular.
Let us try a different approach. MATEH and SHEVET have occurred before, in one of the most important verses indeed, 9:3: "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." Clearly this is the phrase in Y-Y's mind, and he is playing with it. SHEVET and MATEH are also the words for "tribe" and "clan", probably derived from the badge of office carried by the head of each, though the texts are by no means clear if it SHEVET for a tribe, and MATEH for a clan, or the other way around. My notes at Exodus 4:2 go into this in much more detail, but I think the intention here is to differentiate the tribes from the clans, and to press through the word-play for Achaz to stay out of any confederation that is not based on the Davidic Covenant - and that means a united Confederation.
BN (interpretative translation): O Ashur, the tribal-rod of my anger, and the clan-staff of my indignation, are in your hands.
BN (interpretative translation): O Ashur, the tribal-rod of my anger, and the clan-staff of my indignation, are in your hands.
10:6 BE GOY CHANEPH ASHALCHENU VE AL AM EVRATI ATSAVENU LISHLOL SHALAL VE LAVOZ BAZ U LESHUMO MIRMAS KE CHOMER CHUTSOT
KJ: I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
BN: I shall send him against an ungodly nation, and against the people of my wrath I shall give it this charge: to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
Y-Y's pre-response to Dylan's "With God On Our Side"; this is "With God On Their Side", and it will be standard Jewish theology for the next two thousand years: until the Holocaust rendered it unpalatable. The deity will use Ashur (Assyria) - on this occasion, others on others - as a tool to make Yisra-El pay for its disobedience and its lack of righteousness. But note again this very important Isaiac paradigm, of a deity who created all humans, his favoured - "chosen" - Ya'akov, as well as the descendants of Cham and Yaphet - and who will "use" one faction among his creations as a tool against another: the construct that everything that happens in the world, not just the natural events as in the patriarchal world, but political events too, are driven by some kind of divine plan, or at least by a spur-of-the-moment divine tantrum. It is a very dangerous idea, so be cautious before you start to take it seriously. It depends on the Jewish notion that good and bad are equally sourced in the same One deity, and not dualised as in Zoroastrianism and Christianity, with the deity in the sky-blue corner and Angra Mainyu (Achriman, Lucifer) in the ember-red. It allows the Nazis to have been tools in the same way, and the Holocaust a form of divine punishment. And does, thereby, define a clear difference between the humanist and the religionist positions of my note to verse 4.
בְּגוֹי חָנֵף אֲשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ וְעַל עַם עֶבְרָתִי אֲצַוֶּנּוּ לִשְׁלֹל שָׁלָל וְלָבֹז בַּז ולשימו (וּלְשׂוּמוֹ) מִרְמָס כְּחֹמֶר חוּצוֹת
BN: I shall send him against an ungodly nation, and against the people of my wrath I shall give it this charge: to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
Y-Y's pre-response to Dylan's "With God On Our Side"; this is "With God On Their Side", and it will be standard Jewish theology for the next two thousand years: until the Holocaust rendered it unpalatable. The deity will use Ashur (Assyria) - on this occasion, others on others - as a tool to make Yisra-El pay for its disobedience and its lack of righteousness. But note again this very important Isaiac paradigm, of a deity who created all humans, his favoured - "chosen" - Ya'akov, as well as the descendants of Cham and Yaphet - and who will "use" one faction among his creations as a tool against another: the construct that everything that happens in the world, not just the natural events as in the patriarchal world, but political events too, are driven by some kind of divine plan, or at least by a spur-of-the-moment divine tantrum. It is a very dangerous idea, so be cautious before you start to take it seriously. It depends on the Jewish notion that good and bad are equally sourced in the same One deity, and not dualised as in Zoroastrianism and Christianity, with the deity in the sky-blue corner and Angra Mainyu (Achriman, Lucifer) in the ember-red. It allows the Nazis to have been tools in the same way, and the Holocaust a form of divine punishment. And does, thereby, define a clear difference between the humanist and the religionist positions of my note to verse 4.
CHANEPH: This is about to become a key word in the text, so it is important that we try to understand it as precisely as possible. King James, here and at 24:5, 32:6 and 33:14, goes for "hypocritical" where other translators go for "profane", "unrighteous", "ungodly", even "defiled", and there are fundamental differences between these: one does not believe in any gods, one believes in the "wrong" gods, one theoretically follows the "right" gods, but "follows" in most questionable manner. So which is it? I haven't a clue, sorry. But I can direct you to some of the other occasions when it is used, such as Numbers 35:33, Jeremiah 3:2 and 9, also 23:11 (where most translators go for "impious"); Daniel 11:32; several occurrences in Job: 8:13, 13:16, 15:34...; Psalm 106:38.
There seems to be common agreement to translate it as "polluted" when it refers to the land, but the panel of judges is divided when it comes to humans.
10:7 VE HU LO CHEN YEDAMEH U LEVAVO LO CHEN YACHSHOV KI LEHASHMID BI LEVAVO U LE HACHRIT GOYIM LO ME'AT
וְהוּא לֹא כֵן יְדַמֶּה וּלְבָבוֹ לֹא כֵן יַחְשֹׁב כִּי לְהַשְׁמִיד בִּלְבָבוֹ וּלְהַכְרִית גּוֹיִם לֹא מְעָט
BN: Even if this is not already his intention, in his plans or even in his heart; because it is in his heart to destroy, and to cut off not a few nations.
Which is to say: probably Ashur is planning to do precisely this against Yehudah, once he has finished off Aram and Ephrayim, because that is his nature; but even if he isn't...
Which is to say: probably Ashur is planning to do precisely this against Yehudah, once he has finished off Aram and Ephrayim, because that is his nature; but even if he isn't...
10:8 KI YOMAR HA LO SARAI YACHDAV MELACHIM
כִּי יֹאמַר הֲלֹא שָׂרַי יַחְדָּו מְלָכִים
BN: For he says: 'Are not all of my princes kings?
SARIM: more word-games, homophoning SARIM with a Seen (ש) here against SARIM with a Samech (ס) elsewhere - the word means "evil", but is used in 1 Kings 20:43 and 21:4 and 5 to mean "sullen", "angry", both of them texts from Y-Y's epoch, so the word was very much in use by his listeners.
As to SARIM with a Seen (ש), which is how it is used here, SARAI also happens to be the name of Av-Ram's wife.
A man's "princes" are the senior nobles who provided him with a court. So, today, the UK is one of the "princes" of the USA, as Tibet is of China, and Putin would have the Ukraine be of Russia. "Vassal state" may be a more precise description, but it is not the one in use here.
10:9 HA LO KE CHARKEMIYSH KALNU IM LO CHE ARPAD CHAMAT IM LO CHE DAMESEK SHOMRON
הֲלֹא כְּכַרְכְּמִישׁ כַּלְנוֹ אִם לֹא כְאַרְפַּד חֲמָת אִם לֹא כְדַמֶּשֶׂק שֹׁמְרוֹן
BN: Is not Kalno the same to Charkemiysh? Is not Chamat the same to Arpad? Is not Shomron the same to Damascus?
KALNO: See the link.
CHARKEMIYSH: Again see the link.
ARPAD: And ditto.
CHAMAT: On this occasion the link is internal, because Chamat relates to Cham, one of the sons of No'ach, and so there is an essay.
DAMASEK: Ditto to the above, not the above-the-above.
SHOMRON: And ibid.
Probably Ashur sees all this as empire-building, and not as a moral lesson which it is teaching those stiff-necked Beney Yisra-El, but the point is valid nonetheless. This sounds flippant, but think of the attitude of the Catholic church in sanctioning the conquest of the Americas – the recently canonised Junipero Serra for example in California; to the Spanish it was absolutely empire-building, but they justified it in the name of God and Jesus; to the Pope who provided that ideological justification, it was all about bringing those heathen, Asherim-worshipping, just-like-the-pagans-of-Kena'an Amerindians, into the joy and salvation of the Christian fold, halleluyah and amen. Imanu El.
10:10 KA ASHER MATS'AH YADI LE MAMLECHOT HA ELIL U PHESIYLEYHEM MIYRU-SHALA'IM U MI SHOMRON
KJ: As my hand hath found the kingdoms of the idols, and whose graven images did excel them of Jerusalem and of Samaria;
BN: As my hand has reached the kingdoms of the idols, whose graven images are even more exorbitant than those of Yeru-Shala'im and Shomron...
YADI: That extended hand again, but in the tone of 14:26, rather than the more supportive one offered up till now. (and note that it is YADI here, 1st person singular, which confirms that YADAM at verse 5 was not YHVH's, as per my note there).
ARPAD: And ditto.
CHAMAT: On this occasion the link is internal, because Chamat relates to Cham, one of the sons of No'ach, and so there is an essay.
DAMASEK: Ditto to the above, not the above-the-above.
SHOMRON: And ibid.
Probably Ashur sees all this as empire-building, and not as a moral lesson which it is teaching those stiff-necked Beney Yisra-El, but the point is valid nonetheless. This sounds flippant, but think of the attitude of the Catholic church in sanctioning the conquest of the Americas – the recently canonised Junipero Serra for example in California; to the Spanish it was absolutely empire-building, but they justified it in the name of God and Jesus; to the Pope who provided that ideological justification, it was all about bringing those heathen, Asherim-worshipping, just-like-the-pagans-of-Kena'an Amerindians, into the joy and salvation of the Christian fold, halleluyah and amen. Imanu El.
10:10 KA ASHER MATS'AH YADI LE MAMLECHOT HA ELIL U PHESIYLEYHEM MIYRU-SHALA'IM U MI SHOMRON
כַּאֲשֶׁר מָצְאָה יָדִי לְמַמְלְכֹת הָאֱלִיל וּפְסִילֵיהֶם מִירוּשָׁלִַם וּמִשֹּׁמְרוֹן
BN: As my hand has reached the kingdoms of the idols, whose graven images are even more exorbitant than those of Yeru-Shala'im and Shomron...
YADI: That extended hand again, but in the tone of 14:26, rather than the more supportive one offered up till now. (and note that it is YADI here, 1st person singular, which confirms that YADAM at verse 5 was not YHVH's, as per my note there).
ELIL: See the link, and then my note to the next verse.
"EXORBITANT": Why not this for a translation, rather than KJ's "excel" - given that there isn't actually any word in the Yehudit text at all for this; we have to presume there was one, and the scribe accidentally omitted it, because otherwise the sentence no sense.
10:11 HA LO KA ASHER ASIYTI LE SHOMRON VE LE ELIYLEYHA KEN E'ESEH LIYRU-SHALA'IM VE LA ATSABEYHA
הֲלֹא כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי לְשֹׁמְרוֹן וְלֶאֱלִילֶיהָ כֵּן אֶעֱשֶׂה לִירוּשָׁלִַם וְלַעֲצַבֶּיהָ
BN: ... shall I not do to Yeru-Shala'im and her false gods as I have done to Shomron and her idols?
ELIYLEYHA... ATSABEYHA: What is the difference between these two forms of idol? Compare Psalm 115:4, which also uses ATSABEYHEM - the whole Psalm indeed providing a full explanation of the idols and elucidating Y-Y's problem with them. I have translated ELIYLEYHA as "false gods" here, which may not actually be accurate, but at least allows me to draw a distinction, as the Yehudit does; and I am pretty confident that Y-Y would not disagree with my rendition.
pey break
10:12 VE HAYAH KI YEVATS'A ADONAI ET KOL MA'ASEHU BE HAR TSI'ON U VIYRU-SHALA'IM EPHKOD AL PERI GODEL LEVAV MELECH ASHUR VE AL TIPH'ERET RUM EYNAV
וְהָיָה כִּי יְבַצַּע אֲדֹנָי אֶת כָּל מַעֲשֵׂהוּ בְּהַר צִיּוֹן וּבִירוּשָׁלִָם אֶפְקֹד עַל פְּרִי גֹדֶל לְבַב מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר וְעַל תִּפְאֶרֶת רוּם עֵינָיו
BN: And it will fall out, that when my Lord has performed his entire work upon Mount Tsi'on and in Yeru-Shala'im, I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Ashur, and the glory of his haughty looks.
If this is Y-Y speaking, as it appears to be, given that he speaks about "my Lord" in the third person and therefore it can't be the deity who is speaking through him, then the "I" must also be Y-Y - which leaves us questioning what authority he has, let alone the means, to complete the threat in the second half of this verse. Or is there a distinction after all between Adonai ("My Lord"), and YHVH Tseva'ot ("The Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens").Verse 16 uses HA ADON, and definitely means YHVH, so... is it possible that "my Lord" is "His Majesty", the earthly ruler, not the divine metaphor, and that he is again telling Achaz that "what you still decline to do, your successor will do, and YHVH will support him in the doing of it"?
And if it is that, then the picture he is painting will parallel centuries later, when Muhammad takes Mecca in the name of al-Lah, and cleans out all the Elilim and Atsavim there, leaving only the invisible al-Lah as the One deity (click here).
10:13 KI AMAR BE CHO'ACH YADI ASIYTI U VE CHACHMATI KI NEVUNOTI VE ASIR GEVULOT AMIM VA ATUDOTEYHEM SHOSETI VE ORID KA ABIR YOSHVIM
KJ: For he saith, By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom; for I am prudent: and I have removed the bounds of the people, and have robbed their treasures, and I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man:
BN: For he has said: by the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom, for I am prudent; in that I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants;
10:13 and 14 The deity's problem being that Ashur will claim to have done it without needing divine interference (or with, but not this deity; or yes this deity, but on their side), and take the glory, but the deity needs Yisra-El and Yehudah to believe that he did it, so that they will now start to fear him and not simply go on fearing Ashur.
10:14 VA TIMTS'A CHA KEN YADI LE CHEYL HA AMIM VE CHE ESOPH BEYTSIM AZUVOT KOL HA ARETS ANI ASAPHTI VE LO HAYAH NODED KANAPH U PHOTSEH PHEH U METSAPHTSEPH
KJ: And my hand hath found as a nest the riches of the people: and as one gathereth eggs that are left, have I gathered all the earth; and there was none that moved the wing, or opened the mouth, or peeped.
BN: And my hand has found as a nest the riches of the peoples; and as one gathers eggs that are abandoned, so have I gathered all the earth; and there was none that moved the wing, or that opened the mouth, or chirped.
10:15 HA YITPA'ER HA GARZEN AL HA CHOTSEV BO IM YITGADEL HA MASOR AL MENIYPHO KE HANIPH SHEVET VE ET MERIYMAV KE HARIM MATEH LO ETS
KJ: Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood.
BN: Should the axe boast itself against he who hews with it? Should the saw magnify itself against he who cuts with it? As if a rod should move those who lift it up, or as if a staff should lift up he who is not wood.
Y-Y poeticises the rhetoric to make his theological point, but in the next verse he will switch his imagery to that of sacrifice, which is dangerous territory for one who has clearly stated, right at the outset, that YHVH does not want sacrifices.
pey break
10:16 LACHEN YESHALACH HA ADON YHVH TSEVA'OT BE MISHMANAV RAZON VE TACHAT KEVODO YEKED YEKOD KIYKOD ESH
KJ: Therefore shall the Lord, the Lord of hosts, send among his fat ones leanness; and under his glory he shall kindle a burning like the burning of a fire.
BN: Therefore will the Lord, YHVH the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens, send a famine to reduce these bloated souls to thinness; and with his power there shall blaze a burning like the burning of fire.
Imagery of the sun-god now: the point at which EL and YHVH converged in the slow transition from polytheism to Omnideism. EL was originally the sun-god in the Kena'ani world, because the sun rules the heavens and he was the chief god; YHVH was a mere volcano, but he blew himself out of physical existence, at the time of Lot, according to the Edomite version, at the time of Mosheh, according to the Midyanite version, and only found a temporary home in various forms of the Mishkan until Shelomoh gave him a palace on Mount Tsi'on and he began his putsch towards autocracy. So, here, the sun will dry up the land, causing a famine; and when the land gets that dry, wild-fires are inevitable.
10:13 KI AMAR BE CHO'ACH YADI ASIYTI U VE CHACHMATI KI NEVUNOTI VE ASIR GEVULOT AMIM VA ATUDOTEYHEM SHOSETI VE ORID KA ABIR YOSHVIM
כִּי אָמַר בְּכֹחַ יָדִי עָשִׂיתִי וּבְחָכְמָתִי כִּי נְבֻנוֹתִי וְאָסִיר גְּבוּלֹת עַמִּים ועתידתיהם (וַעֲתוּדֹתֵיהֶם) שׁוֹשֵׂתִי וְאוֹרִיד כַּאבִּיר יוֹשְׁבִים
BN: For he has said: by the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom, for I am prudent; in that I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants;
10:13 and 14 The deity's problem being that Ashur will claim to have done it without needing divine interference (or with, but not this deity; or yes this deity, but on their side), and take the glory, but the deity needs Yisra-El and Yehudah to believe that he did it, so that they will now start to fear him and not simply go on fearing Ashur.
10:14 VA TIMTS'A CHA KEN YADI LE CHEYL HA AMIM VE CHE ESOPH BEYTSIM AZUVOT KOL HA ARETS ANI ASAPHTI VE LO HAYAH NODED KANAPH U PHOTSEH PHEH U METSAPHTSEPH
וַתִּמְצָא כַקֵּן יָדִי לְחֵיל הָעַמִּים וְכֶאֱסֹף בֵּיצִים עֲזֻבוֹת כָּל הָאָרֶץ אֲנִי אָסָפְתִּי וְלֹא הָיָה נֹדֵד כָּנָף וּפֹצֶה פֶה וּמְצַפְצֵף
BN: And my hand has found as a nest the riches of the peoples; and as one gathers eggs that are abandoned, so have I gathered all the earth; and there was none that moved the wing, or that opened the mouth, or chirped.
10:15 HA YITPA'ER HA GARZEN AL HA CHOTSEV BO IM YITGADEL HA MASOR AL MENIYPHO KE HANIPH SHEVET VE ET MERIYMAV KE HARIM MATEH LO ETS
הֲיִתְפָּאֵר הַגַּרְזֶן עַל הַחֹצֵב בּוֹ אִם יִתְגַּדֵּל הַמַּשּׂוֹר עַל מְנִיפוֹ כְּהָנִיף שֵׁבֶט וְאֶת מְרִימָיו כְּהָרִים מַטֶּה לֹא עֵץ
BN: Should the axe boast itself against he who hews with it? Should the saw magnify itself against he who cuts with it? As if a rod should move those who lift it up, or as if a staff should lift up he who is not wood.
Y-Y poeticises the rhetoric to make his theological point, but in the next verse he will switch his imagery to that of sacrifice, which is dangerous territory for one who has clearly stated, right at the outset, that YHVH does not want sacrifices.
10:16 LACHEN YESHALACH HA ADON YHVH TSEVA'OT BE MISHMANAV RAZON VE TACHAT KEVODO YEKED YEKOD KIYKOD ESH
לָכֵן יְשַׁלַּח הָאָדוֹן יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת בְּמִשְׁמַנָּיו רָזוֹן וְתַחַת כְּבֹדוֹ יֵקַד יְקֹד כִּיקוֹד אֵשׁ
BN: Therefore will the Lord, YHVH the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens, send a famine to reduce these bloated souls to thinness; and with his power there shall blaze a burning like the burning of fire.
Imagery of the sun-god now: the point at which EL and YHVH converged in the slow transition from polytheism to Omnideism. EL was originally the sun-god in the Kena'ani world, because the sun rules the heavens and he was the chief god; YHVH was a mere volcano, but he blew himself out of physical existence, at the time of Lot, according to the Edomite version, at the time of Mosheh, according to the Midyanite version, and only found a temporary home in various forms of the Mishkan until Shelomoh gave him a palace on Mount Tsi'on and he began his putsch towards autocracy. So, here, the sun will dry up the land, causing a famine; and when the land gets that dry, wild-fires are inevitable.
KEVODO: Yes, this is used to mean both "glory" and "honour", throughout the Tanach. But we have to read within context, and the "glory" of YHVH, who is the elemental essences of Life itself, is his capacity to engender and inseminate Life in all its forms. So, as this is his manifestation as sunlight, I am translating it as power. In verse 18 I will go even further back into his essence.
YEKED YEKOD KIYKOD ESH: I have tried to manage a similar alliteration in my English rendition.
10:17 VE HAYAH OR YISRA-EL LE ESH U KEDOSHO LE LEHAVAH U VA'ARAH VE ACHLAH SHITO U SHEMIYRO BE YOM ECHAD
וְהָיָה אוֹר יִשְׂרָאֵל לְאֵשׁ וּקְדוֹשׁוֹ לְלֶהָבָה וּבָעֲרָה וְאָכְלָה שִׁיתוֹ וּשְׁמִירוֹ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד
BN: And the light of Yisra-El shall be for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame; and it shall burn and devour his thorns and his briers in one day...
And is the slight ambiguity that is discernible between this verse and the last because Y-Y is playing with the two forms of light: natural sunlight and intellectual illumination? If it is that, then we need to look again at verse 6, and do some follow-through into the Zoroastrian, the dualism of
Ahura Mazda versus Ahriman, but also the Creation story of Genesis 1, which
opens with the Big Bang explosion of Light.
OR YISRA-EL: That ambiguity arises because "Or Yisra-El", which emerges from the imagery of 10:16, is new, and will become central to Y-Y's vision, through the aspiration that Yisra-El become "a light unto the nations", which is to say a role-model of how human behaviour should be conducted.
SHITO U SHEMIYRO: Didn't we just have those burning briers in the last chapter? For we moderns, the place to go for all these mythological overlaps and inter-allusions is Eliot's "The Wasteland"; for Y-Y's readers or listeners, it would have come across as a reflection of Tohu and Bohu and the uncreated world at the start of Genesis 1:2, the pre-Big Bang "re'shit" before Light emerged from Choshech (darkness).
10:18 U CHEVOD YA'ARO VE CHARMILO MI NEPHESH VE AD BASAR YECHALEH VE HAYAH KIMSOS NOSES
וּכְבוֹד יַעְרוֹ וְכַרְמִלּוֹ מִנֶּפֶשׁ וְעַד בָּשָׂר יְכַלֶּה וְהָיָה כִּמְסֹס נֹסֵס
BN: And the capacity of his forest and his vineyard to produce fruit will be consumed, both its living spirit and its physical body; and it shall be as when a sick man wastes away.
CHEVODO: See my note at verse 16 (KEVODO there becomes CHEVODO here because of the prefictual conjunction).
CHARMILO: I sometimes find the translators inexplicable. They know perfectly well, because it has come up repeatedly, that a KEREM is a vineyard; or it could be an orchard of any sort of fruit that is not citrus - that would be a PARDES (פַּרְדֵּס) - but generally it is a vineyard, as in Exodus 22:4, Deuteronomy 20:6, 28:30, Isaiah 27:2... so why do they translate it here as "a field", which would be a SADEH (שָׂדֶה)- and in fact that Exodus 22 link is the perfect place to go to see this, because it has both, together, side-by-side.
But all that is simply a distraction. Word-games! Y-Y has been playing with princes and kings (verse 8, but also the SAR of the previous chapter), and KEREM, which is the root of CHARMILO, does happen to have a second usage, which is "noble". The colour crimson, evinced as a dye from the ilex, was known as KARMIYL because it had the same colour as red wine-grapes (2 Chronicles 2:7 et al); because the crimson, like the purple and scarlet, were worn exclusively by the higher priests and nobles, it is entirely possible that this is what Y-Y is intending here, rather than the vineyard.
KIMSOS NOSES: I love all those samechs, but they tend to be foreign words, not Yehudit - generally a Yehudit "s" will be rendered with a Seen (ש) and a foreign "s" with a Samech (ס). The root really means "to melt", as in snow, but it is used for a person having a "complete melt-down", as we would idiomise it today, or, (Joshua 7:5 for example) for somebody's heart melting.
10:19 U SHE'AR ETS YA'ARO MISPAR YIHEYU VE NA'AR YICHTEVEM
וּשְׁאָר עֵץ יַעְרוֹ מִסְפָּר יִהְיוּ וְנַעַר יִכְתְּבֵם
BN: And the number of trees left in his forest will be few, so few that even a child can count them.
How old is this child? Is the intention: still so young that he/she counts on his/her fingers, so there will only be ten trees left at most?
samech break
10:20 VE HAYAH BA YOM HA HU LO YOSIPH OD SHE'AR YISRA-EL U PHELEYTAT BEIT YA'AKOV LEHISHA'EN AL MAKEHU VE NISH'AN AL YHVH KEDOSH YISRA-EL BE EMET
KJ: And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.
samech break
10:20 VE HAYAH BA YOM HA HU LO YOSIPH OD SHE'AR YISRA-EL U PHELEYTAT BEIT YA'AKOV LEHISHA'EN AL MAKEHU VE NISH'AN AL YHVH KEDOSH YISRA-EL BE EMET
וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לֹא יוֹסִיף עוֹד שְׁאָר יִשְׂרָאֵל וּפְלֵיטַת בֵּית יַעֲקֹב לְהִשָּׁעֵן עַל מַכֵּהוּ וְנִשְׁעַן עַל יְהוָה קְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל בֶּאֱמֶת
BN: And it shall come to pass on that day, that the remnant of Yisra-El, and those who have escaped from the house of Ya'akov, shall no longer cling to he who smote them; but shall cling to YHVH, who is truthfully the Holy One of Yisra-El.
The distinction between Yisra-El and Ya'akov here appears to be a distinction between the southern kingdom (Yehudah, Bin-Yamin, Shim'on absorbed a long time back) and the Northern Kingdom, elsewhere known as "The League of Ephrayim", and including whichever of the other tribes were still in existence (Gad, Re'u-Ven and East Menasheh had probably been absorbed into Mo-Av, Edom and Amon a long time previously).
The distinction between Yisra-El and Ya'akov here appears to be a distinction between the southern kingdom (Yehudah, Bin-Yamin, Shim'on absorbed a long time back) and the Northern Kingdom, elsewhere known as "The League of Ephrayim", and including whichever of the other tribes were still in existence (Gad, Re'u-Ven and East Menasheh had probably been absorbed into Mo-Av, Edom and Amon a long time previously).
10:21 SHE'AR YASHUV SHE'AR YA'AKOV EL EL GIBOR
KJ: The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God.
שְׁאָר יָשׁוּב שְׁאָר יַעֲקֹב אֶל אֵל גִּבּוֹר
BN: A remnant shall return, including the remnant of Ya'akov, to El Gibor.
YASHUV: The word will enter the language, and remain forever at the heart of its emotions. After the conquest by Rome, when Yehudim were either taken off as slaves, or dispatched to their own devices, only a small "remnant" remained in the land for the next two thousand years, reviving somewhat in the late 1800s, and more so either side of the Holocaust. For Jews living in that "Galut" ("exile"), or in the "Tephutsot" ("Diaspora"), not only the remnant in Yisra-El, but the land itself, became known as the YISHUV.
YASHUV: The word will enter the language, and remain forever at the heart of its emotions. After the conquest by Rome, when Yehudim were either taken off as slaves, or dispatched to their own devices, only a small "remnant" remained in the land for the next two thousand years, reviving somewhat in the late 1800s, and more so either side of the Holocaust. For Jews living in that "Galut" ("exile"), or in the "Tephutsot" ("Diaspora"), not only the remnant in Yisra-El, but the land itself, became known as the YISHUV.
EL GIBOR: Yet again the sense that Y-Y follows a very different religion and deity from the one we think of (incorrectly!) as traditional "Hebrew". Or is this the origin of the construct "God Almighty" (ee my note at 9:5)? But if it is, then God Almighty is EL, not YHVH!
10:22 KI IM YIHEYEH AMCHA YISRA-EL KE CHOL HA YAH SHE'AR YASHUV BO KILAYON CHARUTS SHOTEPH TSEDAKAH
כִּי אִם יִהְיֶה עַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּחוֹל הַיָּם שְׁאָר יָשׁוּב בּוֹ כִּלָּיוֹן חָרוּץ שׁוֹטֵף צְדָקָה
BN: For though your people, Yisra-El, are as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them shall return; the devastation that has been decreed will be transformed into a building-up of righteousness.
"Sand of the sea" alludes to the covenant with Av-Raham in Genesis 22:17, but was always hyperbole anyway – even the 11 billion humans expected to cataclysmically overpopulate the planet by the end of this century will be a mere beach relative to the totality of sand on the coastlines of the planet.
KILAYON CHARUTS SHOTEPH TSEDAKAH: My translation of this phrase is rather more interpretative than literal, but at least it does retain the poetic images of the original.
KILAYON CHARUTS SHOTEPH TSEDAKAH: My translation of this phrase is rather more interpretative than literal, but at least it does retain the poetic images of the original.
10:23 KI CHALAH VE NECHERATSAH ADONAI YHVH TSEVA'OT OSEH BE KEREV KOL HA ARETS
כִּי כָלָה וְנֶחֱרָצָה אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה צְבָאוֹת עֹשֶׂה בְּקֶרֶב כָּל הָאָרֶץ
BN: For what has been decreed and determined shall the Lord, YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens, carry out in every region of the land.
The tone has become (astonishingly for such a curmudgeonly work) optimistic: you will be destroyed, carried into captivity, desolated, generally abused, raped, enslaved, bullied, beaten and shackled, and you thoroughly deserve it you barely tree-descended apes, but – and this is where the optimism sidles up and whispers through your upturned collar – "the deity only punishes you because he loves you, as a parent smacks a naughty child; and all will be hugs and Disney-toys in the long run"; provided, though it remains unstated here, provided that you have fear and faith, and follow the covenant as you have committed.
(and yes, for those who have read it, the thinking of Nemo in my novel "A Singular Shade of Grey" follows precisely this pattern - derived from Nietzsche in fact, rather than Y-Y. First the "negative-misanthropic" rantinghis constant whinge and moan; then the "positive-idealist", picking up the shards and crumbs and sawdust that remain after all that iconclasm, and seeing what can made afresh with them).
pey break
10:24 LACHEN KO'ACH AMAR ADONAI YHVH TSEVA'OT AL TIYR'A AMI YOSHEV TSI'ON ME ASHUR BA SHEVET YAKEKAH U MATEHU YIS'A ALEYCHA BE DERECH MITSRAYIM
KJ: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD of hosts, O my people that dwellest in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrian: he shall smite thee with a rod, and shall lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt.
ERETS: Sometimes Erets is Planet Earth, sometimes just the "land" of... whichever one is being referred to at the time and in the context. Here it is Kena'an, in its twin Yisra-Eli modes.
10:24 LACHEN KO'ACH AMAR ADONAI YHVH TSEVA'OT AL TIYR'A AMI YOSHEV TSI'ON ME ASHUR BA SHEVET YAKEKAH U MATEHU YIS'A ALEYCHA BE DERECH MITSRAYIM
לָכֵן כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה צְבָאוֹת אַל תִּירָא עַמִּי יֹשֵׁב צִיּוֹן מֵאַשּׁוּר בַּשֵּׁבֶט יַכֶּכָּה וּמַטֵּהוּ יִשָּׂא עָלֶיךָ בְּדֶרֶךְ מִצְרָיִם
BN: Therefore thus says the Lord, YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens: O my people, who dwell in Tsi'on, do not fear Ashur, though he smites you with the rod, and lifts up his staff against you, in the manner of Mitsrayim.
SHEVET...MATEHU: Several previous notes on this, in this and the previous chapter. As with every good writer who creates an image for the purpose of developing a theme or an idea, the reader needs to go back and follow through all of its meanderings. This verse is its culmination.
10:25 KI OD ME'AT MIZ'AR VE CHALAH ZA'AM VE API AL TAVLIYTAM
KJ: For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall cease, and mine anger in their destruction.
כִּי עוֹד מְעַט מִזְעָר וְכָלָה זַעַם וְאַפִּי עַל תַּבְלִיתָם
BN: Bear with it for just a little longer, and my indignation will be satisfied, and my anger will then turn to their destruction.
Which makes for a wonderfully Disneyesque way of explaining history! I, God, am on your side at the moment, will switch sides for a while to take out my anger with you, but then I will be even more angry with the other side and so will switch back. Write a GCSE essay on the cause and courses of the First World War using this methodology!
Which makes for a wonderfully Disneyesque way of explaining history! I, God, am on your side at the moment, will switch sides for a while to take out my anger with you, but then I will be even more angry with the other side and so will switch back. Write a GCSE essay on the cause and courses of the First World War using this methodology!
10:26 VE O'RER ALAV YHVH TSEVA'OT SHOT KE MAKAT MIDYAN BE TSUR OREV U MATEHU AL HA YAM U NESA'O BE DERECH MITSRAYIM
KJ: And the LORD of hosts shall stir up a scourge for him according to the slaughter of Midian at the rock of Oreb: and as his rod was upon the sea, so shall he lift it up after the manner of Egypt.
וְעוֹרֵר עָלָיו יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת שׁוֹט כְּמַכַּת מִדְיָן בְּצוּר עוֹרֵב וּמַטֵּהוּ עַל הַיָּם וּנְשָׂאוֹ בְּדֶרֶךְ מִצְרָיִם
BN: And YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens, will stir up against him a scourge, just as at the slaughter of Midyan on the Rock of Orev; and just as his rod was over the sea, so shall he lift it up in the manner of Mitsrayim.
Which sounds at first like a Mosaic reference, but not so; and actually we have already been there. Yom Midyan again, from 9:3 - the source, as noted there, Judges 7:25, where we read, in the story of Gid'on (Gideon) that "they captured two princes of the Midyanites, Orev and Ze'ev; and they slew Orev on the rock Orev, and Ze'ev they slew at the winepress of Ze'ev, and they pursued Midyan, and they brought the heads of Orev and Ze'ev to Gid'on on the other side of the Yarden." Just as the SHEVET and MATEH image culminated in the previous verse, so the key allusion is repeated culminatively here. A* for the writing skills.
MITSRAYIM: See the link.
10:27 VE HAYAH BA YOM HA HU YASUR SUBALO MEY AL SHICHMECHA VE ULO MEY AL TSAVARECHA VE CHUBAL AL MIPNEY SHAMEN
KJ: And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder, and his yoke from off thy neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing.
וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יָסוּר סֻבֳּלוֹ מֵעַל שִׁכְמֶךָ וְעֻלּוֹ מֵעַל צַוָּארֶךָ וְחֻבַּל עֹל מִפְּנֵי שָׁמֶן
BN: And it shall come to pass on that day, that his burden shall depart from off your shoulder, and his yoke from off your neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed by its own arrogance.
MIPNEY SHAMEN: Ashur will be defeated, yes. But where does KJ get this to mean "anointing oil", and why would that be the reason for its defeat? In Yisra-Eli tradition oil was used for the coronation of the king, who did not wear a crown, because his role was primarily priestly. And the Yehudit word for "anointed" is MASHIYACH. In Christianity, of course, Mary Magdalene would use it for purposes that may have been spiritual or may have been erotic; the official gospel texts are wonderfully vague on this point, though not her own (prohibited) gospel - click here. But even by the usual standards of Christianity trying to read Jesus into Biblical texts, this is obscure to a point of absurdity. It seems to me much more likely that the answer lies in verse 12. SHEMEN not as physical "fat", nor anointing "oil", but simply a poetic image of the overweening size and sliminess of a man's ego.
10:28 BA AL AYAT AVAR BE MIGRON LE MICHMAS YAPHKID KELAV
KJ: He is come to Aiath, he is passed to Migron; at Michmash he hath laid up his carriages:
10:28 BA AL AYAT AVAR BE MIGRON LE MICHMAS YAPHKID KELAV
בָּא עַל עַיַּת עָבַר בְּמִגְרוֹן לְמִכְמָשׂ יַפְקִיד כֵּלָיו
BN: He has come up to Ayat. He has passed through Migron. He has established his boot-camp at Michmas.
MIGRON: The map at the link, and adjacent here, helps us to resolve this, because Migron is literally just a mile or two south of Ai, and both are at that point of the Golan Heights which we would expect to be the one from which the Ashurim descended byronically if they were targetting the Northern Kingdom; and if the two and a half tribes who had taken up residence on the Golan were still in existence, it would have penetrated their heartland first.
MICHMAS: and while you are at the link to MIGRON, the text there draws you to 1 Samuel 14, where Sha'ul at verse 2 was camped at Migron, waiting for Yah-Natan to bring the rest of the army - verse 5 - from nearby MICHMAS. My translation of YAPHKID KELAV as "established his boot-camp" is precise and accurate: Yah-Natan set up Michmas as one of the four principal garrison-towns in the war against the Pelishtim, so all the needs for a military base were well in place by the time of this invasion, and the phrase is intended to tell us that this was where the boots were repaired, the bows restrung, the spears and swords sharpened, all the necessary maintenance of an army on the march.
For such an A* writer, Y-Y (no, blame it on his scribes, he never wrote down a word; they quoted him, adding different bits at different times)... my question was going to be about the shift from "he" here, to "they" in the following verse. But is is obvious: "he" is the King, "they" are the soldiers.
10:29 AVRU MA'BARAH GEVA MALON LANU CHARDAH HA RAMAH GIV'AT SHA'UL NASAH
עָבְרוּ מַעְבָּרָה גֶּבַע מָלוֹן לָנוּ חָרְדָה הָרָמָה גִּבְעַת שָׁאוּל נָסָה
Look again at the map above; further confirmation, if we still needed it, of the route of the invasion: and now we can see its planned destination too: Yeru-Shala'im. For GEVA, see the link. For RAMAH, ask yourself why BibleMap, the site I have used for the map above, has not included Yeru-Shala'im, which is just north of Beit-Lechem, and only about 8 miles south of the invasion route. Click here.
Why is Givat-Sha'ul not hyphenated (English has added one)? The link to Geva, above, explains the meaning of Giv-Yah, but you will need to go to the end of the First Book of Samuel to see its significance, and the reason for its naming here: Giv-Yah was chosen by Sha'ul as his summer quarters (Gil-Gal was officially his winter quarters) , but became, effectively, the royal city in all seasons of his reign.
10:30 TSAHALI KOLECH BAT GALIM HAKSHIYVI LAYESHAH ANIYAH ANATOT
KJ: Lift up thy voice, O daughter of Gallim: cause it to be heard unto Laish, O poor Anathoth.
BN: Lift up your voice, daughter of Galim! Listen, La'ish! O you poor Anatot!
10:30 TSAHALI KOLECH BAT GALIM HAKSHIYVI LAYESHAH ANIYAH ANATOT
צַהֲלִי קוֹלֵךְ בַּת גַּלִּים הַקְשִׁיבִי לַיְשָׁה עֲנִיָּה עֲנָתוֹת
BN: Lift up your voice, daughter of Galim! Listen, La'ish! O you poor Anatot!
These are all references to what? Anatot was Yirme-Yah's (Jeremiah's) birthplace, and a moon-goddess shrine - look at the map above one more time; it's right there on the invasion route towards Yeru-Shala'im. La'ish is where the tribe of Dan moved to (Judges 18), or possibly started; Phoenician or Hittite anyway. Galim suggests megaliths (as in Gil-Gal), but also waves (as in the Sea of Galilee), and many towns (Gal-Ed et al)... and I have noted several times already how Y-Y likes to play with anagrams of these Gimmels and Lameds.
`
10:31 NADEDAH MADMENAH YOSHVEY HA GEVIM HE'IYZU
KJ: Madmenah is removed; the inhabitants of Gebim gather themselves to flee.
`
10:31 NADEDAH MADMENAH YOSHVEY HA GEVIM HE'IYZU
נָדְדָה מַדְמֵנָה יֹשְׁבֵי הַגֵּבִים הֵעִיזוּ
BN (literal translation): Madmenah is in mad flight; the inhabitants of Gevim are fleeing for cover.
MADMENAH: This one is complicated. There is no known place in the region with this name. There is a MADMANAH at Joshua 15:31, spelled identically, but pointed differently in the Masoretic text; but that is way south-west of here, adjacent to Tsiklag, the city of the Pelishtim where David had his first kingship. So it can't be that. There is a MADMEN in Mo-Av, mentioned by Yirme-Yah (Jeremiah 48:2 and you'll enjoy this link). Could it be that? Unlikely, given the map thus far. But now go to Isaiah 25:10, where he too is speaking about Mo-Av, and he speaks of MADMENAH again - but the context makes clear that he does not mean anywhere geographical, even if MADMEN is probably the source of his image!
GEVIM appears to link to Givat-Sha'ul above, through the GEB source. But GEVIM are "trenches", and if this is the intention, then think World War 1, and you will register that some preparations for this invasion clearly must have been made. Is it plausible then that Y-Y is not intending any towns at all in this verse, but simply offering a description of the chaos:
The inhabitants of the dunghills are in mad flight; the soldiers in the trenches are fleeing for cover.
There is the poetry, the politics, the humanistic philosophising, the theological sermon, and then, just sometimes, there is the sense that the Guild of Prophets had their correspondents throughout the land, and were operating like Reuters, providing the latest news headlines to the common people.
10:32 OD HA YOM BE NOV LA'AMOD YENOPHEPH YADO HAR BAT TSI'ON GIV'AT YERU-SHALA'IM
KJ: As yet shall he remain at Nob that day: he shall shake his hand against the mount of the daughter of Zion, the hill of Jerusalem.
There is the poetry, the politics, the humanistic philosophising, the theological sermon, and then, just sometimes, there is the sense that the Guild of Prophets had their correspondents throughout the land, and were operating like Reuters, providing the latest news headlines to the common people.
10:32 OD HA YOM BE NOV LA'AMOD YENOPHEPH YADO HAR BAT TSI'ON GIV'AT YERU-SHALA'IM
עוֹד הַיּוֹם בְּנֹב לַעֲמֹד יְנֹפֵף יָדוֹ הַר בית- (בַּת-) צִיּוֹן גִּבְעַת יְרוּשָׁלִָם
BN: This very day shall he halt at Nov, shaking his hand at the mount of the daughter of Tsi'on, the hill of Yeru-Shala'im.
NOV takes us back yet one more time to the Sha'ul-David tale - but it also moves the invasion-force ever closer to Yeru-Shala'im - se the map above. It was one of the seven villages that were conurbated to form the greater city. Avi-Atar, the first joint High Priest under David, came from Nov, which was destroyed by Sha'ul after Do'eg the Edomite reported that it had granted a brief asylum to the fleeing David (1 Samuel 21 and 22).
pey break
10:33 HINEH HA ADON YHVH TSEVA'OT MESA'EPH PU'RAH BE MA'ARATSAH VE RAMEY HA KOMAH GEDU'IM VE HA GEVOHIM YISHPALU
הִנֵּה הָאָדוֹן יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת מְסָעֵף פֻּארָה בְּמַעֲרָצָה וְרָמֵי הַקּוֹמָה גְּדוּעִים וְהַגְּבֹהִים יִשְׁפָּלוּ
BN: Behold, the Lord, YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens, will split the boughs to their very roots; and the high and mighty among them will be pulled down, and the lofty shall be laid low.
MESA'EPH: I know I keep saying it, but it needs repeating, for this translation, and for any other: you have to translate the words by their meanings, and their ambivalences and ambiguities as well, but especially in their context. So the root here, SA'APH, means "to divide" (interesting usage of it at Psalm 119:113 and 1 Kings 18:21), and the point about the tree metaphor is that the two parts of the land, the Northern Kingdom and Yehudah, are in process of being divided for ever by this invasion from Ashur, and Yehudah itself risks splitting internally.
BE MA'ARATSAH: And even more so with this. The root is ERETS, the earth in which those trees are rooted.
And anyway they aren't trees, except metaphorically; they are the nobility, the rulers.
Again and again variations on GEVA (I skipped GIVAT in the last verse), just as there have been on Gil-Gal.
10:34 VE NIKAPH SIVCHEY HA YA'AR BA BARZEL VE HA LEVANON BE ADIR YIPOL
KJ: And he shall cut down the thickets of the forest with iron, and Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one.
10:34 VE NIKAPH SIVCHEY HA YA'AR BA BARZEL VE HA LEVANON BE ADIR YIPOL
וְנִקַּף סִבְכֵי הַיַּעַר בַּבַּרְזֶל וְהַלְּבָנוֹן בְּאַדִּיר יִפּוֹל
BN: And he will cut down the thickets of the forest with iron, and Levanon shall fall by a mighty one.
SIVCHEY HA YA'AR: Referring to the forests of Lebanon yet again (see 9:17), the ones Eshmun-Ezer cut down to provide timber for the Solomonic Temple; and thereby meaning the Temple itself, as the ultimate destination of the invasion-force.
samech break
samech break
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
